O. P. Popova, et al., Chelyabinsk Airburst, Damage Assessment,
Meteorite Recovery and Characterization. Science 342 (2013).

Chelyabinsk Airburst, Damage Assessment,
Meteorite Recovery, and Characterization
Olga P. Popova1, Peter Jenniskens2,3,*, Vacheslav Emel'yanenko4, Anna Kartashova4, Eugeny
Biryukov5, Sergey Khaibrakhmanov6, Valery Shuvalov1, Yurij Rybnov1, Alexandr Dudorov6,
Victor I. Grokhovsky7, Dmitry D. Badyukov8, Qing-Zhu Yin9, Peter S. Gural2, Jim Albers2,
Mikael Granvik10, Läslo G. Evers11,12, Jacob Kuiper11, Vladimir Kharlamov1, Andrey
Solovyov13, Yuri S. Rusakov14, Stanislav Korotkiy15, Ilya Serdyuk16, Alexander V.
Korochantsev8, Michail Yu. Larionov7, Dmitry Glazachev1, Alexander E. Mayer6, Galen
Gisler17, Sergei V. Gladkovsky18, Josh Wimpenny9, Matthew E. Sanborn9, Akane Yamakawa9,
Kenneth L. Verosub9, Douglas J. Rowland19, Sarah Roeske9, Nicholas W. Botto9, Jon M.
Friedrich20,21, Michael E. Zolensky22, Loan Le23,22, Daniel Ross23,22, Karen Ziegler24, Tomoki
Nakamura25, Insu Ahn25, Jong Ik Lee26, Qin Zhou27, 28, Xian-Hua Li28, Qiu-Li Li28, Yu Liu28,
Guo-Qiang Tang28, Takahiro Hiroi29, Derek Sears3, Ilya A. Weinstein7, Alexander S.
Vokhmintsev7, Alexei V. Ishchenko7, Phillipe Schmitt-Kopplin30,31, Norbert Hertkorn30, Keisuke
Nagao32, Makiko K. Haba32, Mutsumi Komatsu33, and Takashi Mikouchi34 (The Chelyabinsk
Airburst Consortium).
1

Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect
38, Building 1, Moscow, 119334, Russia. 2SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Avenue, Mountain
View, CA 94043, USA. 3NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Mail Stop 245-1, CA
94035, USA. 4Institute of Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Pyatnitskaya 48,
Moscow, 119017, Russia. 5Department of Theoretical Mechanics, South Ural State University,
Lenin Avenue 76, Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia. 6Chelyabinsk State University, Bratyev
Kashirinyh Street 129, Chelyabinsk, 454001, Russia. 7Institute of Physics and Technology, Ural
Federal University, Mira Street 19, Yekaterinburg, 620002, Russia. 8Vernadsky Institute ofGeochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the RAS, Kosygina Street 19, Moscow, 119991,
Russia. 9Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California at Davis, Davis,
CA 95616, USA. 10Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P. O. Box 64, 00014 Helsinki,
Finland. 11Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, P. O. Box 201, 3730 AE De Bilt,
Netherlands. 12Department of Geoscience and Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering andGeosciences, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, Netherlands.
13
Tomsk State University, Lenina Prospect 36, Tomsk, 634050 Russia. 14Research andProduction Association “Typhoon,” Floor, 7 Engels Street, Obninsk, 249032, Russia. 15Support
Foundation for Astronomy “Ka-Dar,” P.O. Box 82, Razvilka, 142717 Russia. 16Science andTechnology Center of the Social and Youth Initiatives Organization, 3-12-63 Udal’tsova Street,
Moscow, 119415, Russia. 17University of Oslo, Physics Building, Sem Saelands Vel 24, 0316
Oslo, Norway. 18Institute of Engineering Sciences Urals Branch of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, Komsomolskaya Street 34, Yekaterinburg, 620049, Russia. 19Center for Molecular andGenomic Imaging, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA. 20Department ofEarth and Planetary Sciences, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024,
USA. 21Department of Chemistry, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458, USA.
22
Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX
77058, USA. 23Jacobs Technology, 2224 Bay Area Boulevard, Houston, TX 77058, USA.

24

Institute of Meteoritics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131–0001, USA.
Department of Earth and Planetary Materials Science, Tohoku University, Aramaki, Aoba,
Sendai, Miyagi 980-8578, Japan. 26Division of Polar Earth-System Sciences, Korea Polar
Research Institute, 26 Songdomi Rae, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 406-840, Korea. 27National
Astronomical Observatories, Beijing, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China.
28
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China. 29Department of Geological Sciences, Brown
University, Providence, RI 02912, USA. 30Analytical BioGeoChemistry, Helmoltz Zentrum
Muenchen, Ingoldstäter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Obeschleissheim, Germany. 31Technical
University Muenchen, Analytical Food Chemistry, Alte Akademie 10, D-85354 Freising,Germany. 32Geochemical Research Center, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku,
Tokyo 113-0033, Japan. 33Waseda Institute for Advanced Study, Waseda University, 1-6-1
Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8050, Japan. 34Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
25*Corresponding author. E-mail: Petrus.M.Jenniskens@nasa.gov

