![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I feel as though some videos of captured footage should be noted as well, especially noting that a large number of people started recording the smoke trail of the meteorite which then captured the loud sonic boom that followed after. Here are a list of videos known so far: http://pastebin.com/HCxx2Q9S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.184 ( talk) 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Seen some genuine informed debate whether the "explosion" sound heard was the meteor exploding or sonic boom. "explosion" aound quite clear on this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b7mLUIDGqmw#! Also YT compilation of videos here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_OYxWDUaI8&list=PLMJ4n80nrQwqUuDwUVMFHRBRdFSVEH86D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.228.245 ( talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
a good blog summary of the event by an astronomer (Phil Plait) with video:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/15/breaking_huge_meteor_explodes_over_russia.html
More footage compiled here: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/russia-meteorite-video-footage.php
The video below has particularly clear audio - can hear multiple smaller explosion sounds after the big one. Does Sonic Boom do that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MKx97csfPy0#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.228.245 ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating animated gif here of meteor entry and trail:
http://i.imgur.com/SnVvLv8.gif
via
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.25.221.105 (
talk)
23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It would great if we could get one of these user-made videos as free media at commons, particularly with the sonic boom involved. --
MASEM (
t)
00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin was depicted as riding the meteor [1] in a parody of his "feats of strength" [2] in a manor reminiscent of Major T. J. "King" Kong from the Kubrik film, Dr. Strangelove. -- Walter.bender ( talk) 03:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
References
The dutch wikipedia is reporting the damage is because of a supersonic boom. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.250.30 ( talk) 10:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Tunguska and the meteorite that injured a woman in the 50s? Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk) 10:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, there has been only one person hit by a meteorite -- Mrs. Hewlet Hodges of Alabama -- it broke her arm. It is also called the sylacauga Metorite -- here is teh wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylacauga_(meteorite). I have written a book and in one of the chapters I cover meteorites and the problems casualties. I have never heard of people being hit in China. The Tunguscak event did hurt and kill people but it was from the explosion as the meteorite burst if memory serves. There have been many meteorites to strike earth in the past. The best known is the one that struck at the end of the Cretaceous 65 mya and killed off the dinosaurs. Volcanoman7 ( talk) 06:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
In the reference it states 32,800 ft, not 33K. It we use references, we should stick to the info in it. Kennvido ( talk) 10:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This report is indicating it was taken out by air defense but an official source in English is needed before we add it to the article. - Shiftchange ( talk) 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This line with no cite should not even by here. It is an opinion based on seeing many videos. I tried to fine a reference to keep it, but could not. Kennvido ( talk) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Somebody removed the "see also" to this list. I thought it to be kind of useful. Any second opinions? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone add the apparent magnitude to the article, did it exceed -17 which is getting toward "Superbolide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.44.54 ( talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The reported number of injured has now risen to 950. Source: https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/302407144056188928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.203.239 ( talk) 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Injuries now up to 1200. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/meteorite-blasts-russia-live-update Cheerioswithmilk ( talk) 20:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
According to the Lake's page, it is currently frozen. The impact location should hence be visible (broken ice) if it really hit it. This should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.188.210 ( talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of impact hole in the ice of Lake Chebarkul be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
news sources showed a hole in the lake ice where the meteorite hit. I was concerned because it was very circular and would not expect that but the cameraman showed pieces of meteorite around the hole. Volcanoman7 ( talk) 06:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This is opinion and not fact based on someone's take of the article, if they can find a cite from an accredited source, I won't argue. I don't want an edit war on this. The editor has put back twice already. Kennvido ( talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Rather than grouping the information in initial report, would it be helpful to make a new section entitled "Response" ? Initial reports could be used for reports by witnesses while "Response" could be for government responses and reactions from scientists. Any opinions on this? Cheerioswithmilk ( talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
BBC gives this information: "The Russian Academy of Sciences estimates that the meteor weighed about 10 tonnes and entered the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of at least 54,000 km/h (33,000mph). It would have shattered about 30-50km (18-32 miles) above ground, with most of the meteor burning up" (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21468116).
Is anyone here able to calculate the energy of this event out of these data? It might be interesting to have an info about its (kilo-???)ton TNT equivalent in the article.
Greetings -- Tolman Telephone ( talk) 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
If, as NASA reported, the speed of the object was 54,000Kph, and the mass was 10,000 metric tonnes, then the explosive energy could not have been ~550Kt. That's just incorrect math.
The correct number should be half that. ~275Kt. This may have been a calculation error, or due to confusion about terms:
US Ton/short ton = 2000lbs.
Metric ton/long ton(tonne) = 1000Kg or 2200lbs.
