Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(105,888 posts)
25. But it's not many nukes at once
Sun Feb 28, 2016, 12:16 PM
Feb 2016
Asteroids with a diameter of 7 meters enter Earth's atmosphere with as much kinetic energy as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima (approximately 16 kilotons of TNT) about every 5 years, but the air burst is reduced to just a third, or about 5 kilotons of TNT.[7] These ordinarily explode in the upper atmosphere, and most or all of the solids are vaporized.[9] Objects with a diameter of roughly 50 m (164 ft) strike Earth approximately once every thousand years,[10] producing explosions comparable to the one known to have detonated roughly 8.5 kilometers (28,000 ft) above Tunguska in 1908.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

In the Wikipedia table, a 98ft diameter asteroid has kinetic energy at atmospheric entry of 1.3MT. They don't calculate the impact energy for one that small (because it would still probably explode in the air, like Tunguska), but extrapolating from the larger ones they do do the calculation for, it would lose well over half its energy - in fact, the airburst would be more damaging (the calculations come from Imperial College, London - a sample one).

It's equivalent to one modest thermonuclear bomb - the kind of thing they tested many times without affecting weather, and that do hit Earth every few hundred years.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's like winning the powerball SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #1
me too but it's a lovuian Feb 2016 #2
My luck ThoughtCriminal Feb 2016 #9
On the same day. nt awoke_in_2003 Feb 2016 #15
LOL!!! RKP5637 Feb 2016 #26
Better call Harry Stamper. underahedgerow Feb 2016 #3
GMTA Brother Buzz Feb 2016 #5
"Yippee-ki-yay, underahedgerow Feb 2016 #10
You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel.... Brother Buzz Feb 2016 #11
There was a quote by one of the early Mercury Astronauts.... A HERETIC I AM Feb 2016 #16
I think it was Alan Shepard. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2016 #22
Like winning the powerball, it only takes one to win Brother Buzz Feb 2016 #4
trump would build a wall to prevent it dembotoz Feb 2016 #6
That's what I heard, as well. Blue_In_AK Feb 2016 #7
I noticed the Russians are working on it lovuian Feb 2016 #8
2013 TX68 should aim for the next GOP debate site. Solly Mack Feb 2016 #12
It's got Texas' name on it. randome Feb 2016 #18
A 100-ft wide rock would pack quite the punch NickB79 Feb 2016 #13
About twice the power of the Chelyabinsk meteor, which was 65 ft muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #20
The Chelyabinsk asteroid broke up in mid-air though and only produced an air blast NickB79 Feb 2016 #23
But it's not many nukes at once muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #25
Given the quoted variation in possible trajectaries Ghost Dog Feb 2016 #29
The probability of a hit on the 2nd is based on the probabilities of where it could go on the 1st muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #30
I'd call it a fuzzy probability. Ghost Dog Feb 2016 #32
See #31 - NASA is saying there is zero probability of a hit in the next century muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #33
Like winning the Powerball, except that in this case... Nitram Feb 2016 #14
70% chance it lands in water. n/t A HERETIC I AM Feb 2016 #17
That's funny, that lines up (nearly) with another forecast apocalypse date. Shandris Feb 2016 #19
Good thing ive been practicing on how to deal with exactly this scenario Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #21
............ Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2016 #24
100 foot wide asteroid isn't big enough to destroy most life on the planet lunatica Feb 2016 #27
Only 100 foot Reter Feb 2016 #28
I've just realised, the Mirror has got this wrong - NASA is now saying *no* chance of a hit muriel_volestrangler Feb 2016 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NASA admits there's 'a ch...»Reply #25