The asteroid impact near the Russian city of Chelyabinsk on 15 February 2013 was thelargest airburst on Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event, causing a natural disaster in anarea with a population exceeding one million. Because it occurred in an era with modern
consumer electronics, field sensors, and laboratory techniques, unprecedented
measurements were made of the impact event and the meteoroid that caused it. Here, we
document the account of what happened, as understood now, using comprehensive dataobtained from astronomy, planetary science, geophysics, meteorology, meteoritics, andcosmochemistry and from social science surveys. A good understanding of the Chelyabinsk
incident provides an opportunity to calibrate the event, with implications for the study ofnear-Earth objects and developing hazard mitigation strategies for planetary protection.

Chelyabinsk Oblast experienced an impact that was 100 times more energetic than the recent 4
kT of TNT–equivalent Sutter’s Mill meteorite fall (1). This was the biggest impact over landsince the poorly observed Tunguska impact in 1908, for which kinetic energy estimates range
from 3 to 5 (2) to 10 to 50 MT (3). From the measured period of infrasound waves circumtraveling the globe (4), an early estimate of ~470 kT was derived for Chelyabinsk (5). Infrasounddata from Russia and Kazakhstan provide 570 ± 150 kT; see supplementary materials (SM)section 1.4 (6). Spaceborne visible and near-infrared observations (7) recorded a total irradiatedenergy of 90 kT (5, 8), corresponding to a kinetic energy of 590 ± 50 kT using the calibration by
Nemtchinov et al. (9). All values are uncertain by a factor of two because of a lack of calibration
data at those high energies and altitudes.
The manner in which this kinetic energy was deposited in the atmosphere determined
what shock wave reached the ground. Dash-camera and security camera videos of the fireball(Fig. 1) provide a light curve with peak brightness of –27.3 ± 0.5 magnitude (Fig. 2) (SM section
1.2). The integrated light curve is consistent with other energy estimates, if the panchromatic2

luminous efficiency was 7 ± 3%. Theoretical estimates under these conditions range from 5.6 to
13.2% (10).
Calibrated video observations provided a trajectory and pre-atmospheric orbit (Table 1)(SM section 1.1). The fireball was first recorded at 97-km altitude, moving at 19.16 ± 0.15 km/s
with entry angle 18.3 ± 0.2° with respect to the horizon, which is slightly faster than reported
earlier (11). Combined with the best kinetic energy estimate, an entry mass of 1.3 × 107 kg (witha factor of two uncertainty) and a diameter of 19.8 ± 4.6 m is derived, assuming a sphericalshape and the meteorite-derived density of 3.3 g/cm3 based on x-ray computed tomography (SMsect. 4.2, table S16).
Size and speed suggest that a shock wave first developed at 90 km. Observations showthat dust formation and fragmentation started around 83 km and accelerated at 54 km (figs. S16
and S22). Peak radiation occurred at an altitude of 29.7 ± 0.7 km at 03:20:32.2 ± 0.1s UTC (SMsection 1.1-2), at which time spaceborne sensors measured a meteoroid speed of 18.6 km/s (5).
Fragmentation left a thermally emitting debris cloud in this period, the final burst of which
occurred at 27.0-km altitude (Fig. 1), with dust and gas settling at 26.2 km and with distinctly
higher billowing above that location (fig. S22). The dust cloud split in two due to the buoyancyof the hot gas, leading to two cylindrical vortices (12).
Compared with the much larger Tunguska event (2, 3), Chelyabinsk was only on thethreshold of forming a common shock wave around the fragments when it broke at peakbrightness (SM section 1.2). Fragments were spatially isolated enough to be efficiently
decelerated, avoiding the transfer of momentum to lower altitudes and resulting in less damage
when the blast wave reached the ground.
Damage Assessment
In the weeks after the event, 50 villages were visited to verify the extent of glass damage. The
resulting map (Fig. 3) demonstrates that the shock wave had a cylindrical component, extending
furthest perpendicular to the trajectory. There was little coherence of the shock wave in theforward direction, where the disturbance was of long duration, shaking buildings and making
people run outside, but causing no damage.
The strength of this shock wave on the ground was modeled (SM section 2.4), assumingthat an overpressure of Δp > 500 Pa was required (13). A 520-kT event, with detonations spreadover altitudes ranging from 34 to 27 km and 24 to 19 km, would cause damage out to a distanceof 120 km with the observed shape (Fig. 3). The fragments that penetrated below 27 km musthave contributed to the damage in order to match the shock-wave arrival times (SM section 2.4).
The number of houses damaged per 1000 inhabitants (table S11) (SM section 2.3) falls
off with distance from the airburst source (r) as r–2.6 ± 1.2, with overpressure calculated to fall off
as r−2.4 (fig. S39). In Chelyabinsk itself, 3613 apartment buildings (about 44%) had shattered andbroken glass, but these were not evenly distributed in the city (fig. S37). Sharp sounds heard
after the shock wave also point to the fragmentation’s causing a complicated distribution ofpressure. Structural damage included the collapse of a zinc factory roof.
Directly below the fireball’s path, the shock wave was strong enough to blow people off
their feet. In Yemanzhelinsk, window frames facing the trajectory were pushed inwards, andsuspended ceilings were sucked down above broken windows (fig. S36G). There was no
structural damage to buildings, other than a statue of Pushkin inside the local library, cracked by3

