3 ms·
One is more common that the other. And size matters. The smaller this object was, the more likely it will be to happen again. So it's exact size and compositio
by sandworm101 4y ago
One is more common that the other. And size matters. The smaller this object was, the more likely it will be to happen again. So it's exact size and composition matters when calculating future likelihoods.
- AlbertCory 4y agowell, it caused a city-killing explosion. What would we do differently if the projected size estimates varied by 10x? It's scientifically interesting. Nothing wrong with that.
- sandworm101 4y agoIt might make the difference between ignoring a potential city-killer impact, and an all-or-nothing attempt to save us from civilization-ending event. To make such decisions we need to know what a particular type of incoming object might do. That means careful study of the few examples we already have in our history.
- AlbertCory 4y agoOK. And the debate about "what should we do about that massive object out there heading for Earth" would be calm and rational, and the voices saying "hey, don't worry, it's just going to be Tunguska-sized, we can ignore it!" would win out? Please. It's an interesting question, and that's it.
- mach1ne 4y agoDepending on the projected costs and other risks, yes, that could happen.
- sandworm101 4y agoA tunguska-sized event would be ignored, paticularly as most of earths surface is water. Such an explosion over the pacific would not be worth the cost of any redirect attempt.
- edmundsauto 4y agoWell, a 10x situation probably wouldn’t end civilization. But, yes we should learn what we can from what evidence is available! Fully agree.