Kinetic energy is calculated with the formula Ke=1/2mv^2. m is mass in kilograms and v is velocity in meters per second(m/s). An object traveling at 54,000kph, is traveling at 15,000m/s.(54000km/h * 1000m/km / 3600sec/hour) That results in a total energy of ((15000^2 * 10,000,000)/2) or 1.125x10^15J. Or 1.125 petajoules.
A kiloton equivalent of TNT explosive force is defined as 4.184x10^12(4.184terrajoules). Divide the two and you get an explosive equivalent of 268.88Kt. Or almost exactly half of the reported value of 550Kt.
I suspect that either someone forgot to do the "divide by 2" when working the kinetic energy formula, or got crossed up between 2000lbs per ton, and 1000kg per ton, when trying to work out the Kt equivalent.
It's also not clear how NASA produced their estimates. The speed is likely to be correct as NASA and Russian spacecom almost certianly got a fix on this thing and the computers should have been able work out a speed and track. From there, it's a question of: Did they have a way to estimate mass and derived the energy from that? In which case the value of 550Kt is twice too big. Or did they have a way to measure the energy expended and then they back calculated the mass from the energy released? In which case the value of 10,000 metric tons is too small by half.
Gcronau (
talk)
18:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently cites two figures: "at least 54,000 km/h" (15 km/s), and 30 km/s. Any idea which is correct? Or is one figure its estimated speed at the object's entry into the atmosphere and the other at the time it passed over Chelyabinsk and started to blow up? Userboy87 ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I found a picture of the frozen lake crater in the National Geographic website, with the respective proprietary notices: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/pictures/130215-russia-meteorite-fragments-space-asteroid-chelyabinsk/#/russia-meteor-strike-lake_64337_600x450.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.203.239 ( talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is that really an impact crater? It seems too perfectly round to be real. The object would have hit the ice at an angle and was almost certainly irregularly shaped (and possibly tumbling). The crater in the photograph is very round and there doesn't seem to be any damage to the ice outside of the crater or any ice "splashed" around the crater, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.145.6 ( talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Diameter |
Kinetic energy at atmospheric entry |
Airburst energy |
Airburst altitude |
Average frequency |
---|---|---|---|---|
30 m (98 ft) | 708 kt | 530 kt | 16.1 km (53,000 ft) | 185 years |
50 m (160 ft) | 3.3 Mt | 2.9 Mt | 8.5 km (28,000 ft) | 764 years |
70 m (230 ft) | 9 Mt | 8.5 Mt | 3.4 km (11,000 ft) | 1900 years |
85 m (279 ft) | 16.1 Mt | 15.6 Mt | 0.435 km (1,430 ft) | 3300 years |
From the NASA article on the coincidental DA14 flyby:
μηδείς ( talk) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If useful, including a link to this video that has the sound of the impact wave, including the sound of broken glass. I found it on Reddit. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If the meteor was roughly sperical, its volume should be around 1700m^3. If it had 10 tons, its density would be roughly 6 Kg per 1m^3! I'm no physicist but something's wrong. -- Adam Zivner ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that some sources are systematically mixing up tons and thousands of tons. Here is one example from today: "40 tonnes, 15 meters across". A 4 ton bolder would be about 1.5 meters across; 15 meters equals about 4,000 tons. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
http://rt.com/news/meteorite-crash-urals-chelyabinsk-283/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
May I change 1947 " Sikhote-Alin event" to 1947 " Sikhote-Alin meteorite" ? Dloh cierekim 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Done
Why did the Chelyabinsk "zinc factory" roof cave in and why did its brick walls topple? Did the facility receive a direct hit from a falling object? It looks unlikely the roof and the walls fell merely to the power of sonic boom waves, as not even ALL the windows shattered in the city and there is no sign of masonry damage elsewhere, just glassware. By the way, Chelyabinsk is a major industrial and military center of Russia: nuclear powerplant, plutonium reprocessing facility, the tractor factory (tractor as in battle tank), etc. In an effectively infititely large land, like the former USSR, what is the chance of a space stone hitting a city instead of vast empty swaths? According to some recently discovered documents the nazis launched 4 IRBMs at the southern Ural industrial centre (probably Chelyabinsk) in April 1945 and at least 3 of those impacted in the target area. Consequently was this asteroid a neo-nazi, trying to imitate the deeds of that austrian painter or was it yet another great power with invasion plans, trying to hurt Mother Russia? 91.82.37.28 ( talk) 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The lead sentence of an article describes the thing, it does not restate the title we have chosen for the thing. "The 2013 Russian meteor event occurred on the morning of 15 February 2013 when a meteor" violates WP:MOSBOLD. We do not need to say that a "Meteor event (i.e., thing that occurred) occurred when a meteor did something". Per WP:MOSBOLD we just get straight into it. μηδείς ( talk) 21:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I know this does not bring anything to the discussion on how to improve this article, but I just want to tell how awesome this is that there is already such a detailed page on this event.
![]() | Good Job!
|
-- Grondilu ( talk) 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The NASA news conference is mentioning a Earth-crossing meteoroid with a 2-year orbit with an aphelion in the asteroid belt and a blast in the range of 300-500 kilotons. Hopefully this will show up in print sources soon as I don't think I can use this source as a reference. Rmhermen ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So the following sentence...
The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest recorded object to have hit the Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event and the 1947 Sikhote-Alin event, and the only known such event to result in a large number of casualties
...makes it sound like this killed a large number of people, but there is nothing on the article that mentions any deaths. Am I reading this wrong or is there some kind of discrepancy?
Jscottcc ( talk) 23:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"Though the known near-miss of asteroid 2012 DA14 occurred about 15 hours later"
At the end of the initial description, this other event is referenced as a "near-miss", despite the fact it missed the Earth. Intent to use the interesting verbiage "near-" should at least be follow by "hit", since a "near-hit" indicates that this asteroid indeed, missed the Earth. 68.35.43.145 ( talk) 01:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed in the time it took me to post, thanks. 68.35.43.145 ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
So the article currently says 0.1 kiloton twice and hundreds of kilotons twice. I really can't be both. Rmhermen ( talk) 02:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be the latest info on the data:
And it also describes it as a small asteroid from the asteroid belt. Data in the article could be updated. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to the slow speed of sound and shockwave versus speed of light, the bright light of the bolide was seen seconds to minutes before the shockwave. Since the light arrived first, many people went to their windows to look. When the shockwave arrived, the people were still at their windows looking at the smoke trail and were in a perfect place to be injured by the flying glass.
I think this should be included in the article
Vmaldia ( talk) 02:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
NASA's weight estimate has risen from 7,000 to 10,000 tons. For a short time, this is what was stated in the article (10,000 tons). This is an estimate. It has one significant digit, which has been changing. It does not make sense to give a conversion with three significant digits. Also, with this resolution and it being an estimate, it doesn't matter whether it is a English ton (2,000 pounds) or a metric ton (1,000 kilograms). I agree with it being given as "10,000 tons". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
|sigfig
parameter. Take a look at the
WP:CONVERT page to see all the syntax capabilities of that powerful unit conversion template. Cheers.
N2e (
talk)
05:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)I read somewhere that a Russian scientist explained that the reason this object broke up entering the earth's atmosphere is that the difference in pressure between the front side and the back side became so great that the object lost its ability to stay in one piece. I've not seen this written anywhere else. Usually the explanation is that it's the heat from friction that causes it to explode. Which is it, and could the correct explanation be included, as it applies to this meteoroid (or meteorite)? JohnClarknew ( talk) 05:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Why did it break up and explode in the air? This question needs a two part answer.
The location is a problem. The meteorite struck a frozen lake according to news stories. Is it possible to get the actually location of the lake? Volcanoman7 ( talk) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a location: 55.150°N, 61.410°E (6 km South (185°) from Chelyabinsk, Russia) -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw the most recent inclusion of the San Francisco Event, but there's no mention of the Cuba Event that supposedly took place during the same day of the event. I wonder if we should include the Cuba Event here or should we split the various events into it's own page showing all events that has taken place on Febuary 15th? Sawblade5 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 06:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I think an ogg file should be insert in this article. Model, but not free. [7] - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 09:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that mention when this event happed (GMT)? And also, how long the event took in minutes? These details would seem important. Thanks. 64.40.54.103 ( talk) 11:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
NASA says 3:20:26 UTC on Feb. 15. Other sources concur. The prior stated time of 3:13 was not in provided references, and is appallingly inaccurate given the reliability of the data for 3:20. Samuel Erau ( talk) 01:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The article says "Although the known close approach of asteroid 2012 DA14 occurred about 15 hours later" - it should read 'about 14 hours later' as DA14 was at its closest to earth at 19:25 GMC/UTC. (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21442863). 03.20 UTC to 19.25 UTC = 14 hours and 5 minutes. 86.133.51.180 ( talk) 12:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The main article states "On 15 February 2013, a meteoroid entered Earth's atmosphere over Russia around 09:20:26 Yekaterinburg Time (03:20:26 UTC), becoming a fireball." Yet this sequence is incorrect. The time stated in the article is not the actual atmospheric entry time but the time of the main explosion. According to The Planetary Society... "The time of the main flare/airburst was 03:20:26 UT on Feb 15, 2013; the fireball began ablation about 30 secs before this time." This then indicates that the entry into Earth's atmosphere is currently unknown and most references to time relates primarily to the actual explosion of the meteoroid. The fireball commenced 30 seconds before the explosion and the meteoroid entered the atmosphere at some point before the appearance of the fireball. Therefore the first sentence of the article needs to be corrected to better reflect a more correct sequence of events. The Planetary Society states that this information was updated at a NASA Press Conference.