a blown-out window frame. Cracks in walls were documented in nearby Baturinsky and
Kalachevo.
Electrophonic sounds were heard (SM section 1.6), but there was no evidence of anelectromagnetic pulse (EMP) under the track in neighboring Emanzhelinka. Due to shock-wave–
induced vibrations, electricity and cell phone connectivity was briefly halted in the Kunashaksky
district at the far northern end of the damage area. The gas supply was briefly interrupted insome districts because of valves reacting to the vibrations.
People found it painful to look at the bright fireball, but glancing away prevented lastingeye damage. Of 1113 respondents to an Internet survey who were outside at the time, 25 were
sunburned (2.2%), 315 felt hot (28%), and 415 (37%) felt warm (SM section 2.2). Mild sunburns
were reported throughout the survey area (table S7), reflecting the fact that ultraviolet (UV) flux
density falls off as ~r−2. In Korkino, 30 km from the point of peak brightness, one resident
reported getting a mild sunburn on the face, followed by peeling of skin. Such effects occur at aminimum erythema dose of ~1000 J/m2 (14) of 290- to 320-nm radiation (mostly UV-B).
Assuming 6000-K radiation (9), the calculated dose would have been ~200 J/m2 at Korkino.
Ground reflectance of UV light by snow may have further increased the dose.
Out of the total 1674 collected Internet responses, 374 mention 452 body injuries orinconveniences (SM section 2.2). Of those, 5.3% reported sunburn, 48% eyes hurt, and 2.9%
retinal burns. Because of the shock wave, 6.4% reported a concussion or mental confusion,
upset, or exhaustion as a result of excessive stress. Flying glass and falling building debris
affected a relatively small fraction of respondents: 4.8% reported cuts and 2.9% reported bruises,
but no broken bones were reported.
The percentage of people asking for medical assistance (table S10) dropped with distanceaccording to r–3.2 ± 0.5 (SM section 2.1). The majority of injuries (1210) took place in the densely
populated Chelyabinsk city, but the highest fraction of people asking for assistance was near the
trajectory track in the Korkinsky district (0.16%).
Meteorite Recovery
Shock radiation contributed to surface heating and ablation but did not completely evaporate all
fragments of Chelyabinsk, unlike in the case of Tunguska (3). Meteorites of ~0.1 g fell near
Aleksandrovka close to the point of peak brightness, masses of ~100 g fell further along the
trajectory near Deputatskiy, and at least one of 3.4 kg fell near Timiryazevskiy. One hit the roofof a house in Deputatskiy (fig. S46). Falling-sphere models suggest that they originated at 32- to
26-km altitude (fig. S52), where the meteor model shows rapid fragmentation (fig. S18C). The
location of the meteorites is consistent with prevailing northwest winds of 5 to 15 m/s (fig. S24).
An estimated 3000 to 5000 kg fell in this area (SM section 3.1).
Two main fragments survived the disruption at 29.7 km. They flared around 24 km, with
one falling apart at 18.5 km and the other remaining luminous down to 13.6 km (Fig. 1 and fig.
S15). Light-curve modeling (SM section 1.2) suggests that from this material another ~1 ton inlarger fragments up to 100 to 400 kg in mass reached the ground. A 7-m-sized hole wasdiscovered in 70-cm-thick ice on Lake Chebarkul (fig. S53A), in line with the trajectory (SMsection 1.1). A lakeshore video security camera, pointed to the site, recorded the impact (fig.
S53B). Small meteorite fragments were recovered over an area up to 50 m from the impact
location (Fig. 4C). Impact models (figs. S18 and S54) suggest a 200- to 1000-kg meteorite would4

