3 ms·

How large? "anywhere from 120 metres to 260 metres in diameter". Is that bad? According to NASA, "If a rocky meteoroid larger than 25 meters but smaller than o

How large? "anywhere from 120 metres to 260 metres in diameter". Is that bad? According to NASA, "If a rocky meteoroid larger than 25 meters but smaller than one kilometer ( a little more than 1/2 mile) were to hit Earth, it would likely cause local damage to the impact area. We believe anything larger than one to two kilometers (one kilometer is a little more than one-half mile) could have worldwide effects." So... it would really suck if it hit a populated area, though that's unlikely.

dylan604 2y ago
I'm surprised there's no TNT equivalent comparing it to the biggest weapons humans have created. That always seems like a data point used when showing destructive forces.
- biot 2y ago
  From the article: > "This is a big object. An object of this size is going to have the equivalent impact energy in the hundreds of megaton approaching a gigaton," Brown said. "That'd be a regional impact. It's the sort of thing that if it hit the east coast of the U.S., you would have catastrophic effects over most of the eastern seaboard. But it's not big enough to affect the whole world."
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    Not very comfortable with how much that sounds like downplaying the effects. It would be the largest disaster in all of human history. For reference the estimated strategic nuclear arsenal of the United States is about 820 megatons and the largest US test detonation was 15 megatons so an impact of this size would be on par with or possibly worse than an all out nuclear war between the US and Russia. God knows what kind of effects that kind of blast would have, it would probably kill half the US population on impact and light the entire east coast on fire. No idea what would happen to the rest of the world after that but the supply chain “disruption” alone would mean millions starving and without fuel or medicine.
    - avar 2y ago
      Nuclear weapons are targeted, an asteroid releasing 1000x the amount of energy of all the world's nuclear weapons isn't going to be 1000x worse. Perhaps it'll vaporize on impact in the middle of the Pacific.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
well the Chicxulub impactor (The one that ended the Cretaceous Period) was estimated to be 10-15km. on the other end, the largest recorded asteroid in Siberia was 50-60m in size and did local but very noticeable damage[1], apparently 4x as powerful as the nuclear bomb that hit Hiroshima. So 260m would be absolutely devastating, but wouldn't end civilization as we know it. it would absolutely destroy any state or smaller country it hit. if it hit/exploded above an ocean, we'd have record breaking tsunamis completely flood whatever coastal areas it hit. 1: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/06/30/culture-re-view-on-this-day-in-1908-the-largest-asteroid-in-human-history-lands https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/06/30/culture-re-view-...
- delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
  > So 260m would be absolutely devastating, but wouldn't end civilization as we know it It really depends. A ~100 m asteroid is roughly as energetic as some of the largest nuclear weapons ever detonated (~10¹ to 10² megatons). As an example... It'd destroy London, and maybe some of its satellite cities like Luton, Oxford, and Cambridge, but the effects would be significantly diminished by the time the fireball radiation and the blast got to Nottingham.
hyperpape 2y ago
I can't vouch for this being perfectly accurate, but it's appeared here on HN before: https://neal.fun/asteroid-launcher/ https://neal.fun/asteroid-launcher/
CaptainOfCoit 2y ago
The amount of "suckage" in case it would hit Earth is mentioned in the article: > Fortunately, it won't impact Earth. But it would be a bad day if it did. "This is a big object. An object of this size is going to have the equivalent impact energy in the hundreds of megaton approaching a gigaton," Brown said. "That'd be a regional impact. It's the sort of thing that if it hit the east coast of the U.S., you would have catastrophic effects over most of the eastern seaboard. But it's not big enough to affect the whole world."

dylan604 2y ago

I'm surprised there's no TNT equivalent comparing it to the biggest weapons humans have created. That always seems like a data point used when showing destructive forces.

biot 2y ago
From the article: > "This is a big object. An object of this size is going to have the equivalent impact energy in the hundreds of megaton approaching a gigaton," Brown said. "That'd be a regional impact. It's the sort of thing that if it hit the east coast of the U.S., you would have catastrophic effects over most of the eastern seaboard. But it's not big enough to affect the whole world."
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  Not very comfortable with how much that sounds like downplaying the effects. It would be the largest disaster in all of human history. For reference the estimated strategic nuclear arsenal of the United States is about 820 megatons and the largest US test detonation was 15 megatons so an impact of this size would be on par with or possibly worse than an all out nuclear war between the US and Russia. God knows what kind of effects that kind of blast would have, it would probably kill half the US population on impact and light the entire east coast on fire. No idea what would happen to the rest of the world after that but the supply chain “disruption” alone would mean millions starving and without fuel or medicine.
  - avar 2y ago
    Nuclear weapons are targeted, an asteroid releasing 1000x the amount of energy of all the world's nuclear weapons isn't going to be 1000x worse. Perhaps it'll vaporize on impact in the middle of the Pacific.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

well the Chicxulub impactor (The one that ended the Cretaceous Period) was estimated to be 10-15km. on the other end, the largest recorded asteroid in Siberia was 50-60m in size and did local but very noticeable damage[1], apparently 4x as powerful as the nuclear bomb that hit Hiroshima. So 260m would be absolutely devastating, but wouldn't end civilization as we know it. it would absolutely destroy any state or smaller country it hit. if it hit/exploded above an ocean, we'd have record breaking tsunamis completely flood whatever coastal areas it hit. 1: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/06/30/culture-re-view-on-this-day-in-1908-the-largest-asteroid-in-human-history-lands https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/06/30/culture-re-view-...

delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
> So 260m would be absolutely devastating, but wouldn't end civilization as we know it It really depends. A ~100 m asteroid is roughly as energetic as some of the largest nuclear weapons ever detonated (~10¹ to 10² megatons). As an example... It'd destroy London, and maybe some of its satellite cities like Luton, Oxford, and Cambridge, but the effects would be significantly diminished by the time the fireball radiation and the blast got to Nottingham.

hyperpape 2y ago

I can't vouch for this being perfectly accurate, but it's appeared here on HN before: https://neal.fun/asteroid-launcher/ https://neal.fun/asteroid-launcher/

CaptainOfCoit 2y ago

The amount of "suckage" in case it would hit Earth is mentioned in the article: > Fortunately, it won't impact Earth. But it would be a bad day if it did. "This is a big object. An object of this size is going to have the equivalent impact energy in the hundreds of megaton approaching a gigaton," Brown said. "That'd be a regional impact. It's the sort of thing that if it hit the east coast of the U.S., you would have catastrophic effects over most of the eastern seaboard. But it's not big enough to affect the whole world."