Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tunguska Impact Crater Found?

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jun 26, 2007 02:58 PM
from the things-that-go-boom-then-splash dept.
Space Science
BigBadBus writes in with a claim by an Italian team that they may have found an impact crater resulting from the 1908 Tunguska explosion over Siberia. The BBC story quotes a number of impact experts who doubt the Italians' claim. "A University of Bologna team says a lake near the epicenter of the blast may be occupying a crater hollowed out by a chunk of rock that hit the ground. Lake Cheko — though shallow — fits the proportions of a small, bowl-shaped impact crater, say the Italy-based scientists. Their investigation of the lake bottom's geology reveals a funnel-like shape not seen in neighboring lakes. In addition, a geophysics survey of the lake bed has turned up an unusual feature about 10m down which could either be compacted lake sediments or a buried fragment of space rock."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Tunguska Impact Crater Found? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Lewis Tully? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:00PM (#19654331)
    Dr. Stanz approves.

    • lol wut (Score:4, Funny)

      by DJCacophony (832334) <[moc.t0gym] [ta] [akd0v]> on Tuesday June 26 2007, @04:27PM (#19655543) Homepage
      "an unusual feature about 10m down which could either be compacted lake sediments or a buried fragment of space rock"

      "Sir we found an anomaly at the bottom of the lake."
      "Well, what could it be?"
      "It's either dirt, or a ROCK FROM OUTER SPACE!!!"

    • Location (Score:4, Informative)

      by Alien54 (180860) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @05:50PM (#19656497) Journal
      Ground Zero = 6055N, 10157E (approximately)

      Google maps doesn't have much detail, but Google Earth is much better

      You can make out individual trees, but I do not see much in terms of individual logs in the blast pattern. Using the BBC info as a guide, you can easily see Lake Cheko

  • University of Bologna? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:01PM (#19654335)
    University of Bologna? My crater has a first name, it's T-u-n-g-u-s-k-a...

  • And when they found it... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They said MAMMA MIA!!!!
  • Black oil... Scully... uh, can some do the whole X-Files reference thing for me? (kinda sleepy after a big lunch...)

    • Re:Tunguska (Score:5, Funny)

      by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:04PM (#19654395)

      Black oil... Scully... uh, can some do the whole X-Files reference thing for me? (kinda sleepy after a big lunch...)
      Don't feel too bad, that was Chris Carter's approach to the entire series.

      • Re:Tunguska (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Himring (646324) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:14PM (#19654545) Homepage Journal
        Exactly. At some point, the plot has to actually work. X Files rocked, but Carter got caught up in the 'revealing for the sake of revealing' treadmill.... His thematic story shows -- meant to connect and be going some where -- never really went anywhere. I think the stand-alone episodes ended up carrying the series....

        Heh, one of my favorite parts is when Skully gives up her baby like she's returning a movie.

        • After year 2, it pretty much became a recreation of 'The Night Stalker'. Once I realized that, I enjoyed it much more.

            • Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Funny)

              by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @04:15PM (#19655387)

              ..the losers who try to take television seriously.

              They waste hours making cunts of themselves by arguing online with other fanboys about faggoty shit like "mytharcs" or character motivations, while completely unaware, ironically, how pathetic they look.
              So what's faggier, having an interest in science fiction or having nothing better to occupy your life with than trolling people on topics you have no interest in? I see your insult of "cunt" and raise you by two "wank-stains."
    • The Tunguska explosion happened because George Bush doesn't care about Black Oil.
  • Mmmm.... University of Bologna

      • Re:Homer Simpson Says (Score:4, Informative)

        by terrymr (316118) <terrymr@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:51PM (#19655065)
        Wikipedia:

        Bologna sausage is an American version of the Italian mortadella (a finely hashed/ground pork sausage with lard pieces, which originated in the Italian city of Bologna). The American version can alternatively be made out of chicken, turkey, beef, pork, or soybeans. It is commonly called bologna and often pronounced (by hypercorrection) and/or spelled baloney. The "baloney" pronunciation can be used to mean "lies" and/or to express disbelief (see below).

  • Google Maps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:03PM (#19654389) Homepage Journal
    Areal view of what was believed to be the original impact site [google.com] and Lake Cheko [google.com].