be required to create such a hole. A mass of ≥570 kg was recovered from the lake bed (fig.
S53C).
The combined 4 to 6 tons of surviving meteorites is only 0.03 to 0.05% of the initialmass. Seventy-six percent of the meteoroid evaporated, with most of the remaining massconverted into dust (SM section 1.3). Witnesses reported smelling “sulfur” and burning odors
over a wide region concentrated near the fireball trajectory, starting about an hour after thefireball and lasting through much of the day (SM section 1.5) (fig. S34).
Characterization of Recovered Meteorites
The unusually effective fragmentation and small surviving mass may have been caused bystructural and material weakness. The asteroid had a lower compressive strength than the ~330
MPa measured for recovered, surviving meteorites (section S4.1). The light curve (Fig. 2) ismodeled with fragmentation starting at a low 0.2 MPa dynamic pressure but tolerating higher
pressure with decreasing fragment size. This is similar to other meteorite falls, where initial
weakness was attributed to macroscopic cracks or microscopic porosity (15). For Chelyabinsk,
however, the physical weakness is not microporosity related. X-ray computed tomography (SMsection 4.2) revealed a degree of compaction consistent with the lack of intragranular porosity
typical of LL chondrites (16).
Some laboratory-broken meteorites fragmented along shock veins (fig. S55), a possible
weakness in the material that could have contributed to the abundant dust formation. The
meteorite is composed of a breccia (17) of mildly shocked lighter clasts and moderately shocked
darker clasts with abundant thin to cm-wide shock melt veins (Fig. 4A) (SM section 4.4). A
peculiar feature is that some shock veins exhibit a metal layer located ~20 micrometers inside thevein, which follows the outer contours of the vein (Fig. 4B), indicating that metal initiallysegregated from the most rapidly solidifying rims of the vein. This could contribute to weakness.
Metal-rich tendrils also project outward from the vein.
The mineral compositional ranges (SM section 4.4) are slightly larger than those reported
before (18), but still compatible with a classification as LL5, shock stage S4 (19). The
classification as LL chondrite is substantiated by oxygen and chromium isotope studies (SM sect.
4.5 to 4.7), which put the meteorite near the L end of the LL field (20, 21) (Fig. 4D and fig. S68).
Iron content and oxidation state also support the LL chondrite classification (Fig. 4E and fig.
S58). Rare earth element abundances are more similar to L chondrites (Fig. 4F and table S18),
whereas one measuring reflectance spectrum better matches that of H-chondrites (fig. S72).
The Chelyabinsk (LL) parent body experienced a substantial thermal and/or collision
resetting event 115 ± 21 million years after the formation of the solar system (25), notexperienced by most other LL chondrites, possibly due to a major impact event near its site oforigin on the parent body. The phosphate U-Pb age is 4452 ± 21 million years (SM section 4.8)
(fig. S70), much younger than the majority of other ordinary chondrite phosphate ages dated byconventional thermal ionization mass spectrometry methods (22, 23). Perhaps one other piece ofevidence for this is the 4.48 ± 0.12 billion years Pb-Pb isochron age of phosphates in a granitelike fragment found in the LL3 to LL6 chondrite regolith breccia Adzhi-Bogdo (24), an observed
fall in Mongolia in 1949.
Chelyabinsk shows a common orientation of metal grains indicating an impact-related
petrofabric (fig. S59), stronger than that seen in any other ordinary chondrite of any shock stage5

(26) (fig. S60). This petrofabric probably reflects the most recent extraterrestrial shock event
experienced by the Chelyabinsk meteoroid. The magnetic susceptibility value is at the upper endof the range for LL type (fig. S61) (27), closer to L-type chondrites, suggestive of higher metal
content in Chelyabinsk than a typical LL chondrite. However, detailed analysis of the remanent
magnetization suggests that a shock event or the conditions of atmospheric entry led to
substantial resetting of the remanence (SM section 4.3).
Recent meteoroid heating events are normally recorded by thermoluminescence (TL)
(SM section 4.10). In this case, the induced TL level of Chelyabinsk is lower than otherpetrographic type 5 or 6 chondrites, possibly because shock metamorphism to the level of S4 (30to 35 GPa) (fig. S79) destroyed feldspar, the mineral phase responsible for the TL signal (28).
Atmospheric heating did not cause loss of natural TL signal, the steep thermal gradient being
consistent with a very thin fusion crust on the measured samples (29). The natural TL value isconsistent with the meteoroid’s having been heated at a perihelion distance of 0.6 to 0.8
astronomical units (AU) (Table 1).
The shock did not remove all organic matter from the meteorite. Methanol-soluble polarorganic compounds (SM section 4.11) were detected in impact melt vein and chondrite fractions
using electrospray ionization ion cyclotron resonance Fourier-Transform mass spectrometry (30).
Out of more than 18,000 resolved mass peaks, 2536 could be assigned to compounds containing
C, H, N, O, or S. The organic signature is typical of other shocked LL chondrites, showing ahigher abundance of oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the impact melt (fig. S83). The presence ofoxygenated sulfur is indicated by CHOS compounds containing on average three more oxygen
atoms than CHO and CHNO compounds. The high abundance of CHOS compounds in ahomologous series across the entire mass range testifies that most of these did not result fromterrestrial contamination.
Impact shock–induced fracturing on the Chelyabinsk parent body was followed bymelting of metal and sulfides, which are pressure-driven through the meteorite. There are cases
in which this increased a meteorite’s mechanical strength, the residual heat facilitating theprocess. However, in the case of Chelyabinsk, the production of cracks weakened the meteorite
material more than shock melting increased its strength.
Source and Evolution of the Chelyabinsk Meteoroid
Chelyabinsk adds an LL5 type meteorite to a short list (SM section 1.1) of 18 differently typed
meteorites with known pre-atmospheric orbits (1). Only 8.2% of falls are LL chondrites (31).
The Chelyabinsk meteorite is of particular interest because it is of the same type as asteroid
Itokawa, from which samples were collected by the Hayabusa Mission (32). Indeed, both
Itokawa and Chelyabinsk have similar low-inclined low-semimajor axis orbits (Table 1), which,according to one model (33), imply a 62%, 11%, and 25% probability for Chelyabinsk (and 71%,0%, and 29% probability for Itokawa) of originating from the secular ν6 resonance, the 3:1 meanmotion resonance, and the Intermediate Mars Crosser region, respectively. Multiplying theseprobabilities, assuming all LL chondrites enter the near-Earth object region through the same
escape route, there is now an 86% probability that they originated from ν6. This supports the
hypothesis (34) that they originated from the inner part of the LL-type (35) Flora asteroid family,
which straddles the ν6 resonance in 1.6° to 7.7° inclined orbits (36).

6As a group, LL chondrites have a cosmic ray exposure age peaking at ~17 million years(34). Chelyabinsk, on the other hand, was exposed only since ~1.2 million years ago (SM section
4.12). The responsible breakup that first exposed the Chelyabinsk meteoroid surface to cosmic
rays was not likely part of the ongoing collision cascade in the asteroid main belt that followed
the formation of the Flora family. Although fast pathways exist that can bring meteoroids fromall three resonances into a Chelyabinsk-like orbit in about 0.2 million years, such cases are rare(table S6). More likely, Chelyabinsk was exposed only since being ejected from the resonance,
due to breakup from either thermal stresses, rotational spin-up, or tidal forces in terrestrial planet
encounters. The required structural weakness may have come from macroscopic cracks or from aweakly consolidated rubble-pile morphology.
If tidal forces disrupted the Chelyabinsk meteoroid (37), events were set in motion 1.2
million years ago during what was likely an earlier close encounter with Earth, when a 20-m
sized chunk of subsurface Flora-family parent body rubble, rich in shock veins, separated from alarger object. The rest of that rubble could still be part of the near-Earth object population.
References and Notes
1. P. Jenniskens, M. D. Fries, Q. Z. Yin, M. Zolensky, A. N. Krot, S. A. Sandford, D. Sears, R.
Beauford, D. S. Ebel, J. M. Friedrich, K. Nagashima, J. Wimpenny, A. Yamakawa, K.
Nishiizumi, Y. Hamajima, M. W. Caffee, K. C. Welten, M. Laubenstein, A. M. Davis, S.
B. Simon, P. R. Heck, E. D. Young, I. E. Kohl, M. H. Thiemens, M. H. Nunn, T.
Mikouchi, K. Hagiya, K. Ohsumi, T. A. Cahill, J. A. Lawton, D. Barnes, A. Steele, P.
Rochette, K. L. Verosub, J. Gattacceca, G. Cooper, D. P. Glavin, A. S. Burton, J. P.
Dworkin, J. E. Elsila, S. Pizzarello, R. Ogliore, P. Schmitt-Kopplin, M. Harir, N.
Hertkorn, A. Verchovsky, M. Grady, K. Nagao, R. Okazaki, H. Takechi, T. Hiroi, K.
Smith, E. A. Silber, P. G. Brown, J. Albers, D. Klotz, M. Hankey, R. Matson, J. A. Fries,
R. J. Walker, I. Puchtel, C. T. Lee, M. E. Erdman, G. R. Eppich, S. Roeske, Z. Gabelica,
M. Lerche, M. Nuevo, B. Girten, S. P. Worden; Sutter’s Mill Meteorite Consortium,
Radar-enabled recovery of the Sutter’s Mill meteorite, a carbonaceous chondrite regolith
breccia. Science 338, 1583–1587 (2012). doi:10.1126/science.1227163 Medline
2. M. B. E. Boslough, D. A. Crawford, Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Plume-forming collisions on
Earth. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 822, 236–282 (1997). doi:10.1111/j.17496632.1997.tb48345.x
3. V. V. Svetsov, V. V. Shuvalov, in Catastrophic events Caused by Cosmic Objects, V.
Adushkin, I. Nemtchinov, Eds. (Springer, Dordrecht, 2008), pp. 227−267.
4. D. R. Christie, P. Campus, in Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies, A. Le Pichon,
E. Blanc, A. Hauchecorne, Eds. (Springer, Dordrecht 2010), pp. 29−75.
5. D. Yeomans, P. Chodas, Additional Details on the Large Fireball Event over Russia on Feb.
15, 2013. NASA NEO Program Office Announcement, March 1, 2013 (NASA,
Washington, 2013).
6. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
7. E. Tagliaferri, R. Spalding, C. Jacobs, S. P. Worden, A. Erlich, in Hazards Due to Comets andAsteroids, Space Science Series (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1994), pp. 199–
220.
7

