Could this estimate of the size and mass of the Chicxulub Impactor be accurate?How was Earth's “quasi-satellite” 2016 HO3 “first spotted” and it's orbit determined?Do comets contain any significant amounts of iridium?Size and Mass of a typical “small” asteroid that impacts the Earth?Accuracy of predicting an asteroid strike in 1987How do they know how far out Farout is? (2018 VG18)
Has Donald Duck ever had any love interest besides Daisy?
Ran out of space of newly installed HDD?
How can I add an ammeter and/or voltmeter to my home breaker panel?
Days in indexed month
Do repulsorlifts work upside-down?
Does toddler keep hands around private parts?
How do put overbrace across an (aligned) equals sign?
Is there any way to get an instant or sorcery on the field as a permanent? What would happen if this occurred?
Unique magic triplets
Why would a family misspell their surname?
Stack data structure in python 3
Can it be viewed as a negative for PhD applications in the US if I have children?
ASCII texturing
Beautiful planar geometry theorems not encountered in high school
Why would prey creatures not hate predator creatures?
What should I tell a customer when my co-worker fails to show up to a meeting?
Bubble Sort Implementation in Python 3
How to spot dust on lens quickly while doing a shoot outdoors?
Elliptic curve commitments mod p
Isn't any conversation with the US president quid-pro-quo?
Is there a heavy usage of the word "bonfire" in English?
How to break a equation with a single "summation symbol (sum) " common?
Can't CD to Desktop anymore
Looking for a reference in Greek
Could this estimate of the size and mass of the Chicxulub Impactor be accurate?
How was Earth's “quasi-satellite” 2016 HO3 “first spotted” and it's orbit determined?Do comets contain any significant amounts of iridium?Size and Mass of a typical “small” asteroid that impacts the Earth?Accuracy of predicting an asteroid strike in 1987How do they know how far out Farout is? (2018 VG18)
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
$begingroup$
My understanding has always been that the Chicxulub Impactor was in all likelihood an asteroid with a diameter of about 8 - 12 km, but then, the other day, I came across this paper. In it, they say that the diameter of the impactor could have been as large as 81(!) km, and that it was probably a comet and not an asteroid, a claim they base on the amount of iridium found in the layer associated with the impact. I'm not an astronomer so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the veracity of their claims and how they arrived at them, which is why I'm wondering if what they say could plausibly have been the case?
asteroids impact
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
My understanding has always been that the Chicxulub Impactor was in all likelihood an asteroid with a diameter of about 8 - 12 km, but then, the other day, I came across this paper. In it, they say that the diameter of the impactor could have been as large as 81(!) km, and that it was probably a comet and not an asteroid, a claim they base on the amount of iridium found in the layer associated with the impact. I'm not an astronomer so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the veracity of their claims and how they arrived at them, which is why I'm wondering if what they say could plausibly have been the case?
asteroids impact
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
An 81 km comet would have much more mass than an 8-12 km rocky meteor, but not necessarily more iridium, though I don't think precise estimates are possible given the limited samples taken from comets. I will add that the amount of Iridium might be a method for calculating impacting object size and velocity, but only when we have enough reliable measurements of comet and asteroid composition. I like their approach even if I'm skeptical of their conclusions.
$endgroup$
– userLTK
Sep 5 at 13:22
2
$begingroup$
I'm guessing there was a misplaced hyphen at some point - changing "8-12" to "81-2". Printing error maybe? Bad OCR picked up a smudge on the page? That kind of thing.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Sep 5 at 20:51
2
$begingroup$
@DarrelHoffman: Did you look at the paper? It repeatedly uses "80.9 km" - which the OP rounded to "81".
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:08
1
$begingroup$
Also note that 80.9 is the maximum of the range they give. The lower end overlaps the smaller range in your question.
