the damage isnt linear to size. a 2 km asteroid would not make 1/5th the damage of a 10 km asteroid. this asteroid is nothing like what took out the dinosaurs.
besides, the odds of it actually hitting something other than water is about 1/1,000,000,000.
no worries... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
besides, the odds of it actually hitting something other than water is about 1/1,000,000,000.
no worries...<hr></blockquote>
Wait a minute...the earth's surface is something like 70% water (give or take a few percentage points). Where then do you get the odds of hitting land to be 1 in a billion? I'm no calculus wizard but seems you're overstating things a tiny bit.
Either way, a water impact could cause a global catastrophe just the same as hitting land - just not as much debris would be sent into the atmosphere.
Wait a minute...the earth's surface is something like 70% water (give or take a few percentage points). Where then do you get the odds of hitting land to be 1 in a billion? I'm no calculus wizard but seems you're overstating things a tiny bit.
Either way, a water impact could cause a global catastrophe just the same as hitting land - just not as much debris would be sent into the atmosphere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
odds of it hitting earth to begin w/ = 1/250,000
odds of it hitting land = 1/4
multiply together = 1/1,000,000
if i put a billion originally, it was a mistake, sry.
is 1 in a million so much more than 1 in a billion...?
alliance - I see what you did now. I thought you were saying under the precondition that a 2km asteroid was going to hit the earth, there was only a 1 in a Billion shot it would hit land.
that article stated that it would effect earth on a "continental level," not at the whole planet level, so i was right on that aspect. its too small to destroy the whole planet. yes, maybe a third or even half, will be left in ruins, but the human race will survive. that was my biggest point. you people act like it would have been the end of the world. yes, it would have changed everything, but there would have been ample opportunity to start over...
For some rough figures, let us assume said asteroid is roughly rectangular: 2Km long and a 400m by 400m cross-section:
volume in m^3 = 2000*400*400
= 320,000,000 m^3
I'm not a geologist, so I'll assume that this thing's density is between metal and rock, about 4000Kg/m^3:
mass = 320,000,000*4,000
= 1,280,000,000,000 Kg
Therefore the approximate kinetic energy is:
0.5*1,280,000,000,000*57,000*57,000
= 2,079,360,000,000,000,000,000 joules
= 2.079*10^21 joules
One megaton of TNT is 4*10^9 joules:
2.079*10^21/4*10^9
= 519,840,000,000 Mtonnes :eek:
This seems very high. Is 57Km/s correct? I imagine that most of this energy would be used to heat the atmosphere/asteroid/ocean before a "solid" collision, so the velocity would drop considerably in a short time.
Well, atleast the above equation seems to prove that velocity is more important than mass in terms of the energy likely to be released. I didn't think that TNT was a very efficient explosive in todays terms, so perhaps that accounts for the high figure.
Comments
besides, the odds of it actually hitting something other than water is about 1/1,000,000,000.
no worries... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
besides, the odds of it actually hitting something other than water is about 1/1,000,000,000.
no worries...<hr></blockquote>
Wait a minute...the earth's surface is something like 70% water (give or take a few percentage points). Where then do you get the odds of hitting land to be 1 in a billion? I'm no calculus wizard but seems you're overstating things a tiny bit.
Either way, a water impact could cause a global catastrophe just the same as hitting land - just not as much debris would be sent into the atmosphere.
<strong>
Wait a minute...the earth's surface is something like 70% water (give or take a few percentage points). Where then do you get the odds of hitting land to be 1 in a billion? I'm no calculus wizard but seems you're overstating things a tiny bit.
Either way, a water impact could cause a global catastrophe just the same as hitting land - just not as much debris would be sent into the atmosphere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
odds of it hitting earth to begin w/ = 1/250,000
odds of it hitting land = 1/4
multiply together = 1/1,000,000
if i put a billion originally, it was a mistake, sry.
is 1 in a million so much more than 1 in a billion...?
Damn, there go all my great pre-apocalypse plans.
<strong>people, its only 2 km wide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd imagine the speed at which its travelling is more important than its size, in terms of the damage likely to be caused.
<strong>If 2 airplanes hitting the WTC can change the world imagine a 2km rock hitting, oh, say China.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i never said it wouldnt "change" the world, just not "destroy" it. please, would u people actually read what i write before criticizing it...?
57Km/s = 57,000 m/s
For some rough figures, let us assume said asteroid is roughly rectangular: 2Km long and a 400m by 400m cross-section:
volume in m^3 = 2000*400*400
= 320,000,000 m^3
I'm not a geologist, so I'll assume that this thing's density is between metal and rock, about 4000Kg/m^3:
mass = 320,000,000*4,000
= 1,280,000,000,000 Kg
Therefore the approximate kinetic energy is:
0.5*1,280,000,000,000*57,000*57,000
= 2,079,360,000,000,000,000,000 joules
= 2.079*10^21 joules
One megaton of TNT is 4*10^9 joules:
2.079*10^21/4*10^9
= 519,840,000,000 Mtonnes :eek:
This seems very high. Is 57Km/s correct? I imagine that most of this energy would be used to heat the atmosphere/asteroid/ocean before a "solid" collision, so the velocity would drop considerably in a short time.