8. T. A. Ens, P. G. Brown, W. N. Edwards, E. A. Silber, Infrasound production of bolides: A
global statistical study. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 80, 208–229 (2012).
doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2012.01.018
9. I. V. Nemtchinov, V. V. Svetsov, I. B. Kosarev, A. P. Golub’, O. P. Popova, V. V. Shuvalov,
R. E. Spalding, C. Jacobs, E. Tagliaferri, Assessment of kinetic energy of meteoroids
detected by satellites-based light sensors. Icarus 130, 259–274 (1997).
doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5821
10. D. O. Revelle, Z. Ceplecha, Bolide physical theory with application to PN and EN fireballs.
ESA Special Publ. 495, 507–512 (2001).
11. J. Borovicka, P. Spurny, L. Shrbeny, Trajectory and orbit of the Chelyabinsk superbolide.
CBET 3423, Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams, International Astronomical
Union (2013); www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/CBET3423.html.
12. J. Zinn, J. Drummond, Observations of persistent Leonid meteor trails: 4. Buoyant
rise/vortex formation as mechanism for creation of parallel meteor train pairs. JGR Space
Physics 110, (A4), A04306 (2005). doi:10.1029/2004JA010575
13. S. Glasstone, P. J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Third edition (U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C), (1977).
14. M.-W. Huang, P.-Y. Lo, K.-S. Cheng, Objective assessment of sunburn and minimal
erythema doses: Comparison of noninvasive in vitro measuring techniques after UVB
irradiation. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2010:483562 (2010).
doi:10.1155/2010/483562
15. O. Popova, J. Borovicka, W. K. Hartmann, P. Spurny, E. Gnos, I. Nemtchinov, J. M. TrigoRodríguez, Very low strengths of interplanetary meteoroids and small asteroids. Meteorit.
Planet. Sci. 46, 1525–1550 (2011). doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01247.x
16. G. J. Consolmagno, D. T. Britt, R. J. Macke, The significance of meteorite density andporosity. Chem. Erde 68, 1–29 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2008.01.003
17. A. Bischoff, E. R. D. Scott, K. Metzler, C. A. Goodrich, in Meteorites and the Early Solar
System II, D. S. Lauretta, H. Y. McSween Jr., Eds. (University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
AZ, 2006), pp. 679−712.
18. M. A. Nazarov, D. D. Badyukov, N. N. Kononkova, I. V. Kubrakova, Chelyabinsk
Meteoritical Bulletin: Entry for Chelyabinsk;
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57165 (2013).
19. D. Stöffler, K. Keil, E. R. D. Scott, Shock metamorphism of ordinary chondrites. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 55, 3845–3867 (1991). doi:10.1016/0016-7037(91)90078-J
20. R. N. Clayton, T. K. Mayeda, J. N. Goswami, E. J. Olsen, Oxygen isotope studies of ordinarychondrites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 55, 2317–2337 (1991). doi:10.1016/00167037(91)90107-G
21. A. Trinquier, J.-L. Birck, C. J. Allègre, Widespread 54Cr Heterogeneity in the inner solar
system. Astrophys. J. 655, 1179–1185 (2007). doi:10.1086/5103608

