Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meteorite crash in Russia

rt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#211

Post by jws »

jevinskie wrote: post #207
creamyhorror wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a great dashcam video that captures the meteor arcing across its field of vision and lighting up the scene more brightly than the sun like a nuclear blast (first submitted to HN by dennisgorelik). I almost thought it was a hoax, and even tried to examine the video for signs that it was CGI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJOJ6B2XOyA The guy doesn't even say anything for a long while, just starts speeding up. e…

Can anyone explain why I see so many dashcam videos from Russia?

I believe it is a defense against deliberate accident and injury extortion.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#212

Post by n3rdy »

tectonic wrote: post #60

FYI, if you see photos of a burning crater, those are fake. That's the Door to Hell, in Turkmenistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell

Well that's a relief.

A door to hell is a lot less scary than a meteor crater.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#213

Post by DanBC »

Did NASA have this on their list of objects they were tracking, and did they see it going down as it did? (I'm not suggesting that they should have been able to predict it.)

It's amazing that we have so much coverage of this.

I really hope someone somewhere is making a life size mockup of this object, and then showing on a map what damage would be done by bigger objects.

"This is what something the size of a car would do"

"This is what something the size of a house would do"

"This is the average size of the biggest 5% of the objects that we track in Earth orbit, and here's the damage that'd do".

(A bit like that atomic bomb map).

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#214

Post by madaxe »

jcarreiro wrote: post #206
madaxe wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There probably is a nuclear blast in that mix. They stated that anti-missile systems intercepted it - the only thing with a hope in hell of reaching and destroying/breaking a meteor is the 53T6 Gazelle, which has a 10kt warhead.

According to the article, "Servicemembers from the tank brigade that found the crater have confirmed that background radiation levels at the site are normal", and "Background radiation levels in Chelyabinsk remain unchanged, the Emergency Ministry reported". I am no physicist. But assuming that we can take these reports at face value, doesn't that rule out the possibility that the meteorite was intercepted by a nucle…

Not really. A 10kt yield at altitude wouldn't leave much radioactivity above background at ground level.

Also, this is the Russian military we're talking about. I don't think they'll fess up to detonating a nuke, no matter how small, in a populated area.

We're talking about the same guys who absolutely definitely positively did not use nukes to build shipping canals.

Oh, and I am a Physicist. MSc from an Ivy-League equivalent in the UK, although these days I'm a web gimp instead.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#215

Post by Tuna-Fish »

jcarreiro wrote: post #206
madaxe wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There probably is a nuclear blast in that mix. They stated that anti-missile systems intercepted it - the only thing with a hope in hell of reaching and destroying/breaking a meteor is the 53T6 Gazelle, which has a 10kt warhead.

According to the article, "Servicemembers from the tank brigade that found the crater have confirmed that background radiation levels at the site are normal", and "Background radiation levels in Chelyabinsk remain unchanged, the Emergency Ministry reported". I am no physicist. But assuming that we can take these reports at face value, doesn't that rule out the possibility that the meteorite was intercepted by a nucle…

Depends on how good their equipment was. The small boosted plutonium warheads used in that kind of missiles are extremely clean (they are meant to be used over their own territory, after all...), and I think that after the kind of wide dispersion you get when the surface of the object ablates away as it falls there might not be much more than a small blib over the background left.

However, based on my very limited knowledge, I think that the Russians are supposed to only have operational Gazelles in a ring protecting Moscow, and those shouldn't have the range to hit anywhere near Chelyabinsk.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#216

Post by JPKab »

madaxe wrote: post #166
creamyhorror wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a great dashcam video that captures the meteor arcing across its field of vision and lighting up the scene more brightly than the sun like a nuclear blast (first submitted to HN by dennisgorelik). I almost thought it was a hoax, and even tried to examine the video for signs that it was CGI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJOJ6B2XOyA The guy doesn't even say anything for a long while, just starts speeding up. e…

There probably is a nuclear blast in that mix. They stated that anti-missile systems intercepted it - the only thing with a hope in hell of reaching and destroying/breaking a meteor is the 53T6 Gazelle, which has a 10kt warhead.

Can someone please enlighten me, because I was under the impression that there is no ABM system on the planet capable of intercepting, let alone destroying, a large rock moving at 10km/second.

I'm not saying its impossible, but it just seems to me that there is a lot of misinformation as to what actually happened.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#218

Post by publicfig »

carlisle_ wrote: post #195
marshray wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/302313851511271426 seems pretty sure it's unrelated to 2012DA14. And he has 230K followers on Twitter, so ... shrug

I think it's a really bad idea to start using Twitter followers as a credential. That being said Phil Plait is a legit astronomer and has a Ph.D in Astronomy and worked on the Hubble Telescope and has done a TED talk on defending Earth from asteroids. With real credentials like those you're doing a disservice to first mention the number of Twitter followers to validate his expertise.

I'm pretty sure mentioning the amount of twitter followers he has as credentials was a joke, but I agree with your point. I don't think anyone would contend the fact that Ashton Kutcher had the final say in all matters.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#219

Post by ra »

madaxe wrote: post #167
abcd_f wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RT article quote local (military) newspaper as saying "A missile salvo blew the meteorite to pieces at an altitude of 20 kilometers". I wonder if it's true.

If it is true, they've been lobbing nukes - their principal ABM for ICBMs/fast re-entry is the Gazelle - 10kt warhead.

I wonder if it's possible that it was an automated response?

Some combination of mass and speed detected by radar (or satellite?) triggering an S2A response.

Re: Meteorite crash in Russia

#220

Post by rwallace »

madaxe wrote: post #166
creamyhorror wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a great dashcam video that captures the meteor arcing across its field of vision and lighting up the scene more brightly than the sun like a nuclear blast (first submitted to HN by dennisgorelik). I almost thought it was a hoax, and even tried to examine the video for signs that it was CGI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJOJ6B2XOyA The guy doesn't even say anything for a long while, just starts speeding up. e…

There probably is a nuclear blast in that mix. They stated that anti-missile systems intercepted it - the only thing with a hope in hell of reaching and destroying/breaking a meteor is the 53T6 Gazelle, which has a 10kt warhead.

I predict the ABM interception will turn out not to have occurred. We don't have a surveillance system capable of detecting something that size until it hits atmosphere, which means there would only be seconds of warning. That's not enough time to make the decision to fire an ABM.
Post reply on HN