Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Happy 100th Tunguska (6-30-08)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
graham - 30 Jun 2008 14:36 GMT
The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe though
that it has ever been really explained how either could completely
destroy itself in midair in an explosion of 15 MT yield, even with
the high kinetic energy involved.
Spaceman - 30 Jun 2008 15:33 GMT
> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe
> though that it has ever been really explained how either could
> completely destroy itself in midair in an explosion of 15 MT yield,
> even with
> the high kinetic energy involved.

It was Tesla.
Painius - 30 Jun 2008 20:27 GMT
>> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
>> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> It was Tesla.

It was Tesla.

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

Spaceman - 30 Jun 2008 20:46 GMT
>>> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
>>> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> It was Tesla.

It is pretty hard to find "electrons" that caused such an explosion
though, so we may never have physical proof.
:(
Painius - 01 Jul 2008 16:19 GMT
>>>> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
>>>> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> though, so we may never have physical proof.
> :(

Electrons?  Tesla was way beyond electrons.  That
story was leaked just to throw people off Tesla's trail.
Didn't work, though.

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

Painius - 03 Jul 2008 08:44 GMT
>>>>> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
>>>>> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> story was leaked just to throw people off Tesla's trail.
> Didn't work, though.

The thing is... the thing people don't seem to get is...

Nikola Tesla did not cause Tunguska. Indeed, he actually
*minimized* the enormous amount of potential GLOBAL
damage by destroying the meteor before it impacted.

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

G=EMC^2 Glazier - 03 Jul 2008 14:19 GMT
Painius   Its possible it was the last of the ice comets that hit
Tungusika.  Ice comets are so rare that when they do hit we have nothing
to relate their explosion with. Its not like a meteorite crater. Its a
great explosion high off the ground.  Its more like a paper bag filled
with water. Water can do a disappearing act  Bert
oldcoot - 03 Jul 2008 18:27 GMT
> Its possible it was the last of the ice comets that hit
> Tunguska.  Ice comets are so rare that when they do hit we have nothing
> to relate their explosion with. Its not like a meteorite crater. Its a
> great explosion high off the ground.  Its more like a paper bag filled
> with water. Water can do a disappearing act.

Hey the "iceball" theory would make the Tunguska event essentially a
steam explosion.
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 03 Jul 2008 19:42 GMT
oc  Great thinking. The water was incased in the comets crust.
Atmosphere friction fits well since it was coming in at 25,000 mph.  It
came down 180.  oc I relate this to a boiler with unbreakable walls that
explode because they have meet a pressure of unbelievable great force.
My clue was the great explosive noise,and you gave the reason. The power
of steam.  Could I share a part of the Nobel with you?  You take the
statue and I'll take the bucks.   I think that is fair   I'll let you
borrow half a million interest free. I think that's also fair.
Your a clever thinker  Have a nice 4th   Bert
Double-A - 03 Jul 2008 20:44 GMT
> oc  Great thinking. The water was incased in the comets crust.
> Atmosphere friction fits well since it was coming in at 25,000 mph.  It
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> borrow half a million interest free. I think that's also fair.
> Your a clever thinker  Have a nice 4th   Bert

He might get more for the statue on eBay than what you would get!
Lots of wealthy cranks would love to have that statue on their
mantles!

Double-A
oldcoot - 03 Jul 2008 21:15 GMT
Hell Bert, suppose the Tunguska impactor was an iceball. Compared to a
stony or iron object of equivalent mass coming in at the same speed
and on the same trajectory, the iceball would flash to superheated
steam. Seems like this would yield a hugely greater expansion and
'Bang' than the non-iceball objects.
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 03 Jul 2008 22:39 GMT
oc You are soooooo right  It fits   Bert
oldcoot - 04 Jul 2008 12:59 GMT
> Hell Bert, suppose the Tunguska impactor was an iceball. Compared to a
> stony or iron object of equivalent mass coming in at the same speed
> and on the same trajectory, the iceball would flash to superheated
> steam. Seems like this would yield a hugely greater expansion and
> 'Bang' than the non-iceball objects.

Just to elaborate a bit more, the reasoning goes like this : compare
an iceball to an iron object of the same mass. Both are approaching
the atmosphere at the same speed and on the same trajectory. The
iceball is much less dense and has greater volume, so it presents a
larger surface area. When it hits the atmosphere, deceleration is much
quicker, surface ablation much faster, heating-through and
vaporization much faster. The rise-time of the blast impulse is
shorter, thus packing higher peak energy and peak amplitude into the
blast impulse, concentrating it into a shorter path along the
trajectory.
                  By contrast, the iron object, being much more
compact and dense, presents a smaller surface area. Thus deceleration
is slower, surface ablation and heating-through slower, and
vaporization slower. Rise-time of the detonation is slower, giving it
lower peak energy and amplitude, and spreading it out on a longer
path.
                   Total energy dissipated in both cases would be the
same, but the iron object's would be more spread out on the time and
amplitude domains.. thus yielding a smaller and more protracted
'boom' (or series of booms).
                   Now a stony object would lie somewhere between the
iceball and the iron object in terms of its 'boom(s)', provided the
velocity, mass, and trajectory are all the same.
                   Just purely speculatin' of course.  :-)
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 01 Jul 2008 11:40 GMT
It was a microscopic BH   Bert
Luigi Caselli - 01 Jul 2008 13:36 GMT
> It was a microscopic BH   Bert

Why not a little software bug?

