Well that sounds all good, but consider what the NASA website says about their figures:
"Diameter - This is an estimate, based on the absolute magnitude, and assuming a uniform spherical body with visual albedo pV = 0.154. Since the albedo is rarely well determined the diameter estimate should be considered quite rough, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two.
"Mass - This estimate assumes a uniform spherical body with the computed diameter and a mass density of 2.6 g/cm3. The mass estimate is somewhat more rough than the diameter estimate, but generally will be accurate to within a factor of three."
Combining the two uncertainties means that the mass of the rock could vary by a factor of six or more. Then there's the angle of impact, adding even more uncertainty. Wanna run those figures again?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that sounds all good, but consider what the NASA website says about their figures:
"Diameter - This is an estimate, based on the absolute magnitude, and assuming a uniform spherical body with visual albedo pV = 0.154. Since the albedo is rarely well determined the diameter estimate should be considered quite rough, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two.
"Mass - This estimate assumes a uniform spherical body with the computed diameter and a mass density of 2.6 g/cm3. The mass estimate is somewhat more rough than the diameter estimate, but generally will be accurate to within a factor of three."
Combining the two uncertainties means that the mass of the rock could vary by a factor of six or more. Then there's the angle of impact, adding even more uncertainty. Wanna run those figures again?