It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Russian meteorite 1,000 times bigger than originally thought!

page: 4
19
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:10 PM

I was speaking from my own point of view and my own opinion. Nor was it a solid opinion since I had no evidence to back it up. How am I spreading ignorance?

I know that you are spreading 4chan type HATE!!! back to your hole troll

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

NASA has estimated the meteor's diameter to be 17 m. That's a radius of 8.5 m, a volume of 2572.44 m³, and a mass (based on the density you gave) of 10,933 tons.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by NeoVain

1000 times bigger than originally thought? And they say 15 meters in diameters? That would mean they originally thought it was 1.5 cm big. It seems they where originally very dumb, or something doesn´t smell right here.

Yeah - you math!

1000 times the mass is not 1000 times the diameter - volume increases with the cube of the diameter (radius x 2) - so it is about 10 times the radius.

A 1.5m diameter sphere has a volume of about 1.8 cubic meters, and I saw somewher the figure of 4.25 t/m^3 for the material, so that's about 7.5 tonnes

Make the sphere 1.7m and you get 11 tonnes - yep - just a little increase in diameter - 0.2m, about 8", adds almost 3.5 tonnes!! (unless my math has suddently gone to carp!!
)

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:55 PM

Initially it was thought to contain much more iron so would have been a heavier initial estimate. The presumed high iron content was suggested as the the reason it survived the mesosphere and got as far as it did.

However the scientific estimates and some of the reporting is possibly dubious so I expect more 'revelations' about how big / fast etc. it was soon.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:06 PM
Sort of makes one wonder about the vids showing and saying it was shot down from behind. Never beleive a damn thing NASA say's. If this isnt proof of that statement, I don't know what is.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:51 PM

Why, because NASA waited to get an accurate value instead of jumping all over preliminary estimates like everyone else?

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
Sort of makes one wonder about the vids showing and saying it was shot down from behind. Never beleive a damn thing NASA say's. If this isnt proof of that statement, I don't know what is.

Congratulations - you too are less accurate than Fox News

there was a prize, but when it was realised how many people were winning it the organisers decided to eat it themselves...yum yum....

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:18 PM
I am grateful that there were no deaths.
I am sorry about all the people who were cut/injured by the blast.
Thank Goodness this didn't happen 30 years ago. It would have kicked off a retaliatory missile strike.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:26 PM
10,000 tons of meteorite, there's a lot of \$\$\$\$\$ to be found in them their waters.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
It truly is frightening stuff that this got through undetected, what if it was bigger still?

www.liveleak.com...

I now know that if I see something like that pass by, I have about 2 minutes to get away from windows and protect my ears!

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:37 PM
I sort of don't want to visit the link, because I know what's on the other side of that rainbow, and it ain't a pot of gold. I guarantee you at the end of the article, it won't make sense, or the information will be skewed to make someone look insane, or it will be fluff news, because of the nature of the presentation, that it comes from fox news.

I imagine it weighed 100 tons but it hit the ground feeling like 10,000 tons. That could the idea behind the force that was stronger than an atomic bomb, it was more powerful than a megaton bomb. What am I, a rocket scientist?

Somehow, putting the numbers on papers doesn't promote the idea of a competitive intelligence after the fact. I'm going to pull a Hillary Clinton and say: what difference does it make? It's already exploded a bunch of windows and is now a permanent addition to planet Earth.

Here is the response you will typically get from NASA after an event with no warning: "space is pretty big," and it's said with superior nerd attitude which implies that watching ginormous shooting stars is a waste of their time. And they doubly don't care to tell you when something dangerous is going to happen, unless it lands by one of their precious little military installations or within the view of the POTUS. Weren't they out of their 9 to 5 shift and sleeping in the USA when that skyturd came down in Russia? US isn't exactly going to confess monitoring Russian airspace anyways.

Just remember what they didn't tell their exploding shuttle crew and see how it follows their character to not care in this event.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Helious

So, it went from being an estimated 10 tons to 10,000 tons? How could this be exactly?

I heard initial estimations that the meteor was 2m in size but this just can not be the case at all if it was actually 10,000 tons. Something about this doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the surface.

Wouldn't something of that mass and velocity have caused a lot more damage and loss of life? I'm no astrophysicist but 10,000 tons seems like a lot to me.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It exploded high in the atmosphere spread out linearly over quite a distance, not exploding in a single point.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:44 AM
i trust no news coming from fox news.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

What if the thing would have hit a city and took out two or three million. Would NASA be so quick to say "we were wrong in the size estimate, our bad" I don't think so.Keep beleiving what is feed to you by the folks at NASA. They have a never ending supply of crap.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:13 AM

NASA wasn't wrong. The Russian scientists were wrong. NASA has been consistent in its size estimates. Feel free to take issue with NASA all you want, but you can't use this incident to do it. NASA are the only ones who haven't significantly changed their initial estimates.

new topics

19