    I'm no geologist so I can't comment on whether or not this lake looks typical but I will say that, judging by the coloration of the foliage around it, this is probable the same land as the river/stream that winds to the west of it. Interesting is that if you follow it northwest for miles it looks smooth cut. Once it passes Lake Cheko, it seems to become more speckled and pock marked. Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

    I would guess this is quite feasible indeed to be part of whatever happened nearly 100 years ago. Check out the last page of this PDF [aero.org] which seems to show the comet/asteroid approaching at an angle (thus the strange blast pattern). At that trajectory, you'd think there'd be a chance for whatever hit to break apart and skip. Maybe the other abnormal marks in the stream are from other pieces/debris?

    Probably fueled by the sci-fi stories written about the same topic (like the 1946 one by Alexander Kazantsev), I find it interesting to read about things like the Tunguska Genetic Anomaly [arxiv.org] whether they be true or not. Maybe these are the scientist's tabloids? :)

    • Re:Google Maps (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:13PM (#19654527)

      I'm no geologist so I can't comment
      Clearly not true, unfortunately.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by OverlordQ (264228)
      Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

      Go take a basic geography course. Easiest conclusion is that there was a sharp bend in the river there that eroded away and the stream filled in the low-lying areas.

      And using Google for comparing foliage is like using a rubber band to measure distances. Pictures could have been taken at different days, times, seasons, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by isny (681711)
      Personally, this one looks like an impact crater. http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&ie=UTF8&ll=60.9023 96,101.929779&spn=0.044828,0.10746&z=13&om=1 [google.com]

  • Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pclminion (145572) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:04PM (#19654399)
    If this is in fact the real impact site, shouldn't there be elevated iridium levels in the lake sediments, as is usually found at other impact sites? I guess "prove" is too strong a term, but I'd challenge anyone to find an alternate explanation for elevated iridium, if found.

    • If this is in fact the real impact site, shouldn't there be elevated iridium levels in the lake sediments, as is usually found at other impact sites? I guess "prove" is too strong a term, but I'd challenge anyone to find an alternate explanation for elevated iridium, if found.

      It's impossible to be scientific based on the material in the article, but a few things jumped out at me. The most telling are that there's no upside-down layer of material around the supposed crater, and then there's the following passage:

      "We have no positive proof this is an impact crater, but we were able to exclude some other hypotheses, and this led us to our conclusion," Professor Longo, the research team leader, told BBC News.

      so wait, there is no positive proof that this is an impact crater, but you concluded that it is? that sounds like bullshit to me.

      But IANAG[eologist] or in any related field, and of course this is just one little article on the beeb which is pretty much known for fucking up the technical details...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ironsides (739422)
        "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

        They eliminated pretty much everything but an impact crater. Thus, they think it might be an impact crater.

        • Unfortunately (Score:5, Informative)

          by porkchop_d_clown (39923) <porkchop_d_clown@nospAm.mac.com> on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:57PM (#19655157) Homepage
          The most widely accepted explanation for not finding the crater is that there isn't one: Most geologists believe the Tunguska object exploded in the air. (This sounds crazy, but it's apparently possible - just as a person doing a belly flop off a cliff is going to be killed by the impact, a meteor can be destroyed by the impact with the lower atmosphere.)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by btgreat (895041)
            Even the researchers from the article believe that.. The difference here is that they think a small piece of the airbursted object survived and hit the ground, causing a small crater - the lake. At least, thats what I got out of TFA.

          • Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by btgreat (895041) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @04:11PM (#19655341)
            Though he said he didn't have positive evidence, it does sound like they have negative evidence. The way you describe their conclusions makes it seem like there was no other reason for a lake to be there so it must have been a crater. What it sounds like to me is that instead of there being no other theories contradicting his case, they were able to disprove those other theories, and all that was left is impact crater.

            I don't think there was absence of evidence, it was just that the evidence applied to other theories rather than the impact crater. Simple deductive reasoning: A lake was formed. It could have been by methods A, B, or C. We have evidence that it wasn't A or B. Thus it was C.

            Semantics aside, some of the material presented in the article does make the researchers' conclusion seem somewhat dubious. I'm not arguing that the lake was the crater, just that it is possible that the professor is more justified than the article might make him appear at first glance.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kelson (129150) *
      According to the article, they plan on sending another expedition next year and drilling at the lake.

