Jim, Thanks for the AIRBURST reference.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <cheme...@gmail.com> 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 <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> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
