Slashdot Mirror


Vast Asteroid Crater Found In Timor Sea

An anonymous reader notes the discovery of a 35-million-year-old impact crater in the Timor Sea, northwest of Australia, which helped to usher in a period of significant global cooling. "The new findings, announced today and published in the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, suggest that the impact could have contributed towards the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet... The minimum size of the dome, which 'represents elastic rebound doming of the Earth crust triggered by the impact' is 50 km across, but the full size of the crater could be significantly larger, [lead researcher Andrew Glikson] told Australian Geographic. 'It would be possibly 100 km.' From the probable diameter of the crater, Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km in size. This impact coincided with a time of heavy asteroid bombardment globally. Several other craters have been documented from a similar time, including one off the WA coast measuring 120 km in diameter. Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

121 comments

  1. Formula for probability: by irreverant · · Score: 1, Troll

    What's the formula for probability of an occurrence like this? I mean i can do probability in the form of - !6 1,2,3,4,5,6/1,2,3,4,5 i might have gotten that wrong, it's early.

    --
    Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Formula for probability: by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Huh? What?

      The probability of this like all past occurrences is 100%.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Formula for probability: by fhuglegads · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the probability for all future events is 50/50.. they either will happen or they won't :)

    3. Re:Formula for probability: by BrightSpark · · Score: 2, Funny

      But not once we measure them. So we only find the 100% probability ones. The others have dead cats in them ;-p

    4. Re:Formula for probability: by RabbitWho · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure any of you fully understand probability.

    5. Re:Formula for probability: by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Probably not.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    6. Re:Formula for probability: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's honestly what made that exchange funny.

    7. Re:Formula for probability: by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >I'm not sure any of you fully understand probability.
      Probably

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    8. Re:Formula for probability: by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Art School dropout here; probably not.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    9. Re:Formula for probability: by irreverant · · Score: 1

      I was thinking nPr = N!/(N-R)!

      --
      Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
    10. Re:Formula for probability: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's referring to Quantum Mechanics. Also, jokes.

  2. Damn bugs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This impact coincided with a time of heavy asteroid bombardment globally.

    Obviously these asteroids were released from orbit by bug plasma. Invade Klendathu!

  3. "created by an asteroid 100 km in size" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think not.

  4. Possible reason by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Possible reason by larpon · · Score: 1

      Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

      http://swelldame.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/cthulu.jpg

  5. An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think so by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Something that large hitting the earth would evaporate most of the oceans and turn a large proportion of the earths surface molten. If it didn't kill off life entirely it would certainly kill off almost all multicellular organisms and reset the evolutionary clock so an impact like that could not have happened in the last 600 million years at least.

  6. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by pedropolis · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km" The crater left was up to 100km in diameter.

  7. Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km by RichMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the article. The crater is 10x the size of the rock.

    1. Re:Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You might want to read the article again yourself:

      Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size.

      That's in the summary and also in the article - third paragraph from the end.

    2. Re:Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      The summary and the article are wrong. A 100 km asteroid impacting would pretty much sterilize the crust.

    3. Re:Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Not the article, just the summary;

      Quoth the article, correctly;

      " Another asteroid impact structure in Siberia is 100 km in size."

      Quoth the summary, wrongly;

      "Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

  8. This all happened before we had Bruce Willis. by gimmebeer · · Score: 1

    We're safe now.

  9. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was phrased badly by the idiot author. The crater was 100 km in diameter.

  10. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reading is fundamental....

    The minimum size of the dome, which 'represents elastic rebound doming of the Earth crust triggered by the impact' is 50 km across, but the full size of the crater could be significantly larger, [lead researcher Andrew Glikson] told Australian Geographic. 'It would be possibly 100 km.'

    Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km in size.

  11. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFS: "Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

    From what I could quickly find, the Popigai Crater in Siberia is 100km in diameter, but that doesn't mean that whatever created it was 100km in size.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  12. an asteroid 100 km in size. by wiredog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think they are off by an order of magnitude there.

    1. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 1

      Does it help you to know that you misread the summary?

      The *crater* could be 100 km across. The *asteroid* could be "between 5 and 10 km in size."

    2. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by Message · · Score: 1

      "Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

      Does it help you to know that you misread the summary?

    3. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guilty as charged.

    4. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because we all know asteroids larger than 10km do not exist.

    5. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also don't know how to spell Hermann Zapf's name.

    6. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Okay, let's clear this up to the extent that is possible.

