Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater
In a provocative paper Gasperini et al. (2007) suggest that Lake Cheko, a ~300-m-wide lake situated a few kilometres downrange from the assumed epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska event, is an impact crater. In this response, we present several lines of observational evidence that contradicts the impact...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2008
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26793 |
| _version_ | 1848752087498752000 |
|---|---|
| author | Collins, G. Artemieva, N. Wünnemann, K. Bland, Phil Reimold, W. Koeberl, C. |
| author_facet | Collins, G. Artemieva, N. Wünnemann, K. Bland, Phil Reimold, W. Koeberl, C. |
| author_sort | Collins, G. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | In a provocative paper Gasperini et al. (2007) suggest that Lake Cheko, a ~300-m-wide lake situated a few kilometres downrange from the assumed epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska event, is an impact crater. In this response, we present several lines of observational evidence that contradicts the impact hypothesis for the lake s origin: un-crater-like aspects of the lake morphology, the lack of impactor material in and around the lake, and the presence of apparently unaffected mature trees close to the lake. We also show that a tensile strength of 10–40 MPa is required for an asteroid fragment to traverse the Earth’s atmosphere and reach the surface intact and with sufficient velocity to excavate a crater the size of Lake Cheko. Inferred tensile strengths of large stony meteorites during atmospheric disruption are 10–100 times lower. We therefore conclude that Lake Cheko is highly unlikely to be an impact crater. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T08:03:03Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-26793 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T08:03:03Z |
| publishDate | 2008 |
| publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-267932017-09-13T15:28:50Z Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater Collins, G. Artemieva, N. Wünnemann, K. Bland, Phil Reimold, W. Koeberl, C. In a provocative paper Gasperini et al. (2007) suggest that Lake Cheko, a ~300-m-wide lake situated a few kilometres downrange from the assumed epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska event, is an impact crater. In this response, we present several lines of observational evidence that contradicts the impact hypothesis for the lake s origin: un-crater-like aspects of the lake morphology, the lack of impactor material in and around the lake, and the presence of apparently unaffected mature trees close to the lake. We also show that a tensile strength of 10–40 MPa is required for an asteroid fragment to traverse the Earth’s atmosphere and reach the surface intact and with sufficient velocity to excavate a crater the size of Lake Cheko. Inferred tensile strengths of large stony meteorites during atmospheric disruption are 10–100 times lower. We therefore conclude that Lake Cheko is highly unlikely to be an impact crater. 2008 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26793 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x Blackwell Publishing Ltd unknown |
| spellingShingle | Collins, G. Artemieva, N. Wünnemann, K. Bland, Phil Reimold, W. Koeberl, C. Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater |
| title | Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater |
| title_full | Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater |
| title_fullStr | Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater |
| title_short | Evidence that Lake Cheko is not an impact crater |
| title_sort | evidence that lake cheko is not an impact crater |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26793 |