Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Not to mention it would flash boil the seawater it immediately impacts anyway and slam into the ocean bedrock.
    1. Not nearly big enough to have that much thermal mass.

    2. It would break up long before impact. The stuff that would actually impact would be like a massive load of gravel. You'd end up with lots of little craters a few inches across scattered over about half a square mile.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    1. Not nearly big enough to have that much thermal mass.

    2. It would break up long before impact. The stuff that would actually impact would be like a massive load of gravel. You'd end up with lots of little craters a few inches across scattered over about half a square mile.
    Ah, I must have misread its diameter. My mistake.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanjori View Post
    Dude it could elimate 3 peoples football fields, thats a huge deal! :<
    This actually made me laugh out loud and spit beer on my keyboard. Thank you.

  4. #24
    Titan Tierbook's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    13,870
    all depends on what the core is made of if its a large one made of iron we will be screwed up.... what hit Russia in just before WW1 was the size of a football and it broke windows a few hundred miles away something the size of a football field (depending on how large the core is) would royally screw us up and if it landed in the water.... i would imagine several hundred foot tall waves
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I'd never compare him to Hitler, Hitler was actually well educated, and by all accounts pretty intelligent.

  5. #25
    Epic! Sayl's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Scrubbity Burrow
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Tierbook View Post
    what hit Russia in just before WW1 was the size of a football
    More like 30-60m in diameter depending on composition.

  6. #26
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    1. Not nearly big enough to have that much thermal mass.

    2. It would break up long before impact. The stuff that would actually impact would be like a massive load of gravel. You'd end up with lots of little craters a few inches across scattered over about half a square mile.
    This isn't true. Asteroids of this size don't simply break up as they fly through the atmosphere. We've had significantly smaller ones hitting the Earth that made a mess, such as the Tunguska Event, which was a 100 meter asteroid that caused an explosion of a 5-30 MT yield, which is far, FAR worse than, say, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Apophis has a diameter of 325 meters and let's not forget the fact that explosive yield of asteroids grows exponentially with size, meaning that a 325 meter asteroid wouldn't have a 3.25 stronger yield than the 100 meter one. The 100 meter asteroid would have a volume of 53 000 cubic meters while the 325 meter asteroid would have a volume of 1 800 000 cubic meters. That's 339 times the volume, 339 times the kinetic energy upon impact and 339 times the yield. I.e., a yield of 1695-10170 MT.

    Just as a comparison, the Tsar Bomba, the strongest bomb ever dropped, had a yield of 50 MT and it destroyed everything in an area with a diameter of 35 kilometers. Apophis would destroy everything in an area with a diameter of 190 kilometers.

  7. #27
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    This isn't true. Asteroids of this size don't simply break up as they fly through the atmosphere. We've had significantly smaller ones hitting the Earth that made a mess, such as the Tunguska Event, which was a 100 meter asteroid that caused an explosion of a 5-30 MT yield, which is far, FAR worse than, say, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Apophis has a diameter of 325 meters and let's not forget the fact that explosive yield of asteroids grows exponentially with size, meaning that a 325 meter asteroid wouldn't have a 3.25 stronger yield than the 100 meter one. The 100 meter asteroid would have a volume of 53 000 cubic meters while the 325 meter asteroid would have a volume of 1 800 000 cubic meters. That's 339 times the volume, 339 times the kinetic energy upon impact and 339 times the yield. I.e., a yield of 1695-10170 MT.

    Just as a comparison, the Tsar Bomba, the strongest bomb ever dropped, had a yield of 50 MT and it destroyed everything in an area with a diameter of 35 kilometers. Apophis would destroy everything in an area with a diameter of 190 kilometers.
    1. The Tunguska object was much smaller, yes. That's what allowed for the airburst. Apophis is too large for that to occur.

    2. You're also neglecting velocity. Remember that its 1/2mv^2. NASA's estimate of impact yield is 510MT. way less that your scaling up.