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337

Luigi Caselli
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 01 Jul 2008 21:08 GMT
Luigi (of Rome) Where have you been? We were thinking of you. My idea
was with petrol selling in Italy at over 8 bucks a gallon you must be
working night and day just to use your ferrari to go to work.    Yes a
tiny BH fits and their is evidence to show how it fits.  Bert
Luigi Caselli - 01 Jul 2008 22:06 GMT
> Luigi (of Rome) Where have you been? We were thinking of you. My idea
> was with petrol selling in Italy at over 8 bucks a gallon you must be
> working night and day just to use your ferrari to go to work.    Yes a
> tiny BH fits and their is evidence to show how it fits.  Bert

I'm from Milan not Rome and, yes, I spend all my money for gasoline...
So I've just sold my Ferrari and bought a japanese car...
:-)

Luigi Caselli
Saul Levy - 03 Jul 2008 23:44 GMT
No one believes that, BEERTbrain!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>It was a microscopic BH   Bert
Sam Wormley - 30 Jun 2008 16:12 GMT
> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe though
> that it has ever been really explained how either could completely
> destroy itself in midair in an explosion of 15 MT yield, even with
> the high kinetic energy involved.

*100 Years of Space Rock: The Tunguska Impact*
  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1769

At around 7:17 on the morning of June 30, 1908, a man based at the
trading post at Vanavara in Siberia is sitting on his front porch. In a
moment, 40 miles from the center of an immense blast of unknown origin,
he will be hurled from his chair and the heat will be so intense he will
feel as though his shirt is on fire. The man at the trading post, and
others in a largely uninhabited region of Siberia, near the Podkamennaya
Tunguska River, are to be accidental eyewitnesses to cosmological history.

"If you want to start a conversation with anyone in the asteroid
business all you have to say is Tunguska," said Don Yeomans, manager of
the Near-Earth Object Office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "It is
the only entry of a large meteoroid we have in the modern era with
first-hand accounts."

While the impact occurred in '08, the first scientific expedition to the
area would have to wait for 19 years. In 1921, Leonid Kulik, the chief
curator for the meteorite collection of the St. Petersburg museum led an
expedition to Tunguska. But the harsh conditions of the Siberian outback
thwarted his team's attempt to reach the area of the blast. In 1927, a
new expedition, again lead by Kulik, reached its goal.

"At first, the locals were reluctant to tell Kulik about the event,"
said Yeomans. "They believed the blast was a visitation by the god Ogdy,
who had cursed the area by smashing trees and killing animals."

While testimonials may have at first been difficult to obtain, there was
plenty of evidence lying around. Eight hundred square miles of remote
forest had been ripped asunder. Eighty million trees were on their
sides, lying in a radial pattern.

"Those trees acted as markers, pointing directly away from the blast's
epicenter," said Yeomans. "Later, when the team arrived at ground zero,
they found the trees there standing upright -- but their limbs and bark
had been stripped away. They looked like a forest of telephone poles."

Such debranching requires fast moving shock waves that break off a
tree's branches before the branches can transfer the impact momentum to
the tree's stem. Thirty seven years after the Tunguska blast, branchless
trees would be found at the site of another massive explosion --
Hiroshima, Japan.

Kulik's expeditions (he traveled to Tunguska on three separate
occasions) did finally get some of the locals to talk. One was the man
based at the Vanara trading post who witnessed the heat blast as he was
launched a few yards. His account:

/Suddenly in the north sky… the sky was split in two, and high above the
forest the whole northern part of the sky appeared covered with fire… At
that moment there was a bang in the sky and a mighty crash… The crash
was followed by a noise like stones falling from the sky, or of guns
firing. The earth trembled. /

The massive explosion packed a wallop. The resulting seismic shockwave
registered with sensitive barometers as far away as England. Dense
clouds formed over the region at high altitudes which reflected sunlight
from beyond the horizon. Night skies glowed, and reports came in that
people who lived as far away as Asia could read newspapers outdoors as
late as midnight. Locally, hundreds of reindeer, the livelihood of local
herders, were killed, but there was no direct evidence that any person
perished in the blast.

"A century later some still debate the cause and come up with different
scenarios that could have caused the explosion," said Yeomans. "But the
generally agreed upon theory is that on the morning of June 30, 1908, a
large space rock, about 120 feet across, entered the atmosphere of
Siberia and then detonated in the sky."

It is estimated the asteroid entered Earth's atmosphere traveling at a
speed of about 33,500 miles per hour. During its quick plunge, the
220-million-pound space rock heated the air surrounding it to 44,500
degrees Fahrenheit. At 7:17 a.m. (local Siberia time), at a height of
about 28,000 feet, the combination of pressure and heat caused the
asteroid to fragment and annihilate itself, producing a fireball and
releasing energy equivalent to about 185 Hiroshima bombs.

"That is why there is no impact crater," said Yeomans. "The great
majority of the asteroid is consumed in the explosion."

Yeomans and his colleagues at JPL's Near-Earth Object Office are tasked
with plotting the orbits of present-day comets and asteroids that cross
Earth's path, and could be potentially hazardous to our planet.

Yeomans estimates that, on average, a Tunguska-sized asteroid will enter
Earth's atmosphere once every 300 years. On this 100^th anniversary of
the Tunguska event, does that mean we have 200 years of largely
meteor-free skies?

"Not necessarily," said Yeomans. "The 300 years between Tunguska-sized
events is an average based on our best science. I think about Tunguska
all the time from a scientific point of view, but the thought of a
another Tunguska does not keep me up at night."
Sam Wormley - 30 Jun 2008 23:57 GMT
> The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
> is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet.   I don't believe though
> that it has ever been really explained how either could completely
> destroy itself in midair in an explosion of 15 MT yield, even with
> the high kinetic energy involved.

NASA Science News for June 30, 2008

One hundred years after the Tunguska event in Siberia, scientists review what they've
learned about the mysterious blast from the heavens.

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30jun_tunguska.htm?list89139

Check out our RSS feed at http://science.nasa.gov/rss.xml!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.