3 ms·

Working link: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20YR4 https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20Y... 8.1 megatons of ki

by layer8 2y ago

Working link: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20YR4 https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20Y... 8.1 megatons of kinetic energy. According to the Torino rating, only risk of “localized destruction” (less than “regional devastation”): https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/torino_scale.html https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/torino_scale.html

beastman82 2y ago
*megatons of TNT. 1 MT of TNT = 4.14*10^15 joules
- kristjansson 2y ago
  So you wouldn't want to be under it, but a good-sized hill would be enough cover?
  - simne 2y ago
    Yes, deep underground shelter planned for nuclear attack will be enough to survive, as damaging mechanisms, are mostly same - short but very powerful infrared flash and deadly shockwave (better to consider it as very fast pressure grow and then pressure drop). Just staying behind hill, will be not enough cover from shockwave, so people will suffer from fast pressure changes. But shockwave quickly weakened as square of distance, and hill will make it's path longer. So, something like 100m hill could be considered as moving border of deadly zone 100m closer to epicenter.
ortusdux 2y ago
Comparable in energy to a B-53 nuclear bomb, minus the radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb
- layer8 2y ago
  So a 14 km blast radius it seems.
  - RandomBacon 2y ago
    Unless it lands in the ocean in which case tidal waves, and if on land, probably an earthquake/shockwave.
    - ortusdux 2y ago
      A comparable ocean impact would be the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which was about 3x more energetic.
      - Gare 2y ago
        I'd assume quakes transform much more energy into tsunami waves than meteorite hit does.
        fghorow 2y ago
        That is not correct. Earthquakes' energy doesn't all go to displacing water and hence generating tsunamis. An ocean impact is significantly more efficient at transferring energy into tsunamis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444515520000163 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97804...
        giantg2 2y ago
        Interesting, I would assume surface wave dissipation to counteract that compared to seabed origin.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        2004 Indian Earthquake was 9.1-magnitude, so it was about 150 megatons of TNT.
- devoutsalsa 2y ago
  What I just learned from ChatGPT… Asteroids mostly contain the same naturally radioactive elements we find in Earth's rocks - mainly potassium, uranium, and thorium in very small amounts. When they hit Earth, they don't typically create radiation hazards. Scientists have checked out famous impact sites like Meteor Crater in Arizona and found normal radiation levels. While impacts can briefly create some radioactive isotopes through the collision process, it's really the impact's explosive force that does the real damage, not radiation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
dang 2y ago
Link fixed now. Thanks!
thekevan 2y ago
[flagged]
- daedrdev 2y ago
  Yeah it is bad and a lot of damage if it hits somewhere populous but my understanding is we've tested nukes that powerful
  - renjimen 2y ago
    Largest was the Tsar Bomba at > 50 megatons! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
- bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
  I don't want to come off too harsh here -- not a personal attack -- but I genuinely don't understand why folks are sharing the output from LLMs. It's usually too long, it's not written by a human (which is why I came to HN), and I could have trivially asked an LLM myself!
  - XorNot 2y ago
    I've been ongoingly baffled by the phenomenon as well. Like it's a new technology and all, but it seems incredibly obvious to me that copy and pasting output like that is adding nothing to the conversation (and the hallucination factor makes it, well, worse then useless IMO).
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Some people are literally just that out of touch. Imagine if every forum was just screenshots of google search results.
vivzkestrel 2y ago
imagine if you could channel that much kinetic energy into a propulsion system for interstellar travel
- jjk166 2y ago
  If you had a 100 ton spacecraft and you pumped all that kinetic energy into it with perfect efficiency, it would get up to 0.2% of light speed, fast enough to reach the nearest star in about 2000 years.
Ajedi32 2y ago
The ESA's estimate is a bit lower, at 0.1 MT: https://neo.ssa.esa.int/search-for-asteroids?tab=possimp&des=2024YR4 https://neo.ssa.esa.int/search-for-asteroids?tab=possimp&des... I'm guessing there's still a lot of uncertainty.
astrobe_ 2y ago
Those numbers were a bit abstract to me, so to get an idea: Tungunska event (1908) is estimated between 3 and 5 [1], and the Chelyabinsk (2013) at 0.5 [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