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:12
1
$begingroup$
And I agree with userLTK when he points out that while it's a novel method they have drawn on in theory, the results it produces do not hold up without reliable data on the amount of iridium you find in different types of celestial objects.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:55
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
My understanding has always been that the Chicxulub Impactor was in all likelihood an asteroid with a diameter of about 8 - 12 km, but then, the other day, I came across this paper. In it, they say that the diameter of the impactor could have been as large as 81(!) km, and that it was probably a comet and not an asteroid, a claim they base on the amount of iridium found in the layer associated with the impact. I'm not an astronomer so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the veracity of their claims and how they arrived at them, which is why I'm wondering if what they say could plausibly have been the case?
asteroids impact
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
$endgroup$
My understanding has always been that the Chicxulub Impactor was in all likelihood an asteroid with a diameter of about 8 - 12 km, but then, the other day, I came across this paper. In it, they say that the diameter of the impactor could have been as large as 81(!) km, and that it was probably a comet and not an asteroid, a claim they base on the amount of iridium found in the layer associated with the impact. I'm not an astronomer so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the veracity of their claims and how they arrived at them, which is why I'm wondering if what they say could plausibly have been the case?
asteroids impact
asteroids impact
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
asked Sep 5 at 10:24
Happy KoalaHappy Koala
3376 bronze badges
3376 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
An 81 km comet would have much more mass than an 8-12 km rocky meteor, but not necessarily more iridium, though I don't think precise estimates are possible given the limited samples taken from comets. I will add that the amount of Iridium might be a method for calculating impacting object size and velocity, but only when we have enough reliable measurements of comet and asteroid composition. I like their approach even if I'm skeptical of their conclusions.
$endgroup$
– userLTK
Sep 5 at 13:22
2
$begingroup$
I'm guessing there was a misplaced hyphen at some point - changing "8-12" to "81-2". Printing error maybe? Bad OCR picked up a smudge on the page? That kind of thing.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Sep 5 at 20:51
2
$begingroup$
@DarrelHoffman: Did you look at the paper? It repeatedly uses "80.9 km" - which the OP rounded to "81".
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:08
1
$begingroup$
Also note that 80.9 is the maximum of the range they give. The lower end overlaps the smaller range in your question.
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:12
1
$begingroup$
And I agree with userLTK when he points out that while it's a novel method they have drawn on in theory, the results it produces do not hold up without reliable data on the amount of iridium you find in different types of celestial objects.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:55
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
An 81 km comet would have much more mass than an 8-12 km rocky meteor, but not necessarily more iridium, though I don't think precise estimates are possible given the limited samples taken from comets. I will add that the amount of Iridium might be a method for calculating impacting object size and velocity, but only when we have enough reliable measurements of comet and asteroid composition. I like their approach even if I'm skeptical of their conclusions.
$endgroup$
– userLTK
Sep 5 at 13:22
2
$begingroup$
I'm guessing there was a misplaced hyphen at some point - changing "8-12" to "81-2". Printing error maybe? Bad OCR picked up a smudge on the page? That kind of thing.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Sep 5 at 20:51
2
$begingroup$
@DarrelHoffman: Did you look at the paper? It repeatedly uses "80.9 km" - which the OP rounded to "81".
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:08
1
$begingroup$
Also note that 80.9 is the maximum of the range they give. The lower end overlaps the smaller range in your question.
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:12
1
$begingroup$
And I agree with userLTK when he points out that while it's a novel method they have drawn on in theory, the results it produces do not hold up without reliable data on the amount of iridium you find in different types of celestial objects.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:55
2
2
$begingroup$
An 81 km comet would have much more mass than an 8-12 km rocky meteor, but not necessarily more iridium, though I don't think precise estimates are possible given the limited samples taken from comets. I will add that the amount of Iridium might be a method for calculating impacting object size and velocity, but only when we have enough reliable measurements of comet and asteroid composition. I like their approach even if I'm skeptical of their conclusions.
$endgroup$
– userLTK
Sep 5 at 13:22
$begingroup$
An 81 km comet would have much more mass than an 8-12 km rocky meteor, but not necessarily more iridium, though I don't think precise estimates are possible given the limited samples taken from comets. I will add that the amount of Iridium might be a method for calculating impacting object size and velocity, but only when we have enough reliable measurements of comet and asteroid composition. I like their approach even if I'm skeptical of their conclusions.
