Slashdot Mirror


Russian Meteor Largest In a Century

gbrumfiel writes "A meteor that exploded over Russia's Chelyabinsk region this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the earth in more than a century, Nature reports. Infrasound data collected by a network designed to watch for nuclear weapons testing suggests that today's blast released hundreds of kilotons of energy. That would make it far more powerful than the nuclear weapon tested by North Korea just days ago, and the largest rock to strike the earth since a meteor broke up over Siberia's Tunguska river in 1908. Despite its incredible power, the rock evaded detection by astronomers. Estimates show it was likely only 15 meters across — too small to be seen by networks searching for near earth asteroids." Today's meteor event came a day after California scientists proposed a system to vaporize asteroids that threaten Earth. Of course, the process needs to be started when the asteroid is still tens of millions of kilometers away; there's no chance to shoot down something that's already arrived.

196 comments

  1. Still overdue by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They say to expect a Tunguska sized one once a century and this one wasn't that big. They mostly ocean explode or strike so there's few signs of them but an ocean strike can be worse than a land one given the water they displace. They've got to wake up and start properly funding the near Earth program. It still won't protect against rouges but at least they can map ones that cross our orbit.

    1. Re:Still overdue by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Funny

      It still won't protect against rouges but at least they can map ones that cross our orbit.

      At first blush, that would seem to reduce the usefulness significantly....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Still overdue by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought the same when I red that.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    3. Re:Still overdue by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm green with envy at your punning skills. Is there any punning course I could cyan up to?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Still overdue by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      this thing was 15 meters across, jet black, and moving like a bat out of hell. To paraphrase people that look for near earth objects "Its invisible until it hits the atmosphere."

      The sad fact of the matter is, no matter how much money you pour into programs to locate and track near earth objects, there is no way to detect objects of this size and velocity with any degree of reliability.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    5. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! It still boggles the mind as to how that managed to avoid detection until so late. I mean seriously, scientists are tracking all things orbiting the earth the size of a dime or larger (or so I recall reading, I may be mistaken, but I recall it being something ludicrously small), yet they can't see something the size OF A SMALL BUILDING until it's literally burning up in the atmosphere.

      Clearly, we need to get some satellites up there that, instead of spying ON the earth, are looking in the OTHER direction, and can tell us "oh hey, that big-ass chunk of rock is flying straight at the big blue marble they're all living on".

    6. Re:Still overdue by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I think there is one at the University of Alabama, home of the Crimson Tide.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    7. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between tracking things in orbit, and things that are far away and at orbital distances for only a few seconds. And when they talk of tracking dime sized orbital debris, that is usually in pretty low orbits, and not possible in farther out orbits, distances crossed by such meteors in a fraction of a second.

      For comparison, while it was a big deal when tracking a 80 metric ton that hit Africa in 2008, that was more the exception than the norm. There is a big difference between something like this that is 15 m in size and a few metric tons and 2012 DA14 that was also in the news at 40+m and 200,000 metric tons.

    8. Re:Still overdue by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, well, now that this is out of the way, the rest of the century should be rather pleasant.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    9. Re:Still overdue by mrbester · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm glad that no one was puceillalimous enough to post these puns as AC...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    10. Re:Still overdue by mrbester · · Score: 2

      And immediately I spot the spelling mistake. A cardinal error for which I apologise.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    11. Re:Still overdue by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      They say to expect a Tunguska sized one once a century and this one wasn't that big. They mostly ocean explode or strike so there's few signs of them but an ocean strike can be worse than a land one given the water they displace. They've got to wake up and start properly funding the near Earth program. It still won't protect against rouges but at least they can map ones that cross our orbit.

      This one also had to reckon with Vladimir Putin, Russia's answer to Chuck Norris, it didn't dare strike Moscow.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:Still overdue by mfnickster · · Score: 5, Funny

      If we all posted AC, that might confuchsia.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    13. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 15 m meteor has a volume described by 4/3*pi*r^3 = 1750 m^3 with the density of solid rock from 2500 kg/m^3 and upwards this gives a mass of about 4500 tons

    14. Re: Still overdue by minogully · · Score: 1

      I do believe, sir, that you should win this contest.

    15. Re:Still overdue by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      They say to expect a Tunguska sized one once a century and this one wasn't that big. They mostly ocean explode or strike so there's few signs of them but an ocean strike can be worse than a land one given the water they displace. They've got to wake up and start properly funding the near Earth program. It still won't protect against rouges but at least they can map ones that cross our orbit.

      Really?

      Just detecting these things can cost billions. Doing anything about them can cost trillions.

      And most of these are air-burst, like yesterday's, (and like Tunguska). Since statistically, 3/4 of all are likely to hit ocean, the return on investment is going to be un-measurably small.

      Air bursts over water are not likely to generate any significant amount of water displacement, and therefore no ocean wave damage.
      In fact, if you take the Tunguska event, you learn from wiki "To the explorers' surprise, no crater was to be found. There was instead around ground zero a vast zone (8 kilometres [5.0 mi] across) of trees scorched and devoid of branches, but standing upright.". A similar event over water might generate some local surface waves, but nothing of significance because there would be nothing offering any resistance to the blast wave.

      Take something the size of the object that created Meteor Crater (50 meters in diameter), about 3 1/2 times as big as yesterday's object, didn't air-burst, but a substantial portion of it burned up on entry. The crater (3/4 miles in diameter) could have killed at most several million people if it hit down town London or New York city. But the biggest cities on earth are a tiny target.

      But its likely it would have never been spotted, not by any technology today, and not by any technology proposed. I suspect the cost of developing the technology and maintaining it year in and year out, upgrading it every so often, shutting it down in periods of austerity, firing it back up when fears are rekindled are simply not worth the effort, especially when you consider the chance of success is minuscule at best. Its most beneficial effect would be as a jobs program, for people who believe the government should be the source of all jobs.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:Still overdue by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Why not? I'm not a space guy so maybe I'm missing something but doesn't radar work in space? Again if i'm missing something my bad, a guy can't know everything, but it seems to me if we can use radio telescopes to look so deeply into space then we ought to be able to build something that uses less power in space to watch our solar system for nasties.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re:Still overdue by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is this, god damned reddit?!