    3. Comparing nuclear weapons and impacts is inaccurate. The energy of the impact would be directly downwards and be at ground level, rather than airborne.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    1. The Tunguska object was much smaller, yes. That's what allowed for the airburst. Apophis is too large for that to occur.

    2. You're also neglecting velocity. Remember that its 1/2mv^2. NASA's estimate of impact yield is 510MT. way less that your scaling up.

    3. Comparing nuclear weapons and impacts is inaccurate. The energy of the impact would be directly downwards and be at ground level, rather than airborne.
    People should also keep in mind the fact that its course will be refracted as soon as it hits the earth's atmosphere by an amount and at an angle that is beyond prediction, making the most accurate possible prediction of a landing point a particular hemisphere. (And even if it won't explode, it will still fracture upon impact with the atmosphere, so several smaller impacts ((That will still be pretty damn destructive)) are more likely than one large one)

    Given that the earth's surface is mostly covered in water, an ocean impact is the most likely scenario. But the real story of what happens would depend on the composition of the asteroid. If it is light weight and porous it will give up its impetus rather quickly and cause a much more widespread swath of devastation (but with lesser amounts of localized damage), like getting hit by a car. Whereas a more dense asteroid would make for a more localized swath of destruction but more severe damage, like a sniper rifle. <--- Although undoubtedly the actual analogy would fall much closer to the middle in either situation.

    As for the story of the water impact, Hollywood likes to exaggerate this one with a shot of the oceans partying as the meteor rips through it. But when water is super-heated by a submerged heat source a bubble of super-heated steam will actually surround and insulate the heat source. So it would actually just kind of make a splash, followed by an eddy (as it will only displace a volume of water slightly larger than itself, initially) It would be less dramatic than one might imagine. It would be like a rock tumbling around inside a bubble as that bubble sank at super-sonic speeds to the bottom of the ocean. (this would probably also lead to further fragmentation of the object). The combined total impact on the ocean floor would be the equivalent to a 9.0 Earthquake and the overall effect of that quake would depend upon where it actually hit.

    If it hit near a fault line, it might actually trigger a more significant quake by relieving preexisting tectonic pressure (Although not that much more significant since the Richter scale is exponential. 9.0 quake + 9.0 quake = 9.2 quake). If it hit in the middle of a tectonic plate the quake might be less significant.

    Although having been insulated in the super-heated steam bubble on its journey down through the ocean (and tumbled around inside said bubble) it is likely at this point molten, even if its made of iron. This increases the moment of the impact. The actual power of the impact is much lower in this case, but because of the longer moment of impact it actually creates a significant oscillation on the ocean floor, which will make for a gargantuan tsunami, the likes of which one couldn't possibly even imagine. But I don't buy the whole "Supersonic Tsunami" thing, because the meteor has to reach the ocean floor before it actually displaces a significant volume of water (due to the whole super-heated steam bubble thing whose name I can't think of at the moment).

  9. #29
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    1. The Tunguska object was much smaller, yes. That's what allowed for the airburst. Apophis is too large for that to occur.
    And by what logic does it exploding in the ground make it less destructive than it exploding in the air?

    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    2. You're also neglecting velocity. Remember that its 1/2mv^2. NASA's estimate of impact yield is 510MT. way less that your scaling up.
    Sure. It's still more than enough to result in something a bit more than than "a massive load of gravel that would result in craters a few inches wide".

  10. #30
    No! FUUUUUU!

    And I so counted on it hitting Earth, even made a bet with my friends for a trip to McDonalds few years back :<

  11. #31
    Deleted
    Are they certain these near earth object wont change course? I remember reading about possible ways to avoid earth impact by pointing a laser at the meteor for example - weak influence, but enough due to the long distances and time. Couldnt solar winds for example change the direction of a meteor?
    Or what if it picks up a small piece of naturel debris wich pulls it out of its current path? Just wondering

  12. #32
    Scarab Lord Razorice's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Over there --->
    Posts
    4,530
    I hope it hits!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •