Did an Asteroid Really Hit Antarctica in 2004?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LURCH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Asteroid
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the reported impact of an asteroid in Antarctica in September 2004, exploring the validity of the claims, the nature of the event, and the lack of widespread media coverage. Participants examine the details of the event, its implications, and the scientific context surrounding asteroid impacts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the report from the "Unmuseum," questioning its credibility and the lack of corroborating evidence from other sources.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the reported speed of the asteroid, with some arguing that 150 miles per second exceeds typical velocities for solar orbit objects.
  • One participant suggests that the event was likely an airburst rather than a direct impact, noting that smaller objects typically disintegrate before reaching the ground.
  • Another participant mentions that the asteroid's original size was estimated to be around 10 meters and that it could have had significant effects had it not broken up in the atmosphere.
  • Questions are posed about why such an event did not receive more media attention, especially given its potential implications for asteroid detection and collision avoidance.
  • There is speculation about whether the object could have been a comet with a rocky core, indicating uncertainty about its classification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on the details of the event, with multiple competing views regarding its nature, the speed of the asteroid, and the implications of its impact. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing skepticism and differing interpretations of the available information.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of terms like "asteroid" and "airburst," as well as the assumptions about impact velocities and effects. The lack of consensus on the event's details highlights the need for further investigation and clarification.

LURCH
Science Advisor
Messages
2,550
Reaction score
119
OK, this is reported in the Website nkown as the "Unmuseum", and they specialise in the weird. They've got stuff on Nesse, UFO's, etc., but they seem to have some integrity. So I'm reluctant to take their word for it, especially when the story is big enough that it should have made the news. Has anyone else heard about this?
Asteroid Hits Antarctica - According to scientists at Australia's Davis station in Antarctica, a significantly large asteroid hit Earth in September of 2004. Fortunately the impact was in an uninhabited portion of Antarctica, but if the object had slammed into a city it would have destroyed it. The asteroid was the size a bus and weighed about 1000 tons and was traveling at about 150 miles per second. Dr Andrew Klekociuk who was on duty observing the stratosphere that night got a strange signal from30 kms overhead. At first it was thought to be a problem with the equipment, but later it was determined that a asteroid had hit the ground approximately 800 miles from the station. It is thought to be the biggest asteroid to hit the Earth in the last ten years.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
is there a link?
 
http://www.unmuseum.org/soearch/over.htm

I would like to see another reference. They seem to be the only one reporting this, and I would imagine that it would have been big news last September.

It should have made a significant seismic signature! And there should have been a pretty good explosion.
 
well i did find this link too, though
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=58431
So maybe it did happen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't seem too realistic to me. First off, that's more than triple the theoretical maximum impact velocity for an object in solar orbit. Second, can we really call a 5m object an "asteroid"? Playing with the impact calculator at U of Arizona, it looks like it should have been an air burst - but still, I'd think an air burst of from 0.1 to 1.0 megatons (depending on a lot of factors) would make the news. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
 
Last edited:
Ok, google is your friend. Apparently, it happened, but at least somem of the facts in that story are wrong: It didn't impact, it was an airburst. None of the sites I have found say anything about the velocity, but I doubt 150mi/sec is correct. GOOGLE
 
russ_watters said:
...but I doubt 150mi/sec is correct.

I agree with you. It could only be traveling that fast if it came from outside the solar system. And even then, the speed is too high unless it's from the Milky Way's halo rather than the galactic plane. Asteroids should strike the top of the atmosphere with speeds in the 10's of kilometers / s, not 100's.
 
Here's a useful link http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2005-2/090605holeinone.shtml

extract from article
Dr Klekociuk said that it was thought that the asteroid had come from what is known as the Aten group somewhere between Venus and Earth, ranging anywhere up to 46 million kms from the sun. Measuring roughly 10 metres it is the biggest body to enter Earth's atmosphere in the past decade.

Its travel time from entering Earth's atmosphere 75 kms up until it landed? Just five seconds.

Scientists believe that the asteroid's original size was close to that of a small house weighing a thousand tonnes and that if it had not broken up on entry into the atmosphere its effect on impact would have been that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10

What are the possibilities that this was actually a comet with a rocky core?
 
  • #11
This really perplexes me; why wasn't it all over the news? I have long thought that a large strike in a remote region was a kind-of "best case scenario". One that would direct attention (and better funding) toward the idea of detection and collision avoidence, without costing a lot of lives. This happened twelve months ago and I had to hear about it form an email!
 
  • #12
LURCH said:
This really perplexes me; why wasn't it all over the news?!
It seems, given its size, that the chances of it actually causing damage on the surface are very low. Objects this small are (nearly) always going to be destroyed in an airburst that is (typically) sufficiently high that there will be no gross effects at or near ground level. We are (probably)taking hits of this magnitude several times a century with no fatal effect because they are high altitude airbursts.