Source: The Planetary Society 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Right now, in one place it says 10 tons and another it says 10,000 tons. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Can be this declaration included in the article? - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The following text is a verbatim quote from our article, and has wrong punctuation:
It should instead say this:
98.118.62.140 ( talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
L1 Lagrangian point shepard = related
I wouldnt trust Phil Platt to tell me the sun was coming up - and any other astromomer that is so quick to decide that the two events are not related is a moron-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 18:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Check out these links for more information on the orbit of the Russian meteor. These are people that do this for a living.
removed forum-like comedy content not on topic-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 06:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The entry was shallow. This blog entry clearly explains that if the same object had entered the atmosphere at a steep angle, the 10000 tons of it would have reached the ground without breaking up with catastrophic consequences. Hektor ( talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Has the orbit of the object around the Sun before impact been determined? Hektor ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Russian Page:
The Russian impact meteor is tentatively named KEF-2013 and was roughly 50 feet wide/in diameter. The one that missed some 15 hours later is named 2012 DA14 and is roughly 150 feet wide/in diameter. --- Radical Mallard ( talk) 20:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
" a roughly 50-foot wide" How much is that?. Use meters! 190.162.143.208 ( talk) 20:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
When NASA said it released 500 kilotons of energy they mean in the entire time it burned up, not in some great explosion.... so even if KEF-2013 landed on a city it would have only damaged an area like that of the thee craters found so far, so it wouldn't have been cataclysmic at all. Which is good to know, right? I think the public will want to know the names of the two objects, the sizes, the masses, any relation to each other, and how much damage they could cause. Hopefully it will motivate Russia and the USA and Europe to work on a better Spaceguard system.--- Radical Mallard ( talk) 21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
For asteroids less than ~85 meters in diameter, airbursts do more damage than a ground impact would. There is a reason military bombs are designed to burst above the ground rather than explode on impact. -- Kheider ( talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well according to this New York Time video from yesterday:
...KEF-2013 was "the size of an SUV"... like, no larger than 4.5 meters in diameter, instead of 17 meters. Of course nobody really knows all the facts just yet.
Here is an early RussiaToday report (this isn't a political story so I guess it isn't subject to the usual bias):
Once all of the many cell phone and closed circuit videos are made public scientists will be able to determine a decent amount of detailed information about the energy released based on what they see in them. --- Radical Mallard ( talk) 21:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The section "Coincidental asteroid approach" should be removed, as an encyclopedia should state facts, not be a detailed record of the speculations that were made before the facts became known.
The sentence that covers this in the intro is entirely sufficient. Bomazi ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
We really need a map image showing its path over Russia and where it went boom with those concentric circles showing where the windows blew out and where it was audible, and even where it was visible. This is exactly what 180,000 visitors want to see.
If someone doesn't make one fast, I'll be forced to make one from maps-for-free, a pocket calculator, and MSPaint, and it won't be pretty. So get on it, boffins! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Will any mention be made about Google and their sudden decision to withdraw their animated logo after hearing reports of the Russian meteor? The decision was made after hearing that hundreds of people had been injured in the blast. I believe it is significant enough to rate a mention in the article somewhere. The Google logo basically consisted of the letter 'g' jumping aside to allow the asteroid to pass through the word 'Google'. 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 02:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed worthy of mention. Here is just a small sample of sources... The Telegraph The Hindustan Times CNet Yahoo News The Drum Search Engine Watch ABC News Silicon Republic Gizmodo The Inqusitr RYOT Beta 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The threshold peak overpressure needed to break window glass is ca. 0.25 pound per square inch (psi) (1% breakage), 90% of windows break at 0.9 psi (Lee's Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment, and Control on 17/236). An on-line meteor impact effects calculator [11] using current accepted parameters predicts a 0.293 psi peak over pressure. -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is it being called "Chelyabinsk meteoroid" in the first sentence? -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
First paragraph currently reads, "Being significantly smaller than objects that are tracked through current efforts by space object scientists, the meteor was not detected before atmospheric entry.[11]" I think this is incorrect. NASA and other databases routinely track near-earth objects of 2-3 meters in diameter, and TC 2008, the 2-5 meter asteroid that hit Sudan in 2008, was detected 20 hours in advance. The reason this one was not detected was because we don't detect many of them. Funding is too sparse to do that. Had we detected this one a few hours in advance, these people could have gotten away from windows at least. Friendly Person ( talk) 05:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I feel as though some videos of captured footage should be noted as well, especially noting that a large number of people started recording the smoke trail of the meteorite which then captured the loud sonic boom that followed after. Here are a list of videos known so far: http://pastebin.com/HCxx2Q9S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.184 ( talk) 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Seen some genuine informed debate whether the "explosion" sound heard was the meteor exploding or sonic boom. "explosion" aound quite clear on this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b7mLUIDGqmw#! Also YT compilation of videos here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_OYxWDUaI8&list=PLMJ4n80nrQwqUuDwUVMFHRBRdFSVEH86D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.228.245 ( talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