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    18. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,it is frakkin /.

    19. Re:Still overdue by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      "Overdue"? That's not how it works. Meteor strikes aren't like earthquakes, where the longer the time between them, the more pressure builds up. They're just essentially random. Which means you're never "overdue" for one. They don't happen at regular intervals, and a thousand years without one doesn't make one one iota more likely next year...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    20. Re:Still overdue by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mauve over, let the experts have a shot at the puns.

    21. Re:Still overdue by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      This one also had to reckon with Vladimir Putin, Russia's answer to Chuck Norris, it didn't dare strike Moscow.

      But it _ still strikes mother Russia !!

      I guess it fears Obama more than Putin

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    22. Re:Still overdue by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Then you should have said "yello" to him.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    23. Re:Still overdue by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Radio Telescopes function by 'listening' to the noise generated by stars and other celestial objects. radar works by sending out a signal, and 'listening' it being reflected back, and uses the distortions in that reflection to calculate the location of an object. (more or less, thats a simplified version obviously). Now, imagine trying to detect something, that is moving so fast, that by the time the radio reflection gets back to you, it has moved entirely out of the area of sky you where scanning. the result would simply be a brief 'pip' on the screen, and the next scan pass would show nothing. Now imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of those objects out there, at various ranges and speeds, PLUS all the artificial satellites between us and those objects. The result on your screen would be something like the 'snow' on a TV tuned to an empty over the air broadcast channel. And that is just looking at a more or less postage stamp sized swatch of the sky. Beyond that, the interference caused by flooding the sky with radar signals would likely cause problems for terrestrial vehicles that use radar for navigation. Yes, it would be good if we could detect and track the (probably billions) of near earth objects, down to the smallest grain of interstellar gravel, but in the practical sense, we have neither the time, money, computing power, or sensing technology to achieve such a goal.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    24. Re:Still overdue by symbolset · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If only there were some part of the spectrum we could use to look against the cold background of space for an object that absorbs all the visible light that hits it in a region of space where the sunlight pours down more than at noon in the Sahara, 24 hours a day. If only we could invent 'heat vision' something like that should stand out like a neon sign. Too bad that is impossible.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    25. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries. We just have to blame it on global warming - that will immediately make hundreds of billions of grant money available.

    26. Re:Still overdue by jamesh · · Score: 0, Troll

      They say to expect a Tunguska sized one once a century and this one wasn't that big. They mostly ocean explode or strike so there's few signs of them but an ocean strike can be worse than a land one given the water they displace. They've got to wake up and start properly funding the near Earth program. It still won't protect against rouges but at least they can map ones that cross our orbit.

      Such a program was secretly implemented by the US over a decade ago, and they can indeed manipulate small asteroids. Ask yourself this - where did this one hit? Was it somewhere in America?

    27. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The sad fact of the matter is, no matter how much money you pour into programs to locate and track near earth objects, there is no way to detect objects of this size and velocity with any degree of reliability.

      But could be put a little more more money there and try to detect the 400 meter ones? I would hate to see my city destroyed, but it would be ever worse if I was in it when it happens.

    28. Re:Still overdue by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      You just have to look at collision detection systems in cars to know that we have come to a point where statements like "we have neither the time, money, computing power, [n]or sensing technology" might be true today but they certainly won't be in 30 years. Moore's law applies roughly to these things - the first two going down in quantity and the last two up. We can now pretty reliably detect planets *light-years* away. It might take several massive super-computers to process the data today but today's supercomputers are tomorrow's watches (or more probably implants...).

    29. Re:Still overdue by mikael · · Score: 1

      How about 380+ camera sensors built into a telescope array giving a 1.8 Gigapixel resolution? Imagine if they could cool this system down to absolute zero, and use it for infra-red sensing:

      http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/28/darpa-builds-a-1-8-gigapixel-camera-that-can-spot-six-inch-targets-from-20000-feet/

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    30. Re:Still overdue by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      To the explorers' surprise, no crater was to be found. There was instead around ground zero a vast zone (8 kilometres [5.0 mi] across) of trees scorched and devoid of branches, but standing upright.

      Of course that makes sense if "groud zero" isn't where the object hit the ground but rather is the first point of imact of the shockwave coming down from high in the atmosphere. Directly underneath the trees would be presenting the smallest possible surface area to the shockwaves travelling down, and these would strip the trees of branches and leaves but essentially try to "push" the trees down, compressing them. Trees can be compressed quite a bit. Then 8km or more away, the blast energy is moving at an ever increasing angle. It takes far less energy to topple a tree to its side than to ram it deeper into the ground.

      Therefore the object's impact crater is probably far, far away and rather small. The real damage came from the blast as it hit denser air, just like it did yesterday. In a way I'm happy that the Tunguska riddle has been solved.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    31. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The methods used to find exoplanets is rather different than trying to find asteroids and depends on some really different limitations being worked against than trying to find. This not to say we are not using computing power to our advantage, as there are several automated searches for asteroids on going, but you can't extrapolate from entirely different things and conclude what is the limit of asteroid searches like that.

    32. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say to expect a Tunguska sized one once a century

      Not sure who 'They' are, but the geological record doesn't support that claim. It's more like a multi-millennial event. Besides, Tesla passed away in 1943.

    33. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just detecting these things can cost billions. Doing anything about them can cost trillions.

      If someone told you you were going to die unless you did something, would you demand to be paid to do it?

    34. Re:Still overdue by weeboo0104 · · Score: 2

      But the California scientists azure us that the system will work.

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    35. Re:Still overdue by icebike · · Score: 1

      Ok, so apparently you are willing to work for the rest of your life for zero pay building a meteor detection system.

      Great. Now go find several thousand people who think like you, and get to work.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    36. Re:Still overdue by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      The 'heat vision' idea might work. Too bad we don't have anything that could direct microwave/RAdio energy into space to Detect And Range the object.

