Subject: 7mile long rock near miss on earth app 4-7-10
Date: Mon Apr 12 14:38:16 2010
User: clyon
Message:did i just dream this tid bit of news are did it really happen?
Date: Mon Apr 12 14:51:17 2010
User: firenze
Message:Really happened. Came within the distance of the moon.
Date: Mon Apr 12 18:57:27 2010
User: clyon
Message:thank you firenze! my news tv stations are more interested in the cowboy dome comeing down, than someting important. or the fools don t know
Date: Mon Apr 12 21:04:15 2010
User: !_--FAST-ISHAM--_
Message:No wonder it was so windy on April 7th.
Date: Tue Apr 13 12:11:34 2010
User: CawthraGuy
Message:METER !!! not Mile! http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/close.html
only off by three orders of magnitude!
Date: Tue Apr 13 13:32:32 2010
User: clyon
Message:my news source was catch as catch can. still it could have killed big lizards or little people. i am not even sure of date. but for the wind i had badddd gas all week.
Date: Tue Apr 13 13:33:02 2010
User: firenze
Message:Seven meters is still behemothra.
Date: Tue Apr 13 13:43:05 2010
User: poptart
Message:I am going to have to buy a truck load of depends!
Date: Tue Apr 13 13:53:03 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:I would have responded to that, but I was in the bathroom changing.
Date: Tue Apr 13 14:14:10 2010
User: TNmountainman
Message:Thank you, CawthraGuy. I was dumbfounded that a 7-mile rock miss wouldn't have been bigger news. A 7-meter rock would more likely have been 'merely' a meteor/meteorite/fireball......
Closer to 2 orders of magnitude than 3, but still.....
Date: Tue Apr 13 14:35:26 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:According to the linked article, the rock that passed the earth within the moon's orbit in 2009 was "Tunguska-size." I will post again with a link to the "Tunguska Event" of 1909.
Link: Tunguska-size space rock
Date: Tue Apr 13 14:43:47 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:The messenger from space that devastated such a large are of Siberia in 1909 apparently air-burst before actually striking the earth. But as the military knows, the most damage is caused by an air burst.
In this case, the location of "impact" was probably fortunate for us earthlings. While striking over a heavily populated area would be incalculably worse, perhaps the worst of all would be an ocean impact or burst.
Link: Tunguska Event
Date: Tue Apr 13 16:16:47 2010
User: CawthraGuy
Message:AS BEST i FIGURE, 7 miles is about 11,000 meters & well above 3 orders of magnitude from 7 ( 70, 700, 7000 )
hARD TO DEFINE 'WORST', probably less dust or seismic activity than a ground strike, and hey, losing a billion or two might be a good thing for the planet.
Date: Tue Apr 13 17:16:25 2010
User: roo
Message:The Tunguska event happened on 30 June 1908.
Date: Tue Apr 13 17:25:32 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:True, roo. Thanks for the correction of my typo. I never caught that!
Date: Tue Apr 13 17:34:03 2010
User: TNmountainman
Message:My bad about the orders of magnitude, CawthraGuy. Was doing it quickly in my head...
And we don't *really* know what happened at Tunguska. An air explosion of a meteorite is the most likely, but only in recent history has that theory gained high credibility.
I don't understand why you would say, Snowguy, that an above-ocean explosion (assuming that's what you meant) would be worse than an above-land explosion? That seems to me, on the surface (pun intended), to be much less bothersome.....
Date: Tue Apr 13 17:42:35 2010
User: CawthraGuy
Message:over water would create a HUGE tsunami, of dinosaur killer magnitude, over land would only affect the immediate area
and as I said before, human deaths would be a net gain for the planet, a tidal wave could have major effects on the entire ecosystem.
Date: Tue Apr 13 17:51:23 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:My understanding is the heat and impact would cause a massive explosion of steam as well as creating a temporary outward push that would force huge tsunami waves to all borders of that ocean and inland. I read the waves could devastate hundreds of miles inland. Then, the "hole" created by the conversion of water to steam, as well as the explosive impact, is filled, with the water rushing back in. The entire ocean would be destabilized, on top of the devastation to all coastal nations. Finally, the heat, steam, and tsunamis would pretty much devastate the oceanic life and its ability to support life, as well as our own lives. Coral would be lost. Entire food chains would be disrupted, within the ocean and without. This would include damaging the ocean's ability to contain greenhouse gases. Also, it's my understanding that the millions of gallons of water's worth of steam billowing upward could have untoward atmospheric effects. (Greenhouse effects, again, for example, or if severe enough reduction of sunlight reaching the earth.)
Immediate devastation would take minutes to days, the after-effects would last for years (in coastal countries especially) and possibly decades for teh world at large. (Or that's in essence what I once read.)
Date: Tue Apr 13 17:55:44 2010
User: firenze
Message:CawthraGuy said.
"and as I said before, human deaths would be a net gain for the planet........"
Following that logic, a few of well placed nuclear explosions would also be a net gain for the planet.