a good blog summary of the event by an astronomer (Phil Plait) with video:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/15/breaking_huge_meteor_explodes_over_russia.html
More footage compiled here: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/russia-meteorite-video-footage.php
The video below has particularly clear audio - can hear multiple smaller explosion sounds after the big one. Does Sonic Boom do that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MKx97csfPy0#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.228.245 ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating animated gif here of meteor entry and trail:
http://i.imgur.com/SnVvLv8.gif
via
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.25.221.105 (
talk)
23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It would great if we could get one of these user-made videos as free media at commons, particularly with the sonic boom involved. --
MASEM (
t)
00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin was depicted as riding the meteor [1] in a parody of his "feats of strength" [2] in a manor reminiscent of Major T. J. "King" Kong from the Kubrik film, Dr. Strangelove. -- Walter.bender ( talk) 03:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
References
The dutch wikipedia is reporting the damage is because of a supersonic boom. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.250.30 ( talk) 10:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Tunguska and the meteorite that injured a woman in the 50s? Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk) 10:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, there has been only one person hit by a meteorite -- Mrs. Hewlet Hodges of Alabama -- it broke her arm. It is also called the sylacauga Metorite -- here is teh wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylacauga_(meteorite). I have written a book and in one of the chapters I cover meteorites and the problems casualties. I have never heard of people being hit in China. The Tunguscak event did hurt and kill people but it was from the explosion as the meteorite burst if memory serves. There have been many meteorites to strike earth in the past. The best known is the one that struck at the end of the Cretaceous 65 mya and killed off the dinosaurs. Volcanoman7 ( talk) 06:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
In the reference it states 32,800 ft, not 33K. It we use references, we should stick to the info in it. Kennvido ( talk) 10:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This report is indicating it was taken out by air defense but an official source in English is needed before we add it to the article. - Shiftchange ( talk) 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This line with no cite should not even by here. It is an opinion based on seeing many videos. I tried to fine a reference to keep it, but could not. Kennvido ( talk) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Somebody removed the "see also" to this list. I thought it to be kind of useful. Any second opinions? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone add the apparent magnitude to the article, did it exceed -17 which is getting toward "Superbolide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.44.54 ( talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The reported number of injured has now risen to 950. Source: https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/302407144056188928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.203.239 ( talk) 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Injuries now up to 1200. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/meteorite-blasts-russia-live-update Cheerioswithmilk ( talk) 20:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
According to the Lake's page, it is currently frozen. The impact location should hence be visible (broken ice) if it really hit it. This should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.188.210 ( talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of impact hole in the ice of Lake Chebarkul be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
news sources showed a hole in the lake ice where the meteorite hit. I was concerned because it was very circular and would not expect that but the cameraman showed pieces of meteorite around the hole. Volcanoman7 ( talk) 06:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This is opinion and not fact based on someone's take of the article, if they can find a cite from an accredited source, I won't argue. I don't want an edit war on this. The editor has put back twice already. Kennvido ( talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Rather than grouping the information in initial report, would it be helpful to make a new section entitled "Response" ? Initial reports could be used for reports by witnesses while "Response" could be for government responses and reactions from scientists. Any opinions on this? Cheerioswithmilk ( talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
BBC gives this information: "The Russian Academy of Sciences estimates that the meteor weighed about 10 tonnes and entered the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of at least 54,000 km/h (33,000mph). It would have shattered about 30-50km (18-32 miles) above ground, with most of the meteor burning up" (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21468116).
Is anyone here able to calculate the energy of this event out of these data? It might be interesting to have an info about its (kilo-???)ton TNT equivalent in the article.
Greetings -- Tolman Telephone ( talk) 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
If, as NASA reported, the speed of the object was 54,000Kph, and the mass was 10,000 metric tonnes, then the explosive energy could not have been ~550Kt. That's just incorrect math.
The correct number should be half that. ~275Kt. This may have been a calculation error, or due to confusion about terms:
US Ton/short ton = 2000lbs.
Metric ton/long ton(tonne) = 1000Kg or 2200lbs.
