Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Asteroid Impacts Found In Central Australia

schwit1 writes Scientists doing geothermal research in Australia have discovered evidence of what they think is the largest known impact zone from an meteorite on Earth. The zone is thought to be about 250 miles across, and suggests the bolide split in two pieces each about 6 miles across before impact. The uncertainty is that the evidence for this impact is quite tentative: "The exact date of the impacts remains unclear. The surrounding rocks are 300 to 600 million years old, but evidence of the type left by other meteorite strikes is lacking. For example, a large meteorite strike 66 million years ago sent up a plume of ash which is found as a layer of sediment in rocks around the world. The plume is thought to have led to the extinction of a large proportion of the life on the planet, including many dinosaur species. However, a similar layer has not been found in sediments around 300 million years old, Dr Glikson said. 'It's a mystery – we can't find an extinction event that matches these collisions. I have a suspicion the impact could be older than 300 million years,' he said."

74 comments

  1. Not Surprising by organgtool · · Score: 4, Funny

    It wouldn't be surprising if this is true - Australia is already the home of the deadliest form of everything else on this planet.

    1. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be fair if Australia didn't have some down sides.

    2. Re:Not Surprising by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The animals really aren't downsides, they keep the tourist population in check.... well them and the insane prices for everything here.

    3. Re:Not Surprising by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      God, having realised what he wrought, tried to destroy it. Unfortunately Australia had grown too powerful by then.

  2. Gulf of Mexico ? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    There was a theory that the Gulf of Mexico is a meteor crater. About 1000 miles across.

    1. Re:Gulf of Mexico ? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure where you got that one. The only credible theory related to it is the Chicxulub crater, which is on the Southern edge of the Gulf, near the Yucatan Peninsula. That's what's left by the impact that many believe killed most of the dinosaurs, as well as many other species. It's not even close to the size of the whole Gulf. What theories are you talking about?

    2. Re:Gulf of Mexico ? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil-hat type.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:Gulf of Mexico ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be fair, I did say there was a theory. Until somebody actually looked into it it. I guess in hindsight "theory" was too strong a word. It was a, um, hypotenuse or something.

    4. Re:Gulf of Mexico ? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got that one [that the Gulf of Mexico is an impact crater]. The only credible theory related to it is the Chicxulub crater, which is on the Southern edge of the Gulf ........... What theories are you talking about?

      I had heard of it, not sure how. This is Wikipedia (under Gulf of Mexico):-

      In 2002 geologist Michael Stanton published a speculative essay suggesting an impact origin for the Gulf of Mexico at the close of the Permian, ...... However, Gulf Coast geologists do not regard this hypothesis as having any credibility. Instead they overwhelmingly accept plate tectonics...... This hypothesis is not to be confused with the Chicxulub Crater

      I did not say I supported the theory, only that it was suggested. I am not a geologist. Clearly it is now out of favour.

    5. Re: Gulf of Mexico ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word you are looking for is hypothesis.

    6. Re: Gulf of Mexico ? by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

      no leave it at hypotenuse; it lends the appropriate amount of sillyness to the idea.

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    7. Re: Gulf of Mexico ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no leave it at hypotenuse; it lends the appropriate amount of sillyness to the idea.

      Yes, that was my point. I'm amazed* that the other poster "corrected" me.

      *not actually amazed at all. This is the internet.

  3. The moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looking at how pockmarked the moon is with well preserved craters, I wouldn't be surprised if large impacts weren't far more frequent than we estimate (on geological timescales). As for the missing sediment from this impact, maybe the dating is wrong?

    1. Re:The moon by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except, the moon has no atmosphere to burn up all the smaller meteors. Here on Earth anything that reaches the surface had to start out big. Since there are more small asteroids than big ones it's much less likely we will get a surface impact compared to the moon.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:The moon by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Consider the number of craters over a mile across on the Moon.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:The moon by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Consider that the moon has 1/6th of Earth's gravity so stuff is going to fly much further (6x) for the same energy.

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

      The moon acts as a partial shield for the earth, the moon also has no atmosphere to deflect or burn up meteors. something north of 99% are burnt up by the atmosphere.

    5. Re:The moon by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you figured out why I mentioned 1 mile crater rather then 800 ft crater.
      While it is true that certain types of meteorites burn up or disintegrate, many are chondrites, stony or iron. Lots of small iron meteorites have been found, along with slightly bigger stony and chondrites. The biggest difference between the Earth and Moon is that the smaller meteorites hit at terminal velocity and don't create much more then a pit.
      The Earth, while obviously not getting many micro-meteor hits, does get hit by a fair amount of meteorites.
      Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:The moon by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      The moon is nearly microscopically small when used as a shield for the earth.