$endgroup$
– userLTK
Sep 5 at 13:22
2
2
$begingroup$
I'm guessing there was a misplaced hyphen at some point - changing "8-12" to "81-2". Printing error maybe? Bad OCR picked up a smudge on the page? That kind of thing.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Sep 5 at 20:51
$begingroup$
I'm guessing there was a misplaced hyphen at some point - changing "8-12" to "81-2". Printing error maybe? Bad OCR picked up a smudge on the page? That kind of thing.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Sep 5 at 20:51
2
2
$begingroup$
@DarrelHoffman: Did you look at the paper? It repeatedly uses "80.9 km" - which the OP rounded to "81".
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:08
$begingroup$
@DarrelHoffman: Did you look at the paper? It repeatedly uses "80.9 km" - which the OP rounded to "81".
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:08
1
1
$begingroup$
Also note that 80.9 is the maximum of the range they give. The lower end overlaps the smaller range in your question.
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:12
$begingroup$
Also note that 80.9 is the maximum of the range they give. The lower end overlaps the smaller range in your question.
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:12
1
1
$begingroup$
And I agree with userLTK when he points out that while it's a novel method they have drawn on in theory, the results it produces do not hold up without reliable data on the amount of iridium you find in different types of celestial objects.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:55
$begingroup$
And I agree with userLTK when he points out that while it's a novel method they have drawn on in theory, the results it produces do not hold up without reliable data on the amount of iridium you find in different types of celestial objects.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:55
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Well, that article was never accepted for publication in any peer-review journal apparently.
That said, estimates may vary widely depending on assumptions about the composition and velocity of the asteorid. One could estimate the mass of the object assuming compositional ratios similar to a certain class of objects and integrating the whole Iridium deposits but that's still just a very indirect method with high uncertainties and a lot of assumptions to be made.
One may also estimate the impact energy by using the size of the crater. Since that is related to kinetic energy it is a way to estimate the mass and velocity of the impactor, but this are coupled. Not only that, the kinetic energy depends on $m$ and on $v^2$ thus is very sensitive to the velocity of the object. The impactor might have had $m = 1$ and $v = 1$, or $m = 0.25$ and $v = 2$ (in arbitrary units) and the kinetic energy would have been the same. As you can see this dependence is a source of high uncertainty in the mass. The assumption of the impact velocity is needed and the precission of this assumption is very important if you don't want a wide variety of masses for the impactor. Once you got the mass of the impactor you need to know the density of it to estimate its size (another assumption). If it was a comet then the density is as low that for that mass the object would have been gigantic (but then one have to explain the low impact speeds since a comet would have been traveling faster in general). A purely rocky body is denser and thus for the same mass you need a smaller diameter. We in fact have done geochemical measurements on the impact site and there is strong evidence that the object was an asteroid and in particular a carbonaceous chondrite, which means that we have a good estimate of the density of the object. Detailed analysis of the structure of the impact crater can also decouple the mass-velocity constraint whithin the $E_kinetic = frac12mv^2$ relationship. Overall there best estimate is still around 12 km in diameter (+/- 3 km).
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
2
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
2
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33268%2fcould-this-estimate-of-the-size-and-mass-of-the-chicxulub-impactor-be-accurate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Well, that article was never accepted for publication in any peer-review journal apparently.
That said, estimates may vary widely depending on assumptions about the composition and velocity of the asteorid. One could estimate the mass of the object assuming compositional ratios similar to a certain class of objects and integrating the whole Iridium deposits but that's still just a very indirect method with high uncertainties and a lot of assumptions to be made.