22. C. Göpel, G. Manhès, C. J. Allègre, U-Pb systematics of phosphates from equilibrated
ordinary chondrites. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 121, 153–171 (1994). doi:10.1016/0012821X(94)90038-8
23. Y. Amelin, Meteorite phosphates show constant 176Lu decay rate since 4557 million years
ago. Science 310, 839–841 (2005). doi:10.1126/science.1117919 Medline
24. K. Terada, A. Bischoff, Asteroidal granite-like magmatism 4.53 Gyr ago. Astrophys. J. 699,
L68–L71 (2009). doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L68
25. J. N. Connelly, M. Bizzarro, A. N. Krot, Å. Nordlund, D. Wielandt, M. A. Ivanova, Theabsolute chronology and thermal processing of solids in the solar protoplanetary disk.
Science 338, 651–655 (2012). doi:10.1126/science.1226919 Medline
26. J. M. Friedrich, J. C. Bridges, M.-S. Wang, M. E. Lipschutz, Chemical studies of L
chondrites. VI: Variations with petrographic type and shock-loading among equilibrated
falls. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 68, 2889–2904 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.gca.2004.01.010
27. P. Rochette, L. Sagnotti, M. Bourout-Denise, G. Consolmagno, L. Folco, J. Gattacceca, M.
L. Osete, L. Pesonen, Magnetic classification of stony meteorites: 1. Ordinary chondrites.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 38, 251–268 (2003). doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2003.tb00263.x
28. C. P. Hartmetz, D. W. G. Sears, Thermoluminescence properties of shocked and annealedplagioclases with implications for meteorites. Meteoritics 22, 400–401 (1988).
29. D. W. Sears, A. A. Mills, Temperature gradients and atmospheric ablation rates for the
Barwell meteorite. Nat. Phys. Sci (Lond.) 242, 25–26 (1973).
doi:10.1038/physci242025a0
30. P. Schmitt-Kopplin, Z. Gabelica, R. D. Gougeon, A. Fekete, B. Kanawati, M. Harir, I.
Gebefuegi, G. Eckel, N. Hertkorn, High molecular diversity of extraterrestrial organic
matter in Murchison meteorite revealed 40 years after its fall. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 107, 2763–2768 (2010). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912157107 Medline
31. T. L. Dunn, T. H. Burbine, W. F. Bottke, Jr., J. P. Clark, Mineralogies and source regions ofnear Earth asteroids. Icarus 222, 273–282 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.007
32. T. Nakamura, T. Noguchi, M. Tanaka, M. E. Zolensky, M. Kimura, A. Tsuchiyama, A.
Nakato, T. Ogami, H. Ishida, M. Uesugi, T. Yada, K. Shirai, A. Fujimura, R. Okazaki, S.
A. Sandford, Y. Ishibashi, M. Abe, T. Okada, M. Ueno, T. Mukai, M. Yoshikawa, J.
Kawaguchi, Itokawa dust particles: A direct link between S-type asteroids and ordinarychondrites. Science 333, 1113–1116 (2011). doi:10.1126/science.1207758 Medline
33. W. F. Bottke, A. Morbidelli, R. Jedicke, J.-M. Petit, H. F. Levison, P. Michel, T. S. Metcalfe,
De-biased orbital and absolute magnitude distributions of near earth objects. Icarus 156,
339–433 (2000).
34. P. Michel, M. Yoshikawa, Dynamical origin of the asteroid (25143) Itokawa: The target ofthe sample-return Hayabusa space mission. Astron. Astrophys. 449, 817–820 (2006).
doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054319
35. V. Reddy, J. M. Carvano, D. Lazzaro, T. A. Michtchenko, M. J. Gaffey, M. S. Kelley, T.
Mothé-Diniz, A. Alvarez-Candal, N. A. Moskovitz, E. A. Cloutis, E. L. Ryan,

9Mineralogical characterization of Baptistina Asteroid Family: Implications for K/T
impactor source. Icarus 216, 184–197 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.08.027
36. D. Nesvorny, A. Morbidelli, D. Vokrouhlicky, W. F. Bottke, M. Broz, The Flora family: A
case of the dynamically dispersed collisional swarm? Icarus 157, 155–172 (2002).
doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6830
37. E. Schunová, M. Granvik, R. Jedicke, G. Gronchi, R. Wainscoat, S. Abe, Searching for the
first near-Earth object family. Icarus 220, 1050–1063 (2012).
doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.042
38. J. Troiano, D. Rumble, III, M. L. Rivers, J. M. Friedrich, Compositions of three low-FeO
ordinary chondrites: indications of a common origin with the H chondrites. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 75, 6511–6519 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.gca.2011.08.033
39. W. F. McDonough, in The Mantle and Core, Vol. 2. Treatise on Geochemistry, R. W.
Carlson, Ed. (Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, 2003), pp. 547–568.
40. J. T. Wasson, G. W. Kallemeyn, Compositions of chondrites. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London
A 325, 535–544 (1988). doi:10.1098/rsta.1988.0066
41. J. M. Friedrich, M.-S. Wang, M. E. Lipschutz, Chemical studies of L chondrites. V:
Compositional patterns for 49 trace elements in 14 L4-6 and 7 LL4-6 Falls. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 67, 2467–2479 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0016-7037(03)00024-3
Acknowledgments: The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) field study of the Chelyabinsk
airburst was supported by the Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres and grants of theFederal Targeted Program Scientific and Educational Human Resources of InnovationDriven Russia and the RAS Presidium Program Fundamental Problems of Investigationand Exploration of the Solar System. The office of Chelyabinsk Oblast Governor Mikhail
Yurevich provided assistance. S. Petukhov and I. Talyukin from the Universe History
Museum in Dedovsk contributed samples, as did M. Boslough of Sandia National
Laboratories. U. Johann (Astrium Satellites GmbH) calculated the Chebarkul holeposition from Pléiades 1A satellite observations. D. F. Blake provided use of apetrographic microscope. P.J. acknowledges support from the NASA Near Earth Object
Observation Program, Q.Z.Y. and M.E.Z. from the NASA Cosmochemistry Program, andM.G. from the Academy of Finland.
Supplementary Materials
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/[issue]/[page]/suppl/DC1
Supplementary Text
Figs. S1 to S87
Tables S1 to S24
References (42–157)
1 July 2013; accepted 28 October 201310