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    37. Re:Still overdue by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. A system could send out many pulses. Returned "pings" would, given sufficient sensitivity in the receiver, indicate the distance, size, and movement of an object.

    38. Re:Still overdue by cthulhu11 · · Score: 0

      The crater (3/4 miles in diameter) could have killed at most several million people if it hit down town London or New York city.

      Having been to both, I can only respond to the above idea as "We should be so lucky".

    39. Re:Still overdue by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Radar doesn't work at these ranges.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    40. Re:Still overdue by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Such a program was secretly implemented by the US over a decade ago, and they can indeed manipulate small asteroids.

      You have evidence for this assertion? (I bet this is going to lead to KookWatch, or something similar.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    41. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well orange you guys so damned clever?

    42. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed statistics, didn't you?

    43. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A police speed trap radar can measure distance and speed from a single pulse. Moving beyond this there was a discussion last week about measuring rotational velocity of a passing asteroid that had information suggesting we could do better than that. Radio telescopes are generally connected to computers that make ATC radar look like the relic it is.

      Secondly you don't need to use frequencies near the normal radar range. For most terrestrial purposes a 1% increase in the noise floor is not very inconvenient.

    44. Re:Still overdue by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Remember too that the radar equation come into play: doubling the distance to an object reduces the returned signal by a factor of 16. (1/r^2 out * 1/r^2 back).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    45. Re:Still overdue by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I head that this so-called 'meteor' was actually just Putin skydiving, without his shirt, naturally.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    46. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something something Burnt Umberage something..

    47. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      *If* there are a certain number of objects flying around that are going to eventually strike the Earth, with an average of one large one per century, then the longer the period without a strike the more dangerous it becomes, as there will eventually be a grouping of strikes.

      (actually of course the longer the period the less likely the original "if" is correct, but if for some reason one starts with that as a given then the "overdue" notion is correct.)

    48. Re:Still overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 10 years ago I visited Meteor Crater for the second time. The first time I was about 10 years old (1961). Recommended. Somewhere in the last 10-15 years one of the popular Astronomy magazines, either Astronomy or Sky & Telescope had an article about the effects of a meteor that size striking the earth. Before that, I thought it would be fun to see, but only if it hit an unpopulated place. After reading the article I'm not so sure. Basically, if you could see it, you would be dead (all this is according to that article) from shock wave, sonic boom or ejecta. That would take care of anything in a certain radius. I note that the 2013 Russian meteorite was brighter than the sun, made shadows as it moved across the sky, and some people reported they could feel heat from it. The aforementioned article also mentioned that not only would a meteor throw off infrared radiation and visible light, but it also glows in the UV frequencies. If you survive the shock wave, sonic booms and ejecta, you may die in 3 days from the equivalent of the worst sunburn you could imagine. I think the dead zone was on the order of 200 miles.

      So, the above is based on my-bad-memory. Anyone with facts to support this or shoot it down, ready, aim:

  2. Rain of Iron and Ice by MetricT · · Score: 3, Informative

    My favorite book on impacts. Scarier than any Stephen King novel you'll ever read, because it's real.

    http://www.amazon.com/Rain-Iron-And-Ice-Bombardment/dp/0201154943/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360966611&sr=8-1&keywords=rain+of+iron+and+ice

    1. Re:Rain of Iron and Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if it were a Stephen King novel, the ending would be terrible and not fit in with the rest of the book anyway. If Stephen King wrote the ending, it would probably involve the hand of god magically coming down and crushing the meteor or something retarded.

      Screw you "The Stand". You had SUCH potential to have been an absolutely amazing book through and through.

      Aaaand then he wrote the ending, aka "I don't feel like writing this book any more, fuck it, just type whatever." Just like all of his books. At least his short stories tend to be better, since they either don't "need" an end, or are too short for him to just give up towards the end.

    2. Re:Rain of Iron and Ice by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I've heard that the part he had trouble with first was long before that, when everyone was settling down into their camps. So he had the hot woman and Howard set off the bomb, killing the deaf guy.

      I guess he got to that second stall point and was like "Bomb worked the last time, gotta top that... I know, GOD! Sets off a NUKE! ahahahahahaha!"

    3. Re:Rain of Iron and Ice by mikael · · Score: 1

      There was an account back in the 1800's of a comet or the tail end of a comet hitting Earth in the North American continent. Nothing reached the ground except that the sky glowed red and light enough to read, and that the atmosphere became unbearably hot for the whole night.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  3. What a country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In USA, prisoners smash rocks. In Soviet Russia, rocks smashes prisoners!

    1. Re:What a country! by sconeu · · Score: 2

      I thought rock smashes scissors? Or alternatively, rock crushes lizard?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:What a country! by beltsbear · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, space explores you!

    3. Re:What a country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Hollywood, Hulk smash!

    4. Re:What a country! by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, space probes you!

    5. Re:What a country! by sjames · · Score: 1

      And there's the answer, we place a huge pair of scissors in the middle of nowhere and we're set.

  4. Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by mbone · · Score: 2

    Anyone seen pictures of pieces on the ground ? (The hole in Lake Chebarkul doesn't count.) There should be a nice strewn field from this event, and it shouldn't be hard to find pieces, which would tell us what it was made of.

    1. Re:Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone seen pictures of pieces on the ground ?

      Just check eBay. There will be more pieces on offer there, then actually fell to the ground.

      Real soon.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      One early report suggested the composition is probably mostly iron. Nothing so far about "black oil" or unscrewing noises.

    3. Re:Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by mbone · · Score: 1

      I actually hope it was ice (with a nice dust covering). Perfect place to land to preserve pieces of ice.

    4. Re:Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by mikael · · Score: 2

      Going by the circular shape of that hole in the ice, anyone in that region needs to get their flamethrowers, petri dishes and hot wires at the ready.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      which would tell us what it was made of.

      To a first approximation. Many meteorites are significantly heterogeneous, so until you've collected a fair number of pieces (several dozen), you're still not terribly confident that you've got most of the diversity of a particular impactor.

