I don't know if that would get hot enough. It was way hotter than a normal city fire. But I'm betting that some explosives and chemicals burn hotter than normal, not just meteors. If someone doesn't know that mixing A and B will go boom, well, sometimes shit happens.
The physics of stuff going boom scales non-linearly I think, it changes the bigger the boom.
I guess we'd have to take a look at what happened with the Beirut explosion, and if that produced similar artifacts. But I'd hazard a guess that if you dump a really huge amount of energy into a small spot in a very short window of time, it's going to be really hot.
Probably, I mean, we're talking about 20-25 kiloton(TNT) explosion. Which with a crude fuel/fertilizer mix, allowing for incomplete mixing etc, equates to around 30 thousand tons of crude oxidizer. [having done the maths now.]
That's helluva big pile of natrum in other words. Way more than is likely. Plus a couple of barge loads of lamp oil.
So.. yeah.. unlikely as it seems, an air-burst meteor is the most probable explanation. [unless they were mass producing greek fire there.]
Lets just hope it doesn't happen again, because it looks way too much like a nuke going off, and people are kinda jumpy enough as it is.
Well, as Asimov pointed out once, if the Tunguska meteor had been on the same track, but 8 hours later, it'd have hit Moscow.
In 1908, nobody would have thought "nuke", but it'd have sure changed history.
And I recall at least one short story in Analog back in the 60s where a meteor came low over the pole and hit Washington DC. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed and they got somebody in there with radiation detectors.
On the other hand, in H. Beam Piper's "The Answer" they discover that the blast that started WWIII was an antimatter meteor striking a town. Alas, they discover this 15 years later...
I think there was at least one Alt.history story where the Tunguska meteor missed, and went around again, impacting exactly ten years later in 1918 and little bit further south and west in northern France instead... just before the armistice. Which lead to the rather earlier development of nukes, as people tried to work out what this 'super weapon' was that someone had detonated.
Either way. I think if something like that happened today, we'd see governments taking a bit more interest in space I think.
I'm pretty sure that they'd have figured out it was a meteor strike...
Also, it'd take quite a bit to accelerate the timeline on nukes. It wasn't until 1938(?) that fission was discovered, and until that happens, atomic bombs aren't concievable. Fusion bombs are a remote (very) theoretical possibility, but without a fission bomb for a trigger aren't doable (even now).
But a Tunguska event involving a first world nation would *definitely* increase the drive to get into space so we could *do* something about these bodies before it happened again.
Come to think of it I can see three possible locations that would likely trigger a nuclear exchange if they got hit. The US, Russia and China *wouldn't* because they can all tell the difference, and know that a *single* strike against them would be insane.
But North Korea, Iran and Israel are all nuclear powers (or will be soon), are more than a bit paranoid, and *could* panic at a what appears to be a nuclear strike.
None of them are likely to start WWIII this way, but they'd all stir up a lot of trouble.
On another tangent, picture the fun if a meteor struck Mecca, Rome or Salt Lake City. Lots of folks would be raising "Wrath of God" arguments.
Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and are in perpetual state of hostility towards each other. An impact there would probably trigger a brief nuclear exchange before anyone else could tell them it was a meteor. It wouldn't even need to hit a major population centre, both sides home-grown missiles have been known to go off target for a start, and if it hit anywhere along the border it would take out one military target or another.
Now imagine if it hit Jerusalem... Israel would go berserk.
Yeah, the Israelis would go nuts. So would a lot of Muslims. I'm moderately sure that Jerusalem is the *one* target that most Muslims wouldn't believe Israel would target.
Which reminds me, I have heard right wing types who thought nuking Mecca was a good idea.... *shudder*.
I think the Christians wouldn't be far behind. Point is, everyone would blame everyone else... and if there were no eye witness accounts at first of the reentry fireball [which happens sometimes with airburst meteors.] then a terrorist nuke would be suspected.
and yup, I heard those fruitcakes as well... they figured a great time for it would be during the annual pilgrimage, so they get more of them. One cruise missile, boom! Instant Jihad I guess.
I think some of those loonies liked the idea of an eternal war...probably thought of themselves as modern day crusaders or something.
Well, I had the "fun" of talking with one while we were helping some mutual friends move.
And what got *me* was that I couldn't seem to get across the idea that the reaction would complete rage and hatred. He seemed to think it would *intimidate* them.
