Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Feb 15, 2013.
Imagine the destruction if that thing had hit a populated area instead of exploding in the air.
Imagine if this had happened over (insert major city here).
I would estimate less damages, as it would destroy most likely street's pavement at one spot, not all glass and frames in whole city; judging after seen a photo of lake's ice hole.
Well, according to ABC News' reports on the Sunday evening network news, they cited an expert who said that if it would have hit a populated area, the damage and loss of life would have been "catastrophic" (the expert's words).
Looking at the lake's "damages" ... I'm thinking what a mass of the meteor taken in account for such tragic estimation ? I'm just narrowed to that 20' hole's ice mass. Perhaps experts thinking of fictional 90 degree entry angle and full mass of the meteor reached Earth surface?
The hole left in that frozen lake was caused by a small piece of the meteorite. If the entire thing intact had hit a populated area, the experts believe the damage and death toll would have been "catastrophic".
If the reported numbers are accurate and the shockwave injured 1,100 in a fairly remote area, one can only imagine the effects in a densely populated urban area.
Of course hitting in a different area just means a few hours earlier/later. If the Tunguska event had happened a few hours later, it would have been over Europe.
So, it was pure speculation; I'm try to stay with real facts and hypothetically move the impact's attributes from a frozen lake to streets, counting ratio of building's area and streets.
I doubt the many experts who chimed in on this were merely speculating. I'm sure they had the knowledge to accurately state that "catastrophic" damage and death would occur if a meteorite the size of a semi truck (the estimated size of this one) hit a populated area.
Given a set of parameters they do. Of course it depends on material, size, angle it comes into the atmosphere, etc.
NASA says the explosion which occurred 19-31 miles above ground released 500 kilotons of energy, the power equivalent to more than 30 Hiroshima bombs. Under the right circumstances, that would make a pretty big dent.
But apparently "they" are working on it. According to this article:
I'm not quite sure how one "protects" the folks in a large urban area if one of these things is actually coming in at a much steeper angle.
Guys, be reasonable. Don't follow the drastic, the over-hyped post-predictions.
Get a real picture: what is reached Earth this time. It made only 20' hole in frozen lake. What else you need to estimate casualties if it would hit a street of that Siberian city, where a ratio of building's area to streets is 1:100 (IMO).
Geology, would it affect Mexico City differently, a city that basically sits in a bowl? Mexico City is also a mile higher in elevation. Would that have made a difference, being closer to the actual blast? Of course the air is thinner as well.
Building structure. Some places have a high density of poorly constructed buildings with a lot of people.
It's isn't talking about the actual hole as much, more the blast damage.
The 20'-foot hole was because only a small part of the entire meteorite hit there. If that thing intact had hit a populated area, the death and destruction would no doubt be horrible, perhaps "catastrophic" as they said.
I don't know why everyone seems to be so fixated on that small fragment of the meteorite when some of us were referring, instead, to the whole thing intact.
I did try to stay close to the news.
Another number to scare you - the estimate is now that it exploded a full 12-18 MILES above ground. It didn't have the mass to make it all the way down in one piece.
Given the damage from the *airburst*, the thought of what would have happened if the rock WAS big enough to reach the ground (at which point the "ground" would have been redefined) is truly frightening.