      Correctly represented: the structure identified in the Timor Sea (the Mt. Ashmore dome) is 50km across, but it represents only the eroded central uplift of a complex crater, so the original crater diameter could have been 100km. The impactor for such a crater is roughly 10x as small (the 5 to 10km mentioned).

      Incorrectly represented: the structure being referred to in Siberia is probably the Popigai crater, which is about 100km in diameter. This is incorrectly identified as the size of the impactor in both the summary and the article it cites.

      Remaining puzzle: I don't know of any 120km-diameter impact crater "off the WA coast" of about the same age (i.e. ~Late Eocene). The Earth Impact Database certainly doesn't show one, and the list of impact craters >100km is very short. In fact, it is unlikely for such a crater to exist off the coast of Washington because the continent quickly changes to deep ocean crust due to the subduction zone parallel to the coast, I'm not sure the crust there is even Eocene in age (it's pretty young due to the adjacent Juan de Fuca ridge), and hardly any impact craters are known from ocean crust anyway (the only ones known are quite small, and didn't really form an "impact crater" because of the deep ocean water). It's possible that this "crater off Washington" was confused with the large (85km) Late Eocene impact structure that exists off the East Coast of the USA in Chesapeake Bay and is not far from Washington, D.C..

      Coincidentally both the Popigai impact and Chesapeake Bay impacts are mentioned in the abstract of the paper, so it's very likely a mix-up about the two Washingtons that explains the third one. We can't really blame the submitter for the mix-up. They just quoted the errors in the other article.

    7. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by Radish03 · · Score: 1

      When I first read it, I interpreted WA as Western Australia, given the source of the article.

    8. Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. by baileydau · · Score: 1

      Remaining puzzle: I don't know of any 120km-diameter impact crater "off the WA coast" of about the same age (i.e. ~Late Eocene). The Earth Impact Database certainly doesn't show one, and the list of impact craters >100km is very short. In fact, it is unlikely for such a crater to exist off the coast of Washington because the continent quickly changes to deep ocean crust due to the subduction zone parallel to the coast, I'm not sure the crust there is even Eocene in age (it's pretty young due to the adjacent Juan de Fuca ridge), and hardly any impact craters are known from ocean crust anyway (the only ones known are quite small, and didn't really form an "impact crater" because of the deep ocean water). It's possible that this "crater off Washington" was confused with the large (85km) Late Eocene impact structure that exists off the East Coast of the USA in Chesapeake Bay and is not far from Washington, D.C..

      Coincidentally both the Popigai impact and Chesapeake Bay impacts are mentioned in the abstract of the paper, so it's very likely a mix-up about the two Washingtons that explains the third one. We can't really blame the submitter for the mix-up. They just quoted the errors in the other article.

      I suspect the author actually meant the Woodleigh crater off Western Australia (WA).

        http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/woodleigh.htm

      --
      Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
  13. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Reading is fundamental....

    Yes, reading IS fundamental. Now go back and reread the last sentence of the summary and tell me what it says.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  14. total disbelief by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Here we are on slashdot .. an American site (as I keep being told) and the summary is correctly using metric units without translating them to Imperial miles for the consumption of the locals [/sarcasm]

    What the hell is going on, and who replaced slashdot with this site?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:total disbelief by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I don't have any concept of how large it is unless it's expressed in football fields. Or, perhaps, Volkswagen Beetles placed end to end.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:total disbelief by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are easy (rough approximations of) conversions between three metrics -- miles to kilometers, yards to meters, and quarts to liters. A liter is just over a quart, so four liters is just over a gallon. A yard is just short of a meter, so a meter is approximately one yard (three feet). A kilometer is .6 mile, so with a rough number like "aproximately 100 km" it's easy to figure it's about sixty miles. No need to print both metrics with these easy ones.

      We Americans think in imperial while the rest of the world thinks in metric, so it makes sense to give both measurements for the other units of measurement anywhere Americans and the rest of the world will be reading; rather than having thousands of people laboriously convert harder conversions, just do it once and publish that. Because the other ones aren't so easy e.g., -- inches to CM, degrees C to degrees F, soccor to football, or humor to humour.

    3. Re:total disbelief by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I think American's understand Kilometer's just fine because it fits into their worldview of everything European being a little bit smaller (South can read 'wussier') than the American version ;)

    4. Re:total disbelief by Darth+Hamsy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you'd prefer lengths in Smoots, or cubits? But seriously, you're free to continue using 19th Centrury units if you want, just don't expect everyone else to put effort into enabling you.