I tried finding an analogy that'd fit his world view, but I couldn't.
btw, even if folks saw the re-entry track, that wouldn't help that much. Look up pics of test warheads re-entering. Most are for the target range at Kwajalien atoll, but there are others.
Bright white streaks of light coming from the sky.
>>And what got *me* was that I couldn't seem to get across the idea that the reaction would complete rage and hatred. He seemed to think it would *intimidate* them.<<
People who rely on force, and think it's a good way to solve problems, frequently overestimate its usefulness.
A particular problem with the Middle East is that a lot of its zealots simply aren't afraid of death. This is incomprehensible to most Americans because the country is so death-phobic. It's like saying "dry water."
* Compression. Things in a container, or underground, tend to explode more than those in the open.
* Amount. More stuff makes a bigger explosion, but not necessarily a hotter one.
* Material. Some things burn hotter than others. It would be interesting to see which things burn hot enough to produce the observed effects.
Of course, a simpler method of proving meteoric cause would be to check for iridium or other things common elsewhere in the solar system but not here. It was the iridium layer that got people thinking a meteor had wiped out the dinosaurs. I agree that a meteor is a good hypothesis for the town, but I think they have to prove outer-space origin, not just that it's the only natural phenomenon hot enough.
With really big explosions you get inertial confinement. Basically, the atmosphere and even the expanding fireball itself, can't get out of the way of the shockwave fast enough, resulting in compressive heating of the fireball, which raises the temperature.
I'm not sure how much however... as I understand it, we know chemical explosions do not scale in a linear fashion, but once you get beyond a certain point, the maths is more hypothetical than backed by real world experimentation. Mostly because people generally don't go around setting off mountains of explosives, and I would assume getting eye witness accounts from ground zero of accidental detonations in the kiloton range is a bit difficult.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmith
(no subject)
Date: 2021-10-01 11:08 am (UTC)Hm... I wonder if someone was storing their lamp oil in the same building as the natural fertiliser the area's famous for?
Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 11:15 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 11:26 am (UTC)The physics of stuff going boom scales non-linearly I think, it changes the bigger the boom.
I guess we'd have to take a look at what happened with the Beirut explosion, and if that produced similar artifacts. But I'd hazard a guess that if you dump a really huge amount of energy into a small spot in a very short window of time, it's going to be really hot.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 01:00 pm (UTC)That said, I'm pretty sure that a chemical explosion can't supply the required temperatures.
And for that matter, the size of the blast far exceeds and oil/fertilizer stockpiles likely to have been on hand.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 03:58 pm (UTC)Probably, I mean, we're talking about 20-25 kiloton(TNT) explosion. Which with a crude fuel/fertilizer mix, allowing for incomplete mixing etc, equates to around 30 thousand tons of crude oxidizer. [having done the maths now.]
That's helluva big pile of natrum in other words. Way more than is likely. Plus a couple of barge loads of lamp oil.
So.. yeah.. unlikely as it seems, an air-burst meteor is the most probable explanation. [unless they were mass producing greek fire there.]
Lets just hope it doesn't happen again, because it looks way too much like a nuke going off, and people are kinda jumpy enough as it is.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 07:38 pm (UTC)In 1908, nobody would have thought "nuke", but it'd have sure changed history.
And I recall at least one short story in Analog back in the 60s where a meteor came low over the pole and hit Washington DC. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed and they got somebody in there with radiation detectors.
On the other hand, in H. Beam Piper's "The Answer" they discover that the blast that started WWIII was an antimatter meteor striking a town. Alas, they discover this 15 years later...
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 08:12 pm (UTC)I think there was at least one Alt.history story where the Tunguska meteor missed, and went around again, impacting exactly ten years later in 1918 and little bit further south and west in northern France instead... just before the armistice. Which lead to the rather earlier development of nukes, as people tried to work out what this 'super weapon' was that someone had detonated.
Either way. I think if something like that happened today, we'd see governments taking a bit more interest in space I think.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 02:00 am (UTC)Also, it'd take quite a bit to accelerate the timeline on nukes. It wasn't until 1938(?) that fission was discovered, and until that happens, atomic bombs aren't concievable. Fusion bombs are a remote (very) theoretical possibility, but without a fission bomb for a trigger aren't doable (even now).
