[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Excerpts from "CCNet DIGEST, 15 June 1999"
From Luigi Foschini <L.Foschini@isao.bo.cnrdot it>
>>Already Paolo Farinella, during his talk in the plenary session at the
Torino workshop, underlined this fact.. Specifically, he said that
bodies in the range 10-100 m are poorly observed, in spite of their
dangerousness. For example, the Tunguska cosmic body was about 60 m,
but it destroyed an area of 2200 square kilometers.<<
This is at least the second time I've read this message. I meant to comment
about it the first time from wherever I saw it previously. But the figure of
2200 square kilometers of damage seems quite high to me. I just looked up in
Richard Nortons book "Rocks from Space" that showed an approximate dimension
of damage from the tunguska event to be in the neighborhood of about 20X25
miles. In Square miles this would be about 500. My conversion into kilometers
is rocky, but I would think it would be at least less than 1000?
George Zay
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
Follow-Ups: