Can anyone translate what they are saying in the first one?
You can get a good idea of the new videos being posted using YouTube's "last hour" filter:
The guy doesn't even say anything for a long while, just starts speeding up.
edit: Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy (Slate) think it's unrelated to the 2012DA14 asteroid, because of the timing gap and incorrect direction of travel. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/15/breaking... This could have turned out very badly if the thing had hit the ground...could we have caught this one, and why didn't we?
According to Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson (speaking on NBC's "Today Show") it was too small to detect.
* Pedestrians are corrupt -- they throw themselves in front of your car then sue for damages.
* Other motorists are corrupt -- they lie about the accident facts
* Cops are corrupt -- easily bought off and bribed (or tapped through nepotism)
Youtube is full of really scary Russian dashcam videos.
I wonder if it's true.
There are a number of monitoring systems spelled out in the various disarmament treaties, and the infrasound sensors were part of the test ban treaty, so I don't doubt that if there had been a nuclear component, someone would know about it :-)
Some combination of mass and speed detected by radar (or satellite?) triggering an S2A response.
- the size of Russia
- The range of surface to air missiles
- the chance of missing an object that does not give off
a heat signature until it is about to hit.
In Russia, clock changes you!
I'm not saying its impossible, but it just seems to me that there is a lot of misinformation as to what actually happened.
Just look at that dashcam footage: from entering the atmosphere to breakup was just a couple of seconds. On a very tangential orbit, no less.
Spent a very enlightening afternoon down an old bunker near pervomaisk.
Found some stats in the tourist brochure from there. 9.4m high,1.1m dia, 4km/s in 4s, which gives an acceleration if about 102g. 80-100km range. Max speed 7km/s. "directional blast" also, which is interesting.
I'm not sure a terrestrial power could do this without being way visible ahead of time.
> We don't have a surveillance system capable of detecting something that size until it hits atmosphere,
NASA tracks at least 21,000 items above 10 cm diameter.
Objects above 3 mm can be tracked by ground based radar.
To track potentially hazardous astroids (PHAs), scientists use different methods and are not capable of detecting rocks as small as this one. That doesn't mean that it came from outside the solar system or that it has an eccentric orbit. It just means that it was too small to detect with current methods.
How many items does NASA track which are 10 cm - 10m diameter and not orbiting the earth ?
Also, kaz is full of Russian military hardware. Baikonur for instance is definitely covered by ABMs, as to not do so would be an untenable risk as far as Russia is concerned.
For reference, here's what an ABM transporter looks like: http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/53T6-SH-08-Gazelle-ABM-TL-1...
Or this: http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/Gorgon-ABM-Transporter-Load...
Here's what a portable ICBM looks like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Moscow_Pa...
Or this: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/images/rs24tel.jpg
Seeing this kind of stuff is par for the course out there though. Drove from Rostov na donu to Stalingrad and there were huge (and I mean HUGE) convoys of tanks cruising down to syria's neck of the woods.
This isn't news to the world, it's just known stuff that isn't talked about as it doesn't mesh very well with realpolitik.
Edit: think there was also a satan in the convoy we saw, two massive stages on separate carriers. Proper "oh holy shit what am I seeing pretend I'm not here" stuff.
I am no physicist. But assuming that we can take these reports at face value, doesn't that rule out the possibility that the meteorite was intercepted by a nuclear device?
However, based on my very limited knowledge, I think that the Russians are supposed to only have operational Gazelles in a ring protecting Moscow, and those shouldn't have the range to hit anywhere near Chelyabinsk.
Also, this is the Russian military we're talking about. I don't think they'll fess up to detonating a nuke, no matter how small, in a populated area.
We're talking about the same guys who absolutely definitely positively did not use nukes to build shipping canals.
Oh, and I am a Physicist. MSc from an Ivy-League equivalent in the UK, although these days I'm a web gimp instead.
Ok, I'm genuinely not sure whether you're being sarcastic. So _did_ the Russians use nukes to build shipping canals?
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russians were looking at the same thing, but it should leave some fairly telling clues behind. At the very least you can see plowshare craters littering Nevada on google maps (in a nice grid pattern in some areas, just search for "Sedan crater" and zoom out a little), I would expect similar to be somewhere in Russia if they were doing the same.
Edit: This is the Russian version of plowshare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nati... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_(nuclear_test)
Unless it was used to blow up a large chunk of rock which then proceeded to fall to the ground. In that case, you'd get a crater, but you'd also get the radioactive material.
Edit: Fixed city name, added map.
edit: http://www.nature.com/news/russian-meteor-largest-in-a-centu... "Explosion rivalled nuclear blast, but rock was still too small for advance-warning networks to spot."
Examples of other meteorite strikes in the past:
Damaged zinc plant? https://twitter.com/Dokhrimovich/statuses/302269134685757442
AP News Story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_METEORITE?S...
Video close to epicenter.. Loud boom then broken windows and alarms.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0cFOIoITW4
Hashtag #Челябинск on twitter for more info.
I wish we had more information.
Edit: on second thought, it could easily be a fragment, we'll see.
Yes, that's what it says
Edit: haha, thanks for the explanations; that changes my interpretation of their reactions.
"It appears to split, so I’m guessing the main mass split there. That’s not surprising; it’s happened with previous falls (like Sikhote-Alin). That means they could have disintegrated at different times, so there may be multiple places where pieces could fall."
It's very visible in planes about to break the sound barrier. Look for Youtube videos. The cones are spectacular, but also notice how a trail is sometimes visible originating from the tips of the wings.
So you don't need to inject the water, but to extract it from the air compressing it. Anyway, I'd bet the meteor trails consist of vaporized matter from the meteor itself.
Edit: see this one at 0:20:
A pure water meteorite hitting the atmosphere would be contrails all the way; just not in the way we're used to.
... followed by a more scientific discussion, about it being a meteorite breaking up etc
I just found this by using the "last hour" filter mmastrac suggested.
EDIT: It doesn't seem to be a crater caused by a meteorite. By looking at the youtube video "cfn" (comment below) looks like it's a gas explosion in 2007. Still, amazing.
Hard to get a sense of scale, but it looks pretty big. Maybe a few hundre feet in diameter?
Also, how much heat is needed to set friggin _dirt_ on fire?
You probably don't want to know. Lots of cussing :)
He actually has no idea what's going on. At one point he jokes about artillery strikes and then starts calming down his friends ("Don't be afraid, nothing's happened yet.")
Then he urges his friends to go grab their jackets (apparently they ran out to the street without them). While running, he exclaims "now, that's some serious shit!" and then urges his friends to be calm once more.
"The most interesting stuff is about to begin."
The guard at the entrance tells them they can't come in to take their jackets.
"That thing flew by, there was a flash and it crashed in the woods."
"What an adventure!"
"It entered the atmosphere and started burning. The remaining stuff then crashed."
"I thought a war's underway."
"Don't cower. But I didn't get what the explosions were about."
"The windows are all smashed."
"I love it!!!"
It must be some kind of college. The kids must be students.
It's easy to get mislead by movies and tv and the way things happen and the way people react. In reality things don't work that way. It can sometimes be difficult to tell when an emergency is happening, and a lot of people won't pay enough attention. How often do people ignore fire alarms, for example?
Do you know what the symptoms of a stroke look like? Most people don't. I certainly didn't when the elderly lady sitting one table over from me at a fast food restaurant had a stroke. She dropped her food tray on the floor and I was sitting the other way and just wrote it off as random clumsiness. But other people were paying closer attention. Some of the staff helped her clean up her mess and other people came to help sensing that something was a bit off, after asking a few leading questions and making a few observations they decided she was having a stroke and called 911. Today I have a lot more training and am far better able to spot things like symptoms of a stroke or a heart attack and so forth, but that's not true for everyone. A lot of people don't know how to spot a heart attack, even in themselves, and they waste a lot of time before going to the hospital.
But this extends to everything. If you look at the 9/11 WTC attacks there were a lot of people who could have gotten out of those buildings who instead stayed in their offices because they were lulled into a false sense of security. The fact is that when things are burning down, smoke is everywhere, you can see the flames, etc. it's often too late, the time to take action was minutes or hours ago when you still had a chance. The time to evacuate a flood zone is when the water is at your ankles or knees, not when it's up to your armpits.
But most people are so conditioned by the norms of ordinary society they find it difficult to break out of them. It takes a surprising amount of effort to make a conscious choice to break those norms and switch to emergency mode, which is why most people are forced to rely on some even more dramatic event triggering a panic/fear/fight-or-flight response to jump into that mode.
Technological, fiscal, and other crises are similar. Often your first real sign of trouble isn't a sense of impending doom as just a very strong sense that things are wrong -- your perception of the world isn't adding up. I've trained myself (or tried) to recognize such situations and respond more quickly to them, but it's still easy to miss things. Especially as it's not clear until later (and often much, much later) just what has gone wrong and what's the best way to address it. In military it's called "fog of war", but a similar condition pervades most complex situations.
For better or for worse, I assume that incident management folks are full of shit when they say things like that, so I boogey asap. I've been in office buildings where the fire alarms didn't sound properly and announcements came over the PA saying something like: "The roof is on fire, do not be alarmed and do not evacuate at this time."
If you want people to respond and evacuate faster to a real disaster, improve your incident reporting so it doesn't train folks into the habit of ignoring it.
Getting back to this specific topic, there's also the issue that, when driving, your own safety is still paramount.
Even if this was recognised as an emergency, there's very little a driver can do to react while he's inside a moving vehicle on a busy road.
Part of it is what's called "commitment." People payed good money for a show and they're going to see one. It takes a long time to accept that the show is over.
AN ANGEL HAS BEEN ENCOUNTERED IN THE VICINITY"
1080p of first clip available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c-0iwBEswE
Actually, after having driven tens of thousands of miles on the interstates a number of years ago I think they would be a tremendous improvement on rest stop safety at the very least. That may be better served by an omnidirectional parking cam (and it would have to be running all the time, or you would need to flip it on), but I don't think it's a bad trend. It's certainly more appropriate than asking the state to manage/install even more surveillance nodes...
Edit: by 'it' I meant recording devices in vehicles, put there by the vehicle owner.
Also note that the thing that caught on = something with a rather direct very personal advantage to the adopter, while your suggestion (that hasn't caught on) = something that personally helps against very rare events and sort of increase ambient security for everyone. Some lesson about human nature, here :)
I think that's exactly the world we're heading for, and I prefer it to a world in which some entity has the power to compel the absence of recording, but Schmidt is very likely to be right: privacy is dead.
It's to capture the car to car accidents and the road rage incidents. Too many people have bought their driving licenses and drive as if they are the only people on the road. Too many of these come from the criminal background and won't shy away from expressing their dissatisfaction with your driving ethics and what not. Now there's a dashcam for that.
Edit: Sorry, it's not police--they're used to aid in car insurance claims. See below.
Just amazing. I love the technology we live with.
The air defense stuff is somewhat hard to believe, we don't intercept de-orbiting space junk, much less less hypersonic meteors. Further every missile interceptor that is publicly disclosed (which includes the US attempts at an exo-atmospheric interceptor) have boost stages that generate a lot of vapor, there is no rising vapor trail in any of the videos of a ground based interceptor.
Finally there is the magnitude of the flash. Given the lack of sparkles on the video I don't believe what ever exploded was nuclear but on the videos with timers watching the flash and timing the 'boom' correlates with the 20 - 25 km (80,000') in altitude. One hopes it wasn't a surveillance aircraft that was destroyed. I'm sure if it was we'll hear about that in the morning.
Definitely a mystery.
One of the interesting things to me is the 'herd' phenomena that comes about because of gravity creating clumps of things which, when they collide with something else become a sort of herd moving in a similar direction. Comet tails, and wandering asteroids, rarely do things fly through space it seems without some sort of companion material flying along with them.
Not the case here according to sources who say it had a different orbit than 2014-DA14 but it was something I was wondering about. Has anyone found a USAF Space Command radar track yet?
In orbit satellites are relatively slow (10 km/s-ish) and light (10 tons is a lot. The ISS is way heavier, but too flimsy to make it down in one piece)
Speed, in particular, counts, as kinetic energy goes with the square of speed. At 70km/s (IIRC, the top speed a meteorite is expected to have relative to earth), a kg of meteorite has as much kinetic energy as 50-ish kg of in orbit mass.
But he also has a blog on Slate.
1) After the bright white flash, we see debris flying in the opposite direction to the meteor's path, in a parabolic trajectory - i.e. falling.
