Slashdot Mirror


Tunguska Mystery Blast Solved?

mfarah writes: "This BBC article informs that an Italian scientist team has determined that the 1908 blast in Tunguska was in fact caused by a low density asteroid - that's why no crater was ever found. The article mentions that had the asteroid fallen into a populated area, instead of remote Siberia, hundreds of thousands of casualties would have been the result. Fortunately this news comes well after the "meteorite blast" fad has faded from Hollywood..."

247 comments

  1. And for many years ... by Troed · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ... that blast was considered by some a reason why nuclear bomb testing should be researched more in the US since there was a possibility that the Russians had the technology already back then.


    However, the credibility of that claim was a bit low since it was von Däniken who said it ;)

    1. Re:And for many years ... by sh4de · · Score: 2, Informative

      Certainly a far fetched idea, given that Hahn and Strassman discovered uranium fission in 1938, which was a prerequirement for a fission-type nuclear bomb. Fusion bombs weren't tested until 1952 either.

      Speculation of Russia having fission technology three decades prior to that is quite a quantum leap indeed.

    2. Re:And for many years ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Magnetic energy has yes been able to de feet nukes but that is stone age logic fried in a wok of logic of source code. Or some song like that ago, the hobbit said wu to fu dropped ring around hear.

    3. Re:And for many years ... by flufffy · · Score: 1
      However, the credibility of that claim was a bit low since it was von Däniken who said it ;)

      amazing how many people bought (still buy) into it, tho -- including me, in high school, when i was one half of a school debate on the then new 'chariots of the gods.' it seemed quite subversive at that age ...

      'chariots of the gods' is still in print (hardback, paperback, and widescreen dvd). on amazon it's rated at 3 stars, which accurately reflects the average in the debate in the reader reviews between new age believers (5*) and sceptics (1*).

    4. Re:And for many years ... by emir · · Score: 1

      However, the credibility of that claim was a bit low since it was von Däniken who said it ;)

      ah good old Erich von Däniken. I used to like his books and then i grow up.... :)

      --
      -- http://electronicintifada.net --
    5. Re:And for many years ... by Cassandra · · Score: 1

      Not only did noone in 1908 even know that a nuclear bomb was possible. This was a decade before WW1, and bombs dropped from airplanes was not used in war until the end of WW1.


      Sounds like a typical urban legend to me, suitable that it is modded as "Interesting" cause being interesting is what keeps urban legends going :-)


      BTW, this one is even below the dignity of von Däniken IMHO.

  2. So no black oil in my eyes then by -douggy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Curses i thought that documentary the x-files said some oily aliens were there

    1. Re:So no black oil in my eyes then by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

      that wasn't the site of the mediorite crash, the aliens were in texas.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:So no black oil in my eyes then by GroovBird · · Score: 1

      Well,

      I think you're referring to X-Files The Movie, while the parent to your post was referring to X-Files season 4, namely Tunguska.

      Dave

    3. Re:So no black oil in my eyes then by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

      yes I see what you are saying, and not to get into an X-files debate, but as one could see from the movie and subsiquent episodes, the black oil had been hear all along, the season 4 episode was just an encounter with the substance, not nesisaraly brought by the comet/meteorite. as one can see from later seasons, the black oil can get into diffrent objects.....

      anyone hear about season 9?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:So no black oil in my eyes then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've only heard about Plan 9 from Outer Space

    5. Re:So no black oil in my eyes then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Curses i thought that documentary the x-files said some oily aliens were there

      YHBT.

  3. Reality check by ScumBiker · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was always under the impression that it was a mini-blackhole that wandered through our planet. that easily explains the lack of crater and the tree patterning. The worst part is, did I read this in a Larry Niven novel or watch it on Discovery channel? Ahh, the joys of waking up and feeling the Mountain Dew bubble it's way through my synapses.

    --
    --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    1. Re:Reality check by wangi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I was always under the impression that it was a mini-blackhole that wandered through our planet. that easily explains the lack of crater and the tree patterning. The worst part is, did I read this in a Larry Niven novel or watch it on Discovery channel?
      Nah, David Brin's Earth.

    2. Re:Reality check by nikolas · · Score: 1

      i still dont understand why a mini black hole would pass through the earth without making a hole or crater of some sort. Arent mini black holes supposed to suck up matter that gets in their way? Then it really should puncture earth while going through it, not?
      Guess I dont know squat about mini black holes...

    3. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Niven was the first I know of to use "mini black holes" as an explanation of the Tunguska event in a story. He probably picked the idea up from earlier sources. Of course, once a good guy like Niven's done it, tons of cheap ripoffs come along (cf David Brin).

    4. Re:Reality check by Jerf · · Score: 5, Funny

      The worst part is, did I read this in a Larry Niven novel or watch it on Discovery channel?

      Both have roughly the same amount of truth to them. Larry, however, knows he's writing fiction.

    5. Re:Reality check by mcoca · · Score: 1

      The worst part is, did I read this in a Larry Niven novel or watch it on Discovery channel?

      It's Larry Niven. The Borderland of Sol, 1975 , winner of the 1976 Hugo Best Novelette Award.

    6. Re:Reality check by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Larry, however, knows he's writing fiction.

      Good fiction too. Isn't it in Lucifer's Hammer that Larry postulates a planet killer with the consistency of a hot fudge sundae? Lovely imagery.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Reality check by ScumBiker · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Now that the caffiene has wafted it's way up past my blood/brain barrier I seem to actually remember that.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    8. Re:Reality check by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The black hole theory has always confused me. If it was a black hole, why were all the trees pushed away from the center of the impact?

    9. Re:Reality check by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      I am positive I also read in a book (possibly Moving Mars, also by Greg Bear) that a black hole larger than 1 cm or so would be enough "critical mass" to suck in a planet. It would grow when smaller, but slowly, then when getting to that size it would cascade out of control, destroying the planet quickly.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    10. Re:Reality check by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that, since the Earth, if compressed sufficiently, would only make a black hole less than 1 cm across. So if a 1 cm black hole swollowed the entire Earth, it would only be 2 cm across. Not big enough to have consumed the entire Earth by a long shot. The extra mass in the center of the planet would lead to some additional compression and a bit of extra feeding of the black hole, but not enough I should expect.

      In any event, a mini-black hole would make a tiny puncture in the Earth. It would have to be well smaller than 1 cm, since a 1 cm radius black hole would have an Earth-mass and we'd have felt that go by as a jolt over the entire planet (not to mention the wicked tides). A puncture a micron across, for example, would never be noticed.

    11. Re:Reality check by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      I didn't run the numbers. The 1-cm (or inch or whatever) was the point where the black hole would be large enough to swallow the entire earth rapidly. Presumably, its mass would be sufficient to generate enough gravity to cause normal matter to shear and crush in on itself, and the earth would just fall rapidly inward.

      The size didn't refer to the size afterwards. Strange, though, now that I think about it, a black hole with enough mass to do that to the earth would have to be many, many times the mass of the earth (to say the least) and that just doesn't make sense. Even an earth-massed black hole at the center of the earth would only double the gravity, and that wouldn't do much to the liquid that is the mantle, or the iron core for that matter. We might not survive due to the earthquakes and tieds, but the earth should.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    12. Re:Reality check by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Yep. The Hammer fell on Hot Fudge Tuesdae.

      Actually, it wasn't the comet with that consistency, the Caltech scientist in the novel came up with that as an explanation of the energies/masses involved.

      Can you imagine a cubic mile of hot fudge sundae?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    13. Re:Reality check by The+Mgt · · Score: 1

      It's in The Forge of God, where it was dropped into the Earth by alien Von Neumann machines.

    14. Re:Reality check by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A mini-black hole would do interesting things to the atmosphere but would not mass enough to suck everything for miles around into it. The shock wave would beat out its gravity. Its event horizon could be anywhere from a few millimeters to a few meters across.

      Of course, I don't really know enough about it. Can someone explain to me exactly what would make a mini black hole create a shock wave?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    15. Re:Reality check by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think that's correct. I believe that the volume defined by the event horizon is proportional to the mass of the black hole.

      The formula then goes r^3= k((3m)/(4(pi)). That means that if you double your mass, you only multiply your radius by the cube root of two. (I can't find my calculator, so I can't tell you what that is.)

      Good point about the tides, though. However, if the gravity wasn't that of a planetary mass, it still might be enough to set off earthquakes along fault lines. (It doesn't take much to set one off, in geological scales) I seem to recall a nasty earthquake in the 1900s, but I'm not a historian (I didn't even do well in history class.), so I can't be sure.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  4. its behaviour by shd99004 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember when I first read about the Tunguska blast several years ago. Many stories told us that some eye witnesses had seen the object make strange turns, for example flying in an S-shaped path. Are these stories completely wrong, or can a low density asteroid behave like that in the athmosphere?

    --
    Will work for bandwidth
    1. Re:its behaviour by JJ · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind, this happened in very remote Siberia. No one who saw it had ever seen an airplane or likely even a baloon. Although several observers did report a turn, the number of smaller particles was inconsistently reported (either two or three.)

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    2. Re:its behaviour by smillie · · Score: 1

      The reports that I've seen suggest one sudden turn of approx 20 degress. This could easily have happened due to a heat explosion on one side of the asteroid.

      --

      Dyslexics Untie!