One may also estimate the impact energy by using the size of the crater. Since that is related to kinetic energy it is a way to estimate the mass and velocity of the impactor, but this are coupled. Not only that, the kinetic energy depends on $m$ and on $v^2$ thus is very sensitive to the velocity of the object. The impactor might have had $m = 1$ and $v = 1$, or $m = 0.25$ and $v = 2$ (in arbitrary units) and the kinetic energy would have been the same. As you can see this dependence is a source of high uncertainty in the mass. The assumption of the impact velocity is needed and the precission of this assumption is very important if you don't want a wide variety of masses for the impactor. Once you got the mass of the impactor you need to know the density of it to estimate its size (another assumption). If it was a comet then the density is as low that for that mass the object would have been gigantic (but then one have to explain the low impact speeds since a comet would have been traveling faster in general). A purely rocky body is denser and thus for the same mass you need a smaller diameter. We in fact have done geochemical measurements on the impact site and there is strong evidence that the object was an asteroid and in particular a carbonaceous chondrite, which means that we have a good estimate of the density of the object. Detailed analysis of the structure of the impact crater can also decouple the mass-velocity constraint whithin the $E_kinetic = frac12mv^2$ relationship. Overall there best estimate is still around 12 km in diameter (+/- 3 km).
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
2
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
2
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Well, that article was never accepted for publication in any peer-review journal apparently.
That said, estimates may vary widely depending on assumptions about the composition and velocity of the asteorid. One could estimate the mass of the object assuming compositional ratios similar to a certain class of objects and integrating the whole Iridium deposits but that's still just a very indirect method with high uncertainties and a lot of assumptions to be made.
One may also estimate the impact energy by using the size of the crater. Since that is related to kinetic energy it is a way to estimate the mass and velocity of the impactor, but this are coupled. Not only that, the kinetic energy depends on $m$ and on $v^2$ thus is very sensitive to the velocity of the object. The impactor might have had $m = 1$ and $v = 1$, or $m = 0.25$ and $v = 2$ (in arbitrary units) and the kinetic energy would have been the same. As you can see this dependence is a source of high uncertainty in the mass. The assumption of the impact velocity is needed and the precission of this assumption is very important if you don't want a wide variety of masses for the impactor. Once you got the mass of the impactor you need to know the density of it to estimate its size (another assumption). If it was a comet then the density is as low that for that mass the object would have been gigantic (but then one have to explain the low impact speeds since a comet would have been traveling faster in general). A purely rocky body is denser and thus for the same mass you need a smaller diameter. We in fact have done geochemical measurements on the impact site and there is strong evidence that the object was an asteroid and in particular a carbonaceous chondrite, which means that we have a good estimate of the density of the object. Detailed analysis of the structure of the impact crater can also decouple the mass-velocity constraint whithin the $E_kinetic = frac12mv^2$ relationship. Overall there best estimate is still around 12 km in diameter (+/- 3 km).
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
2
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
2
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Well, that article was never accepted for publication in any peer-review journal apparently.
That said, estimates may vary widely depending on assumptions about the composition and velocity of the asteorid. One could estimate the mass of the object assuming compositional ratios similar to a certain class of objects and integrating the whole Iridium deposits but that's still just a very indirect method with high uncertainties and a lot of assumptions to be made.
One may also estimate the impact energy by using the size of the crater. Since that is related to kinetic energy it is a way to estimate the mass and velocity of the impactor, but this are coupled. Not only that, the kinetic energy depends on $m$ and on $v^2$ thus is very sensitive to the velocity of the object. The impactor might have had $m = 1$ and $v = 1$, or $m = 0.25$ and $v = 2$ (in arbitrary units) and the kinetic energy would have been the same. As you can see this dependence is a source of high uncertainty in the mass. The assumption of the impact velocity is needed and the precission of this assumption is very important if you don't want a wide variety of masses for the impactor. Once you got the mass of the impactor you need to know the density of it to estimate its size (another assumption). If it was a comet then the density is as low that for that mass the object would have been gigantic (but then one have to explain the low impact speeds since a comet would have been traveling faster in general). A purely rocky body is denser and thus for the same mass you need a smaller diameter. We in fact have done geochemical measurements on the impact site and there is strong evidence that the object was an asteroid and in particular a carbonaceous chondrite, which means that we have a good estimate of the density of the object. Detailed analysis of the structure of the impact crater can also decouple the mass-velocity constraint whithin the $E_kinetic = frac12mv^2$ relationship. Overall there best estimate is still around 12 km in diameter (+/- 3 km).