    7. Re:The moon by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Most of the Moon's craters formed during the Late Heavy Bombardment period (3.8-4.0 billion years ago). The Earth was likely similarly impacted during this time, however on the Earth, geologic processes have erased almost all evidence of these. Oceanic crust is recycled every 200 odd million years, and there wasn't much continental crust during that period. Any crust that remains has been weathered, eroded, uplifted, folded, compressed, a dozen times. The Moon being geologically dead, and lacking any weather, retains these scars

  4. Metric by labnet · · Score: 2, Informative

    Would you please stop freaking using imperial units. The rest of the world has moved on, and /. Should of all places be setting an example.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The biggest and most powerful military force in the world says imperial units are just fine.

    2. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the zone was about 40 hectometers across, each half of the bolide about 1 hectometer. Happy ?

    3. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is using United States customary units, not Imperial units.

    4. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops went the wrong way with the decimal points oh well, thats what happens when u complain.

    5. Re:Metric by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Funny

      The biggest and most powerful military force in the world says imperial units are just fine.

      Which, presumably, is why we use 5.56mm rounds in our rifles, 9mm rounds in our pistols, 7.62mm in our machineguns, 60mm, 81mm & 107mm mortar rounds, 105mm, 155mm & 203mm artillery, 120mm tank guns, 25mm IFV guns, and an assortment of artillery rockets in various SI calibers, right?

      That said, if a mile was good enough for Big Julie, it's good enough for me. And multiplying by 1.6 isn't really all that stressful to those of us bright enough to handle decimal points....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Metric by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought the US military uses "klicks" (which is a kilometer) rather than miles.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest and most powerful military force in the world says imperial units are just fine.

      Clint Eastwood, is that you?

    8. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a while there in the Seventies and Eighties, it looked like metric had a chance to take over even the USA.
      Then the small computers arrived, and most mental calculation became obsolete. The advantage of everything being base 10 is no longer relevant.
      Sure, most Americans have no intuition for Celsius and kilometers, and most furriners don't grok our units, but the machines know the answer.

    9. Re:Metric by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the failed Mars Climate Orbiter. If we'd settled on one set of units (either would be fine) it probably wouldn't have been lost.

    10. Re:Metric by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      US military is mostly metric.

    11. Re:Metric by houghi · · Score: 2

      I believe he was talking about the Imperial Army

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Metric by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      French army with metric units: Gets their asses kicked by the Germans.

      US Army with imperial units: Kicks the Germans' asses.

      Coincidence? I think not!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Metric by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. The biggest and most powerful military force in the world uses metric units (with a few exceptions). It's the civilians that cling to imperial units.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    14. Re:Metric by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Convert that 5.56mm or 7.62 mm to inches and you will find two very common caliber rounds.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:Metric by war4peace · · Score: 1

      No, just retarded logic.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    16. Re:Metric by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      we use 5.56mm rounds in our rifles, 9mm rounds in our pistols, 7.62mm in our machineguns, 60mm, 81mm & 107mm mortar rounds, 105mm, 155mm & 203mm artillery, 120mm tank guns, 25mm IFV guns,

      That's a metric fuckton of metric...

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    17. Re:Metric by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      And multiplying by 1.6 isn't really all that stressful to those of us bright enough to handle decimal points....

      It would have been much neater if they could have just made the mile a nice, round 1.5km ... ;)

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    18. Re:Metric by Mattcelt · · Score: 2

      No, I'm fairly certain the Chinese Army uses metric units, not imperial.

    19. Re:Metric by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When did the US army start using Imperial units? Imperial gallon = 160 fl ozs = 4.54 litres, one of many English gallons= 128 fl ozs = 3.78 litres. IIRC you used a weird sized inch as well which after switching to the Canadian inch of 25.4 mm back in the '50's, lives on as the surveyors inch.
      Besides everyone knows it was the Russian army that kicked the Germans arse.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re:Metric by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      You mean the metric names of the .223 Remington in our rifles and .308 Winchester machine gun rounds. The 81mm mortar originally was Stoke's 3 in. mortar (barrel diameter 3.2") The 107mm originally was 4.2 inch M2 mortar, the improved M30 version went to the metric units. 120mm was 4.7" 155mm was 6.1", 203mm is the renamed 8 inch howitzer.

    21. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did the Soviet army use? There is no such thing as a coincidence, tovarich!

    22. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, which means the US Army uses metric units NOW. So what was your point again?

    23. Re:Metric by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Who is that?
      The biggest military is the China, and they use metric.
      The most powerful is debatable. If recent history is anything to go by, then it could be any number of goat herder tribes that continually embarrass much larger foe.

    24. Re:Metric by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      And multiplying by 1.6 isn't really all that stressful to those of us bright enough to handle decimal points....

      But it's not just 1.6. Sometimes it's 2.54, or it could be 4.18, or 2.2, or 0.746. Why even bother?

    25. Re:Metric by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Convert that 5.56mm or 7.62 mm to inches and you will find two very common caliber rounds.

      Yep. It's not all that hard to label a round with SI AND Imperial units both.

      Do note that 5.56mm is NOT equal to .223, nor is 7.62mm equal to .308. It's all about supply chains - you're less likely to get a million rounds that don't fit your guns if you give each of the many (for instance) .30 caliber rounds a different label (.30-06, .30-40, .308, to give a few examples).