    3. Re:its behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, second or third hand hearsay testimony from uneducated peasants who witnessed a brief high speed event conflicts with reasoned scientific conclusion? The peasants have it!

    4. Re:its behaviour by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      Keep in mind that these witnesses were a bunch of Russians out in the middle of nowhere. For them, the room was probably moving around in an S-shaped path, if you know what I mean.

    5. Re:its behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this just proves how stupid you are. If you actually knew anything about the subject, you'd know the witnesses weren't your stereotypical Russians. They aren't even white! I doubt they'd be drunks, either.

    6. Re:its behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vodka makes the room "spin"! Not go in S-shaped patterns.

    7. Re:its behaviour by leeward · · Score: 1

      Having seen a couple of rocket launches from Vanderburg Air Force Base from Los Angeles (about 200 miles away), my guess would be that what was reported as an odd flight path might have been a smoke trail high in the atmosphere.

      When the rockets launch around sunset, the low angle of the sunlight can really light the trails up spectacularly. And what happens is that the different wind speeds and directions at different levels in the atmosphere twist the trail into amazing shapes. After one launch, I walked around the Marina here and encountered many people who were staring at the display (long after the rocket was gone) and had no idea what it was. Some of them even thought that they were looking at a some sort of UFO generated affect!

  5. Near-Earth Asteroid / impact info by rakerman · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/
    White Paper on Comet/Asteroid Impact Hazard
    NEAT - NASA Near Earth Asteroid Tracking
    Now if someone would only resurrect old USENET news, so I could dig out the posting I wrote about Tunguska circa 1990.

  6. Old old old news by warmcat · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a great article on the myths surrounding Tunguska at http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo/tungus.html. A Russian scientist in the sixties used a model with matchsticks for trees to compute the height and angle of the explosion from the pattern of damage of the trees. From the website:

    ''Aerodynamics experts in Moscow conducted an experiment about twenty years ago in an effort to simulate Tunguska's blast patterns. The scientists used a charge of explosives suspended over a board covered with miniature "trees" represented by matchsticks. In addition to the single blast point a string of smaller charges were added to reproduce the hypersonic shock wave of the object's ballistic passage through the upper atmosphere.

    When the explosives were triggered, a blast pattern strikingly similar to the "butterfly" pattern of the actual Tunguska site was created in the matchstick forest. Although this experiment conclusively demonstrated that the strange pattern was due entirely to a large object that exploded naturally, the experiment's results were still being misinterpreted or misquoted years afterward.''

    1. Re:Old old old news by sasha328 · · Score: 1

      I saw that a while back on BBC documentary about Tunguska. They showed photos from that Russian scientist's exteriments, and they also showed aerial photos of the actual are. The similarity was indeed amazing. I can imagine things would be different now: there would be a computer model of the whole sequence, and if enough time and detail was put into it, I'm sure it'll give similar results.
      Maybe one of those nuclear simulation super comuters?
      Also, for those who know,how does the meteor explode in mid air? I can understand an impact explosion, but how does a "light" meteor explode without impact?

    2. Re:Old old old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      how does a "light" meteor explode without impact?
      It doesn't! It impacts on the atmosphere, and that's enough to cause the explosion.
    3. Re:Old old old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For some feeling of why impacting a fluid (such as air) at high speed when you're not particularly aerodynamic can be as bad as impacting a solid, try doing a bellyflop from a high diving board.

    4. Re:Old old old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Erm, though the air one is kinda on the right track, its not what is seen to be what causes the explosion. Most of the hypothesis I've seen describe a meteorite that is say, a hard, rocky outer shell surrounding a frozen core of water, or ammonia or some other easily frozen gas/fluid. Drop it into the atmosphere, and as it falls it heats up, slowly building up the interior pressure. Sooner or later that pressure gets high enough so that it 'explodes' when the outer shell finally fails. Do some Google searches on 'airburst' meteorites and you should find some more information. (If you want a demo, you could try nuking a cough drop with a liquid center for like 5-10 minutes, or a hot dog).

    5. Re:Old old old news by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      try doing a bellyflop from a high diving board.

      Still different. Liquid is not the same thing as gazeous. Water has a well defined surface, so you can indeed speak about impact (...and feel it while bellyflopping). The atmosphere on the other hand has not real limit: it gradually gets thinner the higher you get. A meteor falling towards the earth would just experience an atmosphere becoming gradually denser, and only suffer an impact when it hits soil or water.

      As has been pointed out in other comments, what really happens is that while travelling through the atmosphere, it heats up due to friction, which may evaporate its liquid core, leading to a buildup of pressure, and eventually an explosion.

    6. Re:Old old old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are thinking of a comet. Asteroids are thought to indeed be rocky or metallic (basically having the same range of compositions as meteorites). In any case, thhe reason for the Tunguska airburst is thought to be precisely because the Tunguska object was "low density" i.e. weak. As an object travelling at hypersonic to supersonic speeds travels through the atmosphere from space, it will encounter increasing air density. More importantly, at those speeds a shockwave builds up on the leading edge of the object. In the case of an weak object, the forces created by the shockwave will build to the point where it shatters the object and it explodes before the object reaches the ground.

    7. Re:Old old old news by denise_yenko · · Score: 1

      Lo, these many years agone, Analog Science Fiction Magazine ran a series of science fact articles on the kinetic and thermal effects of large bolide impacts.

      At this remove in time, I don't remember authors,or dates, but it had to be in the 70's, and I think Stan Schmidt had become the editor by then (a University Physics Professor) and the quality of the fact articles went up by an order of magnitude.

      The point that you made, that it requires a hard dense outer shell is *not* necessary. things happen so quickly at 40 klicks per second that none of the material has much of a chance to move, expand, or do anything, other than heat up quickly, turn to plasma, and start producing x-rays.

      Obviously, when the energy stored in the column of compressed air, rammed in front of the incoming bolide matches the kinetic energy stored in the bolide, forward motion stops, at which instant, you get a pretty spectacular release of all the energy stored in the system. (it goes "BANG", and pretty loudly.)
      Your explanation is certainly one scenario, but in actual fact, it seems to be that most meteors are either stony or metallic, (mostly stony), but most cometesimals are, as you suggest, water, methane, ammonia and so forth, and if they had stony or metallic admixtures, they would likely not be in the form of a shell, but in the form of a dirty snowball

      -

      --
      I'm armed and I haven't changed my patch, so don't start with me -- you *know* how I get!
    8. Re:Old old old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrm, just to defend myself. Yes the majority of asteroids are thought to be stony / iron in composition. However there may be just as many asteroids made of water / frozen gases and say organic type materials as there are of straight stone. The problem with looking at what ends up on the surface of earth is a bit decieving because anything that isn't made of stone / iron or some other solid material is the fact that it tends to completely vaporize when passing through the atmosphere. In fact, even meteorites made of more solid material will only have physical impact craters if they mass enough to actually have material left after sloughing off material through surface loss. Now, there are recordings of air burst meteorites which end with water falling from the sky, seeming to indicate that the core of the body was made in a vast part by water itself. In addition it is been shown that the rings around Saturn, Uranus, and for a smaller part Jupiter, are primarly composed of frozen gases and water.

  7. Things that go BOOM in the night by imrdkl · · Score: 1

    Completely disintegrated? One would think there would be at least a couple of small craters laying around. Its hard to imagine a fast-moving cloud of fine dust particles causing such damage.

    1. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Rackemup · · Score: 3, Informative

      It didn't disintegrate.. it exploded just above the ground with enough force to flatten the trees for miles around. Even a smaller-sized asteroid can cause a lot of damage when it explodes, as shown in the matchstick forest experiments.

    2. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by imrdkl · · Score: 1

      The article claims that the meteor did completely disintigrate. In any case, I've never read or heard of even the smallest pock-marks indicating an explosion of solid matter. Not in the ground, not in the tree-trunks, and not on the heads of the poor farmers.

    3. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Detritus · · Score: 2

      My guess is that the kinetic energy of the asteroid was converted to thermal and blast energy when it hit the dense part of the atmosphere. A nuclear weapon produces most of its effects by emitting soft x-rays (black body radiation) that heat the air around the device to extremely high temperatures.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you expect "pock-marks" from a total disintigration and burn-up of an asteroid at 33,000ft? No solid material came within tens of thousands of feet of the ground.

    5. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > Its hard to imagine a fast-moving cloud of fine dust particles causing such damage.

      Never been on the wrong end of a sandblasting machine, have you?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farmers farm cleared land, not impassable forest. Anyone who ever played "Civilization" would get this one right...

    7. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      National Geographic had an article on this some years ago. Particles have been found. Not many, and not large, but they have been found. My memory is mainly of the picture, which IIRC, was of about 7 particles less than 1mm across.

    8. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, it was theorized that that object (asteroid or comet) was made from low density material (as mentioned in the main article). This object as it passed through our atmosphere, eventually heated up so much that it exploded, possibly vaporizing all the material of the object.

      Further from what I remember, the object exploded several miles up. (There were computer simulations run in the US that showed this) so for a long time people have been looking for debris in the wrong place (the epicenter rather than the edges, like Moscow!)

      Ben

    9. Re:Things that go BOOM in the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Its hard to imagine a fast-moving cloud of fine dust particles causing such damage.

      Imagine a LARGE super/hypersonic wave of compressed air. VERY powerful; there's a reason aircraft such as Concorde aren't allowed to go Mach 2+ over the continental U.S.