Date: Tue Apr 13 18:10:26 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:Caw posted while I was trying to recall the details of what I once read. Thanks!
Date: Wed Apr 14 01:18:30 2010
User: TNmountainman
Message:Snowguy, you use the word "impact", and I was assuming we were hypothesizing an above-water disintegration/explosion.
As big as Tunguska was, I have a hard time imagining the ocean, especially over a deep spot, not to a considerable degree 'absorbing' or mitigating such an event. Certainly, though, I can imagine a moderate tsunami. Of course this is all speculation........thankfully.......
Date: Wed Apr 14 02:49:06 2010
User: !_--FAST-ISHAM--_
Message:clyon,clyon -you had a bit more than baddd gas there. Sounds like your 7-mile long destroyer of civilization has apparently just become the biggest loser. Now I know where all that wind came from!
Date: Wed Apr 14 05:36:31 2010
User: !_--FAST-ISHAM--_
Message:A 7m(22ft)rock,if surviving the atmospheric entry, wouldve did something. A 7-mile(11km)chunk if surviving entry wouldve ENDED EVERYTHING,for quite a distance!
Date: Wed Apr 14 06:17:41 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:True, about the above-ground Tunguska-like event.
But in my original post, I theorized: "While striking over a heavily populated area would be incalculably worse, perhaps the worst of all would be an ocean impact or burst."
While I have no idea how an ocean would absorb the heat and concussion of an air burst, I think I was thinking more impact.
Here's a scenario of an ocean impact I just found. (The meteorite is bigger than that of Tunguska, I believe.) The event occurs on March 16, 2880. In any case, an oceanic impact of any size would have a severely damaging or potentially devastating effect on the oceanic ecosystem, with consequences for the rest of us, beyond the physical effects of tsunamis.
Of course, there is still some question of what exactly caused the Tunguska event. A meteorite, a comet, a UFO, etc. Just a good thing for us it hit in a remote region of Siberia. Reports indicate people were knocked off their feet hundreds of miles away by the concussive wave effects.
Link: Oceanic impact
Date: Wed Apr 14 07:52:16 2010
User: Snowguy
Message:"A 7m(22ft)rock,if surviving the atmospheric entry, wouldve did something. A 7-mile(11km)chunk if surviving entry wouldve ENDED EVERYTHING,for quite a distance!"
It's possible a 7-mile across asteroid impact anywhere on earth would be a "global killer". Of course the earth itself would survive, but most of the species possibly would not. (Because of the immediate effects of the impact, the "nuclear winter" that might ensue, and the cost to each surviving species' food chain.)
Most of our food chains start in the oceans or in vegetation, and a break in any food chain, at the source or along the way, would be very damaging to those higher up. Of course, in most instances humans are at the top of the chain. A global killer is definitely a possibility.
Date: Fri Aug 12 14:04:57 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:Tonight is/are the Perseid shower, although a full moon will be in the way until sometime after 2 AM, Eastern US time......
Date: Fri Aug 12 14:20:57 2011
User: firenze
Message:Sorry, I prefer to take my showers a little later in the morning.
Date: Fri Aug 12 15:07:53 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:As long as it's before dawn, you'll be fine....
Date: Sat Aug 13 07:47:17 2011
User: .!.
Message:I prefer the November Leonids. Perseids always seem to bomb. So,what did you see,Tennessee?
Date: Sat Aug 13 19:06:47 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:I saw several, including, I think, the largest meteor I've ever seen. It was one of those that you think "that may even hit the ground". It was just after 10 PM, Eastern time, and was in the west, streaking from North to South. It looked like a cinder that was sort of rolling forward as it streaked. It was orange and huge. So big that it wasn't just a point. Probably covered nearly the entire breadth of the visible sky before going out, and it took, I'd say, 4-5 seconds, which is an eternity for meteors. I was pretty stunned, actually...
I was fortunate that for the first couple of hours after dark, a cloud bank mostly obscured the rising full moon, making it better. I've had several 'bomb' Perseid experiences, too, but on the other hand, the three or so best showers of my life were Perseids, too. I like the Dec one best, but dang it's cold. Last year here the Leonids were great, I must say - a pleasant surprise.
Date: Sat Aug 13 20:12:17 2011
User: .!.
Message:Okay,Im jealous. Cant say Ive even seen ONE Persied,much less several. Not sure which way the sky moves at night,but that western "meteor" you saw at 10pm doesnt seem to be a Perseid. Maybe just a lucky find. The orange part is strange. Who knows,maybe it was that experimental super-weapon lost a few days back.
Date: Sat Aug 13 20:25:58 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:It hasn't been rare in my experience to see colored meteors. Not common; but not rare, either. I think you live somewhere in the NE, correct? I've got a huge advantage here because of less light pollution. (It's much worse than it used to be, but still not like heavily urban areas.) And if I'm *really* serious, I'll go up above 5,000 or 6,000 ft. and get my eyes full.