Kinetic energy is calculated with the formula Ke=1/2mv^2. m is mass in kilograms and v is velocity in meters per second(m/s). An object traveling at 54,000kph, is traveling at 15,000m/s.(54000km/h * 1000m/km / 3600sec/hour) That results in a total energy of ((15000^2 * 10,000,000)/2) or 1.125x10^15J. Or 1.125 petajoules.
A kiloton equivalent of TNT explosive force is defined as 4.184x10^12(4.184terrajoules). Divide the two and you get an explosive equivalent of 268.88Kt. Or almost exactly half of the reported value of 550Kt.
I suspect that either someone forgot to do the "divide by 2" when working the kinetic energy formula, or got crossed up between 2000lbs per ton, and 1000kg per ton, when trying to work out the Kt equivalent.
It's also not clear how NASA produced their estimates. The speed is likely to be correct as NASA and Russian spacecom almost certianly got a fix on this thing and the computers should have been able work out a speed and track. From there, it's a question of: Did they have a way to estimate mass and derived the energy from that? In which case the value of 550Kt is twice too big. Or did they have a way to measure the energy expended and then they back calculated the mass from the energy released? In which case the value of 10,000 metric tons is too small by half.
Gcronau (
talk)
18:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently cites two figures: "at least 54,000 km/h" (15 km/s), and 30 km/s. Any idea which is correct? Or is one figure its estimated speed at the object's entry into the atmosphere and the other at the time it passed over Chelyabinsk and started to blow up? Userboy87 ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I found a picture of the frozen lake crater in the National Geographic website, with the respective proprietary notices: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/pictures/130215-russia-meteorite-fragments-space-asteroid-chelyabinsk/#/russia-meteor-strike-lake_64337_600x450.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.203.239 ( talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is that really an impact crater? It seems too perfectly round to be real. The object would have hit the ice at an angle and was almost certainly irregularly shaped (and possibly tumbling). The crater in the photograph is very round and there doesn't seem to be any damage to the ice outside of the crater or any ice "splashed" around the crater, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.145.6 ( talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Diameter |
Kinetic energy at atmospheric entry |
Airburst energy |
Airburst altitude |
Average frequency |
---|---|---|---|---|
30 m (98 ft) | 708 kt | 530 kt | 16.1 km (53,000 ft) | 185 years |
50 m (160 ft) | 3.3 Mt | 2.9 Mt | 8.5 km (28,000 ft) | 764 years |
70 m (230 ft) | 9 Mt | 8.5 Mt | 3.4 km (11,000 ft) | 1900 years |
85 m (279 ft) | 16.1 Mt | 15.6 Mt | 0.435 km (1,430 ft) | 3300 years |
From the NASA article on the coincidental DA14 flyby:
μηδείς ( talk) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If useful, including a link to this video that has the sound of the impact wave, including the sound of broken glass. I found it on Reddit. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If the meteor was roughly sperical, its volume should be around 1700m^3. If it had 10 tons, its density would be roughly 6 Kg per 1m^3! I'm no physicist but something's wrong. -- Adam Zivner ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that some sources are systematically mixing up tons and thousands of tons. Here is one example from today: "40 tonnes, 15 meters across". A 4 ton bolder would be about 1.5 meters across; 15 meters equals about 4,000 tons. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
http://rt.com/news/meteorite-crash-urals-chelyabinsk-283/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
May I change 1947 " Sikhote-Alin event" to 1947 " Sikhote-Alin meteorite" ? Dloh cierekim 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Done
Why did the Chelyabinsk "zinc factory" roof cave in and why did its brick walls topple? Did the facility receive a direct hit from a falling object? It looks unlikely the roof and the walls fell merely to the power of sonic boom waves, as not even ALL the windows shattered in the city and there is no sign of masonry damage elsewhere, just glassware. By the way, Chelyabinsk is a major industrial and military center of Russia: nuclear powerplant, plutonium reprocessing facility, the tractor factory (tractor as in battle tank), etc. In an effectively infititely large land, like the former USSR, what is the chance of a space stone hitting a city instead of vast empty swaths? According to some recently discovered documents the nazis launched 4 IRBMs at the southern Ural industrial centre (probably Chelyabinsk) in April 1945 and at least 3 of those impacted in the target area. Consequently was this asteroid a neo-nazi, trying to imitate the deeds of that austrian painter or was it yet another great power with invasion plans, trying to hurt Mother Russia? 91.82.37.28 ( talk) 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The lead sentence of an article describes the thing, it does not restate the title we have chosen for the thing. "The 2013 Russian meteor event occurred on the morning of 15 February 2013 when a meteor" violates WP:MOSBOLD. We do not need to say that a "Meteor event (i.e., thing that occurred) occurred when a meteor did something". Per WP:MOSBOLD we just get straight into it. μηδείς ( talk) 21:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I know this does not bring anything to the discussion on how to improve this article, but I just want to tell how awesome this is that there is already such a detailed page on this event.
