I understand kinetic energy, but a kinetic energy weapon is designed to slam into something, the meteor did not hit anything As far as I can tell the largest piece made a round hole in the lake. The damage was done from a shockwave from a blast.
This was not a kinetic energy weapon, it exploded. Some kinetic weapons for targeting objects in spaceflight<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight> are anti-satellite weapons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon> and anti-ballistic missiles<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile>. Since in order to reach an object in orbit it is necessary to attain an extremely high velocity, their released kinetic energy alone is enough to destroy their target; explosives are not necessary. For example: the energy of TNT <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene> is 4.6 MJ/kg, and the energy of a kinetic kill vehicle with a closing speed of 10 km/s is of 50 MJ/kg. This saves costly weight and there is no detonation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation> to be precisely timed. This method, however, requires direct contact with the target, which requires a more accurate trajectory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory>. Some hit-to-kill warheads are additionally equipped with an explosive directional warhead to enhance the kill probability (e.g. Israeli Arrow<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)> missile or U.S.Patriot PAC-3<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#MIM-104F_.28PAC-3.29> ). On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > ChemE, I can't recommend arithmetic highly enough to you: > > 10000ton*.5*(30000mph)^2?ton_explosive > ([10000 * tonm] * 0.5) * ([30000 * mph]^2) ? ton_explosive > = 194988.5 ton_explosive > > > http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't >> believe a sonic boom can do that >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: >>> >>> the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message >>> to intelligence agencies that "You will notice we sent the asteroid's >>> little brother in a controlled >>> shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how >>> we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons >>> -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an "act of God" >>> propaganda." This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff >>> based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy >>> weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very >>> difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. >>> >>> >>> Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out >>> loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and >>> the US? >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>> Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because >>> it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? >>> >>> A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type >>> of ammunition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition> which, like a >>> bullet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet>, does not contain >>> explosives <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive> and uses kinetic >>> energy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy> to penetrate the >>> target. >>> >>> Stewart >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>> James Bowery wrote: >>> >>> At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all >>> the confirmation I need to summarily reject the "sheer coincidence" >>> explanation with just the two events. >>> >>> >>> It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that >>> something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks >>> affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot >>> prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many >>> undiscovered rocks in space. >>> >>> >>> I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. >>> >>> By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation >>> that is at least as plausible as "sheer coincidence" then one has to >>> behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have >>> witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological >>> ramifications. >>> >>> By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline >>> demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, >>> whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the "sheer >>> coincidence" hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. >>> >>> I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an >>> artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the "sheer >>> coincidence" hypothesis. >>> >>> Apparently you missed it: >>> >>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html> >>> >>> >