      There should be a nice strewn field from this event, and it shouldn't be hard to find pieces

      I've seen the landscape between Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinborg. Lots of woodland, arable farmland. Unless you've got an eyewitness of an impact, searching isn't going to be easy. And a lot of the land is going to be covered by snow at the moment, which will rapidly melt and conceal evidence.

      Yes, there will very likely be a strewn field. But finding it isn't going to be as easy as you make it sound.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:Pictures of fallen meteorites ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually hope it was ice (with a nice dust covering). Perfect place to land to preserve pieces of ice.

      Was hoping for ice-9...

  5. Nature is wrong by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

    "A meteor that exploded over Russia's Chelyabinsk region this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the earth in more than a century, Nature reports."

    Meteors don't hit earth, meteorites do.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Or is it a meteor that hits, only becoming a meteorite at the moment of contact?

    2. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When meteors are outlawed, only outlaws will have meteorites!

    3. Re:Nature is wrong by erice · · Score: 2

      "A meteor that exploded over Russia's Chelyabinsk region this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the earth in more than a century, Nature reports."

      Meteors don't hit earth, meteorites do.

      Is the atmosphere not Earth?

    4. Re:Nature is wrong by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Meteorite: A meteor that survives its passage through the earth's atmosphere such that part of it strikes the ground."

    5. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Is the atmosphere not earth?" Not to me. The earth is under my feet. That meteor burnt up before striking solid ground.

    6. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While in space it is a meteoroid, when it falls through the atmosphere it is a meteor and when on the ground it is a meteorite . Your guess is as good as mine what it would be called during the impact with the ground.

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

    7. Re:Nature is wrong by craznar · · Score: 2

      Only if you say strike earth (as in earth being dirt), however in terms of the biosphere we call earth - they both hit earth.

      One of course doesn't reach the surface of the earth, as it burns up in the atmosphere of the earth.

      --
      EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    8. Re:Nature is wrong by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your guess is as good as mine what it would be called during the impact with the ground.

      "Inconvenient"

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:Nature is wrong by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      So a meteorite is a meteor. Wouldn't that mean that the meteorite that did hit us, was, in fact, also a meteor?

      Or does being a meteorite mean you can't be a meteor anymore? Yet, being a meteorite means you were a meteor before?

      So, small recap, you have to be a meteor to become a meteorite, but once you become that, you're no longer a meteor.

    10. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meteorites don't explode. Meteors do.

      It was a meteoroid when it was in space, a meteor when it it entered the atmosphere and exploded, and the pieces that fell to the ground after the explosion were meteorites. According to NASA, it was 12-15 miles high when it exploded, releasing 300-500 kilotons of energy.

    11. Re:Nature is wrong by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      No, it's a meteoroid that hits. This is seen as a meteor. Upon contact you are correct, it's a meteorite.

    12. Re:Nature is wrong by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, what "meteor" actually means (from Greek) is "suspended in the air". So no, technically, the moment it touches ground, it's no longer a meteor. Arguably, meteors and meteorites are meteoroids. That term is usually only used while it's still in space, but technically any such rock in the solar system is a meteoroid, and it's still in the solar system while it's burning through the atmosphere, or sitting on the ground on Earth. A meteorite ceases to be a meteor when it hits ground, but they're both really still meteoroids.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    13. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The statement stands, it was a meteor when it exploded, whereupon it created meteorites.

    14. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atmosphere is just a much less dense surface.

    15. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very glad it didn't land here. I just washed the car yesterday.

    16. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should call a meteor that doesn't hit the ground a meteormite?

    17. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A meteor that exploded over Russia's Chelyabinsk region this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the earth in more than a century, Nature reports."

      Meteors don't hit earth, meteorites do.

      Is the atmosphere not Earth?

      No, it's air...

    18. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time it was passing through the atmosphere and exploded, it was still a meteor. I don't think the airborne part retro-actively becomes a meteorite once parts of it hit the Earth. Meteorite is normally applied to the pieces that do arrive on the surface.

    19. Re:Nature is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending upon your inertial frame of reference, the meteor was stationary when a large planet came up out of nowhere and collided with it head on.

    20. Re:Nature is wrong by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      ...... and it is an asteriod until it contacts Earth's atmosphere.

    21. Re:Nature is wrong by CrashandDie · · Score: 2

      And here that poor rock just wanted to rest for a few minutes; it now got stuck in a massive identity crisis.

  6. Dr. Ray Stantz was right! by cashman73 · · Score: 2

    It was "the biggest interdimensional cross rip since the Tunguska blast of 1909!" I wonder if Dr. Egon Spengler is en route to Russia right now trying to get samples of victims' brain tissue?

    1. Re:Dr. Ray Stantz was right! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... or if Captain Jack seeks to have sex with it

  7. Russian Meteors by ExquisiteClothe · · Score: 1, Informative

    Watch the drive-by movie made by russian citizens passing by here (You can also hear the bang) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJO9Io4Suog

    1. Re:Russian Meteors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How much do you make by ripping videos off and stuffing them with ads? Does Youtube really pay you to do that?

    2. Re:Russian Meteors by cffrost · · Score: 2

      How much do you make by ripping videos off and stuffing them with ads? Does Youtube really pay you to do that?

      Unless you're talking about the translucent watermark in the top right corner of the video, I think you may have a browser security/annoyance vulnerability.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  8. Interesting times... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    ... will come when the top 0.1% realizes that as things are now, they could be wiped without warning, no matter where they are. Maybe this could convince a few of then in investing in something for everyone's benefit.

    1. Re:Interesting times... by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't hold my breath.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:Interesting times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich don't concern themselves with such things. It's hard for them to see the bigger picture past their gold-plated fifth yacht.

      The single only way the upper caste will take notice of such things is if a meteorite literally destroys one of the top 10 richest people's homes. If it doesn't directly affect them, they won't give even the slightest of two shits.

    3. Re:Interesting times... by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you doing? You're richer than 99% of the world's population!