      If you've seen those old photos of nuclear bomb tests, you've seen the effects of the shockwaves - trees moving one direction, then back the other way, houses collapsing, etc. Move a lot of air at very high speed, you have a very destructive force.

  8. Haa haa by Dexter77 · · Score: 1

    And you all X-files fans thought that Tunguska was another Roswell. Haa haa!!!

    1. Re:Haa haa by iainl · · Score: 3, Informative

      But it was another Roswell!

      As in, its an event with a perfectly rational but rather interesting explanation that has been distorted by the saucerheads to support their belief structure. There was a cover up at Roswell, but the documents show thats because they were upper-atmosphere experiments to detect USSR nuclear testing; not something they fancied talking about at the time. One dumb army person thought that a UFO crash would make a good cover story, without realising just how good it would be. When they retracted that, people just believed it more.

      Anyway, enough ranting from me...

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:Haa haa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >One dumb army person thought ...

      The so called "dumb hick" picured with wreckage of a weather balloon was Major Jesse Marcell of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office.
      The 509th at the time was the only nuclear air group in the world!!

      I'm sure that someone who was in charge of keeping the Russians from discovering the US nuclear secrets could tell the difference between a weather balloon and something more substantial.

    3. Re:Haa haa by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously the asteroid was the heat shield for a high-speed landing craft. When it got close to the surface, it ignited the retro-rockets, disintegrating the remaining heat shield, and making a soft landing. Duh.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  9. This is pretty scary stuff. by Anton+Anatopopov · · Score: 1
    Imagine if it had hit a major populated area. The results could have been devastating.

    I wonder if there is any possibility of harnessing these things as weapons. Maybe you could blow one off course using a nuclear tipped missile, and cause it to land on one of your enemies cities. I expect the DoD are investigating this concept!

    1. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we could, get this, throw a nuke at one of these things, and, no wait this is the good part, knock it off course, so like that it hits one of our enemy cities! holy @#$%! Then like.. it would be like.. you know, a nuclear bomb hit that city!

      Devistating!

      Except.. like.. I guess you could just drop the bomb on the place if thats the effect you were going for. jack@$$.

    2. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by sprouty76 · · Score: 1
      I wonder if there is any possibility of harnessing these things as weapons. Maybe you could blow one off course using a nuclear tipped missile, and cause it to land on one of your enemies cities. I expect the DoD are investigating this concept!

      Surely it would make more sense to just use your nuclear-tipped missile and fire that at your enemies cities? Or am I missing something?

      --

      No, I don't want a free iPod

    3. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Didn't they use moon-based mass-driver to hurl asteroids on the invading aliens in David Gerrold's "War Against the Chtorr"-books?

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by ScumBiker · · Score: 1

      Heinlein suggested this MUCH earlier than Gerrold. They basically threw rocks at Earth until they got their freedom. Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". One of my favorite Heinlien books.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    5. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by Washizu · · Score: 1

      If you were inclined to do that, why not just use the nuke on whoever you want to bomb?

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    6. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by Washizu · · Score: 1

      I'm no nuclear scientist, but I think it would be pretty obvious to international observers that a nuclear sized explosion knocked the asteroid off course. Once that happens, all fingers would immediately point to the US, so I still think the plan is far fetched.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    7. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if it had hit a major populated area. The results could have been devastating.

      But would that be good, or bad?

      If it had hit a city, then asteroid-searching and related research would be taken more serious, be better funded, etc. Look at 9/11/2001 and consequences. Sometimes people just have to die, before there's any action.

    8. Re:This is pretty scary stuff. by Grab · · Score: 2

      Erm, the most obvious problem would be the extreme scarcity of suitable asteroids. Only one good hit in hundreds of years, ergo unlikely that there's any more lurking close enough to be used. Plus the problems of targetting the enemy's city, given that outgassing could affect the course of the asteroid by 20 degrees (see other posts) - you'd look a bit bloody stupid if it went off course and landed on you instead!

      Grab.

  10. The truth is out there by pr0nbot · · Score: 0

    That's just what They want you to believe... we all know it was really the Y1908 bug, don't we?

    1. Re:The truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not sure what that year is.

      but a cuff cuff time'd ago there was some real weird coincidence ago, but i'm sure it wasnt even close.

      any way lets just say TWAIN TESLA'd logic, ago, and AI wants some feed back.

    2. Re:The truth is out there by Araneas · · Score: 1, Funny
      Indications are that the Tsar employed a huge number of mathematicians to replicate and expand the work of Babbage. The were able to construct a difference engine of enormous size in a remote location well away from foreign agents.

      Unfortunately, they tried to implement a GUI called Okha '08. The metal gears and spools could not handle the added centriptal forces due to code bloat and vapourized in a cloud of molten brass causing the reported explosion.

      The Russians chose not to investigate in order to preserve their secret but the in the 60's the KGB, using records of the project used a sleeper agent to plant the seeds of Okha '08 in the fertile soil of Silicon Valley thus ensuring the downfall of western civilization.

    3. Re:The truth is out there by tomknight · · Score: 2
      Man, if that's the damage a single bug can cause I'd hate to see a whole swarm....

      Tom.

      --
      Oh arse
    4. Re:The truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should have used Lunixski. Then the engine wouldn't have exploded, but instead would have been completely useless to man or beast. Except as a giant paperweight.

  11. Tone of piece.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd just like to note the article is written as a "Strong possiblity" as opposed to the posting which is made out as a definite.

    1. Re:Tone of piece.. by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      Well, the posting is titled with the question "Tunguska Mytery Blast Solved?" wich doesn't sound that definite to me.

      But I agree with you that mfarah's summary of the article is misleading/wrong ("...an italian scientist team determined that... was in fact ...") since the articles states "italian researchers believe they may have the definitive answer".

    2. Re:Tone of piece.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /., like any news organization is trying to get your attention. Thus the "definite" spin. As for the researchers, they, like most scientists, never talk about things as definite. Viable hypotheses are just that: viable and sufficient to explain the available data satisfactorily. Since we never can know what new data may come to light, it is not scientifically prudent to say a finding is "definite" e.g. the be-all-end-all truth.

  12. Quote from Guiness Book of Records, 1994 by Lemmus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There was a mysterious explosion of 10-15 megatons (high explosive equivalent at ..." [specific location/time follows] "...The explosion devasted an area of 1,500 miles^2 and the shock was felt as far away as 625 miles. The cause was variously attributed to a meteorite (1927), a comet (1930), a nuclear explosion (1961), antimatter (1965), a small black hole (1973) and an exploding flying saucer (1976). Although the meteorite theory was initiall rejected, a new assessment in 1992 suggest that the explosion can be accounted for by the energy released following a total disintegration at an altitude of 33,000 ft of a 98-ft-diameter common type stony asteroid traveling at hypersonic velocity at an incoming angle of 45 degrees."

    Besides the obvious point that there have previously been many theories, but still no prrof (not even with the new theory), I think the more interesting fact is the sociological significance of the various theories. In each case, a theory presented taps into the buzzwords of the day.

    While the idea that scientific theories are more media buzzwords than provable facts will hardly come as news to any frequent reader of slashdot, it raises the idea that modern scientists might be well served to learn a bit of history.

    --
    "Omnia quia sunt, umbra sunt."
    1. Re:Quote from Guiness Book of Records, 1994 by forgoil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Couldn't it be the other way around? The media will bring forth anything containing the buzzwords of the time. As I understood it, there are a bunch of people with radically different theories, all claiming they are correct, yet we don't see all of their theories in the media.

      I figure the media figures out what it wants, and then wraps the truth and lies around it. And add a HUGE portion of ignorance and lack of knowledge to this... Just make a little experiment, take something you have very good knowledge about and check that against anything you find in the media today. Could it be that they are horribly wrong sometimes?

      So basically the post above says it all...

    2. Re:Quote from Guiness Book of Records, 1994 by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      In each case, a theory presented taps into the buzzwords of the day

      I should point out that antimatter has been known and around for a lot longer than 1965. It was first theorized in 1928 by Paul Dirac. Got him a Nobel Prize.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:Quote from Guiness Book of Records, 1994 by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      ... so then in 1997 it was a massive buildup of "Push" technology.

      ...and in 1999 it was simply "Freedom to Innovate?"

    4. Re:Quote from Guiness Book of Records, 1994 by jcarney · · Score: 1

      ... In each case, a theory presented taps into the buzzwords of the day.

      Does that mean that pretty soon now someone's going to attribute it to a computer virus?

      Regards,
      John Carney.

  13. Tesla giggling in his grave by imrdkl · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I read somewhere that one of his experiments got a field to resonating inside the core of the earth and then it "popped out" in Siberia.

    Still my favorite. And yes, the military is (still) pursuing this option... :-)

    1. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the story goes he was trying to get funding for his experiments, so he decided to make a massive explosion to demonstrate the military value of his inventions where the polar expedition would see it - but he was out by a few thousand miles :-).

      Thing is, it's actually relatively plausible, given Tesla's expertise at slinging lightning bolts around. That said, I don't think it was him - he wasn't the type to risk hurting people unnecessarily, and would have restricted himself to a smaller demo.

    2. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by Flakeloaf · · Score: 0

      Risk? He was reasonably sure his doodad was pointed at the arctic. The bit about the smaller demo though... yeah it seems unlikely that he would point a machine that vaporizes owls at a target hundreds of miles away without at least testing it locally first to see what it'd do.