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Well, that article was never accepted for publication in any peer-review journal apparently.
That said, estimates may vary widely depending on assumptions about the composition and velocity of the asteorid. One could estimate the mass of the object assuming compositional ratios similar to a certain class of objects and integrating the whole Iridium deposits but that's still just a very indirect method with high uncertainties and a lot of assumptions to be made.
One may also estimate the impact energy by using the size of the crater. Since that is related to kinetic energy it is a way to estimate the mass and velocity of the impactor, but this are coupled. Not only that, the kinetic energy depends on $m$ and on $v^2$ thus is very sensitive to the velocity of the object. The impactor might have had $m = 1$ and $v = 1$, or $m = 0.25$ and $v = 2$ (in arbitrary units) and the kinetic energy would have been the same. As you can see this dependence is a source of high uncertainty in the mass. The assumption of the impact velocity is needed and the precission of this assumption is very important if you don't want a wide variety of masses for the impactor. Once you got the mass of the impactor you need to know the density of it to estimate its size (another assumption). If it was a comet then the density is as low that for that mass the object would have been gigantic (but then one have to explain the low impact speeds since a comet would have been traveling faster in general). A purely rocky body is denser and thus for the same mass you need a smaller diameter. We in fact have done geochemical measurements on the impact site and there is strong evidence that the object was an asteroid and in particular a carbonaceous chondrite, which means that we have a good estimate of the density of the object. Detailed analysis of the structure of the impact crater can also decouple the mass-velocity constraint whithin the $E_kinetic = frac12mv^2$ relationship. Overall there best estimate is still around 12 km in diameter (+/- 3 km).
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Sep 5 at 11:30
SwikeSwike
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
1,2164 silver badges12 bronze badges
5
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
2
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
2
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
add a comment
|
5
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
2
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
2
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
5
5
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
$begingroup$
This is why getting a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal represents the start of a scientific discourse. Having a paper published does not mean that what is published is scientific fact. But having a paper rejected, over and over, might well be a sign that the concepts proposed in said paper are bogus.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Sep 5 at 13:30
2
2
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
$begingroup$
Very, very interesting bits about the Iridium formation and the analysis you've offered, thanks for typing this out.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Sep 5 at 16:18
2
2
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for taking the time to write down an excellent answer. Accepting this one.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:52
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33268%2fcould-this-estimate-of-the-size-and-mass-of-the-chicxulub-impactor-be-accurate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
An 81 km comet would have much more mass than an 8-12 km rocky meteor, but not necessarily more iridium, though I don't think precise estimates are possible given the limited samples taken from comets. I will add that the amount of Iridium might be a method for calculating impacting object size and velocity, but only when we have enough reliable measurements of comet and asteroid composition. I like their approach even if I'm skeptical of their conclusions.
$endgroup$
– userLTK
Sep 5 at 13:22
2
$begingroup$
I'm guessing there was a misplaced hyphen at some point - changing "8-12" to "81-2". Printing error maybe? Bad OCR picked up a smudge on the page? That kind of thing.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Sep 5 at 20:51
2
$begingroup$
@DarrelHoffman: Did you look at the paper? It repeatedly uses "80.9 km" - which the OP rounded to "81".
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:08
1
$begingroup$
Also note that 80.9 is the maximum of the range they give. The lower end overlaps the smaller range in your question.
$endgroup$
– Paused until further notice.
Sep 5 at 21:12
1
$begingroup$
And I agree with userLTK when he points out that while it's a novel method they have drawn on in theory, the results it produces do not hold up without reliable data on the amount of iridium you find in different types of celestial objects.
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
Sep 6 at 7:55