    5. Re:total disbelief by Calydor · · Score: 1

      4 inches is approximately 10 cm. What's so hard about that?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    6. Re:total disbelief by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      ... or humor to humour.

      Like many Americans, extraneous letters have traumatized me at a young age(killed my parents and then raped their corpses while I was forced to watch). It is not about the difficulty in conversion but that the sight of them inspires terror. I spent a good hour screaming and sobbing uncontrollably after just reading your post. I'm sure many of my fellow Americans were similarly affected. Please refrain from posting such terrorism or I shall be forced to report you to the Department of Homeland Security.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    7. Re:total disbelief by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps you'd prefer lengths in Smoots, or cubits? But seriously, you're free to continue using 19th Centrury units if you want, just don't expect everyone else to put effort into enabling you.

      Actually .. I use 18th century units like km, m, cm and mm

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    8. Re:total disbelief by XnR'rn · · Score: 0

      I thought it was "Libraries of Congress" as the universal slashdot omni-unit measure?

    9. Re:total disbelief by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      10 cm will sound a lot better to US ladies.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    10. Re:total disbelief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, get with the program. Let's do things right:
      Atomic 'size' things won't use angstroms, they'll use femtofurlongs.
      Medium size things Yards & meters -> ells
      Larger distances: picoparsecs instead of miles/kilometers.

    11. Re:total disbelief by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      What about 1 decimeter? She will be thinking "Sounds a lot like decimator, must be HUGE!"

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    12. Re:total disbelief by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      That's for data.

    13. Re:total disbelief by XnR'rn · · Score: 0

      Yeah, true that. But, don't want to imply that you must be new here, but it has been used here on Slashdot for measuring almost anything of any unit. See below.

    14. Re:total disbelief by XnR'rn · · Score: 0

      True that, but while I don't want to imply that you must be new here, it has been used to measure almost anything, of almost any unit.
      For example, see below.

    15. Re:total disbelief by Darth+Hamsy · · Score: 1

      The modern meter was formally defined in 1983, the SI prefixes were standardised from 1960 to 1990.

  15. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by foobsr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Reading is fundamental....

    Indeed so.

    TFS, last sentence:"Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  16. Global Warming solution by RichMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    So how long before dropping a rock in the ocean is offered as a technological solution to Global Warming ?

    1. Re:Global Warming solution by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's start with dropping a big rock on top of the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon rig and see how that goes. If we discover that big rocks are excellent problem-solvers, we can think about scaling our way up to your idea.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:Global Warming solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how much water vapor you can get in the air...

    3. Re:Global Warming solution by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      You know, dropping a big rock on US _might_ solve the Global Warming problems.

      Great idea, really!

    4. Re:Global Warming solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dropping a rock on the heads of some specific people would probably be a far more effective solution to the majority of our problems. If a large enough object happened to fall from the sky to a point directly between NY and the beltway, the majority of the country would probably be far better off. Start with a fresh capitol and economic center, in say... Kansas.

    5. Re:Global Warming solution by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, this is evidence that the Earth is *supposed* to be much warmer than it is, but has been artificially cooled by invasive influences, such as asteroid strikes.

      (Which may not be an entirely facetious comment, now that I think about it.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Global Warming solution by XnR'rn · · Score: 0

      Are YOU implying that it is YOU that is causing the Global Warming? I request that you kindly stop doing it, or people might start throwing rocks on you!

    7. Re:Global Warming solution by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, let's skip number 1 and jump right to number 2.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:Global Warming solution by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I find that rocks work best as problem solvers if you drop them on whoever pointed out the problem.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Global Warming solution by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      If it can make a 180 km wide crater I bet it would solve Global Warming quite well.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  17. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who in their right mind accepts a kdawson summary at face value?

  18. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    besides what others posted here, you should also realize it would be possible to put a 100km asteroid (10x the size of the one in article) on a trajectory such that it would land on the earth with essentially zero kinetic energy. In other words, merely knowing the size of an asteroid or even its composition tells you nothing about relative velocity with the earth or angle of strike, all of which affect total impact energy.

  19. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something that large hitting the earth would evaporate most of the oceans and turn a large proportion of the earths surface molten. If it didn't kill off life entirely it would certainly kill off almost all multicellular organisms and reset the evolutionary clock so an impact like that could not have happened in the last 600 million years at least.

