Help with calculating an impact on the moon

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Clayborn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Impact Moon
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the impact effects on a moon for a sci-fi book, focusing on the formula for determining the diameter of a transient crater. The user is confused about the constant 1.161 in the equation and whether it varies based on the impact surface, as well as the correct interpretation of the sine function in the formula. A response clarifies that the sine function can be raised to a power after being calculated, and suggests equating the kinetic energy of the impactor to the gravitational binding energy of the surface material to estimate crater size. The conversation highlights the complexities of impact physics and the need for precise calculations in fictional scenarios.
John Clayborn
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, I'm new here. I'm relatively familiar with some astrophysics calculations, but this particular equation is kicking my proverbial butt. I'm currently writing a sci-fi book series and there's an impact that happens on a moon, but I want to be able to realistically calculate what the damage would be.

I have all of the data on the impactor; size, mass, velocity, density (7.85 kg/cm^3: steel), etc. I even have the data on the moon itself. (I already have an excel spreadsheet set up to aid in those calculations). What I cannot determine is the correct equation to use to calculate the diameter of the transient crater or the depth of the crater. I had found one paper, but I can't seem to get to the calculation to work.

The original paper that I found was an academic paper written by the authors of the "Impact:Earth!" program. The calculation are quite detailed, but I'm coming up with an error. Obviously, as this moon is without an atmosphere I can completely skip the section about determining atmospheric effects on the impactor.

Here are my questions;

The formula they use is as this: Dtc (Diam. Transient Crater) = 1.161(Pi/Pt)^1/3 L^0.78 Vi^0.44 gE^-0.22 sin^1/3∅

Question 1: Where are they getting the constant of 1.161 from? They state that it should be changed if the impact occurs in water. This isn't the Earth's denisty (5.52 g/cm^3), so what is it? and should it change if the impact is on the lunar surface as opposed to the rocky surface of the Earth?

The rest I get more or less..Pi - Desity of the impactor divdided by Pt - density of the target raised to the 1/3 power. L is the diamter of the impactor raised to 0.78 power. Vi is the velocity of the impactor raised to the 0.44 power. gE is originally Earth's gravity, however, since the impact is on a moon then I would just substitute this value for the lunar gravity and raise that to the negative 0.22 power. But the next section is where I get lost. They want me to take sin to the 1/3 power and multiply it by the angle of attack. However, you can't take 1/3 of sine since sine itself is dependent upon ∅. Right? So shouldn't that last part be ∅Sin^1/3? (or something).

Any help that you guys could offer would be most appreciated.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
John Clayborn said:
Hello everyone, I'm new here. I'm relatively familiar with some astrophysics calculations, but this particular equation is kicking my proverbial butt. I'm currently writing a sci-fi book series and there's an impact that happens on a moon, but I want to be able to realistically calculate what the damage would be.

I have all of the data on the impactor; size, mass, velocity, density (7.85 kg/cm^3: steel), etc. I even have the data on the moon itself. (I already have an excel spreadsheet set up to aid in those calculations). What I cannot determine is the correct equation to use to calculate the diameter of the transient crater or the depth of the crater. I had found one paper, but I can't seem to get to the calculation to work.

The original paper that I found was an academic paper written by the authors of the "Impact:Earth!" program. The calculation are quite detailed, but I'm coming up with an error. Obviously, as this moon is without an atmosphere I can completely skip the section about determining atmospheric effects on the impactor.

Here are my questions;

The formula they use is as this: Dtc (Diam. Transient Crater) = 1.161(Pi/Pt)^1/3 L^0.78 Vi^0.44 gE^-0.22 sin^1/3∅

Question 1: Where are they getting the constant of 1.161 from? They state that it should be changed if the impact occurs in water. This isn't the Earth's denisty (5.52 g/cm^3), so what is it? and should it change if the impact is on the lunar surface as opposed to the rocky surface of the Earth?

The rest I get more or less..Pi - Desity of the impactor divdided by Pt - density of the target raised to the 1/3 power. L is the diamter of the impactor raised to 0.78 power. Vi is the velocity of the impactor raised to the 0.44 power. gE is originally Earth's gravity, however, since the impact is on a moon then I would just substitute this value for the lunar gravity and raise that to the negative 0.22 power. But the next section is where I get lost. They want me to take sin to the 1/3 power and multiply it by the angle of attack. However, you can't take 1/3 of sine since sine itself is dependent upon ∅. Right? So shouldn't that last part be ∅Sin^1/3? (or something).

Any help that you guys could offer would be most appreciated.

Welcome to PF,

I can at least address the very specific math question at the end of your post. Sine is a function, which you can think of as being an operation that acts on a number. It is not itself a number, and therefore it makes no sense to raise it to the one-third power (or any power).
The expression \sin^{1/3}(\phi) means [\sin(\phi)]^{1/3}. It's just a shorthand notation. You can think of the expression on the right-hand side as saying, "first take the sine of phi, and then take the result of that and raise it to power of one-third."

As for the impact physics, I'd have to think about that some more. I imagine a general approach would be to compute the kinetic energy of the object just before impact, and then equate that to the gravitational binding energy of the surface material that it has to displace. The latter will depend on the volume of material you consider, which will tell you how big a crater you can make.

That's just a guess on my part.
 
Thanks for clarifying that, Cepheid. I had a feeling that's what they meant, but it's always nice to have my logic validated by someone else. ;)
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top