cyclonebuster's Page

More from cyclonebuster

Forum Posts

Comments

Posted on: Risky asteroid 2009 WM1
at 11/24/2009 10:04pm

I assumed most of them are iron. If it is another material the effects would be less given the same information. But I ... more(+)

F111F wrote:Cyclonebuster: I noticed you used iron for density, when the current best guess is that it's dense rock. Using dense rock also gets a pre-atmospheric energy match with the Impact Risk assessment (of course they are all just guesses based on albedo and could be way off). I recalculated, and about 50 miles out you're pretty safe, but that still means about 7,853 square miles of devastation for one 208m hunk of rock...

I am curious though, the impact effects program gives some weird results for ejecta. For instance, if you put in a distance of only 5 miles away, the mean ejecta thickness is 11.6ft, but the mean fragment diameter is 72.8ft. So, does that mean a few big rocks with lots of space to dodge them? (assuming you didn't spontaneously combust from the irradiance or get seriously tossed about by the sesmic and wind events...)

I assumed most of them are iron. If it is another material the effects would be less given the same information. But I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this if it were to hit. You must be at least >50 miles from this thing unless it hits the ocean then you would not want to be near the coast at all. I don't like what is already happening with this asteroid. The chances of impact are getting greater with more solutions as they run them. close(-)

Posted on: Risky asteroid 2009 WM1
at 11/23/2009 8:11pm

Since the solutions have become worse since its discovery I ran a impact senerio. Don't be within 50 miles of this one ... more(+)

Since the solutions have become worse since its discovery I ran a impact senerio. Don't be within 50 miles of this one for sure. YIKES!

Impact Effects at around 50 miles from center.
Robert Marcus, H. Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins
Please note: the results below are estimates based on current (limited) understanding of the impact process and come with large uncertainties; they should be used with caution, particularly in the case of peculiar input parameters. All values are given to three significant figures but this does not reflect the precision of the estimate. For more information about the uncertainty associated with our calculations and a full discussion of this program, please refer to this article

Your Inputs:
Distance from Impact: 80.50 km = 49.99 miles
Projectile Diameter: 280.00 m = 918.40 ft = 0.17 miles
Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 18.10 km/s = 11.24 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 2750 kg/m3
Target Type: Crystalline Rock
Energy:
Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.51 x 1019 Joules = 3.60 x 103 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 6.0 x 104years
Atmospheric Entry:
The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 15200 meters = 49800 ft
The projectile reaches the ground in a broken condition. The mass of projectile strikes the surface at velocity 17.9 km/s = 11.1 miles/s
The impact energy is 1.48 x 1019 Joules = 3.53 x 103MegaTons.
The broken projectile fragments strike the ground in an ellipse of dimension 0.503 km by 0.356 km
Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
Crater Dimensions:
What does this mean?



Crater shape is normal in spite of atmospheric crushing; fragments are not significantly dispersed.


Transient Crater Diameter: 5.39 km = 3.35 miles
Transient Crater Depth: 1.91 km = 1.18 miles


Final Crater Diameter: 6.75 km = 4.19 miles
Final Crater Depth: 0.526 km = 0.327 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater.
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 0.0931 km3 = 0.0223 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater , where its average thickness is 4.08 meters = 13.4 feet
Thermal Radiation:
What does this mean?



Time for maximum radiation: 0.274 seconds after impact


Visible fireball radius: 4.4 km = 2.73 miles
The fireball appears 12.4 times larger than the sun
Thermal Exposure: 9.46 x 105 Joules/m2
Duration of Irradiation: 63.8 seconds
Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 14.8


Effects of Thermal Radiation:


Much of the body suffers first degree burns



Seismic Effects:
What does this mean?


The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 16.1 seconds.
Richter Scale Magnitude: 7.0
Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 80.5 km:


VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.


Ejecta:
What does this mean?


The ejecta will arrive approximately 129 seconds after the impact.
Average Ejecta Thickness: 1.45 cm = 0.569 inches
Mean Fragment Diameter: 7.48 cm = 2.95 inches


Air Blast:
What does this mean?


The air blast will arrive at approximately 244 seconds.
Peak Overpressure: 24400 Pa = 0.244 bars = 3.47 psi
Max wind velocity: 52.4 m/s = 117 mph
Sound Intensity: 88 dB (Loud as heavy traffic)
Damage Description:


Interior partitions of wood frame buildings will be blown down. Roof will be severely damaged.

Glass windows will shatter.

About 30 percent of trees blown down; remainder have some branches and leaves blown off.



Tell me more...
Click here for a pdf document that details the observations, assumptions, and equations upon which this program is based. It describes our approach to quantifying the important impact processes that might affect the people, buildings, and landscape in the vicinity of an impact event and discusses the uncertainty in our predictions. The processes included are: atmospheric entry, impact crater formation, fireball expansion and thermal radiation, ejecta deposition, seismic shaking, and the propagation of the atmospheric blast wave. close(-)

Posted on: New African Rift Forming?
at 11/15/2009 10:55pm

WOW looks like the rift in the Movie 2012!:)

Posted on: LCROSS Did Find Water!!
at 11/15/2009 9:08pm

To many equpiment malfunctions will happen we need to be there to repair them. more(+)

HopDavid wrote:

SpaceTas wrote:It would be far easier, less exciting, to have a tele-operator(s) (the 1 sec delay is not too bad) running the diggers, water extractors and fuel makers. The operators could be sitting in a nice comfortable office drinking their favorite cup of joe, breathing free air, ordering in pizza, and just be able to flush the toilet.

You'd still need a repair crew every now and then, to go visit the moon. But the astronauts could spend their time exploring.

For me, tele operated diggers would be a more exciting way to extract in situ resources. It is more exciting to me because it seems more affordable and sustainable.

A more practical path for us getting there and staying there.

To many equpiment malfunctions will happen we need to be there to repair them. close(-)

Posted on: LETS NUKE THE MOON TO FIND WATER.
at 11/15/2009 9:20am

YEP BUCKETS OF IT!:) more(+)

379Amer wrote:"Discovery of water on the moon". Is this true? Was water found?

YEP BUCKETS OF IT!:) close(-)

Commented on: NASA to Test Drills for Cutting Ice on Mars
at 2009-11-17 17:48:38

We need to to do hundreds of core samples on the MOON first. With sample return missions.

Commented on: NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes
at 2009-11-14 14:14:02

Let me rephrase that.

Perhaps a piece of dwarf star material is in orbit around Earth.

Commented on: NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes
at 2009-11-14 14:11:21

Perhaps a piece of dwarf star material is in our orbit?

Commented on: Moon's Friends Say 'No' to Future Lunar Crashes
at 2009-11-08 05:58:02

We need to "Nuke The Moon" to find water!

Commented on: NASA Finally Spots Plume from Moon Impact
at 2009-10-21 08:29:36

What's the big deal we have nuked Gods Good Earth already many times why not Gods Good Moon? I don't see the harm in it ... more(+)

 close(-)