[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: deep water = less ejecta?
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
> On Behalf Of john bois
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:02 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: deep water = less ejecta?
> OK...so the Chicxulub crater is shallow because the bolide
> hit in deep water...thus sending massive water into the
> atmosphere and, at the same time, cushioning the blow to
> underlying solid materials. Do we now have to downgrade the
> amount of re-entering ejecta and associated fire storms, heat
> pulse, and toasting as a killing mechanism?
I see no reason that deeper water would cushion the blow. The Chicxulub
impactor itself was an estimated 6-10 km diameter, and this if you were to
simply drop it into the deep oceans without burn up it would stick out of
the surface of the water. And the impact site would STILL have been on a
A deeper impact seems to imply simply a different relative volume of the
type ejecta produced.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
Faculty Director, Earth, Life & Time Program, College Park Scholars
Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 USA