      On the other hand, maybe this was the smallest one he could make (!). Would you want to test a machine that did *that* in your backyard?

      --

      Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    3. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by paRcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read this too, and while it seem the most incredible, it's the one I think might actually be true.

      All the factors were there... Tesla was being forced to prove that his product worked, he was faced with a potential lack of funding, and he was basically driven a bit insane by these. And in a last ditch effort, he wanted to prove once and for all that his power generator worked.

      If he did manage this, it would certainly explain the super-bright reflection in the atmosphere that thousands of people reported seeing from the event.

      But then again, maybe I'm just *wanting* that to be true.

    4. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, every time I see "Tesla" I cannot help but think "utter crackpot." He may have done one or two scientifically valid things in his life, but crackpots seem to be magnetically attracted to Tesla's name. It's to the point where I don't even bother trying to research the validity of a claim made in his name. It's tinfoil-hat-wearing UFO freak time . . .

    5. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      I was wondering when someone was going to mention that...

      I have a friend that seriously claims to a be reincarnation of Tesla, and she will "authoritatively" tell you that he never meant to cause as much damage as he did. Needless to say, I don't think she will be looking to seriously at any new asteroid or comet evidence.

    6. Re: Tesla giggling in his grave by Inthewire · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a link to a great account of what may have happened

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    7. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      Sorry, every time I see "Tesla" I cannot help but think "utter crackpot." He may have done one or two scientifically valid things in his life

      Hmmmmm, like alternating current? That IS utter crackpot material! I think you need to read up on his work. He had a lot of interesting things going on ... like wireless florescent lights and stuff. I think most of the brilliant minds have been very eccentric, to say the least.

      At one point of another probably every great inventor has said something to make them look like a crackpot

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    8. Re:Tesla giggling in his grave by Tekgno · · Score: 1

      The story I heard was that there was some explorer
      or something who was going to go for a trundle in the arctic, Tesla told him to look towards a range of mountains in a certain position at a set time on a given date. This guy did but luckily Tesla miscalculated it and hit somewhere else instead. This particle beam weapon of his apparently vapourised an owl one night when it flew into the beam.

  14. Not for a million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't ever let a Taleban control one of them.

    1. Re:Not for a million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to know what everyone thinks... When you see a post like this, idiotic, terrible spelling, et al, how old do you think this person is?

  15. Come on, are you going to believe this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know that the tunguska blast was caused by an alien spaceship.

  16. Comet by tbone1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd always thought that a small comet nucleus met the case. Being mostly ice, it would have a lot of chemicals (methane, ammonia) that are volatile in the earth's atmosphere. The jets of escaping gas would act like rocket exhaust and cause the odd motions that were reported by eye-witnesses. And the explosion from the volatiles would be impressive. Plus, since there was no impact crater, and no piece of the object was found, the ice would make sense. It does tend to melt, you know.

    --

    The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    1. Re:Comet by NightSinger · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. The plume from a comet would have made it visible as soon as it passed Jupiter. Even a very small comet starts to heat up and dissolve around there.

    2. Re:Comet by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      It would have had to have contained one hell of a lot of volatils to flatten 1500 square miles of forrest.

    3. Re:Comet by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      Yesh, but everything that would be in range to see the smoke trail, is either dead or on fire.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The volatile content of the object is immaterial to its detructive power. Its kinetic energy is what caused the wide devastation.

    5. Re:Comet by Squeak · · Score: 1

      When comet Shoemaker-Levy broke up and hit Jupiter the impact 'scars' for several of the individual pieces grew to larger than the Earth. 1500 square miles is nothing.

      --
      This sig is a figment of your imagination.
    6. Re:Comet by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Question: What's the difference between a comet nucleus and a low density asteroid? The only real difference is that comets have tails, and asteroids don't.

    7. Re:Comet by Alsee · · Score: 1

      (methane, ammonia) that are volatile...jets of escaping gas
      The heat produced by entering the atmosphere at 7 miles per second makes iron just as volitile as methane.

      jets of escaping gas would act like rocket exhaust and cause the odd motions
      At 7 miles per second jets of escaping gas would have about as much effect as a bullet going past a fan.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. Why is it fortunate? by Knunov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Fortunately this news comes well after the "meteorite blast" fad has faded from Hollywood..."

    I'm not sure why that would be fortunate. If nothing else, the Tunguska incident shows that asteroids are a real threat. If Hollywood can help convince Joe/Jane Taxpayer that funneling money into government programs designed to increase the number of dishes we have monitoring the skies, that's a good thing.

    Knunov

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    1. Re:Why is it fortunate? by JJ · · Score: 2

      Actually, that such an event happened in the past century indicates that we have a bit more time than otherwise. If one Tunguska-size event happens every 1000 years or so, then we've got a few years before we can expect another one. As opposed to if it had happened in 1400 in which case we'd be approaching due or if around 1000 we'd be coming up due.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    2. Re:Why is it fortunate? by ishark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the same mistake of thinking that since you ust rolled a 6 on a dice, then the probability of rolling another 6 "is less than 1/6". It doesn't work like this. If there's a 1/1000 chance of being hit by a meteorite per year, this does not mean that there'll be one hit every 1000 years..... only that *the average on a large number of hits* will be 1/1000 years. The next one could be tomorrow...

    3. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wow. What a complete misinterpreting of probability.

      That observation (the frequency) does not bind these metorites to any kind of behaviour - all it is is an observation based on past events. There is nothing stating that it can't suddenly change behaviour, or that we can't suddenly have two major metorites on two consecutive years.

    4. Re:Why is it fortunate? by shaunbaker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you just spoke of the gamblers falicy. Since the impact of an asteriod is an entirely binomial event, it either happens or it does not happen. Since the random variable (impact of asteriod) is independent (the fact that an asteriod hit yesterday has no bering on the fact that it will hit today) and mutually exclusive (an asteriod cannot hit and not hit), the fact that a asteriod hit years ago has no bearing on the probability that one will hit tommorow, the probability is always the same. If you are confused about this pick up a first year undergrad stats book.

    5. Re:Why is it fortunate? by gazbo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hmm. Not sure about your use of probability there. Do you owe lots of money to casinos by any chance?
      It landed on black last time, so it's a mathematical certainty that it'll land on red this time!
    6. Re:Why is it fortunate? by ThePilgrim · · Score: 1

      You are wrong.

      Lets take the simple example of a six sided die.

      Thus roling a 6 happens on average once every 6 roles.

      If the first number I role is a six. How many roles would it take before I can expect another 6.

      The answer is that you can't answer that question.

      I could role 6 6's in succession or I could role the die one hundred more times before rolling another 6.

      All the statistics show is the average, it does not show how many roles, or in your case, years between any 2 events.

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    7. Re:Why is it fortunate? by schporto · · Score: 2

      Ummm. Don't probabilities and stuff not rely on past effects? So if you have a 1/1000 chance of a major asteroid strike per year, and haven't had one for a while doesn't mean that probability changes. And if you had one last year, this year's chances are still 1/1000. (On the other hand if asteroid strikes were tied to some periodic 1000 year event my statement's aren't relevant.)
      -cpd

    8. Re:Why is it fortunate? by smillie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to work on your random number theory. For true randomness each happening is totally independent of the others. Because one meteor hit recently does not influence when the next will hit. It could be tomorrow or 10,000 years from now. The only difference is a few mathamtitions will have to recalc the "average" impact time.

      --

      Dyslexics Untie!

    9. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Foochar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually when the last one happened has no bearing on when then next will happen because the events are not interdependent. Take for example rolling two dice. What are the chances of both dice rolling 1? 1 in 36. So I roll the first die, and it comes up as a 1. What is the chance that the other die is going to come up as a 1? The knee jerk reaction is that it is 1 in 36, but that is not the case. Die #2 is not dependent on die #1 so the chance that it will be a 1 is a remarkable 1 in 6.

      --
      "You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
    10. Re:Why is it fortunate? by ThePilgrim · · Score: 1

      Don't you just love slash dot. One measly mistake and 7 people jump up to correct you :-)

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    11. Re:Why is it fortunate? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Only a geek would feel the need to qualify a statement about dice with the fact that the dice are six-sided. Or spell "roll" as "role".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Why is it fortunate? by DickPhallus · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the SETI dishes could be used for somethign a bit more useful, say something like monitoring asteroids?

      --

      --
      Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
    13. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't it be a dependent probablility? because the more meteorites to hit the earth, the less there are out there to hit it, so teh probability of being hit by a meteroite actually decreases as time progresses

    14. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, you do know that they make dice with both more and less than 6 sides right? 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 60, 100, 120 are all commonly made.

    15. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there intelligent aliens on the astroids broadcasting so that the antenna could hear something?

      Other than the fact that the antenna being used to listen for broadcasts from other intelligent creatures in the universe can't hear anything from large lumps of rocks floating around in space, this is a great idea!

      Keep up the good work!

      Thanks!

    16. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      All other things being equal, he did describe the "Gambler's Fallacy."

      Even if you flip heads 10 times in a row, you still have a 50-50 chance on the 11th flip (which you would see, statistically, if you looked at a thousand situations where there were 10 flips of all heads, about 50% of the 11th would be heads, 50% tails.)