by layer8 2y ago

beastman82 2y ago

*megatons of TNT. 1 MT of TNT = 4.14*10^15 joules

kristjansson 2y ago
So you wouldn't want to be under it, but a good-sized hill would be enough cover?
- simne 2y ago
  Yes, deep underground shelter planned for nuclear attack will be enough to survive, as damaging mechanisms, are mostly same - short but very powerful infrared flash and deadly shockwave (better to consider it as very fast pressure grow and then pressure drop). Just staying behind hill, will be not enough cover from shockwave, so people will suffer from fast pressure changes. But shockwave quickly weakened as square of distance, and hill will make it's path longer. So, something like 100m hill could be considered as moving border of deadly zone 100m closer to epicenter.

ortusdux 2y ago

Comparable in energy to a B-53 nuclear bomb, minus the radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb

layer8 2y ago
So a 14 km blast radius it seems.
- RandomBacon 2y ago
  Unless it lands in the ocean in which case tidal waves, and if on land, probably an earthquake/shockwave.
  - ortusdux 2y ago
    A comparable ocean impact would be the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which was about 3x more energetic.
    - Gare 2y ago
      I'd assume quakes transform much more energy into tsunami waves than meteorite hit does.
      - fghorow 2y ago
        That is not correct. Earthquakes' energy doesn't all go to displacing water and hence generating tsunamis. An ocean impact is significantly more efficient at transferring energy into tsunamis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444515520000163 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97804...
        giantg2 2y ago
        Interesting, I would assume surface wave dissipation to counteract that compared to seabed origin.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      2004 Indian Earthquake was 9.1-magnitude, so it was about 150 megatons of TNT.
devoutsalsa 2y ago
What I just learned from ChatGPT… Asteroids mostly contain the same naturally radioactive elements we find in Earth's rocks - mainly potassium, uranium, and thorium in very small amounts. When they hit Earth, they don't typically create radiation hazards. Scientists have checked out famous impact sites like Meteor Crater in Arizona and found normal radiation levels. While impacts can briefly create some radioactive isotopes through the collision process, it's really the impact's explosive force that does the real damage, not radiation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

dang 2y ago

Link fixed now. Thanks!

thekevan 2y ago

[flagged]

daedrdev 2y ago
Yeah it is bad and a lot of damage if it hits somewhere populous but my understanding is we've tested nukes that powerful
- renjimen 2y ago
  Largest was the Tsar Bomba at > 50 megatons! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
I don't want to come off too harsh here -- not a personal attack -- but I genuinely don't understand why folks are sharing the output from LLMs. It's usually too long, it's not written by a human (which is why I came to HN), and I could have trivially asked an LLM myself!
- XorNot 2y ago
  I've been ongoingly baffled by the phenomenon as well. Like it's a new technology and all, but it seems incredibly obvious to me that copy and pasting output like that is adding nothing to the conversation (and the hallucination factor makes it, well, worse then useless IMO).
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Some people are literally just that out of touch. Imagine if every forum was just screenshots of google search results.

vivzkestrel 2y ago

imagine if you could channel that much kinetic energy into a propulsion system for interstellar travel

jjk166 2y ago
If you had a 100 ton spacecraft and you pumped all that kinetic energy into it with perfect efficiency, it would get up to 0.2% of light speed, fast enough to reach the nearest star in about 2000 years.

Ajedi32 2y ago

The ESA's estimate is a bit lower, at 0.1 MT: https://neo.ssa.esa.int/search-for-asteroids?tab=possimp&des=2024YR4 https://neo.ssa.esa.int/search-for-asteroids?tab=possimp&des... I'm guessing there's still a lot of uncertainty.

astrobe_ 2y ago

Those numbers were a bit abstract to me, so to get an idea: Tungunska event (1908) is estimated between 3 and 5 [1], and the Chelyabinsk (2013) at 0.5 [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor