![Image](http://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/images/BikiniAtoll.jpg)
1500 (TNT) megaton TU24 asteroid if it had hit earth: ?????
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080130.html
There was a newspaper article today, 1/30/08, about new supercomputer models putting Tunguska at 3-5 megatons.neufer wrote:(Tunguska sized) 15 (TNT) megaton
Asteroid: in spaceemc wrote:Does an asteroid become a meteoror is an asteroid always an asteroid
what about when it becomes tiny particles
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/01/2 ... index.htmlWilliam Roeder wrote:There was a newspaper article today, 1/30/08, about new supercomputer models putting Tunguska at 3-5 megatons.neufer wrote:(Tunguska sized) 15 (TNT) megaton
Should we come up with three more classifications for satellites???emc wrote:
Does an asteroid become a meteoror is an asteroid always an asteroid
what about when it becomes tiny particles
![]()
Dr. Skeptic wrote:
Asteroid: in space
Meteor: in the atmosphere
Meteorite: on the ground or in your hand
Micro-Meteor or Micro- meteorite when less than .5 mm (sand or dust sized)
Yes, well I was just trying to be in the ball park as far as Tunguska was concerned.William Roeder wrote:There was a newspaper article today, 1/30/08, about new supercomputer models putting Tunguska at 3-5 megatons.neufer wrote:(Tunguska sized) 15 (TNT) megaton
Arramon wrote:good ol' asteroids..
I'm just waiting for something to hit the moon... wake up the entire world about how little we can do concerning these objects that are everywhere in the solar system. Anyone know the last time something actually struck the moon and was recorded
For perspective, those dark spots near the expanding shockwave (this isn't the mushroom cloud...that comes later and is much bigger), are real-life, full-size battleships the navy parked there as part of the test.neufer wrote:(Tunguska sized) 15 (TNT) megaton March 1, 1954 Bikini "Bravo" test:
1500 (TNT) megaton TU24 asteroid if it had hit earth: ?????
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080130.html
There are dozens of images of meteoroids hitting the Moon, made over the last several years. Both amateurs and pros record videos of the shadowed part of the Moon during major meteor showers. There's no need for an atmosphere to see them; enough energy is liberated in the impact to show as a flash.Storm_norm wrote:I don't know of any recorded incident of a meteor hitting the moon. but how would you record it? its not like the meteor will light up like it does in the earth's atmosphere. the moon is probably pelted with dust all the time since it doesn't have an atmosphere like the earth's.
we can easily see meteor entering the earth's atmoshphere and follow the trail of the super heated material. that doesn't happen on the moon. how do you photograph dust hitting the moon?
----------------------------------------------------------------npsguy wrote:Yep November 2005Arramon wrote:good ol' asteroids..
I'm just waiting for something to hit the moon... wake up the entire world about how little we can do concerning these objects that are everywhere in the solar system. Anyone know the last time something actually struck the moon and was recorded
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3794
- A meteoroid struck the Moon in early November, and NASA scientists caught the impact on tape. NASA scientists at the Meteoroid Environment Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, set up a telescope outside their office building to monitor flashes on the Moon's shadowed side... According to Bill Cooke, an astronomer at the Marshall Space Flight Center, the video sat on the computer for a week before Suggs analyzed it and found the 7.3-magnitude flash.
As interesting as this story is, it has been largely discredited. There are no other reports of it, although other reports would be expected. There are no reports of huge meteor storms in the following days, although such storms would certainly be produced. Images from Clementine show that while crater Giordano Bruno is young, it is almost certainly older than 800 years. And the whole issue with the Taurids is a red herring, as there's no indication that any Taurid debris is large enough to produce a 22 km diameter crater.neufer wrote: <<Five monks from Canterbury reported to the abbey's chronicler, Gervase, that shortly after sunset on June 18, 1178, they saw two horns of light on the shaded part of the moon:The monks' observation took place during the Taurid meteor shower.
- "This year, on the evening of June 18, when the moon, a slim crescent,
first became visible, a marvelous phenomenon was seen by several men
who were watching it. Suddenly the upper horn of the crescent was split
in two. From the midpoint of the division a flaming torch sprang up,
spewing out over a considerable distance fire, hot coals and sparks.
The body of the moon which was below writhed like a wounded snake.
This happened a dozen times or more, and when the moon returned to
normal, the whole crescent took on a blackish appearance."
The Gervase story rings true a an observation of a Taurid meteor fireball BETWEEN the moon and Canterbury (as a full reading of my post would suggest).Chris Peterson wrote:As interesting as this story is, it has been largely discredited. There are no other reports of it, although other reports would be expected. There are no reports of huge meteor storms in the following days, although such storms would certainly be produced. Images from Clementine show that while crater Giordano Bruno is young, it is almost certainly older than 800 years. And the whole issue with the Taurids is a red herring, as there's no indication that any Taurid debris is large enough to produce a 22 km diameter crater.neufer wrote: <<Five monks from Canterbury reported to the abbey's chronicler, Gervase, that shortly after sunset on June 18, 1178, they saw two horns of light on the shaded part of the moon:The monks' observation took place during the Taurid meteor shower.
- "This year, on the evening of June 18, when the moon, a slim crescent,
first became visible, a marvelous phenomenon was seen by several men
who were watching it. Suddenly the upper horn of the crescent was split
in two. From the midpoint of the division a flaming torch sprang up,
spewing out over a considerable distance fire, hot coals and sparks.
The body of the moon which was below writhed like a wounded snake.
This happened a dozen times or more, and when the moon returned to
normal, the whole crescent took on a blackish appearance."
Surely if magnitude 7 impacts are observed regularly today then larger lunar impacts must have been witnessed visually in the pastChris Peterson wrote:While meteor impacts are easily, and somewhat commonly, recorded on the Moon with cameras, there remains no real evidence that such an impact has ever been witnessed visually.
That's an interesting thing to consider. Impacts large enough to cause an easily visible flash are going to be very uncommon- probably separated by thousands of years on average. And the flashes would be brief. So it may well be that no human has ever witnessed a lunar meteor impact naked eye. But as you point out, if no record exists, it is hard ever to know for sure. I suppose, however, that as we continue to map the Moon in ever finer detail, we'll at least know if any impacts occurred in historical times that might have been witnessed.neufer wrote:Surely if magnitude 7 impacts are observed regularly today then larger lunar impacts must have been witnessed visually in the past
but if such events were ever recorded then no record survives that we know about.
It might be worth trying but it's unlikely to succeed sinceNoelC wrote:Imagine aligning an image with, say, 500 meters per pixel resolution with a similar image from years gone by and blinking back and forth to see if there have been changes. Astronomers do this all the time with deep space imagery, but I've not heard of it being done with images of the Moon. -Noel
Code: Select all
km Crater
...........................
4.5 Rio Cuarto, Argentina
1.9 Tenoumer, Mauritania
1.83 Lonar, India
1.186 Barringer Arizona
0.45 Amguid Algeria
In case anyone's curious about what I did to the pic, I just resized it down in Photoshop to the point where it wasn't pixelated, which was very small, and then enlarged it. You can get some good results by doing that with pixelated images. They won't be perfect since upsizing makes them blurry and all but they can come out good enough to see what the object looks like anyway.Ace wrote:I hate pixelated images so I smoothed out the photo of Asteroid 2007 TU24 if anyone's interested.
That's interesting. I was not aware that technique would yield such an aesthetic improvement even though it results in degradation of data.Ace wrote:Ace wrote: . . . resized it down in Photoshop to the point where it wasn't pixelated, which was very small, and then enlarged it. . .