Aside from that, I've never been persuaded the meteors named after a constellation seem to originate from said constellation. Yes, some of them do, but in my extensive experience, during a shower meteors can easily originate in all areas of the sky, and in various directions, even. I know that seems counter to the rotation of the earth, etc., but that's my experience. Although that particular meteor was "western" to me, it likely would have been "eastern" to someone in Memphis, Nashville, or somewhere thataway...
Date: Sat Aug 13 22:19:35 2011
User: .!.
Message:Ive seen those from VERY dark places. Still a dud. But,not all years are good. I mustve picked bad ones. That one meteor mightve been from Perseus,when you saw it,but I doubt it. Youre right,not ALL will come from there.
Date: Sat Aug 13 22:24:28 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well, it's almost *too* coincidental for it not to have been from the debris field of Swift-Tuttle. It appears others saw "fireballs", even in the NY area:
Link: good reports of last night's shower
Date: Sat Aug 11 10:04:33 2012
User: TNmountainman
Message:Reminder and potential preview?:
("Last night we saw about 75 Perseid fireballs. I'm pretty stoked," he said.)
Link: It's that time again......
Date: Mon Aug 13 11:36:41 2012
User: TNmountainman
Message:Hope you all checked it out Saturday night. A lot of the "fireball"-type ones made their appearance, at least in my part of the world. In fact, I can't ever remember seeing more of those than the smallish ones, which I did that night. Last night I was also able to see quite a few, although some haze partially obscured views, and certainly we were on the downslope of the bell curve of the peak.
Date: Mon May 26 10:38:42 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Did you stay up for the show, TN?
It was not very impressive in my neighborhood. I did, however, see two.
Date: Mon May 26 11:14:47 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Yes.
I saw by far the most from about 11 -->11:30. Probably 6 or 7. Saw one *great* one in the NE about 11:15. That was the only spectacular one. It was slow, orange trail, and could even see irregularities in the tail it was so big and slow. Didn't come close to the one I saw two years ago, though. (Which I think I detailed on this board in another thread.) In total, over about 3.5 hours in 3 'sessions', I saw probably 20, with most of them earlier. There were probably ~6 that were "decent" - meaning decent-sized and reasonably long-tailed. Most of them were indeed slower than the usual meteors, as one of the things I read had predicted (because earth was sort of heading directly into the debris field, as opposed to at an angle). I didn't see a single one in the last, shortest, viewing attempt - which was supposed to be in the middle of the prime time. From my experience, the 'peak', such as it was, was earlier than predicted, and thus a lot of folks may have missed the best stuff. Although clearly from most reports it was less than what was hoped for in this first, and I think only, trip earth will make through this particular field.
Overall, I'd rate it better than some of the worst ones I've witnessed, maybe even about average, or maybe *slightly* below average since the viewing conditions were so good here.
And I will say that that one great one was good enough to make the whole effort worthwhile, although that's a close call because I was SOOO sleepy for the SSC.
Date: Tue May 27 15:35:24 2014
User: eightnotramp
Message:WHAT?????
THE COWBOY DOME IS COMING DOWN ????
MON DIEU !!!!
Date: Tue May 27 16:00:03 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:"Is" doesn't quite capture it. Was. In April 2010.
Date: Tue May 27 16:36:16 2014
User: eightnotramp
Message:Oh, I thought you meant the new dome...pardonnez-moi
Date: Wed Dec 13 14:24:09 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:Tonight is the Geminids meteor shower, and supposedly it could be a great one. Too bad it's so cold in most of the country right now. How typically inconvenient for December and winter. But I know not all of you are so hampered by latitude.
"This year is expected to be the best meteor shower ever."
I think they mean that within the context of the Geminids, but not sure.
Link: Geminids tonight
Date: Thu Dec 14 23:44:11 2017
User: joeygray
Message:TN. When I noticed this post I assumed it would at least discuss 3200 Phaeton or VL72. Ya know? Just mentioning the Geminids is off topic and therefore no reason to resurrect this ancient thread.
Date: Fri Dec 15 00:58:11 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:It seemed to me that this thread was the best compendium concerning meteor showers. I looked for a better one to no avail.
It was certainly off-topic relative to the title, but not concerning the content - at least that's the way I see it. I really did try to find a better one.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Date: Fri Dec 15 01:15:39 2017
User: joeygray
Message:Ya, sorry. I just skipped to the bottom after I saw how old all the first few posts were. Had to look closer to see a lot of it IS about meteor showers.
Anyway, 3200 Phaeton, whose crumbled bits are thought to be the cause of the Geminids, is passing at about 6.4 million miles, or 25 times further than the moon. It's a 3 mile long one that would probably kill us if it were to hit. Won't be this close again for 76 years.
Date: Fri Dec 15 06:49:24 2017
User: sprucegoose
Message:I took a three-year-old out to watch the Perseid Meteor Shower last night. He saw three (we didn't stay out long, maybe 25 minutes). After the first one his chatter changed from "I'm cold" to "I want to see another one"
Post follow-up