      It should also be noted that the 5.56/7.62 labels were the original labels, not the .223/.308.

      And try to ignore that bullet diameters are measured differently in Europe than in the USA (between the lands and between the grooves, respectively, as I recall), so 7.62mm (measured the way they do in Europe) is larger than 7,62mm (measured the way they do in the USA). Luckily, 7.62mm NATO isn't actually 7.62mm the way either of them is measured....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the people who invented the Imperial system had a decent approximation to the Earth's circumference, unlike the French.

      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=efc_gR1QM-oC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=metrology+the+ancient+science+of+measuring+the+world&source=bl&ots=yTtFMJpNVA&sig=NEwL_WNByLg3GrEj153v0ukABOA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qGARVcnwDYLfasCegcAC&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=metrology%20the%20ancient%20science%20of%20measuring%20the%20world&f=false

    27. Re:Metric by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Or an inability to recognize a joke?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:Metric by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Let me rephrase.
      No, just retarded joke.

      Better?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    29. Re: Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have thought shooting needed more precision than 1.6.

    30. Re:Metric by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      The replies are to claim that weapons / ammo the U.S. military uses show that even they are one hundred percent "metric-fied" like the rest of the world. No they aren't, they just slapped metric units onto Imperial unit designed weapons ex post facto. Heck, some of the weapons still have imperial unit designations, like 50 BMG and 50 cal anti-aircraft guns

    31. Re:Metric by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Marginally. You seem to be suffering from imbalance of humor.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:Metric by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the additional info. I was not aware that the calibers were originally metric.

      Also, I love your sig. I wish several people on this board felt that way on various topics.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    33. Re:Metric by Trogre · · Score: 1

      China uses imperial units?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    34. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most powerful military force is definitely the US. The "goat herders" are not a uniformed military force, and the only reason they can "embarrass" a much larger foe is because the US hasn't resorted to total war.

      That being said, China does have a larger (in terms of personnel) military.

  5. You call THAT a crater, Yucatan? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Couldn't resist.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  6. Need a name? by Nate+the+greatest · · Score: 1

    If they haven't named the craers yet, I suggest we call them Mel Gibson's career.

    1. Re:Need a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that only happened AFTER he left Oz

  7. We guess it is x million years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was x number years ago. but really we have no clue. But we are Scientists so everything we say is true. But by the way. We built a way to measure years off a flawed systems.

  8. Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would certainly explain this, the world's most devastating extinction event.

  9. What about the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What about the moon? I thought we had all agreed that its formation was the biggest collision Earth had encountered? It was pretty much the largest that Earth could survive and still be mostly recognizable.

  10. Impact from the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could likely be it.

  11. Re:TAILS Linux 1.3.1 is out (March 23, 2015) by MrKaos · · Score: 0

    Why not just post a story instead of being OT? I mean a new Tails version is actually 'news for nerds' so why post it in a story about an impact crater? Are you saying that this release is so good that it caused an impact crater hundreds of millions of years ago.

    Please there is enough stoopid in the world - we don't need it here.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  12. Snowball - now the cause has been found by Thorfinn.au · · Score: 3, Interesting

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... about 650My ago Earth looked like the planet Hoth (StarWars 5) with the southern ice cap and the northern ice cap almost meeting, a large asteroid hit would produce much dust and give impetus to such and event.

    1. Re:Snowball - now the cause has been found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the asteroid saved the planet from completely frosting over by melting the surface with the global pizza oven temperatures, cooked dinosaur style.. Now that we are throwing time estimates and hypotheses. The current Australia, was it somewhere near the equator at the time, by any change?

  13. worlds largest ! really ? by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    250 miles or 400 km is smaller than the Golf of Mexico crater, the Hudson'bay crater.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
    1. Re:worlds largest ! really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't mention the Golf of Mexico sand trap, it took me forever to get out of there!

  14. Pssss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't caused by "Global Warming" and did not cause "Climate Change"!!!!!!!

    Ha ha

  15. Re:Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

    Not if the asteroid hit between 300 and 600 million years old, and the Permian-Triassic boundary is at 252. The other issue is that people have already looked for signals of impact at the P-Tr boundary- iridium, shocked quartz, spherules like you get with the Chicxulub impact that wiped out the dinosaurs- and found nothing. The leading hypothesis right now is that massive volcanic eruption drove the P-Tr extinction.

  16. Summary is wrong, as usual by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

    Long time ago I have read about. The crater was known about for many years now. But for it to be registered officially as an impact crater, they had to find the impact center and let other scientists review the work. When I read about it, they found the suspected impact center and were preparing for drilling. From the TFA, it seems that they have finally dug up the evidence, but I see no mention of it being officially confirmed.

    Crater wasn't found. They have just dug up and analyzed the first samples. No mention of it being "confirmed". Though Wikipedia still lists it as unconfirmed.

    For more info see: (excluding the "unconfirmed structures") List of impact craters on Earth, Earth Impact DB , (uncluding the unconfirmed ones) impact craters in Australia.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.