![]() | Good Job!
|
-- Grondilu ( talk) 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The NASA news conference is mentioning a Earth-crossing meteoroid with a 2-year orbit with an aphelion in the asteroid belt and a blast in the range of 300-500 kilotons. Hopefully this will show up in print sources soon as I don't think I can use this source as a reference. Rmhermen ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So the following sentence...
The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest recorded object to have hit the Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event and the 1947 Sikhote-Alin event, and the only known such event to result in a large number of casualties
...makes it sound like this killed a large number of people, but there is nothing on the article that mentions any deaths. Am I reading this wrong or is there some kind of discrepancy?
Jscottcc ( talk) 23:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"Though the known near-miss of asteroid 2012 DA14 occurred about 15 hours later"
At the end of the initial description, this other event is referenced as a "near-miss", despite the fact it missed the Earth. Intent to use the interesting verbiage "near-" should at least be follow by "hit", since a "near-hit" indicates that this asteroid indeed, missed the Earth. 68.35.43.145 ( talk) 01:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed in the time it took me to post, thanks. 68.35.43.145 ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
So the article currently says 0.1 kiloton twice and hundreds of kilotons twice. I really can't be both. Rmhermen ( talk) 02:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be the latest info on the data:
And it also describes it as a small asteroid from the asteroid belt. Data in the article could be updated. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to the slow speed of sound and shockwave versus speed of light, the bright light of the bolide was seen seconds to minutes before the shockwave. Since the light arrived first, many people went to their windows to look. When the shockwave arrived, the people were still at their windows looking at the smoke trail and were in a perfect place to be injured by the flying glass.
I think this should be included in the article
Vmaldia ( talk) 02:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
NASA's weight estimate has risen from 7,000 to 10,000 tons. For a short time, this is what was stated in the article (10,000 tons). This is an estimate. It has one significant digit, which has been changing. It does not make sense to give a conversion with three significant digits. Also, with this resolution and it being an estimate, it doesn't matter whether it is a English ton (2,000 pounds) or a metric ton (1,000 kilograms). I agree with it being given as "10,000 tons". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
|sigfig
parameter. Take a look at the
WP:CONVERT page to see all the syntax capabilities of that powerful unit conversion template. Cheers.
N2e (
talk)
05:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)I read somewhere that a Russian scientist explained that the reason this object broke up entering the earth's atmosphere is that the difference in pressure between the front side and the back side became so great that the object lost its ability to stay in one piece. I've not seen this written anywhere else. Usually the explanation is that it's the heat from friction that causes it to explode. Which is it, and could the correct explanation be included, as it applies to this meteoroid (or meteorite)? JohnClarknew ( talk) 05:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Why did it break up and explode in the air? This question needs a two part answer.
The location is a problem. The meteorite struck a frozen lake according to news stories. Is it possible to get the actually location of the lake? Volcanoman7 ( talk) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a location: 55.150°N, 61.410°E (6 km South (185°) from Chelyabinsk, Russia) -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw the most recent inclusion of the San Francisco Event, but there's no mention of the Cuba Event that supposedly took place during the same day of the event. I wonder if we should include the Cuba Event here or should we split the various events into it's own page showing all events that has taken place on Febuary 15th? Sawblade5 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 06:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I think an ogg file should be insert in this article. Model, but not free. [7] - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 09:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that mention when this event happed (GMT)? And also, how long the event took in minutes? These details would seem important. Thanks. 64.40.54.103 ( talk) 11:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
NASA says 3:20:26 UTC on Feb. 15. Other sources concur. The prior stated time of 3:13 was not in provided references, and is appallingly inaccurate given the reliability of the data for 3:20. Samuel Erau ( talk) 01:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The article says "Although the known close approach of asteroid 2012 DA14 occurred about 15 hours later" - it should read 'about 14 hours later' as DA14 was at its closest to earth at 19:25 GMC/UTC. (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21442863). 03.20 UTC to 19.25 UTC = 14 hours and 5 minutes. 86.133.51.180 ( talk) 12:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The main article states "On 15 February 2013, a meteoroid entered Earth's atmosphere over Russia around 09:20:26 Yekaterinburg Time (03:20:26 UTC), becoming a fireball." Yet this sequence is incorrect. The time stated in the article is not the actual atmospheric entry time but the time of the main explosion. According to The Planetary Society... "The time of the main flare/airburst was 03:20:26 UT on Feb 15, 2013; the fireball began ablation about 30 secs before this time." This then indicates that the entry into Earth's atmosphere is currently unknown and most references to time relates primarily to the actual explosion of the meteoroid. The fireball commenced 30 seconds before the explosion and the meteoroid entered the atmosphere at some point before the appearance of the fireball. Therefore the first sentence of the article needs to be corrected to better reflect a more correct sequence of events. The Planetary Society states that this information was updated at a NASA Press Conference.