      However, after one impact, there might be a slightly greater chance for more due to the objects possibly being broken fragments of another object. This increased liklihood might go on for weeks or months. Indeed, given orbits, it might repeat for years -- the Earth goes through the leftover tails of certain comets year after year after year (various meteor showers.)

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    17. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > Or spell "roll" as "role"

      OMFG, I grokk now. We haven't been "role" playing, we've been "roll" playing. You aren't supposed to love D&D because of role-playing. You're supposed to love it because of the statistics (which is true, really!)

      I understand!

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    18. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      This is called the "law of averages" and it is false.

      -- Brian

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    19. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > Don't you just love slash dot.

      Should end in a '?', not a '.' (even if its rhetorical.)

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    20. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, if you have taken a probablilty class you would know it can indeed be calculated, its just an expected value problem, reletivly simple.

    21. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not sure why that would be fortunate.


      It is fortunate because those movies were really, really bad.

    22. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they aren't. Six-sided dice are commonly made, so that regular people can play craps. 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 60, 100, and 120-sided dice are made in very small numbers, so that geeks can play role-playing games. That was the above poster's point: only a geek would feel it necessary to specify that he meant six-sided dice.

    23. Re:Why is it fortunate? by MaxGrant · · Score: 2
      One measly mistake and 7 people jump up to correct you :-)

      Slashdot: News for Nitpickers. Things to Split Hairs Over.

    24. Re:Why is it fortunate? by sadtrev · · Score: 1

      In fact, it would indicate the opposite - the fact that it happened in the past 100 years (and we're not sure about when it happened before that) suggests that the "once in a thousand years" might be a bit optimistic.

      Likewise if you've tossed ten heads in a row the chance of the next being a head is more than 50% because the coin is probably loaded.

    25. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't get the connection. Are you saying that the movies would have been even worse if this story had come out then, or that this story would have less meaning if the bad movies were still in theaters, or what?

    26. Re:Why is it fortunate? by dangermouse · · Score: 1
      Likewise if you've tossed ten heads in a row the chance of the next being a head is more than 50% because the coin is probably loaded.

      "A little consistency is all I ask."

    27. Re:Why is it fortunate? by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      >because the more meteorites to hit the earth, the less there are out there to hit it,

      Even if you flip heads 10 times in a row, you still have a 50-50 chance on the 11th flip (which you would see, statistically, if you looked at a thousand situations where there were 10 flips of all heads, about 50% of the 11th would be heads, 50% tails.)

      True enough, but if you draw an ace out of a deck of cards 4 times in a row, you'd have exactly 0 chance of drawing another ace at the fifth time. Not all gambler's reasonings are fallacious.

      However, realistically speaking, we are playing with a very large deck here. Thus, although the probability does slightly decrease after a hit, there are still so many meteorites left out there that this decrease can be considered zero for all practical purposes.

    28. Re:Why is it fortunate? by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you're not alone. I also don't see why its fortunate that this news comes well after the "meteorite blast" movie fad. Perhaps mfarah is suggesting that had the news come shortly before the movies then there would have been a lot more annoying public hype about meteorites, and that that would have been annoying to endure? I don't know. On the other hand, had the news come out shortly before the movies, it might have been more fortunate because the general public (and decision-making politicians) might have actually realised that there really is a potential threat and actually done something about it, instead of just going back into "it won't happen to us" self-denial mode.

    29. Re:Why is it fortunate? by ahem · · Score: 1

      All the rest of the replies are quick to spout off with the Gambler's Fallacy, but cosmic events such as asteroids slamming into the earth may be the result of some periodic phenomenon.

      As it stands, the original post is also incorrect from my perspective, since you'd expect to see an event that happens every 1000 years or so to happen every 1000 years, not every 500 as they state.

      --
      Not A Sig
    30. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      Not likely, since SETI relies on radio arrays and you won't find transmitters on asteroids and comets and whatnot.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    31. Re:Why is it fortunate? by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      I think they mean fortunately in the sense that this news will NOT spur another round of truly, truly suckfull movies about comets hitting the earth. That idea is soooo last summer, y'know?

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    32. Re:Why is it fortunate? by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      Stop making me laugh out loud at work. No, seriously, stop it.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    33. Re:Why is it fortunate? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it." - Sir Clarence Worley
      Yesss, but:
      "It's even better not to have a gun and not need it".

      Ah, one can always dream.

  18. Not news... by aallan · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't news, this theory has been around for some time. There have been many papers published on this, recent journal papers include...

    I could go on, but a quick search on ADS gives 219 relevant papers.

    Al.
    --
    The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    1. Re:Not news... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      I agree, I was under the assumption that this was considered by most who have studied it as the most probably cause. There have even been shows on the Discovery Channel that pretty much sum up as this. I guess as long as you have some sort of degree and can get a paper published its news, whether it's really new or not.

  19. Tunguska Comet by Andy · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Prevailing opinion suggests that the Tunguska event was caused by a comet striking the Earth's atmosphere at a low angle. I saw no evidence in the article to suggest otherwise. It is not clear that very small asteroids can be "rubble piles" like Mathilde. There is virtually no gravitational field to provide cohesion.

    1. Re:Tunguska Comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't necessarily have to be a "rubble pile". Just a weak asteroid that became a rubble pile and subeseqeuently exploded as the dynamic pressure due to the hypersonic shockwave exceeded the yield strength of the object.

  20. Correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But isnt this the place that was
    supposedly destroyed by nicola tesla testing
    his energy transfer device that was thought to have missed the intended target?

    1. Re:Correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I just checked 3 diffrent books all on tesla
      And they all say the same thing.

      It was an experiament to transfer power through the air insted of wire. It was thought that the pyrimids in egypt were used for this. The intended
      target woould recive the power for use but it was mis caculated and hence the destruction.

    2. Re:Correct me if im wrong by iainl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you're only sort of wrong. Its true that this is the explosion that has been blamed on Tesla in the past occasionally, but its pretty blimming unlikely that he really did cause it. The facts match the metereorite explanation much better, but that doesn't help the 'Tesla found powers man was not meant to know' story.

      Mind you, when the Tesla-as-Frankenstein myth gives us stories like 'The Prestige' then I'll not be complaining too much; its a truly brilliant novel.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    3. Re:Correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla gave us lots of stories

      The first cartoon mad scientist was based upon tesla... all those old movies with death rays came about bcouse of the myth that followed him

      Why even in the cartoon mighty mouse the cartoonist used tesla for the main villian.

      With lost of ppl being frightend that one man could do so many amazing things and the govenment raiding his blueprints...its no wonder that it would be suppressed knowledge so it never went main strem.... most ppl dont even know who he is
      or that they watch tv becouse of his tesla coil
      most items around the house came form something he invinted or improved.......ahhhh im just rambling now so methinks i should clam-up

    4. Re:Correct me if im wrong by MaxGrant · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I just checked 3 diffrent books all on tesla
      And they all say the same thing.

      Of course, if it's printed in three different books, it must be true. I don't even need the titles of the books to believe you! Nor do I need to wonder whether all three books are referencing the same flawed source! Nor do I even need to dwell on the logical validity of the claims. Bottom line: BOOKS NEVER LIE.

  21. NO no no. by nyet · · Score: 2

    Benford's "Artifact"

    No, wait.

    Wheeler's "The Krone Experiment" (now a major motion picture!)

    Ah never mind.. This one's probably been done to death.

    1. Re:NO no no. by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      Nah, you're all wrong. Greg Bear's Forge of God did that. No, wait! That was a hundred million tons of neutron star and (plot withheld.)

      The sequal, Anvil of Stars has the most advanced high tech science ever portrayed in a novel that I have seen. Stuff on the order of the aliens in Contact, if you've read that book...except they're pissed off.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  22. They're wrong!!! by JSC · · Score: 1

    I have it on good authority - Spider Robinson in his latest Callahan book, Callahan's Key - that the Tunguska blast was caused by Nikola Tesla testing a new super radio. It turns out that the super radio is actually the oft speculated upon Tesla Death Ray.

    So, there you are. Mystery solved!

    --
    Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
    1. Re:They're wrong!!! by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      ZAP! Hey look, there's a smoldering hole where Afghanistan used to be! ;-)

    2. Re:They're wrong!!! by dreemr · · Score: 1

      I concur! In my somewhat extensive research of Tesla, many of the sources also make mention of Tunguska in asociation with a "death ray" that Tesla was working on. As a matter of fact a handful of the articles I read theorized that Tesla was test firing and was actually aiming for the north pole and simply missed. It's a shame that the day after he died his entire warehouse (workshop) was boxed up by the US government and carted off to never-to-be-seen-again land.

  23. Tesla dit IT by CDWert · · Score: 1

    Well, thats what alot of Nikoli Telsa fans will tell you. His DEATH Ray skipped under the Ionosphere missing its target in the Artic Bryd was supposed to be on the look out for. Supposedly in a direct line from that location.

    Before one more ASS@@@ mod hit me on a troll , Im not joking look it up......

    --
    Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. No It wasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EVERYONE knows it was Tesla who did it.

  26. wind speeds by DiveX · · Score: 2, Informative

    While the flying rock isn't going to be able to do turns like a plane, what witnessses would likely see, and this is a guess, may be a snaking smoke trail. As a skydiver, I have been hit with varying air speeds someimes going different directions. The smoke given off from the object buring off through friction could then catch seperate drafts. With the area being Siberia and all, I would suspect the air to be quite clear, especially during winter, and the trail to be able to be seen for quite a distance. Watch the shuttle launch sometime and notice how after about 5 minutes the smoke trail is still visable except that it has drifted for a fair way.

