Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronomers Catch Asteroid Striking Moon On Video

Posted by Soulskill on from the meteorite-indicted,-court-date-set dept.

spineas writes "A 4.5-foot-wide asteroid struck the moon in September 2013, and astronomers were lucky enough to catch the impact flash on video, now confirmed as the brightest ever witnessed from Earth. The Orlando Sentinel reports that the asteroid likely weighed nearly 900 pounds, and exploded on impact with the moon with the force of 15 tons of TNT."

13 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Way to go moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks for taking one for the team.

    1. Re:Way to go moon! by Ken_g6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for taking one for the team.

      I actually did a science fair project once testing whether the moon's gravity led to Earth getting hit with fewer asteroids. The effect was statistically insignificant.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    2. Re:Way to go moon! by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Funny

      A peer reviewed science fair project? I'm not sure if "Ken has cooties" and similar reviews from his peers would have contributed significantly.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  2. September of last year by paiute · · Score: 2

    The film just got mailed back to them from the camera shop.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:September of last year by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

      Cut them some slack. It takes a long time to spin up a cover story for what was obviously not a natural occurrence. It was actually a weapons test conducted by the

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    2. Re:September of last year by sadness203 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They could at least have added the sound, too...

    3. Re:September of last year by steelfood · · Score: 2

      If they wanted sound, they would've outsourced the production to Michael Bay.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  3. Re:How do we disable the beta so we can read the s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    My bookmark has said http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1 since before the Slashcott.

  4. Units by agm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems backwards that a scientific organisation still uses the archaic units of feet, pounds and miles when describing an event such as this.

    1. Re:Units by FranklinWebber · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first link in the summary leads to the Orlando Sentinel, which links to the full video from the Universidad de Huelva. That video estimates "400 kg, 0.6-1.4 m object, 40 m crater, 61000 km/h, 15 tons of TNT". The first three are SI units, the fourth closely related, and the fifth... well, "tons of TNT" dates from the 20th century so how can we call it archaic? It's the Orlando Sentinel who translates into those archaic English units for US-ers such as myself. In the second link in the summary Phil Plait goes so far as to translate the crater size into football fields, but perhaps we shouldn't fault him as that standard unit is neither "English" nor "archaic".

  5. For those who want to see the actual footage by AdamHaun · · Score: 4, Informative

    The video is almost five minutes long and mostly computer animations. Actual footage of the moon can be found in three segments:

    2:13 - 2:23 Examples of previous impact flashes
    3:00 - 3:08 Full-speed MIDAS video of the big flash
    3:20 - 3:30 Slow motion MIDAS video of the big flash

    --
    Visit the
  6. Re:Can someone please explain by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...Why this impact apparently emitted so much light?

    I get that the asteroid probably had a LOT of kinetic energy, but isn't it only in "Hollywood physics" that when two inert things collide you get a fiery explosion? .... and I'm even more surprised as it took place in a vacuum where my limetd understanding of conventional physics says fire cant happen...

    You're underestimating what "a lot of kinetic energy" is when you're talking about speeds measured in km per second - and kinetic energy goes with the square of the velocity.

    A lot of kinetic energy gets transformed into a lot of heat. Hot things give off light (they don't need to be "on fire") - fire gives off light because it is hot. A light bulb gives off light but it isn't on fire - but it is hot. Lightning isn't on fire. The sun isn't on fire. Probably what you see is most of the asteroid (and a chunk of the moon) getting turned into a plume of superhot gas, if not plasma.

    No Hollywood physics involved, or there would have been a loud 'kaboom' at exactly the same time as the flash, a perfectly circular blue shockwave ring shooting out from the moon and Harrison Ford in a fridge.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  7. Re:Can someone please explain by Deadstick · · Score: 2

    What itsdapead said. Hot things glow. Very hot things glow very brightly. When that much kinetic energy gets turned into heat, things get very hot indeed.

    Turn on a light bulb and watch what the filament does. It's in a vacuum. Do you see any combustibles being burned up? Do you see any light?