Source: The Planetary Society 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Right now, in one place it says 10 tons and another it says 10,000 tons. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Can be this declaration included in the article? - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The following text is a verbatim quote from our article, and has wrong punctuation:
It should instead say this:
98.118.62.140 ( talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
L1 Lagrangian point shepard = related
I wouldnt trust Phil Platt to tell me the sun was coming up - and any other astromomer that is so quick to decide that the two events are not related is a moron-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 18:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Check out these links for more information on the orbit of the Russian meteor. These are people that do this for a living.
removed forum-like comedy content not on topic-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 06:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The entry was shallow. This blog entry clearly explains that if the same object had entered the atmosphere at a steep angle, the 10000 tons of it would have reached the ground without breaking up with catastrophic consequences. Hektor ( talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Has the orbit of the object around the Sun before impact been determined? Hektor ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Russian Page:
The Russian impact meteor is tentatively named KEF-2013 and was roughly 50 feet wide/in diameter. The one that missed some 15 hours later is named 2012 DA14 and is roughly 150 feet wide/in diameter. --- Radical Mallard ( talk) 20:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
" a roughly 50-foot wide" How much is that?. Use meters! 190.162.143.208 ( talk) 20:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
When NASA said it released 500 kilotons of energy they mean in the entire time it burned up, not in some great explosion.... so even if KEF-2013 landed on a city it would have only damaged an area like that of the thee craters found so far, so it wouldn't have been cataclysmic at all. Which is good to know, right? I think the public will want to know the names of the two objects, the sizes, the masses, any relation to each other, and how much damage they could cause. Hopefully it will motivate Russia and the USA and Europe to work on a better Spaceguard system.--- Radical Mallard ( talk) 21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
For asteroids less than ~85 meters in diameter, airbursts do more damage than a ground impact would. There is a reason military bombs are designed to burst above the ground rather than explode on impact. -- Kheider ( talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well according to this New York Time video from yesterday:
...KEF-2013 was "the size of an SUV"... like, no larger than 4.5 meters in diameter, instead of 17 meters. Of course nobody really knows all the facts just yet.
Here is an early RussiaToday report (this isn't a political story so I guess it isn't subject to the usual bias):
Once all of the many cell phone and closed circuit videos are made public scientists will be able to determine a decent amount of detailed information about the energy released based on what they see in them. --- Radical Mallard ( talk) 21:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The section "Coincidental asteroid approach" should be removed, as an encyclopedia should state facts, not be a detailed record of the speculations that were made before the facts became known.
The sentence that covers this in the intro is entirely sufficient. Bomazi ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
We really need a map image showing its path over Russia and where it went boom with those concentric circles showing where the windows blew out and where it was audible, and even where it was visible. This is exactly what 180,000 visitors want to see.
If someone doesn't make one fast, I'll be forced to make one from maps-for-free, a pocket calculator, and MSPaint, and it won't be pretty. So get on it, boffins! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Will any mention be made about Google and their sudden decision to withdraw their animated logo after hearing reports of the Russian meteor? The decision was made after hearing that hundreds of people had been injured in the blast. I believe it is significant enough to rate a mention in the article somewhere. The Google logo basically consisted of the letter 'g' jumping aside to allow the asteroid to pass through the word 'Google'. 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 02:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed worthy of mention. Here is just a small sample of sources... The Telegraph The Hindustan Times CNet Yahoo News The Drum Search Engine Watch ABC News Silicon Republic Gizmodo The Inqusitr RYOT Beta 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The threshold peak overpressure needed to break window glass is ca. 0.25 pound per square inch (psi) (1% breakage), 90% of windows break at 0.9 psi (Lee's Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment, and Control on 17/236). An on-line meteor impact effects calculator [11] using current accepted parameters predicts a 0.293 psi peak over pressure. -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is it being called "Chelyabinsk meteoroid" in the first sentence? -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
First paragraph currently reads, "Being significantly smaller than objects that are tracked through current efforts by space object scientists, the meteor was not detected before atmospheric entry.[11]" I think this is incorrect. NASA and other databases routinely track near-earth objects of 2-3 meters in diameter, and TC 2008, the 2-5 meter asteroid that hit Sudan in 2008, was detected 20 hours in advance. The reason this one was not detected was because we don't detect many of them. Funding is too sparse to do that. Had we detected this one a few hours in advance, these people could have gotten away from windows at least. Friendly Person ( talk) 05:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |