What would happen if this happened?

jindivik · Dec 10, 2004

ok i know its not really possible but what if an asteroid or space object...about 100 miles across hits the earth, but this is the catch & is what makes it impossible....it hits at about 1mph? if it could or does happen what effects will it have on the Earth, think of it hitting land rather than sea so it doesnt make sea levels rise...would it punch a hole in the crust & get wedged in there & never come out?...what weather effects would come of it? what gravitational effects?...what would happen to the atmosphere? (crazy thought but kind of funky <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

jindivik · Dec 10, 2004

i know its a stupid thing to talk about but me & my friend were talking about it in class & i said oh, ill post on SDC & see what the wizards there think <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> hehe

thechemist · Dec 10, 2004

At that speed we could build a giant tennis racket and serve it out of the solar system. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

rogerinnh · Dec 10, 2004

I would think that the asteroid would collapse into the shape of a huge mountain about 75 miles high. You would then be able to "walk into space" just by climbing up the side of the mountain since the top would be well above the atmosphere. We could name is "Space Mountain" (after getting permission from Disney, of course). Such a mountain would definitely wreak havoc with the local environment and would set up drastically different wind patterns. But I don't think it would do anything like change the rotation of the Earth. Hey, we'd finally have a mountain high enough to place that classical theoretical cannon that could fire a connonball into orbit!

Saiph · Dec 10, 2004

It would liberate the kinetic energy of a 100 mile diameter asteroid traveling at 1 mph. It would still hurt like **ll. Figure the mass out (Find density of the asteroid, multiply by volume...4/3*pi*50^3 in this case). Convert 1 mph into meters per second. Multiply the mass by 1/2, and by the converted velocity squared: Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2. Compare that to a nuclear bomb (find figures on net). I bet the asteroid will win, easily. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Leovinus · Dec 10, 2004

If "this" happened, I guarantee you that "that" would not happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rogers_buck · Dec 10, 2004

The stock market would crash.

Saiph · Dec 10, 2004

now that's creative thinking. way to shift para-dig-ems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

heyscottie · Dec 10, 2004

Okay: Radius = 50 mile = 80467.2m Volume = 2.18E15 m^3 A low density asteroid may have a density of about 2.37 g/cm^3, or 2370 kg/m^3 So the mass is (2.18E16 * 2370) kg, or 5.17E18 kg Velocity in m/s is .44704 m/s. Energy is .5*5.17e18*.44704^2 J E = 5.17E17 J The Hiroshima bomb was a 12 kiloton bomb, which is about 5.02E13 J So this asteroid impact would liberate energy equal to 5.17E17/5.02E13, or about 10300 Hiroshima bombs. That seems like more than would be comfortable. Scott

silylene old · Dec 10, 2004

First, lets assume the asteroid is lowered much more slowly, perhaps 1 mm/day (or less!). This is to prevent collisional damage, which i think was the intent of the original post. While not disagreeing with Steve's and previous posts, I would predict this outcome: The asteroid would nearly immediately collapse under it's own weight, following completion of the lowering process. Thus block of asteroid rock would fall 50-100 miles from the upper portion of the asteroid and impact into the Earth's surface. The impacts would wreck the biosphere, as Steve described, even before the quakes started. After the huge mass of the asteroid collapses onto the Earth's surface, massive quakes would ensue devastating the continent underlying the asteroid, and as Steve described, causing antipodal quakes too. The mass would need to resettle and re-equilibrate so that the Earth re-assumes an oblate spheroid shape. This would take a long time (hundred thousands to millions of years?), and I would assume it would involve a large amount of global volcanism, continental drift, rifting and plate subduction. It would be a very bad time for life on Earth. The irregularities in the Earth's mass and gravitational field would affect the moon too, causing a large increase in tidal warming within the moon's interior and crust. But I don't think it would be enough to cause lunar volcanism, maybe just some nice big moonquakes. The tidal friction will eventually cause the moon to little move further away in its orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

Saiph · Dec 10, 2004

actually, I don't think 10,000 Hiroshimas will have that effect. They had a, what, .5 kiloton warhead? Or am I misremembering? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jindivik · Dec 10, 2004

what if it wasnt a rocky asteroid but was made of pure iron or something like that? would it still collapse?

mcbethcg · Dec 10, 2004

OK, smarty- I doubt this is factored in to your calculations: So this huge mass at 1 mph liberates the energy of 10,300 hiroshima bombs. How much would that much energy increase the temperature of that much mass? I doubt it would even be warmed as a result.

kmarinas86 · Dec 10, 2004

How much would that much energy increase the temperature of that much mass? I doubt it would even be warmed as a result. That would depend on the specific heat of material and the rate of the heat dissipation (anything else?) The "elasticity" of the asteriod compositions would help to dissipate some of the kinetic energy.

paleo · Dec 10, 2004

"actually, I don't think 10,000 Hiroshimas will have that effect.' True. Zilcho effect on tectonic plates. A mosquito hitting an 18 wheeler would have more effect.

odysseus145 · Dec 10, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />actually, I don't think 10,000 Hiroshimas will have that effect. They had a, what, .5 kiloton warhead? Or am I misremembering?<hr /></blockquote> Everything I've read had the yield between 15 and 22 kilotons. 10,000 of these would have an explosive yield between 150 and 220 megatons. That's pretty big but still not catastrophic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

silylene old · Dec 10, 2004

Hiroshima was a 30 kt explosion. 10,000 Hiroshimas would be the same as exploding 300 Soviet bunker busters with a 1 mt warhead on each. Welcome back to the stone age if a salvo this big was launched at us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

Saiph · Dec 10, 2004

thank you paleo, odyseuus. I haven't had time myself to actually do the digging. My day from **ll is past, however. Finals will piece of cake in comparison. Silyene: You're overestimating the impact of such a yield. The US at one point had, deployed and in service, 25 megaton nuclear weapons. 8 of those, and we've matched this asteroid. That would really mess up the surface in the area (i.e. section of the continent). But it would do diddly to the overall tectonic plate, as paleo said. An Iron asteroid would be worse. The density is higher, thus the overall mass is increased as well, so there's more kinetic energy. The Rigidity may also play a significant factor as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

wisefool · Dec 11, 2004

Here's my two bits: First, the entire proposition is counterlogical, since even if the Earth met up with an asteroid of this size traveling at nearly the same speed, the massively greater Earth would accelerate the asteroid toward Earth's surface, with a net impact speed much greater than 1 mph. So, to keep the impact speed at 1 mph there would have to be a countervailing force equal to Earth's gravity, and what is THAT? OK, so we play with this absurdity: Even if it had the net kinetic energy of 10,000 Hiroshima bombs, it would not have the same effect, for four reasons. First, the impact would be relatively gradual, versus the instantaneous explosion of a nuke. Second, the asteroid would not be radioactive. Third, it would not have a bright light flash. Fourth, it would not have the same loudness of a bomb, but would more likely be a long, low rumbling sound, which would be more tolerable. It would make for a neat mountain, assuming the asrteroid stayed intact, and assuming that the ground below it did not deform as speculated above. Such an asteroid could also land into a deep part of the Pacific, making it less elevated above the water level. OK, time to leave the Twilight Zone...

nissasa · Dec 12, 2004

Regardless of what it will do to the earth, if it lands on your house.. the effect is still basically the same. If we do some rounding... it doesn't sound like there is all that much power in this impossible asteroid. Let's start with 100km asteroid going 1km/h. If I remember correctly we can divide one side if we multiply the other side proportionately. 1km asteroid going 100 km/h 1m asteroid going 100,000km/h Wouldn't that make the energy release be relatively low? Atleast on a global scale.

silylene old · Dec 12, 2004

Let's start with 100km asteroid going 1km/h. If I remember correctly we can divide one side if we multiply the other side proportionately. 1km asteroid going 100 km/h 1m asteroid going 100,000km/h Mass is proportional to the cube of the radius of the asteroid. volume = 4/3 * pi * r^3 mass 1 m asteroid = density * 4/3 * pi * 0.5m^3 = 0.52 * density mass 1 km asteroid = density * 4/3 * pi * 500^3 = 524,000,000 * density 1 km asteroid * 100 km/h = 524,000,000*100 = 524,000,000,000 1m asteroid * 100,000km/h = 52000 (fill in the units) that's a factor of 1,000,000 different! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

What would happen if this happened?

jindivik

Guest

jindivik

Guest

thechemist

Guest

rogerinnh

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

Saiph

Guest

heyscottie

Guest

silylene old

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jindivik

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

paleo

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

silylene old

Guest

Saiph

Guest

wisefool

Guest

nissasa

Guest

silylene old

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page