I realized I was preaching to the choir a bit with my broken up asteroid versus one big bad one. But, I actually do think that the total amount of energy deposited into the atmosphere and ground would be the same in either case. If it would destroy all the life on earth as a single hit, I would think it would do the same even if distributed over a large area. The energy is what does the damage. The light show would be most beautiful until the shock wave tore you into pieces. That would be a great way to leave the world!
I wonder if anyone has modeled the difference between the two scenarios? Dave -----Original Message----- From: mixent <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:45:07 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] >I think you need to take into account that the Earth is a very tiny target at our distance from the sun. Perhaps you should calculate roughly how much of that CME actually impacts us per unit of surface area. Since it begins as a plasma, it most likely is not dense enough to cause much trouble. > > >Dave This is also the answer to you own previous post. ;) When the pieces are small, the ratio of surface area to volume is much greater than for a single large meteor. That means vastly more friction, and consequently more heat absorbed by the mass of rock, sooner. IOW they vaporize in the upper atmosphere long before they get near the ground. The added friction has another effect too. It tends to spread them out over a larger area. Nevertheless, I imagine it would quite a "light show", and the shock wave might still be somewhat dangerous. Furthermore, blowing the thing up while still in space will also spread the pieces over a much larger area by the time they hit the atmosphere, and some of them may either never hit, or not until a following orbit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