Published online 7 November 2013
Fig. 1. Meteoroid fragmentation stages in video taken by A. Ivanov in Kamensk-Uralskiy.
(A) Fireball just before peak brightness, at the moment when camera gain was first adjusted. (B)End of main disruption. (C) Onset of secondary disruption. (D) End of secondary disruption;
main debris cloud continues to move down. (E) Two main fragments remain. (F) Single
fragment remains. (G) Thermally emitting debris cloud at rest with atmosphere. (H) Finalfragment continues to penetrate. Meteor moved behind distant lamp posts. (I and J) Detail of thethermal emission from a photograph by Mr. Dudarev (I) and M. Ahmetvaleev (J), after sky
subtraction with high-pass filter and contrast enhancement. Altitude scale is uncertain by ±0.7km.
Fig. 2. Fireball visual magnitude irradiance light curve, normalized to 100-km distance.
The bold dashed line shows the model fit to the light curve (SM section 1.2), with thin lines
showing total mass of all fragments passing a given altitude (kg) and the altitude-dependent rateof energy deposition as a fraction of the original kinetic energy (km−1).
Fig. 3. Map of glass damage on the ground with models of overpressure. Field survey data
are shown in solid orange circles for reported damage and open black circles for no damage;solid red circles show the most damaged villages in each district, as reported by the government.
Each point, irrespective of population density, represents one of many villages or city districts
scattered throughout the area. Model contours (with progressive gray scale) represent kinetic
energies and overpressures from inside out: 300 kT Δp > 1000 Pa, 520 kT Δp > 1000 Pa, 300 kT
Δp > 500 Pa, and 520 kT Δp > 500 Pa, respectively. Also shown are the locations of meteorite
finds (yellow points) and the ground-projected fireball trajectory (black line), moving from 97km altitude on the right to 14-km altitude on the left. White shows the fireball brightness on alinear scale.
Fig. 4. Meteorite material properties, chemical and isotopic compositions. (A) Chelyabinsk
meteorite (diameter ~4 cm) showing shock veins. (B) Fe element map of a shock vein. Note themetal layer (shown in green) located ~20 micrometers inside the vein. (C) Meteorite fragments
recovered from the ice-covered lake Chebarkul. (D) Δ17O versus Fa molar percent of olivine in
Chelyabinsk, compared with other ordinary chondrites of type H, L, and LL (38). Fa is definedas molar ratio of Fe/(Fe+Mg) in olivine. Average Δ17O values from the University of New
Mexico [1.15 ± 0.06 per mil (‰)] and from the Korean Polar Research Institute (1.31 ± 0.04‰)
for Chelyabinsk likely reflect indigenous heterogeneity in oxygen isotopes. Solid symbols are Fa
number measured in this study (SM section S4.3), whereas open symbols are from (18). (E)Ratio plots of the three major elements (Mg, Si, Fe; together with oxygen >90% of mass) for
Chelyabinsk and the main chondrite groups. The bulk Earth and bulk silicate Earth compositions
were taken from (39), chondrite compositions from (40). (F) CI chondrite normalized rare earth
elemental pattern of Chelyabinsk compared with the average chondrite group compositions of(38, 41).

11

Table 1. Atmospheric trajectory and pre-atmospheric orbit for the Chelyabinsk meteoroid,with 2 standard deviation uncertainties. Angular elements are for equinox J2000.0.
Atmospheric trajectory

Chelyabinsk

Hb (beginning height, km)

97.1 ± 1.6

Hm (peak brightness, km)

29.7 ± 1.4

Hf (disruption, km)
He (end height, km)

27.0 ± 1.4
13.6 ± 1.4

V∞ (entry speed, km/s)

19.16 ± 0.30

h (entry elevation angle, °)18.3 ± 0.4

az (entry azimuth angle
from south, °)Vg (geocentric entry speed,km/s)
Rag (geocentric rightascension of radiant, °)Decg (geocentric
declination of radiant, °)283.2 ± 0.4

Pre-atmosphericorbit
TJ (Tisserand’sparameter)a (semimajor axis,AU)e (eccentricity)q (perihelion
distance, AU)ω (argument of
perihelion, °)Ω (longitude ofascending node, °)i (inclination, °)Chelyabinsk

Itokawa

3.87 ± 0.24

4.90

1.76 ± 0.16

1.324

0.581 ± 0.018
0.739 ± 0.020

0.280
0.953

108.3 ± 3.8

162.8

326.4422 ± 0.0028

69.1

4.93 ± 0.48

1.6

2.78 ± 0.20

1.70

333.2 ± 1.6

Q (aphelion distance,AU)Tp (perihelion time)

2012-12-31.9 ± 2.0

2013-07-10.8+0.3 ± 1.8

Epoch (ET)2013-02-15.139

2013-04-18.0

15.3 ± 0.4

12

Fig. 1.

13

Fig. 2.

14

Fig. 3.

15

Fig. 4.

16