2) Your AMM system doesn't need to be hypersonic to intercept a hypersonic target. The key here is "intercept". You launch a missile to be where the target is going to be, in a direction >90deg away from the target's path.
3) The Russian AMM system that would be used in these circumstances would be the 53T6 Gazelle, which is equipped with a 10kt warhead.
I'm inclined to give the air defence line credence.
I've never witnessed a nuclear explosion first-hand, but that seems like a mighty small flash for a nuclear explosion.
Edit: Also, why don't we hear any EMP effects on the radio signal in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJOJ6B2XOyA ? If anything, the audio gets clearer right at the point you seem to be claiming is a nuclear detonation.
I thought that at first, but on second watching I'm wondering if that's just lens flare? See
about 00:19, I'm assuming that's the part you're talking about?
* It only shows when the meteor is close to the center of the lens.
* You can see reflections of two lens elements, one is smaller and brighter than the other. The smaller one is the element closer to the imaging sensor, and moves in parallax to the other one.
Anyone else catch this? Is this just a bad translation and they mean to say that an air defense unit tracked the meteorite on radar?
I wouldn't think any air defense system would be capable of actually intercepting a meteorite, but perhaps I'm wrong. Still doesn't seem like anything intercepted it from the videos.
It's not quite like taking out a satellite in low Earth orbit in that there's plenty of information on its orbit, trajectory, tumbling characteristics, approximate mass etc... It would be very, very, very hard to intercept a meteorite without a lot of information before it even got close to Earth.
The report of a missile salvo taking it out is very suspect IMO. Without more information, it's hard to tell.
It is plausible that the Russians launched an interceptor just to be safe. If it is a meteor, it neither hurts nor helps. If it is a man-made structure, it will do some real damage to it. Either way they can always argue "better safe than sorry".
It may be hot enough for infrared seekers, but it's no jet. Jets are fragile by comparison so, unless they had purely kinetic weapons... but that's still speculation at this point. We still don't know what the Russians did or if they did anything at all.
I doubt they even knew this specific meteor would enter the atmosphere. It's already hard enough detecting much bigger rocks in Earth-crossing orbits.
Modern terminal guidance systems are all imaging based. Or at least the US ones have been for a couple decades; I imagine the Russians are using something at least vaguely similar.
Basically, the missiles latch onto the target visually and are capable of recognizing their target from the details of its appearance (in an air defense context, not just "an airplane" but "that specific airplane"). It is why, contra Hollywood, modern terminal guidance systems are nigh impossible to spoof. The missile knows what the airplane looks like and can read the tail number off your craft, so as long as it can locate it (even if it temporarily loses sight), it is likely to hit unless the motor runs out of gas. Heat has little to do with it, though the imagers often work in broad spectrum infrared.
Lots of smaller, impacters with kiloton-class impact energies are never discovered or discovered at the very last minute. This looks like a pretty small rock in terms of damage done so it could easily have been missed by sky surveys.
Is this true? Reentry speed of an ICBM is something like 5 km/s. Entry speed of a meteor is a minimum of 11 km/s, and more like 25 km/s if this object wasn't in an Earth-like orbit to begin with. Missile interceptors travel much slower than either, and they have a tough time hitting ICBMs from what I understand.
So it's safe to conclude the military was not involved here.
If you mean the middle, that's most definitely the aftermath of the meteorite itself. You can see this in the other videos.
Interestingly, Russia does have an active ABM system. The old ABM-treaty allowed both the US and the USSR to have one ABM site active for each country, the US shut theirs down fairly quickly but the Soviets maintained and later upgraded theirs, protecting Moscow, and Russia has kept it. It's a nuclear warhead based system, it would be interesting to see what the hell would have happened if the same event happened over Moscow instead of Chelyabinsk.
The short range missile in the S-400 can reach mach 12 and at least one source  seems to indicate that a meteorite at 15-20km altitude would be traveling 4500-9000mph (roughly mach 6-12) and of course they wouldn't be likely to be in a complete 'chasing' orientation.
I also wouldn't think a meteorite would be that hard to track with radar once you have an initial direction on it, depending on its composition.
A missile salvo reportedly blew the meteorite to pieces at an altitude of 20 kilometers.
(Source: http://zyalt.livejournal.com/722930.html )
The contrails, and the videos, show that the meteorite (or pair of meteorites) grew very hot, but survived at least in part and probably fell to the surface. I would love to see the recovery effort.