  • well (Score:4, Informative)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:05PM (#19654411) Homepage
    After the many expeditions to Tunguska, wouldn't one of them have noticed a crater shaped lake? From what I saw on a documentary about it the first expedition drained and dug in every hole they found in that swamp.

    • any idea how large the region is? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iHasaFlavour (1118257) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:38PM (#19654867) Homepage
      Tunguska is big, really big..

      And extremely remote. It's not even slightly surprising that this was missed.

      The original expidition didn't head to the impact site until years after the event, and still they found a devastated surface, and no-one went back again for a very long time.

      Until fairly recently it just wasn't feasable to do any kind of large scale study of the region. I think people sometimes forget just how barking huge our planet is, you'd be amazed at the number of area's that are still effectivelly blanks on the map, or mapped by air/satellite only.

  • what would we find here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:08PM (#19654435) Journal
    Now what would we find at this site if it were the tunguska impact crater? since it was likely mostly ice/volatiles mixed with some rocky material would it be fair to say that we wouldnt be finding evidence of shok metamorphosis when the volatiles likely carried off most of the heat? for that matter, would there even be a single crater when the original object shattered as it did? wouldnt it be likely that several small impacts form and over the years erode?

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Critical Facilities (850111) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:09PM (#19654465) Homepage

    A University of Bologna team says a lake near the epicenter of the blast may be occupying a crater hollowed out by a chunk of rock that hit the ground.


    An official with the University of Horseshit was quoted as saying "That's not a lake, that's partially liquified alien spaceships.". Reached for a response prior to teaching a class at the College of Bullcrap, Professor Dumbass had the following to say, "Well, it could be a meteor, it could be a meatball, who can say really?"

    • Not a troll (Score:5, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:27PM (#19654727) Homepage Journal

      It's not a troll. It's called humor. And it's entirely ontopic and appropriate as well - the article basically has a bunch of people saying "it might be some shit" but they have no proof whatsoever. They claim to have ruled out several other possibilities which led them to the "conclusion" (how do you come to a conclusion with no evidence?) that it was the Tunguska impact crater. Now let's see, how many problems are there with this?

      1. Tunguska probably wouldn't even have a crater, because it was an airburst. At best, it would have several small ones, which might not even be detectable any more.
      2. The article claims that if there were a crater, it would be shaped differently.
      3. There is no supporting evidence that this was the Tunguska crater.

      Now, if they dig into this lake and figure out what the submerged lump in it is, which might be a rock and might just be a lump of sediment, then this will be more interesting. But this is a completely non-story story. There are no facts here, other than that some people have made an assumption which might or might not be warranted, because they lacked imagination to come up with hypotheses they couldn't shoot down.

      A better title would be "Scientists believe they have located Tunguska Crater without corroborating evidence".

      Parent comment, even if intended to be a joke just about the name of the Uni (I do not believe it is, based on having RTFA, shock amazement) is still entirely apt. Perhaps the bonehead who modded it troll should check out the moderation guidelines?

  • Well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bandman (86149) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:09PM (#19654471) Homepage
    Shocked quartz could solve the matter once and for all.

    Trees standing near the impact site aren't that big of an anomaly, although they do point to an airborne explosion. IIRC some of the witnesses reported that there were standing trees, and modeling of the event (as well as other powerful explosions which occurred at an altitude) have left standing trees, edifaces, and so on, directly below the force of explosion.

    Personally, I'm still hoping for Tesla's Death Ray

  • 55 Fiction (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Carthag (643047)
    In the far reaches of the Siberian tundra, the shaman sits naked. To his left, the head of a freshly slain hare, to his right, a small bundle of herbs. As he calls out in the old language that he is the last to know, the sky lights up like a thousand suns.

    Tunguska remembers.

    • In the far reaches of the Siberian tundra, the shaman sits naked. To his left, the head of a freshly slain hare, to his right, a small bundle of herbs. As he calls out in the old language that he is the last to know, the sky lights up like a thousand suns.

      Tunguska remembers.
      With a story like that, I'd certainly hope it wasn't Pepperidge Farms.
  • I was wondering where I left that..

  • Hah! Everyone knows it wasnt a meteorite... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tmack (593755) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:11PM (#19654505) Homepage Journal
    It was a quantum black hole [wikipedia.org] passing through the earth!

