Sandia Labs has done extensive modeling of the dynamics of meteor explosions and even has some pretty numeric visualizations for your viewing joy:
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/asteroid.html On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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/[email protected]/msg77055.html> >>>> >>>> >> >
