These aren’t symplectic integrators. Impact explosions are messy. But another thing I have observed is that the meteor impact and explosion and the resulting debris field from the single distant dash cam that captures almost the entire event from start to finish, looks very much like any many other larger grazing micrometeoroid impacts I have witnessed, for instance, the Perseids – only this was much larger. However, the dynamical form and evolution of these events seem to be very similar, at least up to the size that we have observed until now. The impactor has a well defined initial kinetic energy, and a fraction of that is ultimately delivered to the atmosphere as heat and light, the rest being distributed across the individual impact fragments that hit. And it appears in this case there were a lot of very small impact fragments, but it still remains to be determined how fast they were going and how many of them reached the ground, in some ellipse, although rough estimates can be obtained from the explosive yield.

I did suggest to the workers in this field that they need to start developing some aircraft sampling procedures for the immediate aftermath of these kinds of impact events in order to get a pristine set of microscopic impact proxies before the impact plume disperses, and in order to get much larger samples of the fresh microscopic impact particles before they have a chance to dilute from dispersion.

“One has to wonder if there are any credible space cadets posting here.”

By definition, can a “space cadet” be credible?

Of course I don’t see myself as a “space cadet”, but a “space enthusiast”. Space is an area of personal interest, but I’m not employed by any companies in the field. However my area of expertise, manufacturing operations, does provide me with a good basis to understand a number of the issues that are influencing what we can and cannot do in space.

“I take that answer to be a negative then. You don’t have any numbers.”

42 is the answer to the “Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything“. Not sure why you didn’t catch that.

But I’m surprised that you would think that you can use unknown parameters to determine anything – miss that bit of humor? I was poking fun at your seriousness in telling us that you have verified that your simulations were surprisingly accurate with known parameters. Would you tell us if they were surprisingly INACCURATE with known parameters?

One has to wonder if there are any credible space cadets posting here.

“do you have some numbers to share with us?”

Just one – 42.

DVK: Many media reported that an airburst caused window breakage and some structural damage in downtown Chelaybinsk. Normally, some damage begins to occur at around five times normal air pressure at sea level. Widespread window damage is expected around 10–20 times this value.

I can assure you, if the blast wave that hit Chelyabinsk had a pressure of 5 atmospheres, no buildings would be standing.

Are you just naturally contrary or do you have some numbers to share with us?

“I did a few simulator runs and they were surprisingly accurate with known parameters.”

How odd. I did a few simulator runs and they were surprisingly accurate with unknown parameters…

You are wishing away the semimultaneous global extinction of many animals. You are also trying to wish away several astroblemes from the time.

Here’s an old hint: Don’t try to lay no boogie woogie on the king of rock and roll.