But a Tunguska event involving a first world nation would *definitely* increase the drive to get into space so we could *do* something about these bodies before it happened again.
Come to think of it I can see three possible locations that would likely trigger a nuclear exchange if they got hit. The US, Russia and China *wouldn't* because they can all tell the difference, and know that a *single* strike against them would be insane.
But North Korea, Iran and Israel are all nuclear powers (or will be soon), are more than a bit paranoid, and *could* panic at a what appears to be a nuclear strike.
None of them are likely to start WWIII this way, but they'd all stir up a lot of trouble.
On another tangent, picture the fun if a meteor struck Mecca, Rome or Salt Lake City. Lots of folks would be raising "Wrath of God" arguments.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 08:55 am (UTC)Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and are in perpetual state of hostility towards each other. An impact there would probably trigger a brief nuclear exchange before anyone else could tell them it was a meteor. It wouldn't even need to hit a major population centre, both sides home-grown missiles have been known to go off target for a start, and if it hit anywhere along the border it would take out one military target or another.
Now imagine if it hit Jerusalem... Israel would go berserk.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 09:02 am (UTC)"Next time, the hole will be bigger."
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 09:16 am (UTC)True that! But only one has nuclear weapons and 2/3 of it's population are serving or ex-military.
But yeah, hitting there would get you more buck for your bang!
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 01:54 pm (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 02:07 pm (UTC)Point, I think it's something like 75% of the Indian army are Sikhs, so even if there was no official retaliation...
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-03 06:37 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 01:48 pm (UTC)Yeah, the Israelis would go nuts. So would a lot of Muslims. I'm moderately sure that Jerusalem is the *one* target that most Muslims wouldn't believe Israel would target.
Which reminds me, I have heard right wing types who thought nuking Mecca was a good idea.... *shudder*.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-02 02:14 pm (UTC)I think the Christians wouldn't be far behind. Point is, everyone would blame everyone else... and if there were no eye witness accounts at first of the reentry fireball [which happens sometimes with airburst meteors.] then a terrorist nuke would be suspected.
and yup, I heard those fruitcakes as well... they figured a great time for it would be during the annual pilgrimage, so they get more of them. One cruise missile, boom! Instant Jihad I guess.
I think some of those loonies liked the idea of an eternal war...probably thought of themselves as modern day crusaders or something.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-03 06:36 am (UTC)And what got *me* was that I couldn't seem to get across the idea that the reaction would complete rage and hatred. He seemed to think it would *intimidate* them.
I tried finding an analogy that'd fit his world view, but I couldn't.
btw, even if folks saw the re-entry track, that wouldn't help that much. Look up pics of test warheads re-entering. Most are for the target range at Kwajalien atoll, but there are others.
Bright white streaks of light coming from the sky.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-03 07:27 am (UTC)People who rely on force, and think it's a good way to solve problems, frequently overestimate its usefulness.
A particular problem with the Middle East is that a lot of its zealots simply aren't afraid of death. This is incomprehensible to most Americans because the country is so death-phobic. It's like saying "dry water."
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 07:25 pm (UTC)* Compression. Things in a container, or underground, tend to explode more than those in the open.
* Amount. More stuff makes a bigger explosion, but not necessarily a hotter one.
* Material. Some things burn hotter than others. It would be interesting to see which things burn hot enough to produce the observed effects.
Of course, a simpler method of proving meteoric cause would be to check for iridium or other things common elsewhere in the solar system but not here. It was the iridium layer that got people thinking a meteor had wiped out the dinosaurs. I agree that a meteor is a good hypothesis for the town, but I think they have to prove outer-space origin, not just that it's the only natural phenomenon hot enough.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 07:41 pm (UTC)I thought they mentioned iridium as well. Though that is more indicative of a nickel-iron body that a stony one.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-10-01 08:21 pm (UTC)With really big explosions you get inertial confinement. Basically, the atmosphere and even the expanding fireball itself, can't get out of the way of the shockwave fast enough, resulting in compressive heating of the fireball, which raises the temperature.
I'm not sure how much however... as I understand it, we know chemical explosions do not scale in a linear fashion, but once you get beyond a certain point, the maths is more hypothetical than backed by real world experimentation. Mostly because people generally don't go around setting off mountains of explosives, and I would assume getting eye witness accounts from ground zero of accidental detonations in the kiloton range is a bit difficult.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-10-01 11:32 am (UTC)