Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did The Feb. 15 Meteorite Course....  
User currently offlineSlcpilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 585 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

Did today's meteorite course in Russia parallel the course of the object passing near earth later today? If so, could other impacts be possible?

To relate this more to aviation, have any aircraft ever been diverted or grounded to to phenomena outside the atmosphere such as solar activity or even meteor showers?

Several months ago we saw 40-50 meteors during a short flight from LAX to SLC. It was actually pretty cool!

Cheers!

SLC"duck!"Pilot


I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

The amateur videos on YouTube suggest a high-altitude event: people had time to grab their camcorders and to begin shooting the vapor trail in the sky when the shock waves reached the ground, shattering windows and setting alarms off. Probably too high to be a danger to civilian air traffic. Still...

Reports in early newswires of several hundred people injured by "crystals" raining down from the disintegrating meteor are very unlikely in my opinion: meteors don't leave trails of sharp "crystals", and if they did the speed upon reaching the ground would be relatively low. Much more likely people have been hurt by flying shards of glass from broken windows: outdoor shockwawes make windows "implode" inwards, very dangerous for anyone standing indoors near the window staring at the massive trail in the sky...

My sympaties to anyone hurt in the event.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4054 times:

Russian media is suggesting a SAM battery intercepted a piece at 20 km altitude.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_15/Ur...tercepted-by-Russia-s-air-defense/

I would reckon a meteorite would have a higher velocity than a ballistic missile, so if they did manage to hit it, probably quite an achievement.

This is probably how an incoming Nuke would look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXFq-RWdpnI

[Edited 2013-02-15 11:30:30]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days ago) and read 4014 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Slcpilot (Thread starter):
Did today's meteorite course in Russia parallel the course of the object passing near earth later today? If so, could other impacts be possible?

"No" and "No" per Dr. Keith Smith, an astronomer at Britain's Royal Astronomical Society, and planetary scientist Samuel Kounaves at Tufts University in Boston.


User currently offlinecsturdiv From Australia, joined Aug 2005, 1472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting Slcpilot (Thread starter):
Did today's meteorite course in Russia parallel the course of the object passing near earth later today? If so, could other impacts be possible?

I believe that this meteor came in from the north. and the asteroid passing by is coming from the south. This was just a coincidence.



An American expat living and working in Australia
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

"when a salvo missile allegedly burst the “shooting star” at an altitude of 20 kilometers"


Wonder how many of the salvo actually hit the target and how many fell to earth as debris.

Very good practice, and probably good policy if you can detonate the meteor higher in the atmosphere as oppose to have it detonate closer to earth and at a minimum cause a large forest fire.

Wonder if the US missile defense system can do the same?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

Russia hitting this thing with a SAM didn't happen.

User currently offlineYYZALA From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 5):
Wonder if the US missile defense system can do the same?

Highly unlikely that any system can shoot it down. The meteorite moves at 30 km/s (probably slower once enters atmosphere) vs your top end S400 or ABM3 of 4 km/s? By the time you lock on it (highly unlikely), it will be out of your missiles range.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

Dutch media were talking about the meteorite entering at 51000 km an hour, about 14,1 km/s

after that it would slow down.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

There's little to no chanche that what we see on YouTube is a successful intercept:
* the meteor entered the upper atmosphere with at least double the speed of an ICBM in mid-course: that's enough to screw any intercept solution
* the meteor mass is estimated around 10t: an ABM warhead wouldn't do much good
* the "fireball" clearly visible in many videos develops over way too many seconds to be a warhead explosion. A "fireball" growing brighter and brighter and finally flaring is consistent with the natural fragmentation of a meteor: bigger chunks break up in small pieces that burn and break up quicker, into smaller pieces that burn and break up still quicker... and so on towards catastrophic (explosive) destruction

[Edited 2013-02-16 05:54:07]

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 9):
* the meteor mass is estimated around 10t: an ABM warhead wouldn't to much more than tickle it (unless Russians have nuclear-tipped interceptors: possible but unlikely)

Try 10,000 tons. They're guessing 55 feet across and a 500kt yield.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 10):
Try 10,000 tons. They're guessing 55 feet across and a 500kt yield.

55' across... and 20,000,000 pounds? That doesn't seem right to me. Am I missing something?



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 3503 times:

I think they said they intercepted a chunck that had come off, not the main thing itself

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 3494 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 11):
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 10):
Try 10,000 tons. They're guessing 55 feet across and a 500kt yield.

55' across... and 20,000,000 pounds? That doesn't seem right to me. Am I missing something?

Just some third grade math. Figure 100,000 cubic feet at 200 pounds each. That's very rough, but in the range. 10 tons is only about 3 cubic meters.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:35:28]


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

It is highly unlikely that Russia, the US, or anyone else could have intercepted a meteor given the speed of the meteor, even at its slowest speed when it explodes itself. Also, there are no rocket/missile plumbs climbing towards the object.

The old USSR could not intercept the (SAC) SR-71, which "only" flew at Mach 3+. The Russians have not advanced their AAW capability and technology that much to be alerted in time enough to have time to launch, much less a tracking and missile speed capability to accomplish this kind of intercept.

I suspect the Russian still could not intercept the SR-71.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The old USSR could not intercept the (SAC) SR-71, which "only" flew at Mach 3+. The Russians have not advanced their AAW capability and technology that much to be alerted in time enough to have time to launch, much less a tracking and missile speed capability to accomplish this kind of intercept.

I suspect the Russian still could not intercept the SR-71.

Then you haven't kept up with Russian AD systems. Nowadays the SR-71 is well within their interception capabilities.

A meteorite?.
Thats a complete different matter. The russians have denied launching any missiles towards it, anyway.

Also, there are reports of meteorite sightings in Cuba today.

[Edited 2013-02-16 16:15:05]

User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
Then you haven't kept up with Russian AD systems. Nowadays the SR-71 is well within their interception capabilities.

It also had to do with altitude. They don't have anything that could touch it even now when combined with speed at altitude.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 10):
Try 10,000 tons

Of course you're right: a 16m diameter sphere is a bit over 2000 cubic meters. If mass was 10t, the meteroid woud have been 200 times less dense than water: no way. On the other hand, a 16m sided cube is a bit over 4000 cubic meters; at 10000t, density would be roughly 2,5t per cubic meter (between granite and limestone): much more likely.

Thanks for the correction. The argument stands: an ABM warhead (kinetic or explosive) would at most scratch a 10000t rock.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Also, there are no rocket/missile plumbs climbing towards the object.

No but but the rock would be glowing something fierce when it enters the atmosphere. And though it is going very fast, the trajectory is very predictable. The question is whether you can pick it up soon enough. I though they were supposed to have tracked all the near earth object of significant size anyway. How did they missed this one. Or did they know it all the time and not informed us for fear of panic?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

The old USSR could not intercept the (SAC) SR-71, which "only" flew at Mach 3+.

Yeah, but at Mach 3+ that can change direction if it sense that it is being followed or tracked, targeting it is a little more difficult.

Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
meters; at 10000t, density would be roughly 2,5t per cubic meter (between granite and limestone):

Have they analyzed the chunks? Some meteors can just be conglomeration of dust and ice particles and would not be as heavy. Although, they probably can guess the weight by analyzing the gravitational trajectory of the object.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):
Have they analyzed the chunks?

I believe only very small fragments have been recovered so far, perhaps enough for a meaningful analysis, perhaps not. A more substantial chunk probably fell in a lake, leaving a nice round hole in the surface ice, but they haven't gotten to it so far. This seems to confirms my early opinion that practically 100% of the damage and casualties were caused by the shockwave.

Lesson learned: if you are indoors and see a big meteor trail in the sky, stay away from windows!

This event also looks like a convincing "proof" of how a Tunguska-type object (roughly double the size, "surviving" longer to atmospheric entry and "exploding" at a lower altitude) can cause significant damage on the ground without leaving any sizeable crater.

[Edited 2013-02-18 08:57:25]

User currently onlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):
No but but the rock would be glowing something fierce when it enters the atmosphere. And though it is going very fast, the trajectory is very predictable. The question is whether you can pick it up soon enough. I though they were supposed to have tracked all the near earth object of significant size anyway. How did they missed this one. Or did they know it all the time and not informed us for fear of panic?

It's an ongoing effort, and 15m is not on anyone's scale of objects of significant size. As of last year, the estimate was that some 20-30% of potentially hazardous objects larger than 100m have been found, and of the objects bigger than 1km, some ~80% have been found. While there are a fair number of objects that have been found in the 15m class, the found objects would be a tiny fraction of the number actually out there. Unless exceptional speeds are involved, you can't even get a non-zero Torino scale rating for a 15m object.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The old USSR could not intercept the (SAC) SR-71, which "only" flew at Mach 3+.

The problem with that wasn't so much speed as altitude. Their air was too thin for control surfaces on SAMs or Mig-25s to work. They sent both the MIGs and SAMs on ballistic shots trying to get close enough to score a hit. It took about a hundred chance aimed missiles to bring Powers' U-2 down that way.
Not that anything they have would have put a scratch on that rock anyhow.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 20):
Unless exceptional speeds are involved, you can't even get a non-zero Torino scale rating for a 15m object.

Quite rightly so: the 15/02 event experimentally "confirmed" (kind of) that such objects do not cause severe ground damage. Now, replacing thousands of broken windows may be expensive, and injuries caused by window fragments can be severe, painful and even crippling: for anyone affected the aftermath cannot be dismissed lightly. However, compared to the damage 50m objects (above 150000 t) can cause, it's understandable that current "space defence" systems (e.g. Sentry) draw the line somewhere in between. NEOs under 50m are just too numerous and too hard to detect and track with current technology and investment level. Perhaps when Planetary Resources and DSI will have fleets of space-based survey telescopes in orbit, searching 24/7 for NEOs, things could change.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Did The Feb. 15 Meteorite Course....
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did California Get A Shuttle? posted Tue Oct 9 2012 16:19:21 by eksath
Did I See An F-105 Over Miami On 9/23? posted Mon Sep 24 2012 12:16:15 by pedroanda
Why Did The US Navy Retire The S3B? posted Mon Jul 16 2012 19:15:09 by Max Q
Royal Thai Air Force B734 @ BHX Today posted Thu Jun 21 2012 13:05:06 by MCO2BRS
Did I See A B-52 Over The Potomac Near DCA posted Wed May 30 2012 21:07:21 by boacvc10
50 Years Ago Today U.S. Orbits A Human posted Mon Feb 20 2012 08:24:42 by redflyer
Did You Ever Miss Out On Something Cool In The Military? posted Tue Dec 20 2011 12:00:15 by 747400sp
Air Force One At LAX Today, 10/24 posted Mon Oct 24 2011 14:03:14 by bonusonus
Usaf E-4 At TUL Today posted Fri Oct 14 2011 18:12:05 by Contrails

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format