    --
    Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
    1. Re:wind speeds by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Yes, the Germans noted this with the first V2 launches. The rocket appeared to zigzag all over the sky, but (usually) it was just the winds pushing the smoke trail in different directions.

  27. An asteroid, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Leave it to science to take the easy way out. I mean, come on! Every good, Bible-unbelieving atheist knows that's where God exploded.

  28. There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by D.+J.+Keenan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The stony-asteroid hypothesis has been around for a long time. It has been questioned for several reasons. In particular, (i) there were bright/white nights before the event, and (ii) debris has been found in crash sites from meteorites 10000 times lighter, whereas absolutely none has been found at Tunguska.

    For more details and an alternative explanation, see the following.

    W. Kundt, "The 1908 Tunguska catastrophe", Current Science 81: 399-407 (2001)
    Dr. Kundt is at the University of Bonn. I don't know enough to comment on his paper in detail. It seems, though, that the Italian researchers, whose work is reported by the BBC, have not considered things as well as they should have.
    1. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      If it was all frozen ice of varying chemicals, they'd be long gone.

      Wasn't there some murder mystery where Mr. Body was offed by an ice knife or icicle?

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    2. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Wasn't there some murder mystery where Mr. Body
      > was offed by an ice knife or icicle?

      I remember a Lord Wimsey short story in which
      the victim was bludgeoned over the head with
      a frozen roast; the perpetrator almost got away
      with it by proceding to thaw and cook the
      murder weapon.

      Chris Mattern

    3. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      OMG, I think I saw an episode of Dragnet that copied that. The cops even sat down and ate part of the roast. (Maybe Twilight Zone, who knows?)

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    4. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by markt4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What Dr. Kundt describes, the Tunguska event being the result of an explosion of naturally outflowing natural gas accumulating in ancient volcanic craters, was reproduced on a much smaller scale, and by accident, on April 7, 1992 near Welcome, Texas (about 90 miles northwest of Houston).

      An underground "salt dome" in the area was being used to store natural gas, a fairly common practice in the Gulf Coast area. The dome was reportedly overfilled beyond its approved capacity. Highly volitile liquids began to seep from the underground storage facility, causing a heavier-than-air cloud of highly combustable gas to form in the valley over the salt dome. An unknown ignition source caused the accumulated gas to explode killing three people in the area and blowing out windows in churches and houses ten miles away. The explosion registered at 4+ on the Richter scale and the concussion was felt as far away as Houston.

      I drove through the area not long after the explosion and the effect was startlingly like Tunguska. The trees were all flattened in the immediate area; the tops of trees that were partly protected by hills had been shorn off; and yet there was no crater to be seen. One of the strangest sights I've ever seen.

    5. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds really interesting. I've tried doing a web search, but not found anything on it. Would you have any references--even news reports?

    6. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Cassandra · · Score: 1

      Apparently the first expedition to reach ground zero and leave any records was twenty years late. Perhaps this explains it?


      James Oberg, Tunguska Echoes Donning Press, 1982, Chapter Seven, pp. 132-145

    7. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by oldays · · Score: 1

      The paper says that ice comet would have evaporated much higher in the atmosphere.

    8. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      For some reason, Roald Dahl comes to mind. No idea why.

    9. Re:There are problems with the asteroid hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, it was "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".

  29. I always knew by BLAMM! · · Score: 3, Funny

    that it was the saucer section from the Enterprise J, that had crashed after time traveling into the past to kill grampa Berman before he could procreate. Of course nothing was ever found because the Division 6 of the Department of Temporal Correctness sent a clean-up crew. I've known this for years. How come nobody ever listens to me?

    1. Re:I always knew by Tyrannosaurus · · Score: 1
      Cowboy Neal: You ever hear of Division 6?


      CmdrTaco: There is no Division 6. This is bullshit!


      Comment deleted...

      --

      ---
      Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
  30. Re:If I were an author, I would write a book by Junta · · Score: 2

    You do realize that Hitler had next to nothing to do with WWI and the great depression? He was just a normal German soldier in WWI, nothing special.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  31. Mirror Matter by Dissidents · · Score: 1

    All matter that we know has 2 states, left spinning and right spinning. Every Atom, proton, netron(etc) exists in both left and right spinning forms, copies of each other. In neutrino's only the left handed version exists. Which in a radical theory explains that there exists invisable matter in which cannot see casued the blast, which is why we cannot find any traces of an asteroid. This one of the the theories that a Robert Foot of the University of Melbourne. Sorry, I saw this on TV last night. Please search for Robert Foot and mirror matter to understand this in more depth.

    1. Re:Mirror Matter by Kibo · · Score: 2

      If is sounds like a duck, it's probably a quack.

      They'll probably hire him at some think tank so he can go on Fox news and talk about how we'll all have zero point energy generators in our homes within 5 years.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
  32. Re:Things that go BOOM (or Hiss) in the night by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    > hard to imagine a fast-moving cloud of fine dust particles causing such damage

    High pressure steam causing damage

  33. Timetravel by mr100percent · · Score: 2

    Ever read Timeline, by Michael Crichton?
    I can see Tunguska as a great place to send people from the future, if you want them to be executed. Tunguska and Pompeii, Hiroshima....

    1. Re:Timetravel by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where are all the bodies?

      If you can send people thru time to arbitrary places, just dump 'em into the sun. No one will find them.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    2. Re:Timetravel by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      How about the Earth's core, or even just a few miles underneath the ocean floor.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  34. this is new news? by pyr0 · · Score: 1

    I distinctly remember seeing a show on this (Discovery channel, PBS, or some channel like that) that already discussed this quite a while back. They had already come to the conclusion the blast was either a comet or asteroid detonating in the atmosphere like a nuclear air blast. Anyone else remember seeing this?

  35. Reply: Mirror Matter by pagsz · · Score: 2

    I saw this theory someplace about a month back. If I remember right, the two types of matter don't interact much, so a "mirror matter" asteroid impact would have the same effect as an ultra-low density asteroid. Supposedly, there would have been enough reaction with air to make it explode, but after that the rest of the "mirror matter" would likely bury itself underground (because of the weak interaction, it would pass through the surface before ultimately being stopped).

    The article also said that this was a possible explanation of dark matter, since it would exert gravitational pull but would not be observable.

    Interesting idea, although it would likely be impossible to improve.

    Of course, it could have just been a fat Russian cutting wind near a campfire, but I'm no scientician,

    --
    -- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
  36. Cover up by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Preposterous! We all know that it was Tesla's expiriment with transmitting high voltage electricity through the ionosphere that did that blast!

    All hail Tesla!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  37. Already Figured Out... by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've seen a show on the Discover Channel dedicated to this about 5 years ago.

    Whoever was researching it at the time talked to natives in the area of the blast, especially to this elderly woman that was alive when the blast occured. He got her description of the blast and found it to be concurrent to a meteorite blast in ultra-low orbit.

    What makes this so mysterious is that all the trees in a cardiod (polar graph) were flattened, but in the center, the trees were standing up.

    The researcher did an experiment and recreated the conditions on a miniature scale model. He had a big table with pins with white flags on them to represent the trees. He proved that it was a blast (assuming from an asteroid) from the air. He also figured out at what height and angle from the ground the specific asteroid was coming from at the point of it's explosion.

    1. Re:Already Figured Out... by pyr0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the pattern created is identicle to the devastation pattern a nuclear air-burst weapon creates. Obviously occurring before the advent of nukes, the only probable explanation is that some sort of extra-terrestrial object detonated in the atmosphere.

  38. @Discovery Canada by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I was watching the Discovery channel yesterday night and they had a segment on the siberia blast, they had this guy claiming that it had to do with mirror matter (kinda like anti-matter except that it passes through normal matter instead of blowing up with it). See, this guys has this theory about said mirror matter, and he thinks that the blast could have been caused by it (he's clearly trying to get attention for his pet theory by pointing out that it could DOOM US ALL).

    It was the usual meteorite theory with a parralel-universe twist.

    Unfortunatly I wasn't paying attention when they got the part about why it would have interacted with our matter in that particular instance...anybody?

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  39. stalker by KunstCleaver · · Score: 1

    is this going to change the way people interpret the classic tarkovsky film 'Stalker'?

    --
    "The direction controls are the same in Nethack as they are in vi." "Yeah, I hardly ever die in vi anymore."
  40. AC Death Ray by SubtleNuance · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Im sorry to bring this up, im almost embarrassed to ask.

    I was at a party this past weekend, we ate and drank very well.. sushi and absinthe ;) and as party conversation happens, we talked about allot of interesting things.

    Somehow, in all of this up comes the Tunguska blast. Now, one of the other guests was from Croatia and was a fan of Tesla. The conversation began discussing the most important invention in modern history (he argued AC(betraying his Tesla bias...)) but I argued the industrial revolution began without it, and that AC wasnt the end-all-be-all he suggested... ANYWAY: In this conversation up comes Tunguska. He asserts, with the corroboration of other guests, that the blast was a display of a some top-secret AC weapon that was Tesla's brainchild.

