hexaflexagonbear [he/him] to Main • 4 年前Really hoping that's not a Nate Silver predictionimagemessage-square20 fedilinkarrow-up167
arrow-up167imageReally hoping that's not a Nate Silver predictionhexaflexagonbear [he/him] to Main • 4 年前message-square20 Commentsfedilink
minus-squareemizeko [they/them]hexbear9·edit-24 年前Chelyabinsk would have done more damage but the angle of entry was very flat so the atmosphere took the brunt of the energy link
minus-squareRNAi [he/him]hexbear3·4 年前But if the angle is too steep didn't they get destroyed faster by the atmosphere? (I am thinking about re-entry angle thing) link
minus-squareFinalFantasy_8_Disc2 [none/use name]hexbear3·4 年前I'd imagine it'd be a parabolic relationship between angle and ablation, so 0 degrees and 90 degrees would generate roughly equivalent amounts of ablation while 45 would be the optimal angle for eroding the asteroid. link
How big?
deleted by creator
Chelyabinsk would have done more damage but the angle of entry was very flat so the atmosphere took the brunt of the energy
But if the angle is too steep didn't they get destroyed faster by the atmosphere? (I am thinking about re-entry angle thing)
I'd imagine it'd be a parabolic relationship between angle and ablation, so 0 degrees and 90 degrees would generate roughly equivalent amounts of ablation while 45 would be the optimal angle for eroding the asteroid.