Starship Asterisk*

BMAONE23 wrote:I guess that the truth of the image depends on what story you read.
This link indicates that the image was taken on an expedition about 20 years later approx 1928.
This link however indicates that the (SAME?) image was taken in 1953, 45 years after the event.

Jeebo wrote:The APOD caption says it was a meteor, but I remember watching Cosmos when Carl Sagan was talking about it, and he said it was a piece of a comet. He even named the comet, but I don't remember the name now.

Jeebo wrote:The APOD caption says it was a meteor, but I remember watching Cosmos when Carl Sagan was talking about it, and he said it was a piece of a comet. He even named the comet, but I don't remember the name now.

ReallyFUBAR wrote:Sagan is right, it was a comet. If you think about it, comets are just "dirty snow balls",and this was a steam explosion. Think about velocities, mass, composition, and...rate of explosion. Unless anyone can think of any other way to explain the stripped trees under the focus, and the fallen trees around the incident. It got very hot, broke up, and exponentionally increased it's surface area, poof! Is it possible it produced a large fast ball of expanding gas that did the damage? Steam power is thought to be obsolete, but it can do enormous work.. especially if the heat and mass is large enough...

Chris Peterson wrote:It is unknown what kind of object was involved. You underestimate the amount of energy released when an object breaks apart in the atmosphere at a hypersonic speed. The Tunkuska event could very easily have been the product of a stony meteoroid. Even the "dirty snowball" model of comets has been challenged lately, as it increasingly appears that comets may be more like "snowy dirtballs".

"GB: There is active co-operation between NASA and Russian aerospace officials at a technical, scientific and maybe even military level. Do you liaise or have ties with organisations similar to your own overseas?

VU: I can tell you, truthfully, that just a couple of days before I flew to the United States I had a meeting with my ... let's say, my bosses. And they said they are very interested in co-operating with other organisations ... let's say, our friends in the West. So, I can tell you that this particular mission is at the starting point. I am charged with finding the right people. When this is done, and the next stage is activated, we can make some concrete steps.

GB: Earlier, off camera, you alluded to some important developments concerning the Tunguska explosion of 1908. For the record, can you tell us why you now believe you know the cause?

VU: It is not so much a case of belief; we know what caused it. It was a meteor, but a meteor that was destroyed by ... let's say, a missile. The missile was generated by a material installation. We don't know who constructed it, but it was built long, long ago and is situated in Siberia, several hundred kilometres north of Tunguska. I can tell you that our investigation has revealed more than one explosion at Tunguska. Let me share something with you. The last time that this installation shot down a meteor was on 24/25 September last year. The Americans ... they have three bases ... they, too, noticed this explosion. [Editor's Ref: See New Scientist vol 178 issue 2399 - 14 June 2003]

GB: Forgive me, but some will say this sounds like science fiction.

VU: Graham, you know that when we talk about the truths that lie behind this subject, we only do so with those who have an understanding of the responsibility that goes with it. And you know that we are dealing with a technology much further ahead of our own-one capable of doing things that we cannot."

The dazed witnesses reported observing terminators flying above the crash site until the evening of 30 June! These terminator spheres—or "secondary meteors", as they have been interpreted by researchers—were seen by about half of all observers.