    4. Re:Interesting times... by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      I'm saddened this was modded insightful.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    5. Re:Interesting times... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      This is only happening because there's no entry called "Duh, yo!" in the picklist.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    6. Re:Interesting times... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I'm saddened that it actually is insightful.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Interesting times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure that?
      10% of the industrialized world is richer than me.
      The industrialized world is, what, 2 billion people? so 200 million people are richer than me.
      That's like 2.85% of the world's population.
      So, um, I'm only richer than 97.15% of the world population!
      Get your figures straight!

  9. Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by erice · · Score: 4, Informative

    This one, Tunguska,and one in 1947 called Sikhote-Alin that some are claiming is bigger than yesterday's rock (though still smaller than Tunguska).

    Granted, Russia is the largest country in the world by land area but do *all* the big rocks have to land there?

    1. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Granted, Russia is the largest country in the world by land area but do *all* the big rocks have to land there?

      Yes, the citizens of New York should definitely write a petition to the Universe to have a few large rocks redirected towards them. :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Funny

      its ok D.C. can have first dibs on the next one

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, Russia is the largest country in the world by land area but do *all* the big rocks have to land there?

      Guess how they got those nice, plentiful resources of rare earth materials....

    4. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Well, I think you partially answered your own question. First, there's a lot of ocean where the event is unlikely to be reported. Next, Russia (and the areas of the former USSR) comprise a huge land mass. Even though it's sparsely populated it's enough people for the events to get reported. Next, it's a civilization with ongoing contact with the West. There might be oral traditions in much of Africa recording such events; but they might be recorded in a way that we haven't interpreted properly (e.g., colorful language about the gods being angry and the Earth trembling). We don't have ongoing respectful contact with the rest of the world going back more than 100 years. Thus, even when we figure out what happened from looking at the archaeological record and match it up with local accounts, it doesn't have the same cultural impact (no pun intended). Finally, in the wonderfully weird world of statistics not only are random events permitted to cluster, they are actually expected to cluster.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you have that super sized please, like twice the Tunguska ones size?????

    6. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Check out what narrowly missed Utah in 1972.

    7. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by melikamp · · Score: 1

      A dubious honor, considering the damage they do.

    8. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Civilization?

    9. Re:Does Russia have a bullseye painted on it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Don't fight kids. There's a kilometre-scale impactor headed your way right now. It doesn't really matter which one of you gets it first, because you'll both wishing it hadn't arrived within a few seconds of touch-down.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  10. This 'glass' substance needs to be banned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a small object causes such injury because of glass! Why do the world's leaders leave us peons so unprotected by this menace! There should be rules and regulations ... in fact, no, all glass just needs to be banned!

  11. kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Karganeth · · Score: 2

    Energy is measured in joules fools.

    1. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy is measured in joules fools.

      Not necessarily, but if it was a Kiloton of energy I doubt we'd be discussing it.

    2. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 kiloton = 89.9 zetajoules

      A kiloton is a perfectly fine (if rather silly) measure of energy: it's a measure of mass, and mass is equivalent to energy. Granted, 20KT of conversion energy is probably not what the editor meant when writing that...

    3. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Joules are so quaint, I prefer to stick to eV, which works for both energy and mass when using theorist units.

    4. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ENERGY released by Nuclear bombs is often measured in kilotons which is an equivalent weight of tnt. Therefore, kilotons makes sense, but it is a weird unit.

    5. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 5, Informative

      The kiloton unit came into use to describe the explosive energy of the early nuclear bombs. A one kiloton nuclear explosion released the same energy as a 1000 ton (kiloton) TNT explosion. For people in the 1950's who were used to reading about 500 lb. and 1000 lb bombs used in WWII, it provided a useful mental scale.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    6. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ionizing radiation is measured in sieverts. That doesn't mean it can't also be measured in bananas. So too can energy be measured by the mass of TNT which would release an equivalent amount of energy when exploded. The "TNT" part may have been omitted, but it's commonly understood that when mass is used to measure explosive energy, it's referring to the mass of TNT.

    7. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? If they indeed said "kilotons of energy" (I haven't read the article) ... then that is a flawed statement. If they said "kilotons of TNT", then that is accurate.

    8. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Energy is measured in joules fools.

      Yes it is, professor, and a kiloton is 4.18*10^12 of them.

    9. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ton of TNT" is now a defined unit and frequently abbreviated to just ton, kiloton, megaton, etc. (or just kt, Mt), especially in the context of nuclear weapons and impact events. It is not really wrong, just informal.

    10. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Realisticly, measuring ionizing radiation in bananas is only meaningful if the source is potassium. For anything else, speaking of a banana equivalent dose in Seiverts is meaningless, because Sieverts are like REM, they are adjusted to mean a biologically equivalent dose, not what would be the same amount of energy as measured by a physical device such as a Geiger counter or film badge. BED is also a biological equivalent dose, but it assumes the target creature actually eats the banana (rather than, for example, inhaling a vaporized one), and other assumptions (like the total dose won't be large enough to screw up the organism so bad it can't excrete potassium at normal rates) so you can't convert. Actually physically equivalent energies are measured in units such as Grays and should interconvert, but biological equivalence isn't defined over the same range and so shouldn't. Saying you can use bananas as a standard measurement is therefore like claiming you can use Hugh Jackmans as a meaningful measurement when talking about K D Lang's sex drive.

    11. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      Lousy bomb makers are trying to rip us off. When I pay for a kiloton bomb, I expect 1024 tons....

    12. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in all holy hell is an "anal cunt"?. AC because I don't actually want to know...

    13. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giraffe =)

    14. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Lousy bomb makers are trying to rip us off. When I pay for a kiloton bomb, I expect 1024 tons....

      Oh, that's still a ripoff. I expected 1.0E6 kg * 3.0E8 m/s * 3.0E8 m/s = 9.0E22 J

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    15. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by InsectOverlord · · Score: 2

      Next time, just make sure you buy a kibiton bomb.