    Oops. Got a decimal in the wrong place. "A 100 cm in diameter". It may not have wiped out all life on Earth but it did scare the hell out of some fish.

  20. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

    Also,

    Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size.

    Er, what was that about reading comprehension, again?

  21. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Cruise_WD · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Reading is fundamental....

    Indeed. Reading all the way to the bottom is equally useful:

    "Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

    --
    [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
  22. Uh... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Okay, first without pictures this story is kinda meh. And a still shot from the movie "Armageddon" doesn't count. And why didn't we find this with Google Earth!? I'm suspicious! :p

  23. Same difference... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    "coincided with a time of heavy asteroid bombardment globally"

    So, if many other asteroids were impacting, then the effect of this particular one would have been negligible.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Same difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if many other asteroids were impacting, then the effect of this particular one would have been negligible.

      Got any evidence to back that up?

  24. Re:Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're a pal and a cosmonaut

    I like this lyric way better than the real one.

  25. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    "besides what others posted here, you should also realize it would be possible to put a 100km asteroid (10x the size of the one in article) on a trajectory such that it would land on the earth with essentially zero kinetic energy."

    Utter rubbish. Even if it wasn't moving earths gravity would still accelerate it to a dangerous velocity before it hit us.

  26. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not it wouldn't. It would be bad, but not likely to kill off almost all multicellular organisms.

    And evolution isn't a clock.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  27. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet there would still be a small bump felt due to gravitational pull. Just a small bump:).
    But, good point!

  28. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Reading is fundamental, you should try it.

    Look at the last line of the 3rd paragraph.

    The person you are replying to obviously read the article, but you where to busy trying to find someone to be snarky at to actual take the 35 seconds it would have taken to read the Article.

    YOU are what is wrong with /.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. the great gig in the sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvCUmeoHpw

  30. Al Gore Is Freeking Out by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 0

    Global Climate Change caused by a force OTHER THAN MAN KIND!!! Holy crud. I bet he didn't see that comming

  31. Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Global Warming that caused the Asteroid to crash into the Earth.

  32. Chicxulub by Spatial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's another huge impact crater around Chicxulub, Mexico.

    180km in diameter. Terrifying stuff, it makes a nuclear explosion look like a wet firework.

    Let's hope we're ready for the next rock that comes our way. It's only a matter of time.

    1. Re:Chicxulub by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      There's at least 9 >20km strikes here in Canada, more are guessed somewhere around 50. Plus they're still trying to figure out if a large chunk of the Hudsons bay happened to be formed by a strike as well. Very interesting stuff.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Chicxulub by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      There is a 500km diameter crater in South Africa (the Bushveld Complex):
      http://www.ersdac.or.jp/ASTERimage/Image/011_Bushveld.jpg .

      It is so big that there are multiple cities and smaller craters inside it (Vredefort Dome):
      http://www.greatarchaeology.com/Archaeological_Places/Vredefort_Dome.jpg

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  33. Explore Baby Explore! by douglasfl · · Score: 2, Funny

    ahh the benefits of deep sea oil drilling and exploration!!! what could go wrong?

  34. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km"

    The crater left was up to 100km in diameter.

    Of course this just goes to show that we should be spending more resources identifying, tracking, and technologies to deal with asteroids that have the potential to hit Earth. We are still largely dependent on amateur astronomers for the first two, which wouldn't be so bad except for the lack of viewing coverage and consistency, and while we have some ideas for the latter few have been tested. A 5 km to 10 km impact would be a devastating disaster for any country, and depending on the exact circumstances would have very significant international consequences as well! Unlike a lot of natural disasters, it is theoretically possible to entirely prevent large asteroid impacts with equipment currently achievable through the scientific and technical prowess of multiple developed nations. Yet, knowing human nature it will probably take a impact of at least a 100 m dia. object near a major population center for this threat to actually register to most people...

  35. Re:Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Major Tom to Betty White...
    Commencing countdown, engines are alight.

  36. an asteroid 5-10 km in diameter is roughly 40-160 cubic library of congresses

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  37. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

    And evolution isn't a clock.