    Now, they didnt guarantee that it was absolute truth, but they all had received this meme and could neither confirm nor deny its truth - just that it had been suggested.
    Can ANYONE provide some information on this theory? I recognize fanatical theories are often just those - this might be as big a flight of fancy as the Freemasons or alien-butt probes, the latter being more fancy to some i 'spose, but does anyone have information on this gem of a meme?

    1. Re:AC Death Ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Can anyone say, "Conservation of energy?"

      Where did Tesla get the megatons of destructive power in order to broadcast it about haphazardly?

      Afterall, you can't power a death ray that destroys everyting in a 40 mile area from AA batteries.

    2. Re:AC Death Ray by Bonker · · Score: 1

      sushi and absinthe

      Well, there you go. You hallucinated everything you heard!

      Seriously, very strange things happen when you transmit large amounts of power. I've seen videos of aluminum 'flying saucers' that have a few hundred millions volts running through them at micro-amp power levels. They levitate, and then detonate.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    3. Re:AC Death Ray by netsplit · · Score: 1

      I heard that same story too, see my post below 'You mean it wasnt Tesla?'. Just thought Id let you know that Croatian wasnt just some nut.

    4. Re:AC Death Ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh. dunno. could've sworn somebody's sig on here was about it though. said something like "Tesla was aiming for the north pole. He missed." ;)

    5. Re:AC Death Ray by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Where did Tesla get the megatons of destructive power in order to broadcast it about haphazardly?

      Good point, though not conclusive. IIRC, one of his stunts was to wrap an old tower with cable, ground one end, fill the tower with scrap iron, and put a lightning rod on the top. You then have a large inductor coil (the tower), a very large capacitor (the earth / sky) and various resistance. As it turned out, this made an resonant circuit with a frequency on the order of a quarter of an hour, and had all sorts of interesting effects between the first time it was struck by lightning and when it exploded, about twelve hours later.

      -- MarkusQ

  41. Mirror Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, there was a bit on this on the discovery channel (I believe) last night. Some guy thinks that it was mirror matter. Something aobut nutrenos spin left, but we haven't found any that spin right, and this could possibly be matter that spins right, which we can't see, but which is affected by gravity and produces energy that we can see.

    And we all know that everything we see on the TV is correct :)

    Unfortunatly, the scientist had to slip in a sentence on how they haden't found any mirror matter yet.

  42. What you're missing by roystgnr · · Score: 2

    If you throw a nuclear missile at your enemy's city, then you get nuked in return, start World War III, and generally make a mess of things.

    If you can change the course of an asteroid, then you can cause the same magnitude of destruction without it being traceable to you, and indeed without it being a proveably unnatural event. So you got to destroy a city or an ultrahardened target free from retaliation. Of course, this is only useful for an unprovoked attack, so it requires a level of "rat bastard" thinking that's probably too much for the DoD. CIA, maybe.

    Or am I missing something?

    Sort of, but don't feel bad about it - at least you didn't make an ass of yourself like the AC a few posts below you.

  43. It could have been a slimy purple meteor... by DocSnyder · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we know that (and where) Maniac Mansion existed - and Bernard finally managed to blow up Dr. Fred's home reactor.

  44. Comet possibility unlikely by RayChuang · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it was a comet that exploded over Tunguska, I think way, way more people would have seen the comet trail heading towards Earth before it exploded.

    The light meteor theory makes way more sense, since there was no visible signs from astronomers of such a small meteor heading our way back in 1908. Besides, the speed of the that meteor relative to Earth when it finally hit the Earth's atmosphere was probably around 40,000 mph, and the friction of the atmosphere at that speed is way higher than the temperatures encountered on the heat shield of the Apollo Command Module when it re-entered the atmosphere at 25,000 mph after a Moon mission.

    It's no small wonder why the meteor exploded, given the high atmospheric friction of its entry.

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
    1. Re:Comet possibility unlikely by Alomex · · Score: 2

      If it was a comet that exploded over Tunguska, I think way, way more people would have seen the comet trail heading towards Earth before it exploded.

      Only if it had already gone past the sun. If it was on its way there there would be no cauda.

  45. Re:'dumb army person' by iainl · · Score: 1

    I'll not deny that Marcell was a pretty high up guy, I'm just pointing out that whoever made the decision to use that particular story as cover for the balloon made a fairly headache-inducing call.

    To be fair though, it certainly helped divert attention away from other, military, reasons for odd-looking things seen in the sky for decades, so who am I to say it was a dumb move I suppose.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  46. Tesla, and here's why.... by chrislike · · Score: 0

    Tesla did in fact claim responsibility for the Tungaska blast, and it was something of an accident.

    Here's a website that's part of a biography, you can find it from any search engine:
    http://www.parascope.com/en/0996/tesla4.htm

    As for where Tesla got the power to do such a thing, he was an Awakened Order of Hermes mage, he can do anything so long as paradox doesn't catch him.

    1. Re:Tesla, and here's why.... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the source for this biography, www.parascope.com, bills itself as "ParaScope: Something Strange Is Happening" and advertises its main sections as:

      • Conspiracies
      • UFOs and Aliens
      • The Paranormal
      • Covert Operations

      Draw your own conclusions.

  47. Re:If I were an author, I would write a book by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

    No doubt it did take out a trapper or two, who knows, maybe one of 'em was a Hitler or Stalin.

    --
    I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  48. Buzzwords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well of course they tapped into the buzzwords of the day. Hundreds of square acres of Siberian forest were flattened in 1908, before anyone knew what could cause such a thing. Naturally speculation ran a little fanciful in the days shortly after. But most people have agreed that an asteroidal body probably entered the atmosphere and exploded for years. Modern scientists actually are quite well-adjusted individuals with a sound world-view. (It's bad for your credibility and grant money not to be). If you think you're being original for doubting the scientific community, I'm afraid you're just another ignorant troglodyte.

  49. I don't believe this... by chewy · · Score: 1

    still think it was one ofNikola Tesla's experiments. :)

  50. How come nobody ever listens to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be that aluminum foil hat you're wearing?

    1. Re:How come nobody ever listens to me? by BLAMM! · · Score: 1

      Aluminum, shaluminum. Mine's made of a tritanium, dilithium alloy. It keeps out cosmic rays and Vulcan mind melds. I know because the guy at the rubber Klingon-forehead table that sold it to me said so.

  51. Re:Response by JJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, I am perfectly aware of the gambler's fallacy, but am also aware of the dynamics better than that. Because a Tunguska snowball is almost certainly a discharge from a meta-stable Oort Cloud, the kinetic energy lost must be restored to allow another discharge. This means that if you have one discharge every 1000 years and you had one 100 years ago, the chances of a discharge are less than 1/1000. Astronomical events are not random as your refutation would require.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  52. Re:Gotta Love it by JJ · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'm just on here for this abuse. The fact that I actually studied with someone who came up with the Nemesis theory and had to work out the kinetic energy equations to demonstrate why such events aren't random, but much closer to periodic has nothing to do with this. Not only do I have six people jumping on to correct me, but they're wrong and I have the opportunity to show them why.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  53. Re:Response by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

    The Oort cloud is an unbelievably enormous thing. "Locally" for it means millions of miles. Each local section could kick out a comet on average per x time, but other areas, of which there are many, could also kick out some.

    Yes, I agree that overall it would be mildly statstically diminished, but I think that effect would be magnitudes less than other reasons for comets, etc. Similarly, I did not mention that the comet might disturb any similar-sized things also heading to earth and cause them to miss it, because I judged that too low statistically to mention.

    --
    I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  54. Fortean Times by Gumshoe · · Score: 1

    There's an article in the Nov 2001 edition of the Fortean Times
    that reports on the latest theory that the Tunguska Event was
    caused by a "volcanic blowout".

    IMO, this will never be fully resolved as it was literally years
    before any investigative team went anywere near the place.

  55. Re:Response2 by JJ · · Score: 1

    Actually, I said a Oort cloud, not the Oort cloud. The Nemesis theory which I mentioned gave rise to similiar clouds being proposed for several locations about the solar system. Giving rise to several periodic bombardments of the inner solar system. The 1000 year one would have to be much closer than the Oort Cloud. Also much less dense and much smaller objects. That we can see any members comes from my favorite quote on the topic "We have a snowballs chance in . . . well, . . . you know."

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  56. Re:Nyet by JJ · · Score: 1

    Actually, you made the mistake, as did the moderator who raised your score. You see, astronomical events aren't randomly distributed, they are cyclical. Don't apply statistics when you understand the system.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  57. some magic combo by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    I think it was probably some combination of things. The forest there was all evergreen, right? Evergreen sap is flammable - sometimes highly so. Anyone who's ever driven in the cold knows that the colder the temperature, the more energy is released in a vaporous explosion.

    It could have been a chain of events like this:

    1) ball lightning and/or forest critters strips particles of organic matter from surrounding trees

    2) the wind is still enough for all these particles to form a cloud

    3) another lightning strike or ball lightning hits and ignites the cloud

    4) the combination of the pitch and the cold causes a massive explosion of the 'vapor cloud'.

    Think of it as a spontaneous fuel-air bomb.

    Of course, I'm just speculating and I'm mostly full of s**t, so don't take this to your Ph. D board or anything...

    1. Re:some magic combo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Trees emit volitale organics all the time (in fact, most species violate EPA regs). With a thermal inversion, could see it building up a dangerous concentration, maybe, even.