Notice the long delay between recording the image of the contrail and the sonic boom. This reveals how high the meteorite's path was at the location of the recording.
A door to hell is a lot less scary than a meteor crater.
apparently there was a risk that asteroid would intercept a satellite orbit. Too early to say, but it seems more likely than mere coincidence.
Note especially: 12 hours is a long way at 8 km/sec, so this object in Ruissia was on a very different orbit than 2012 DA14.
and also: Also, apparently moving east-to-west tho I can’t say for sure. Anything on the orbit of DA14 would be moving south-to-north.
Obviously info is still pretty thin, and this article seems pretty speculative. I'd wait a few hours before jumping to any conclusions.
eta: ghshephard posted a link to a better video with the clear sound of glass breaking. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5224858
Unlikely. A powerful sonic boom could cause all that damage, and collapse an aging brick structure, and yet travel at or near the speed of sound.
Edit: OK, I'm going back to it being a sonic boom. The sounds are too sharp and too similar to other sonic booms. That's what I get for not trusting my gut the first time.
Remember: each meteorite fragment will produce its own boom. And a meteorite explosion doesn't result from interior forces fracturing the body, but the body fracturing under aerodynamic stress. For a rocky bolide, what you've got is basically a flying rockpile, its internal bonding forces are relatively low, and the whole thing's going to have a pretty strong tendency to fly to pieces particularly in a hypersonic jetstream (a nickle-iron meteorite much less so, though Phil Plait links to the Sikhote-Alin meteorite Wikipedia page, which did just that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhote-Alin_meteorite). So it's less an explosion (internally generated forces) and more a shattering (smashing into air) resulting in multiple fragments.
Impressive all the same.
Damn that thing was fast! Tore through the whole atmosphere in just a few seconds...
It wasn't an earthquake -- it was a very powerful sonic boom, and yes, it was caused by the meteorite's passing. A similar sonic boom flattened hundreds of square miles in Tunguska in 1908, after a much larger space object fell there:
Here's the lake: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lake+chebarkul&hl=en&...
~40 miles due west of Chelyabinsk and a little south.
We need complete ICBM disarmament. They can keep their bombs and we can keep ours (for now), but we should restrict delivery systems such that there is a built in lag (bombers taking many minutes or hours to reach their targets), and can be recalled. ICBM's can be launched in a moment, and it is impossible to recall them or disable them once they are underway.
There's more information on this page here: http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2013/02/14/what-is-...
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to believe anyway. Wasn't the rule that RT is considered accurate on any stories not involving Russia?
How fast does something have to be travelling to build up a delay like that?
The speed had more to do with the magnitude of the boom itself.
I was thinking of terms of the pressure front lagging further behind the meteorite in proportion to the length of time that the meteorite is traveling at a speed greater than the speed of sound.
Thanks for the explanation.
In uncertain circumstances, I think I would almost always prefer not being under concrete.
Well, since one brick structure collapsed, and since one's immediate impression was that it was an earthquake, running out into the street seem perfectly reasonable. The fact that it was a powerful sonic boom, not an earthquake, would be something I might figure out at my leisure only after running outside.
This holds for a nuclear strike as well as a bolide.
It's hard to know what caused the boom if they didn't see something first.
Just for the historical record, an Egyptian dog was allegedly killed by a meteorite:
Quote: "The most infamous reported fatality from a meteorite impact is that of an Egyptian dog that was killed in 1911, although this report is highly disputed."
Another quote: "The first known modern case of a human hit by a space rock occurred on 30 November 1954 in Sylacauga, Alabama. There a 4 kilograms (8.8 lb) stone chondrite crashed through a roof and hit Ann Hodges in her living room after it bounced off her radio. She was badly bruised."
She was also extremely fat, and the meteorite grazed her ample side. I'll bet it motivated a soul-searching consideration of a weight-loss program:
The only reason you haven't heard of anyone killed by meteorites is chance, not some inherent impossibility of it happening.
If the fall was a few miles to the side, you would have heard of tens of thousands of people being killed by meteorite, seeing that a few cities were nearby.
In any case, I don't think it's wise to just "enjoy the show". How do you know at that point that it's not a cluster of meteorites, with more to fall soon nearby?