    That's just a theory unless you can prove it! =P

  38. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Sciros · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last sentence of that summary has _got_ to be a wording mistake. The impact CRATER in Siberia is 100km across. The impactor was (I just looked it up), "either an eight-kilometer diameter chrondrite asteroid, or a five-kilometer diameter stony asteroid." Indeed, an asteroid 100km across hitting the surface would leave something just a tad bit more noticeable than anything we've got so far, heh. And yes it would do really bad things to life on the planet; you're right on that count.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
  39. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by somersault · · Score: 1

    while we have some ideas for the latter few have been tested

    All we need a is a massive clone army. "Fathered" by Bruce Willis.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  40. Coordinates by Logic · · Score: 1

    What, no Google Maps link? :)

    --
    -Ed Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
    1. Re:Coordinates by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 3, Informative

      I already checked it....there's nothing to see, really; no outline of the crater is visible. If you really want to check it out though, the cords are Lat: 2117'50.00"N and Long: 8935'40.00"W

      --
      Loading...
  41. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Evolution is not a clock.

    It's a series of screws.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  42. For those wondering what it would be like . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    to be standing 1000km away when an 8km asteroid hits the Timor Sea in an are with a depth of 1000m here is a neat link:
    http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=1000&distanceUnits=1&diam=8&diameterUnits=2&pdens=3500&pdens_select=0&vel=20&velocityUnits=1&theta=65&tdens=1000&wdepth=1000&wdepthUnits=1

    If you want to play with the inputs, here is the source site:
    http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

    1. Re:For those wondering what it would be like . . . by cjjjer · · Score: 1

      Pretty interesting site a 16m object (iron) using the default parameters would cause windows to shatter (due to airburst) up to 10km away from entry point. A 20m object would seem to cause some pretty bad ass damage to surounding areas even though the object never even reaches the ground (due to airburst).

  43. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by rgviza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a 100km dense rock asteroid would sterilize the earth's surface. It would vaporize 343000 cubic miles of crust in less than a second.

    Peak Overpressure: 6.89e+07 Pa = 689 bars = 9780 psi at 500km from impact. Actually at 500km from impact you'd be in the crater since it would be 520 miles in size. If it were possible to not be incinerated instantly, the pressure would probably cause you to explode as it dissipated. The wind would be 14900 mph

    At 5000km from impact, you'd get hit with wind doing 978mph and get subjected to 54psi air pressure 4 hours after impact. This would kill you. Your body would be buried under 5.1 feet of ejecta

    This is assuming a "Dense Rock" asteroid hitting the earth at a 45 degree angle, at 17000kph, which is the typical impact velocity. 11.8 RS earthquake would result over the entire earth. This is off the scale. It's nearly a quadrillion tons of seismic energy. It would split the earth. You would be launched high enough into the air to kill you from the impact when you came back down, if the acceleration didn't kill you. A nickel/iron one would be much worse.

    http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=500&distanceUnits=1&diam=100&diameterUnits=2&pdens=&pdens_select=3000&vel=17&velocityUnits=1&theta=45&wdepth=&wdepthUnits=1&tdens=2500

    The earth would most likely be an asteroid belt right now from this size of an impact at 45 degrees. It would survive an oblique impact, but the earth would get another moon and it would be an extinction event. The orbit would certainly be affected and the tides would change.

    Yea it would be very messy and kill just about all multicellular animals. People would become extinct. There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  44. Everything died in the Eocene? by ETEQ · · Score: 1

    "Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size" That would've caused an extinction as bad if not worse than the end-K event (the one that killed the dinosaurs) - I think they mean the *crater* is 100 km in size - presumably they're referring to Popigai crater, which is dated to the Eocene, but the *crater* is 100 km, not the asteroid. 100 km is a *big* asteroid.

  45. Not just size matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just asteroid size, or even mass, that determines its destructive force or crater size. A quick analogy: you can probably survive getting hit on the head by a normally thrown basketball but not by a cannonball.

  46. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by MikePikeFL · · Score: 1

    So you're the one who created that dip in the stock market, eh?

    --
    "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway" -Andrew Tanenbaum
  47. I assume Australia by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0, Troll

    will quickly ban any mention of this crater for being too reminiscent of goatse.

  48. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    while we have some ideas for the latter few have been tested

    All we need a is a massive clone army. "Fathered" by Bruce Willis.

    Will Demi Moore be involved in the process?

  49. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Reading is fundamental, you should try it.

    Look at the last line of the 3rd paragraph.

    The person you are replying to obviously read the article, but you where to busy trying to find someone to be snarky at to actual take the 35 seconds it would have taken to read the Article.

