zlacker

>>duck+(OP)
The date of the video is the most impressive to me here. It says “Sept. 30, 2021” both as the date of the article and the date of the video. If this is not a mistake that means they managed to deliver the video from the hurricane to the internet in less than 24 hours.

Why is this impressive? Either they beamed it out through satelites, which is notoriously hard from an unstable platform on big waves, or they recovered the saildrone and obtained the footage directly which is equally impressive in or around a hurricane.

All around if the dating of the footage is correct it is very impressive to me.

>>krisof+79
I was just thinking to myself that maybe it's my age or something but the fact that I am sat a thousand miles away watching a video, on my phone, from inside a hurricane that was recorded, edited, and published all in less than a day, is one of those "I'm living in the future, aren't I?" Moments.

>>Jenk+ea
Watching dashcam video footage of the Chelyabinsk meteorite a few hours after it had first been reported, on my smartphone, sitting in the garage after a grocery run, was it for me.

>>dredmo+Jh
Watching it live was more impressive than videos, and the BOOM was really shaking.

(I actually live in Chelyabinsk)

>>Andrew+Vi
I prefer living in my future at a distance ;-)

That must have been absolutely amazing.

Did you see the initial airburst itself? What were your thoughts / how would you describe your reaction as the event unfolded?

>>dredmo+ln
I saw part of the burst and to me it was immediately clear what it was. Also, the timing of the boom arrival helped determine the distance with good precision.

Thoughts, 'WOW', 'COOL', 'Did somebody film that??', and, of course, the rest of the workday was not very productive. It was nice to see that so much footage made.

One thing footage doesn't show is, however, the heat: the radiation was intense and open parts of the skin did feel hot, like , REALLLY BURNING HOT. Had it lasted longer, there would be burns on everybody.

>>Andrew+Mp
I've seen estimates of the Chelyabinsk energy yield at about 500 kT TNT equivalent. How that was distributed as light, shock wave, and thermal energy (latter coupled with light) has been something I'd wondered at, and your comment on the heat is interesting.

I'd think that a larger impactor or one that survived further into Earth's atmosphere (and closer to the surface) might have changed that experience markedly. You're informing my own advice-to-self as to how to respond should I see a very large airburst at some point. "Stay away from glass" was already part of that, as well as "expect the shockwave after about 90 seconds". I think I'll add "avoid direct thermal exposure if it looks to be large" to the list.

If you've not already seen the Sandia Labs modelling based on the 1908 Tunguska event, the shockwave dynamics suggest to me why and how the multiple shockwave arrivals at a given point on the ground occur:

https://newsreleases.sandia.gov/releases/2007/asteroid.html

Particularly this simulation: http://www.sandia.gov/videos2007/2007-6514Pfire.hv1.1.mpg

>>dredmo+PE
"Resist the urge to stare at it through the window"