Asteroid impacts are more dangerous than we think

Recently, the Internet has been abuzz with delight with a new discovery asteroid. The thing is, this new asteroid was immediately put on the list of potentially dangerous objects.

However, practically all discovered asteroids are placed on this list, they consist of potential threats, even if they are almost impossible.

Soon after this murmur, the scientists attempted to calm the spirits of the population. But this question always remains: What would happen if a huge asteroid hit Earth? As simple as it gets: just ask the dinosaurs.

However, it is not so simple, after all, the event that wiped out the dinosaurs is unusual, as the size of the rock capable of causing that catastrophe cannot be easily found.

Ancient asteroid craters may be much larger

The chief scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, James Garvin, recently claimed that the asteroid craters we see on our planet could be much larger than that.

As revealed by the astronomer during the Planetary and Lunar Science Conference this year, he and his team found evidence that the rings around craters are, in fact, signs of the original collision.

In other words, when an asteroid hits the Earth, two craters are formed: one with a smaller diameter, which is located in the center of the collision, where the asteroid “touched” first, and the second is the actual size of the rock.

Thus, using high-resolution satellites, the scientists and their team were able to identify the rings that surround the known craters. That is, it is likely that those asteroids that collided with the planet are actually two or three times larger than imagined.

High-resolution analysis of the eroded remains of some of the largest impact craters has revealed that they feature faint rings beyond what would normally be considered their outer edges.

A recalculation of the diameters of the edges of these craters revealed that their actual size had been underestimated, and, in fact, they were two or three times more in diameter than previously assumed.”

However, Garvin says this is not proof, but just theories based on previous research. Therefore, the scientist claims that more studies are needed to determine the validity of his theory.