    YOU are what is wrong with /.

    Or maybe he is /. - profound I know!

  50. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    Are you sure about that? Because, this shows us as being pretty well hosed, even in perfect conditions: minimum velocity, angle, and density, maximum distance from impact. Maybe not sterilized, but still stone (and probably ice) aged or worse. A 100 km wide vaguely spherical object displaces a hell of a lot of fluid and rock, even at low impact velocities.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  51. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.

    Or in other words: What surface? ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  52. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you prove, it's not theory anymore.

  53. Timor! by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

    And the Lords of the Underworld!
    Darkness fills my heart with pain!
    When the girls start to sleep with girls,
    Beelzebub will rise again!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  54. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by techhead79 · · Score: 1

    Will Demi Moore be involved in the process?

    no but there is a chance that Chuck Norris will be involved in the process. The idea is to combine the die hard quality of Bruce Willis and the selfless brute that blew up the asteroid with the awsome round kick power of Chuck Norris. yes, you should be fearful of the potential for a Chuck Noris/Bruce Willis clone hybrid thing. But if you want we can have Demi Moore suck the needed DND from the two applicants.

  55. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

    Which part of that page you linked to says we would be sent back to the stone age? It seems to be describing a collision which would obviously devastate the area around the crater but with very minor global impact.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  56. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Evolution is more like a lamp. Or perhaps a piano. But definitely not a clock. Everyone knows that.

  57. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.

    So we'll be fine in the basement right?

  58. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which part of that page you linked to says we would be sent back to the stone age? It seems to be describing a collision which would obviously devastate the area around the crater but with very minor global impact.

    While I do agree that those results don't indicate total collapse of technological civilization, but I would like to remind you that most of the results from that link are 20,000 km (12,400 mi) away from the point of impact. This includes the tsunami estimates of between 6.4 m (20.9 ft) and 12.7 m (41.7 ft). Considering where Timor is, I think we already have some idea (like bit this scaled up about ten times) how much damage the tsunami would cause in South-East Asia, North-Western Australia, and beyond. It may also cause atmospheric effects similar a large volcanic eruption, that while far from triggering an ice age, could cause measurable changes weather phenomena, perhaps for a year or more.

    So despite the level sensationalizing by the GP, this sort of thing is very much something I'd rather not happen, even when I'm on the opposite side of the planet from the point of impact.

  59. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by dissy · · Score: 1

    There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.

    So we'll be fine in the basement right?

    That depends on how deep your bottomless pit really is.

    If you can toss a one watt radio transmitter down there and actually lose signal, you're probably safe :D

  60. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by steelfood · · Score: 1

    The line from TFA actually says:

    Another aster impact structure in Siberia is 100 km in size.

    The "oid" in "asteroid" appears to be cut off for me.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  61. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet, knowing human nature it will probably take a impact of at least a 100 m dia. object near a major population center for this threat to actually register to most people...

    In that case, all that would happen is people would be willing to fund it for a few years, with less and less interest in it as time passes. Eventually, people would start demanding that it paid for itself, that the rich shouldn't be funding it because it's unfair that they do because they pay most of the taxes anyway, and then the project(s) would fold because there's no more money to run it.

    We need just one well timed and placed extinction level event.

  62. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Drishmung · · Score: 1

    The wind would be 14900 mph

    At 5000km from impact, you'd get hit with wind doing 978mph and get subjected to 54psi air pressure 4 hours after impact.

    Not to disagree with the bulk of your argument, but can you have wind traveling faster than the speed of sound? At any rate, so very much faster than the speed of sound.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  63. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The earth would most likely be an asteroid belt right now from this size of an impact at 45 degrees.

    From your own link (and plugging in the density of a nickel-iron asteroid, in case that is what you were referring to):

    The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.

  64. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    wrong, you miss the point entirely, there are trajectories for which after passage through the earths gravity the net relative velocity with respect to the earth is zero, at the ground!

  65. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    very sure, there are trajectories for which an object can end up with zero relative velocity to its landing point on the earth, and at the ground. Impact velocity: zero.

  66. Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s by Ichoran · · Score: 1

    It's (almost) possible but so fantastically improbable save for careful maneuvering that it's not worth considering.

    (You could have it on a trajectory nearly parallel to the Earth where the Earth catches it from behind very gently (relatively speaking). This is a tiny fraction of all possible approach angles and a tiny fraction of all possible approach velocities.)