    The most they will ever find is a nano sized cave where it traveled through the earth at near-light speed before going about its way after popping out through an ocean on the other side....

    tm

  • I don't think there is a "true" impact crater per se, but more like the possibility that the explosion of the object very low off the ground causing a very strong blast wave that did result in something that looks like a crater. It would be akin to the low-altitude air burst nuclear explosions of over 1 MT during the early 1960's atmospheric tests from nuclear bombs dropped from B-52 bombers.
  • Since no man has discovered the blast site until now, how do we know the object is not composed of highly dangerous contaminants/heavy metals that humans have not discovered yet?

  • Oh sure (Score:4, Funny)

    by Grashnak (1003791) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:20PM (#19654631)
    Oh, and I just bet you doubters have a better explanation for a hole in the ground full of water? I thought not.

  • The Easy Question Is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:22PM (#19654651)
    The easy question is, was there any record of this lake before the explosion?

    Follow up with, are there other lakes that didn't exist before the explosion, but do since?

  • Finally a good science quote (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cvd6262 (180823) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @03:51PM (#19655051)
    I'm so tired of hearing "researchers" talk about the certainties of their discoveries. This is a breath of fresh air:

    "We have no positive proof this is an impact crater, but we were able to exclude some other hypotheses, and this led us to our conclusion," Professor Longo, the research team leader, told BBC News.

    • Re:Impact, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PoliTech (998983) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @05:15PM (#19656131) Homepage Journal
      You may have been joking AC (Pun Intended), but the "Tesla Death Ray" has been suggested as one of the possible causes of the Tunguska event for many many years.

      Here is an About.com article that talks about it more. http://paranormal.about.com/cs/earthmysteries/a/aa 021604.htm [about.com]

      The text below is lifted from this site: http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/ tunguska.htm [prometheus.al.ru]

      The Tunguska event took place on the morning of June 30th, 1908. An explosion estimated to be equivalent to 10-15 megatons of TNT flattened 500,000 acres of pine forest near the Stony Tunguska River in central Siberia. Whole herds of reindeer were destroyed. Several nomadic villages were reported to have vanished. The explosion was heard over a radius of 620 miles. When an expedition was made to the area in 1927 to find evidence of the meteorite presumed to have caused the blast, no impact crater was found. When the ground was drilled for pieces of nickel, iron, or stone, the main constituents of meteorites, none were found down to a depth of 118 feet.

      Several explanations have been given for the Tunguska event. The officially accepted version is that a 100,000 ton fragment of Encke's Comet, composed mainly of dust and ice, entered the atmosphere at 62,000 mph, heated up, and exploded over the earth's surface creating a fireball and shock wave but no crater. Alternative explanations of the disaster include a renegade mini-black hole or an alien space ship crashing into the earth with the resulting release of energy.

      Associating Tesla with the Tunguska event comes close to putting the inventor's power transmission idea in the same speculative category as ancient astronauts. However, historical facts point to the possibility that this event was caused by a test firing of Tesla's energy weapon.

      In 1907 and 1908, Tesla wrote about the destructive effects of his energy transmitter. His Wardenclyffe facility was much larger than the Colorado Springs device that destroyed the power station's generator. Then, in 1915, he stated bluntly:

      It is perfectly practical to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible. ... But when unavoidable [it] may be used to destroy property and life. The art is already so far developed that the great destructive effects can be produced at any point on the globe, defined beforehand with great accuracy (emphasis added).

      He seems to confess to such a test having taken place before 1915, and, though the evidence is circumstantial, Tesla had the motive and the means to cause the Tunguska event. His transmitter could generate energy levels and frequencies capable of releasing the destructive force of 10 megatons, or more, of TNT. And the overlooked genius was desperate.

      Tesla was just enough of a mad scientist to make what would otherwise sound kooky, at least somewhat plausible.

        • Re:Impact, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by himi (29186) on Tuesday June 26 2007, @11:30PM (#19659195) Homepage
          I call bullshit simply based on the question of where the hell Tesla would have gotten the ~80 petajoules of energy needed for a 20 megaton explosion, regardless of how wonderful his deathray may have been. Even if he was charging some massive bank of capacitors for a year, that would require 2.5GW for the whole year, which is utterly ridiculous for 1908.

          himi

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.