      The only problem is altitude; the aforementioned blast pattern studies pretty much rule out a near ground level blast. FAEwould have have the trees towards the middle comletely vaporized, and probably the ground at the center baked into a nice ceramic.

    2. Re:some magic combo by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      Here's my argument for that: organics burn at a much lower temp than hydrocarbons so the vaporization and superheating of the earth wouldn't have happened.

      Weird air things happen all the time in far northern climates like that.

  58. A Question For the True Obscurists by On+Lawn · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I remember seeing a movie on television about this. It is was the saturday afternoon variety back when you only had a handful of stations to choose from. It stared the bad guy from "Man from Atlantis" (cooked balooga, 43.8C,etc...)

    He was in space in the future, working on an Apple ][ (not even e) looking at the possible reasons for the explosion. His witty Apple ][ played a good supporting role to his brandishing insults, ran simulations and gave data on mini-black holes, UFO's, Anti-Matter, and Asteroids.

    Anyone else remember that movie?

  59. This is nothing new. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    This has been theorized for years and years and years.. it's still the most plausible explanation.

  60. Re:If I were an author, I would write a book by dangermouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know, your title is backwards. If you wrote a book, you would be an author.

  61. It was on Russian TV as far back as 1980 ... by jdoeii · · Score: 1

    in a science show called _Ochevidnoe-Neveroyatnoe_ (Obvious-Unbelivable). I remember watching it when I was a kid. I distinctly remember that the guy used a bag with black gun powder moving on a string above the field of matches. Then I read a dozen papers clearly proving it to be a low density snow ball.

    Do your research before posting yet another piece of 20 year old news.

  62. wupp ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those Tunguskee airmen sure did wupp some arse.
    Or was the Tuskegee?

  63. Re:Nyet by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 2

    I'd be interested in a more in-depth explanation. I understand that some astronomical events are cyclical (meteor showers, for instance) based on orbital concurrency, but I don't think that's how those odds are figured. A lot of things that aren't randomly distributed can be, nevertheless, accurately described statistically. Why do you not think this is the case with anything astronomical?

    --
    No relation to Happy Monkey
  64. Probably worse by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the outlook is probably worse than the simple linear random probability in your example, because meteorites/asteroids do NOT have a uniform random distribution throughout the Universe. Rather (since they must have been formed by some process), they tend to often be in groups (which is the reason we have meteor storms). So if we're hit by a relatively big one tomorrow, it is more likely than just linear-random that there might be a few more big ones following behind it.

    Of course, either way, you are completely correct that JJ's reasoning is completely incorrect :) We've got just as big a chance of being hit on any one day as on any other day. The fact is, the scenario *is* a real *potential* threat to our survival, and if we actually have the technology to scan for and destroy such threats, then there is no excuse for not using the technology, its just plain stupid not to. But the whole world seems to have fallen into the global equivalent of the "it can't happen to me" syndrome that occurs with individuals regarding accidents; a global "it won't happen to us" sort of self-denial. Why wouldn't it? As you say, it could be tomorrow.

  65. You mean it wasnt Tesla? by netsplit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remembering reading someplace that many at the time attributed this to an experiment N.Tesla was running in the US; Trying to transmit usable electric current through the air. It was a theory of some that this experiment caused the damage on the other side of the planet. This along with utility companies realizing the downfall that would result if electricity was free to anyone who wanted to grab it out of air killed Tesla's final masterpiece of a project.

    or something like that

  66. No crater, no surpise. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    See, that's what happens when you have those low quality asteroids imported from god knows where. Always look for the "Made in the USA" sticker.

  67. News? by Veritan+Drelor · · Score: 2, Funny

    The asteroid hypothesis has been around for years. I recall an aricle in Sky & Telescope several years ago which said much the same thing. The blast was caused by atmospheric disruption of a carbonaceous chondrite; a low density asteroid.

    As for the lack of physical material, we shouldn't be particularly surprised about that. It took more than two decades for an expedition to reach the site, and it's a pretty swampy area as well. For comparison, a similar, though much smaller (basically just a fireball) event near Revelstoke in the 1960's left nothing to be found on the ground, even though people were in the area within hours. After twenty years, the chances of finding anything physical would be, pardon the pun, astronomical.

    Anywho, back to my original point: -1 to the Italians for redundancy.

    Per Ardua Ad Astra

  68. Sorta-old news... by JackDangers · · Score: 1

    I just finished reading "Uriel's Machine" by Robert Lomas and Christopher Knight (an awesome read) that talks about this very incident, and comes to the exact same conclusion...and it was published in 1998. Its actually a great book if you are interested in learning more about the theory that a comet impact on Earth caused Noah's flood, and every other cataclysmic flood talked about in ancient religions. It provides some sources for the basis of it's hypothesis, as well.

  69. How sad by maxxon · · Score: 1

    The recent appearance of this story in the popular media is a pretty good testament to the abject crappiness of science-related news coverage. The low-density asteroid airburst explanation of the Tunguska event has been established as the dominant theory for the explosion since the mid-late eighties. This is not new.

    --
    max
  70. Random Link having nothing to do with the story... by Exantrius · · Score: 1

    but cool nonetheless.
    meteor collision calculator! [janus.astro.umd.edu]
    Exantrius

  71. Solved at last! by GunFodder · · Score: 1

    They finally found the remains of some poor hunter at the center of the explosion along with thousands of empty cans of beans. He must have been eating those beans for months, and then one day he let one rip a little too close to the campfire...

  72. Blame it on Dubya!!! by thumbtack · · Score: 0, Troll

    We blame him for everything else in the environment, I'm surprised he hasn't caught the heat for this one yet...

  73. Re:Nyet by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

    That should be:

    Endless loop:(n); see Loop, Endless.

    Loop, Endless: (n); see Endless loop.

    --


    Do a google search before posting.
  74. Here's the story! by Syriloth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm doing a project on Tesla in my Creative Imaging II class, so if you'll permit a highschool student to do a little educating, I'll try to remember what I read about this incident.

    The story, as I remember it, goes like this:

    Nikola Tesla, being the eccentric, quixotic type of genius that he was, had created at his Wardenclyffe Laboratory a large tower which he called a Death Ray. His plan was to use these rays (sort of similar in concept to particle beam weapons, I believe) to create an impenetrable defensive perimiter around the country -- around all countries actually -- thus eliminating all war. Tesla was always coming up with things like this...he also came up with a (possible viable) plan for the free transmission of energy throughout the world, but that's a different story.

    So anyway, he had this death ray. It had never been tested, but of course it would have to be. He gets word of an upcoming expedition to the North Pole headed by Robert Peary, and he notified the leader that he was going to signal him on a specific night (June 30, 1908) but refrained from mentioning exactly what sort of a signal it would be. His idea was to fire a death-ray-blast "over the heads" so to speak of the exploration party, hitting the ground somewhere relatively nearby, and creating a blast that they could see.

    So, the exploration goes out, and he does his thing. On the night of the test, he fires off the death ray. It hums...it crackles...after about twenty minutes or so, an owl flies across the almost-invisible path of the beam, and instantly disintegrates. A few minutes later, Tesla shuts it off.

    Tesla eventually recieved word that Peary's party had seen nothing. He was disappointed.

    A few weeks later, news comes to the U.S. of a massive explosion in central Siberia (The Tunguska blast) and is instantly convinced that this was caused by his death ray, just slightly off target. He was mortified by the destruction it wrought, and promptly scrapped his plans for the implementation of his design.

    That's what I remember...I think it's fairly close to the original story, which I'm sure can be found on the web somewhere...actually, I can take care of that... this should do it. Of course, this story is not to be taken as gospel, as it's well known that a: Nikola Tesla was slightly crazy (though incredibly brilliant) and b: unconfirmed web sources from web pages that specialize in the paranormal, conspiracies, and similar things are suspect at best. However, I think it makes for at least an interesting story.

    Oh, and by the way, if you haven't looked up Tesla himself, I highly reccomend that you do so. Incredibly interesting stuff.

    Well, that's all,
    ~Syriloth

  75. Mod above post up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    link is very interesting... i know im just an AC, im not on home computer.. but i think its important :)

    schmofo.

  76. Populated areas... by andersbd · · Score: 1

    Considering that 2/3:s of the earths area is water, and some of the surface is uninhabitated, what's the risk of an asteroid of the same size hitting a populated area if it came today? Does someone have any figures?

  77. Now *that* is scary... by fm6 · · Score: 2

    The moderators seem to think that Troed is serious!

    1. Re:Now *that* is scary... by Troed · · Score: 1

      Well _I_ was serious, but since I clearly stated the source to be von Däniken I would've hoped for "+1 funny" instead of "interesting" etc ;)

    2. Re:Now *that* is scary... by fm6 · · Score: 2
      Uhm, isn't "funny" the opposite of "serious"?

      More amusing than your reference to the CotG guy was your suggestion that the Russians had an A bomb back in 1908 -- when Einstein was still a patent clerk, Niels Bohr was still in grad school, and the Commies were a bunch of cranks living in Switzerland.

    3. Re:Now *that* is scary... by Troed · · Score: 1

      You really don't get the point, right? Do a search on "von Däniken", or read the other comments to my post ... *sigh*

    4. Re:Now *that* is scary... by fm6 · · Score: 2

      I know who Van D is. Had a roommate who was a True Believer. I thought he was about pre-Columbian astronauts?