    16. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, banana equivalents can make for a bad biological equivalent dose standard in some sense but that is not the only measurement of radiation used, and bananas are ok as standards for use in some of the other contexts (or even still ok as a biological dose if you use a conversion factor between different types of radiation and organ it is directed at, like as already done with the actual units). How ugly all of that mess of measurements looks is not because of problems with using bananas as a standard, but because there are quite a few contexts in which radiation measurements are discussed, whether because of different effects being considered, or because of limitations in data or measurement techniques used at a given time.

    17. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Heck, even a "Hiroshima" is an informal unit.

      Informal, but no less valid than a lump of platinum some Frenchman's got.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    18. Re:kiloTONs of ENERGY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "tons of tnt" is a weird ass-unit.
      The reference is of course to exploding that amount of TNT.
      And not, for example, the energy released when that amount of TNT falls from a height of one meter. Or the energy required to create that amount of TNT. Or the amount of energy released by dissolving that amount of TNT in some kind of liquid.
      Anyway....
      We can make our own meteor unit. 1 KiloA - the impact energy of a one-kilo iron asteroid moving at a relative speed of 0.0001c

      I think we should be using the Hiroshima unit more (X kiloton of TNT = 1 Hiroshima). I think that if we measured more things in Hiroshimas, we'll slowly, over the generations, get over our fear of nukes.
      "A meteor hit today, releasing 35 hiroshimas". "Hurricane Cecil is moving towards land. With a wind speed of 60mph, it's energy expenditure is 50 hiroshimas per second"
      "This was the hottest summer on record. Compared to last year's, it was 2 million hiroshimas hotter"
      (numbers made up from the crevice where I stick suppositories)

  12. And even then, we *don't* want to shoot it *down*! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Funny

    this thing was 15 meters across, jet black, and moving like a bat out of hell. To paraphrase people that look for near earth objects "Its invisible until it hits the atmosphere." The sad fact of the matter is, no matter how much money you pour into programs to locate and track near earth objects, there is no way to detect objects of this size and velocity with any degree of reliability.

    The fine summary notes,

    Today's meteor event came a day after California scientists proposed a system to vaporize asteroids that threaten Earth. Of course, the process needs to be started when the asteroid is still tens of millions of kilometers away; there's no chance to shoot down something that's already arrived.

    Well, there's part of the problem right there -- we don't want to shoot the things *down*, we want to shoot them *up* and *away*. Meteors and asteroids are only a problem when they come down!

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  13. I thought it was a piece of comet by UncleWilly · · Score: 2

    I thought it was a piece of comet that exploded over Siberia's Tunguska river in 1908 - I also thought it was common knowledge - go figure.

    1. Re:I thought it was a piece of comet by Velex · · Score: 2

      Yeah, summary is wrong. There wasn't even an impact, just explosion and fireball (no solid remains). Carl Sagan gave a pretty interesting description of how it was determined that it was a piece of comet in Cosmos episode 4, Heaven and Hell. Perhaps submitter and /.'s editors should give it a watch. Like in the first 10 minutes iirc. Should still be on instant on Netflix and probably Youtube too.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    2. Re:I thought it was a piece of comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wanted a Russian history lesson, I would have asked Mr. Chekov.

    3. Re:I thought it was a piece of comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meteors are generally pieces from a comet's debris stream. Few are of stoney (asteroid) origin.

    4. Re:I thought it was a piece of comet by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the 1908 event was most likely a comet. You are confused it you think that means it was therefore not a meteor...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  14. Foo Fighters by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

    What about all the foo fighters recorded by US pilots in second world war?

    1. Re:Foo Fighters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see the relation to bootlegged copies of Foo Fighters' concerts.
      Are you proposing it as a unit of measurement?
      "As much energy as 3 billion bootlegged Foo Fighters' concerts"

  15. Re:Further proof of global warming by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

    Or the resignation of the pope.

  16. Re:And even then, we *don't* want to shoot it *dow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well we don't want to shoot down stuff, we want to "blow UP" stuff!

  17. Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth doesn't hit meteors. Earthites do.

    Silly gooses. It's rather quaint that we have this rule. If you dropped a car out of a plane, the resulting wreck is not a "carite", so what's up with meteors? For that matter, who doesn't know what you mean? Good rule of thumb, if people already know what you mean there's no reason to correct them other than to demonstrate that you're a fucking pedant.

    1. Re:Relativity by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Meteorite was originally coined as a mineral name, specifically for the high nickle iron content meteors that were effectively an iron ore, like magnetite, hematite or siderite. The people who adapted this word to mean just any rock that fell from space were going against the more precise use. It's like somebody had an at least fairly precise term, such as bird, and people adapted it to include many other things that fly (bats, pterosaurs, maple-seeds and certain types of origami), and then half of them got all Grammer Nazi on people who used the phrase 'dead birds' and the rest on the ones who wanted to lump DC-3s in with those other things, and yet none of the Grammer Nazis could admit they had stolen a term from a bunch of biologists and really mangled its use to where it's not surprising the general public isn't going along 'properly'. Here, the astronomers 'stole' the term from metalurgy and mangled the definition, then within a few generations we have astronomers and fans all upset with the public for not sticking with this misuse.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  18. wonder what the nuke detection satellites saw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musta been some puckering by the US and whoever else has satellites that detect nuclear explosions ... we'll read about it in 30 years when that's declassified .. or wikileaks publishes what the satellites saw ...

  19. About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by tp1024 · · Score: 2

    So, despite "serious" news agencies (like Associated Press) saying otherwise, it turns out this thing wasn't just a 10 ton asteroid. Which isn't entirely unsurprising. Getting a shockwave like that simply took the energy of a small thermonuclear warhead.

    Now I'm still wondering, what about the reports that the russians tried to shoot down the asteroid? It's not unrealistic it's like ... almost real!

    1. Re:About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by The+Sad+Nazgul · · Score: 1

      The best estimate, as of about an hour ago, is that the explosion was about 0.5 megatons, give or take a factor of about two. Of course, this is still a work in progress.

    2. Re:About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still doesn't explain why Apple is suing. Cook is responsible at this point.

    3. Re:About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by tp1024 · · Score: 1

      Could you give me a reference for that? Thanks.

