Tunguska Event - 100 years ago today

[scooter1369]

Tunguska Event

100 years ago today, an object from space (whether meteor or comet, this is still up for debate) entered Earth's atmosphere. It was an air burst impact, exploding some 3-6 miles over the surface of the planet, that has been estimated to be equal to 15 Megatons of TNT. The explsion leveled over 2000 square miles of forest.

If this were to happen today, it could literally level a city the size of New York.

Just a reminder of how puny we are in the universe, folks.

Please carry on and enjoy your Monday.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Okay, so they got the year wrong, but I remember this being the first time I ever heard of the Tunguska blast as a kid:

RAY: You know, Mr. Tully, you are a most fortunate individual!
LOUIS: I know.
RAY: You have been a participant in the biggest interdimensional crossrip since the Tunguska blast of 1909!
LOUIS: Felt great!
EGON: We'd like to get a sample of your brain tissue.
LOUIS:Okay.

 

[scooter1369]

Yeah. I'm an astronomy nerd. This Event was major as had it occured over an ocean, we likely would have never known what happened. As it is, it happened in a remote area of the Russian wilderness, eyewitness accounts varied dramatically.

This was the last major impact event that had live eyewitnesses. The fact that we never found any foreign matter from the explosion, leads many to believe that this was actually a comet.

 

[Brewtus]

Scientific American had an interesting article in their June issue on Tunguska. It's posted online now too:

The Tunguska Mystery 100 Years Later: Scientific American

 

[scooter1369]

Scientific American had an interesting article in their June issue on Tunguska. It's posted online now too:

The Tunguska Mystery 100 Years Later: Scientific American

Forgive me. I'm having trouble past the first sentence without laughing.

June 30, 1908, 7:14 a.m., central Siberia?Semen Semenov, a local farmer...

 

[Thump]

Yeah. I'm an astronomy nerd. This Event was major as had it occured over an ocean, we likely would have never known what happened.

You're telling me a blast of that magnitude that fell trees over millions of acres would not have created a tidal wave of some kind?

 

[scooter1369]

You're telling me a blast of that magnitude that fell trees over millions of acres would not have created a tidal wave of some kind?

It might have, but the origin of the tsunami would be completely unknown. We would have likely wrote it off as an underwater geological event, like an earthquake or a shift in tectonic plates.

We would have never known it was an object from space exploding during entry.

 

[buckeyegrad]

It might have, but the origin of the tsunami would be completely unknown. We would have likely wrote it off as an underwater geological event, like an earthquake or a shift in tectonic plates.

We would have never known it was an object from space exploding during entry.

Did a theory of tectonic plate shifting even exist in 1908?

 

[AKAK]

Did a theory of tectonic plate shifting even exist in 1908?

I don't beleive so.. but.. I'm sure there was a theory about "earthquakes"-- like... "Shit, Shit, shit... the ground is shaking, Shit!" I'm sure it could happen underwater, too.

 

[Brewtus]

It might have, but the origin of the tsunami would be completely unknown. We would have likely wrote it off as an underwater geological event, like an earthquake or a shift in tectonic plates.

We would have never known it was an object from space exploding during entry.

In addition, most of the damage to the forest was caused when the object exploded several miles above the surface of the earth. The explosion caused a shock wave which flattened the forest but left no impact crater. So no large object actually hit the earth. (But the Scientific American article does make a claim that a small lake several miles from ground zero might have been a smaller remnant from the object).

It's likely that if the object exploded over the ocean, there would have been no wave or tsunami evidence whatsoever.

 

[AKAK]

In addition, most of the damage to the forest was caused when the object exploded several miles above the surface of the earth. The explosion caused a shock wave which flattened the forest but left no impact crater. So no large object actually hit the earth. (But the Scientific American article does make a claim that a small lake several miles from ground zero might have been a smaller remnant from the object).

It's likely that if the object exploded over the ocean, there would have been no wave or tsunami evidence whatsoever.

Poached Salmon maybe, though.

 

[Thump]

In addition, most of the damage to the forest was caused when the object exploded several miles above the surface of the earth. The explosion caused a shock wave which flattened the forest but left no impact crater. So no large object actually hit the earth. (But the Scientific American article does make a claim that a small lake several miles from ground zero might have been a smaller remnant from the object).

It's likely that if the object exploded over the ocean, there would have been no wave or tsunami evidence whatsoever.

I'm aware of that, but the shockwaves from the explosion would have almost certainly displaced some water at the ocean's surface.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I'm aware of that, but the shockwaves from the explosion would have almost certainly displaced some water at the ocean's surface.

Stick to math, dummy.


:p

 

[Brewtus]

I'm aware of that, but the shockwaves from the explosion would have almost certainly displaced some water at the ocean's surface.

No doubt that there would be significant water displacement directly beneath the explosion and the surrounding area. I'm sure anything near the ocean's surface within a few hundred square miles would have been "poached" (as AKAK puts it).

But consider that the US tested about 100 nuclear weapons in the South Pacific just above and below the ocean's surface ranging up to 15 Megatons (the Tunguska explosion is estimated at 3 to 5 Megatons which occurred several miles above the ocean's surface). While some of the underwater nuclear tests generated significant waves for tens of miles, no significant wave effects or tsunamis were created hundreds or thousands of miles away from ground zero. And I would expect that an underwater explosion would create much higher waves and displace significantly more water than an explosion several miles above the ocean's surface.

 

[Hubbard]

No doubt that there would be significant water displacement directly beneath the explosion and the surrounding area. I'm sure anything near the ocean's surface within a few hundred square miles would have been "poached" (as AKAK puts it).

But consider that the US tested about 100 nuclear weapons in the South Pacific just above and below the ocean's surface ranging up to 15 Megatons (the Tunguska explosion is estimated at 3 to 5 Megatons which occurred several miles above the ocean's surface). While some of the underwater nuclear tests generated significant waves for tens of miles, no significant wave effects or tsunamis were created hundreds or thousands of miles away from ground zero. And I would expect that an underwater explosion would create much higher waves and displace significantly more water than an explosion several miles above the ocean's surface.

You and your logic....