 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Tunguska edit
Best modern estimates are that Tunguska was about 40 to 70 meters in diameter. So yes, this object is in the same size class and would pack a similar punch. The Chelyabinsk meteor was only about 18 meters in diameter and Meteor Crater was created by a relatively rare (only 5% of the population) Iron-Nickel meteor about 50 meters in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Tunguska-event sized" is not a standard asteroid classification. If you claim otherwise please provide a reference. It's not even certain that the Tunguska event was a meteor, although it looks like the most likely option. Remember that we are looking at the first sentence here, a comparison later in the article is fine with me. --mfb (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Many people will come to this article wanting to know about possible impact effects and the lead should introduce the general idea to the reader. The true size and density of this asteroid can vary from a rubble pile at 30 meters (2.0 g/cm3) to 100 meters at the density of an iron-nickel M-type asteroid (~8 g/cm3). At a difference in size of 47 meters vs 55 meters, you are not going to get a better generic comparison to 2023 DW than the very well known Tunguska impactor. And there is zero reason to seriously consider any other theory for Tunguska. The first sentence is suppose to explain the article and mentioning the size comparison between 2023 DW and Tunguska is useful. Those that want more technical details can read the footnote. -- Kheider (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)