    4. Re:About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      And now imagine that happening just 30 years ago. An object entering on a ballistic trajectory and setting off a 500 kt airblast essentially over the main Soviet plutonium facility in Mayak next to Chelyabinsk. I am retroactively shitting myself right now. As a species, we have more luck than common sense...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    5. Re:About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by The+Sad+Nazgul · · Score: 1

      Could you give me a reference for that? Thanks.

      Heidi Hammel, (en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Heidi_Hammel), has been posting updates on facebook.

    6. Re:About 3000t mass, and 100kt energy by Subjective · · Score: 1

      sorry, no "ballistic trajectory". And that's a strong point.
      Russia still has a missile tracking system. We all still do. We didn't shut them off after the end of the Cold War.
      These systems do not recognize something moving at ~60kmph as a missile - because it is not possible that such a projectile originated on Earth. We'd have noticed the launch - and the launch would have killed more people than the hit.
      This is something that exploded on impact with the atmosphere - not where ballistic missiles explode, and totally destroying it if it was a ballistic missile.
      To put it another way, if the asteroid was made of plutonium, you'd have a tiny eetsy bit of a radiation problem which you can easily shrug off. The mechanical result would have been the same.

      Short story: There is an order-of-magnitude difference in speed, which makes the meteor impossible to track with missile-tracking systems, and these systems assume anything moving that fast is not a missile (because of the physical impossibility of it)

      --
      My other .sig is also this bad
  20. Kiloton? Kessel Run? by kackle · · Score: 1

    What's a "kiloton of energy"? Is that like a Kessel Run done in so many parsecs?

  21. Re:Kiloton? Kessel Run? by tp1024 · · Score: 3, Informative

    By convention, it is the energy released by spontaneous decomposition of 1000t of trinitrotoluol - or 4.2 TJ of energy.

  22. Amazon crater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second biggest meteor hit in the upper Amazon in the 1930s, so not many people to see it (well make that 1) and a land surface that will repair very quickly, the estimate from the recorded observation is ~300 kiloton.

  23. Hole in Lake Chebarku Bogus? by mbone · · Score: 0

    I now think the hole in Lake Chebarku is not the real impact site. Reasoning :

    It is too regular. Not impossible, but suspicious. I would also expect such an impact to fracture the nearby ice, but that seems pretty solid.

    There should be a strewn field all around (i.e., other pieces), with easy to find small pieces on the snow/ice on top of the lake nearby. This would basically be a repeat of Targish Lake. I have heard no report of such finds.

    If fishermen go out on the ice, fishermen cut holes in the ice. I would want to verify that they never cut 30 m holes.

    1. Re:Hole in Lake Chebarku Bogus? by mbone · · Score: 1

      On the other hand...

      http://rt.com/news/meteorite-crash-urals-chelyabinsk-283/

      Police officers, environmentalists and EMERCOM experts at the site of a meteorite hit in the Chelyabinsk Region. Small 0.5-1 cm pieces of black matter resembling rock were found around the ice hole caused by the meteorite. Photo courtesy of the press service of the Interior Ministry's Main Directorate for the Chelyabinsk Region.(RIA Novosti)

      (That's the caption to the second picture of the hole).

      That is exactly what I would expect from a real hit. So maybe it is real.

    2. Re:Hole in Lake Chebarku Bogus? by gagol · · Score: 1

      I would want to verify that they never cut 30 m holes.

      Look google for "ice whale fishing in a lake"... people I know fish in 6 to 8 inches holes in the ice.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  24. Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Where the fuck is Bruce Willis when you need him?

    1. Re:Where? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      looping

  25. OMG, the biggest in a century!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be Global Warming!!!

  26. Such sloppy reporting - did not strike earth by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    the rock exploded over the earth, some fragments hit the ground, but this rock did not strike anything but atmosphere

  27. timmay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...millions of kilometers away; there's no chance to shoot down something that's already arrived."

    You lie! Superman could do it.
    And probably Dr. Evil.

  28. Russia is to meteors as by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    mobile homes are to tornadoes

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  29. asteroids read slashdot by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    The asteroid clearly read all the "we want to catch and mine an asteroid" stories on slashdot lately and was all like "Ok, I'm coming down"

  30. DNA Analysis of meteorite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists have confirmed that debris from the russian metorite contained 80% horse meat

  31. Unlucky asteroid tried to hit Chelyabinsk by Yomers · · Score: 1

    There are common jokes amongst Russians about people from Chelybinsk, similar to Chuck Norris jokes, basically it's a city populated by Chuck Norrises )

  32. Coinciding with 2012 DA14 by Senescent+Nerd · · Score: 1

    NASA has one expert stating that the flyby of asteroid 2012 DA14 is a once-in-forty-years event, and another expert stating that this Russian meteor/meteorite is a once-in-100-years event, and yet another expert asserting that the fact that these two events happened on the same day is a coincidence. Given that the standard statistician's definition of "highly significant" corresponds to a 1% chance of coincidence, and that one day out of 40 years is 0.007%, I think the probability that NASA has spoken hastily is greater than the probability that this was a coincidence.

    1. Re:Coinciding with 2012 DA14 by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Humans are terrible at estimating chance at a glance. Something tells me Nasa calculated those numbers, you on the other hand looked at them and decided they dont look random enough.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  33. Not the answer you are looking for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E = mc^2
    E = 1,000,00 kg * (299,792,458 m/s)^2
    E = 8.98755179 × 10^22 J

  34. Re:Further proof of global warming by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It would probably be helpful to google "global warming asteroid"

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  35. its ok D.C. can have first dibs on the next one by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Preferably schedule it for when Congress is in session - it wouldn't do much good right now.

  36. Other fears of the planets demise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am probably not going to get a response to this question, but!!!! I remember reading a couple years ago that Earths core of molten iron is expanding, of course outward. Having read this are there any scientists have bothered to predict the Earths demise not only thru, volcanic, asteroid/meteor, blackhole (longshot possibility), ect, but maybe because the planet may burn itself out (literally)? This could be something else that has lead to global warming as well, while I am sure /.'s blow off any other possible explanation or causes to global warming, is the Earths core something scientists are concerned with?

    1. Re:Other fears of the planets demise by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      No.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:Other fears of the planets demise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geologists are pretty interested in the heat output of Earth's interior and have been and currently are continuing measurements of such on the global scale. There are no signs of any changes in that quantity on the human timescale other than just improving error bars on the measurement, and it would not be enough heat to account for global warming unless Earth were in a perfect insulator that allowed zero heat to escape and all of the geologist's measurements were too small.

  37. hundreds of kilotons? no EMP? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one whose ears perked up at that? Hundreds of kT? Fat Man was only 20 kT.

    Luckily it exploded in the upper atmosphere, but hundreds of kT at ground level would be a BIG deal if got close to anything.

    Would those in the know explain why there wasn't significant EMP from the blast?

    1. Re:hundreds of kilotons? no EMP? by lachlan76 · · Score: 2

      EMP from a nuclear bomb occurs when gamma radiation ionises the upper atmosphere. A non-nuclear explosion does not produce gamma rays and so no EMP occurs.

    2. Re:hundreds of kilotons? no EMP? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      It's all heat energy, but not enough to ignite fission/fusion?

    3. Re:hundreds of kilotons? no EMP? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      No---the calculations were performed during the Manhattan project, and it was determined that the atmosphere could not sustain a fusion reaction. Furthermore, practically all of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of non-fissionable elements (that is to say, those that consume rather than release energy in a fission reaction).

    4. Re:hundreds of kilotons? no EMP? by Subjective · · Score: 1

      Where else would it explode?
      Did you expect it to move through the atmosphere at incredible speed without being affected, so it could explode lower down? Asteroids do not choose which part of the Earth to hit - there's atmosphere everywhere, and hence that's what they hit. The atmosphere compresses to create a bubble of heat and the asteroid burns up - explodes.
      As for EMP - this was not a nuclear explosion (which releases part of its energy directly as EM radiation). It was a mechanical explosion. Heat. Now a huge amount of heat does create EM radiation - just like something can glow red, then white, it will also glow in X-ray and eventually gamma rays (IANAP). But if there was enough energy to make an EMP, there would also be enough surviving material to hit the surface. And also we'd all be dead.

      --
      My other .sig is also this bad
  38. The history and current increase of meteors by electrostaticcarrot · · Score: 1

    According to the American Meteor Society, there were 2219 sighted meteors in 2012; in 2005 there were 463. With a roughly exponential increase in-between. (e.g. 1628 in 2011) Thus far this year - i.e. in one and a half month - there's been 322.

    There is historical evidence that impact events - including major ones - are not rare in human history. There's the research of Clube and Napier on the long-past break-up of a giant comet and the periodic intersection of Earth with its remains - and how fireballs and meteorites and their impact on societies seem to have led to religious developments. Recently, a new book by a historian - "Comets and the Horns of Moses" - was published on the subject of the history of cometary interaction with our planet, and both how it has affected life on Earth and how humanity has reacted to it. It goes into the evidence for repeated cometary catastrophes in the past and, looking at the history and the present, it goes into what seems likely to be coming up. I'd recommend it for the interested.

    http://www.amazon.com/Comets-Horns-Moses-Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/dp/1897244835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360956345&sr=8-1&keywords=comets+and+the+horns+of+moses

    1. Re:The history and current increase of meteors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you seriously trying to extrapolate the number of meteors based on the number of observations submitted to a website facing both growing popularity and growing population of internet users?

      Using similar methods, we can conclude that the population of cats has exploded exponentially in the last decade, and we should all be waist deep in cats shortly.

  39. Re:Further proof of global warming by lxs · · Score: 1

    My massive carbon footprint led to the resignation of the pope?
    Cool!

  40. Re:Further proof of global warming by lxs · · Score: 1

    That's easy! A warmed Globe expands thereby making it a bigger target.

  41. Re:And even then, we *don't* want to shoot it *dow by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Today's meteor event came a day after California scientists proposed a system to vaporize asteroids that threaten Earth.

    Hmm. Maybe they're not too hard to see after all. I mean, if I were going to propose an asteroid vaporization program, I'd want to do it around some event that would prove the program needs to be funded immediately...

    Well, there's part of the problem right there -- we don't want to shoot the things *down*, we want to shoot them *up* and *away*.

    Gee, I wonder who they have in mind to man this system. I mean, it would take some kind of super human eyesight to spot things moving faster than a speeding bullet. You'd need some type of heat-ray working with the optics in order to stop asteroids that are more powerful than a locomotive. They'd have to be able, willing, but most of all trustworthy enough that they wouldn't mess things up. Up and away, indeed...

    Do you know what the nickname for Jardarite is?
    Perhaps some comic books really are just thinly veiled cultural acclimation programs.

    Then again, if you already knew of an alien threat, you'd want to match their capabilities. The timing of the proposal and meteor events hint at a cunning on par with Lex Luther.

  42. Re:Further proof of global warming by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the Death Star is now operational?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  43. Re:Pantone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pus has a distinctive hue.

  44. Re:And even then, we *don't* want to shoot it *dow by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Shooting up and away would leave the thing intact -- into who knows what new orbit that may just now squarely intersect the planet rather than grazing. That's an iffy gamble at best.

  45. Re:Kiloton? Kessel Run? by Subjective · · Score: 1

    I have an issue with the 'spontaneous' in there - do you mean a deliberate explosion releases a different amount of energy? :)
    Actually, you mean if it all goes off at the same time. But that's not true either, I believe - you'd get the same amount of energy, over a longer period of time, by slowly decomposing the TNT

    --
    My other .sig is also this bad
  46. Re:Kiloton? Kessel Run? by tp1024 · · Score: 1

    You're right it's the wrong word. The point is, it is the decomposition of the stuff itself.

    When you are burning TNT with air (a perfectly safe thing to do, btw, so long as there is no primary explosive around), you'll get about ten times as much energy out of it.

  47. Re:Kiloton? Kessel Run? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. I didn't know that