<p>The occur all over the world.  On this image each yellow circle is an recent impact of a small asteroid the size of the circle is related to the energy of the fireball (the sizes of the circles don't represent crater areas). You will note that there is no region that get more impacts, and similarly, nowhere is safe.</p>

<p>The very large yellow circle is the Chelyabinsk meteor in Russia. It was the biggest such impact over land in recent times.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/vZM5n.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/vZM5n.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T20:20:26.673Z
Thank you! Is there a website you got that image from? I tried searching for information on impacts to no avail and I'm guessing I was searching the wrong keywords
Chimera.Zen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T20:31:32.487Z
The information is from the https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/ jpl fireball database. The image I made myself (a couple of years ago) since I wasn't happy with the equirectangular projection that nasa use.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T22:25:15.810Z
Equirectangular does have its flaws, but its upside is that it's so easy to transform to whichever projection you prefer, including wrapping it around a sphere.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T22:31:38.167Z
but for the purpose of illustrating the uniform distribution of impacts, an equal area projection is better. Peters is horrible, hence Molyweide.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T23:02:30.047Z
Probably worth mentioning the sizes of the circles don't represent crater areas, in case that impression is given.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T23:19:54.850Z
I would have thought that was fairly obvious, unless there are a lot of craters in the sea, and a very large chunk of Russia is missing!
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-05T01:58:28.400Z
Oh sure, you definitely want an equal area projection for this application. And it's hard to disagree that Peter's is bad. ;) BTW, you might enjoy this [xkcd forum thread](http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=76384) on projections. There's some great stuff there, but also some ranting you may want to skip over... or which you might find hilarious. :)
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-05T06:57:04.057Z
@JamesK It's obvious to *you* but keep in mind that many Astronomy SE visitors won't find that obvious.  Obvious is relative. :-)
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-05T14:22:06.507Z
Heres some info about sporadic meteorites,  their times and portholes http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/random-meteors-arent-random02112015/
bandybabboon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-05T17:40:26.203Z
It's a nice map but does not prove the conjecture.  To be rigorous, one must analyze, say, the number of hits in each 10 km x 10 km region of the globe and show that the distribution of meteorite hits is consistent with the premise of a uniform distribution function (Bayesian statistics and all that)
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-05T19:53:25.467Z
Nor would that prove the conjecture, at best it would show it is "consistent with a uniform distribution". But I think the map illustrates that there are no "impact zones along the equator quite well. The question was not "is the distribution uniform" but "are there impact zones and do they move"
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T20:08:02.157Z
2018-06-04T23:19:04.257Z
2018-06-04T23:19:04.257Z
James K
<p>Where do asteroids impact upon the Earth most often?</p>

<p>Are impact zones primarily along the equator?</p>

<p>Is there an average area where impacts are more likely to occur?</p>

<p>If there is a zone, is there a way to determine if it's changed? More to the point, if there is an impact zone, are there any similar areas that might indicate the zone has shifted?</p>

<asteroids><crater>
Where do asteroids impact upon the Earth most often?
Chimera.Zen
# Where do asteroids impact upon the Earth most often?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-04)

Where do asteroids impact upon the Earth most often?

Are impact zones primarily along the equator?

Is there an average area where impacts are more likely to occur?

If there is a zone, is there a way to determine if it's changed? More to the point, if there is an impact zone, are there any similar areas that might indicate the zone has shifted?

**Tags:** asteroids, crater

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-06-04. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

The occur all over the world. On this image each yellow circle is an recent impact of a small asteroid the size of the circle is related to the energy of the fireball (the sizes of the circles don't represent crater areas). You will note that there is no region that get more impacts, and similarly, nowhere is safe.

The very large yellow circle is the Chelyabinsk meteor in Russia. It was the biggest such impact over land in recent times.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/vZM5n.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/vZM5n.jpg)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you! Is there a website you got that image from? I tried searching for information on impacts to no avail and I'm guessing I was searching the wrong keywords  
> **username_1**: The information is from the https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/ jpl fireball database. The image I made myself (a couple of years ago) since I wasn't happy with the equirectangular projection that nasa use.  
> **username_2**: Equirectangular does have its flaws, but its upside is that it's so easy to transform to whichever projection you prefer, including wrapping it around a sphere.  
> **username_1**: but for the purpose of illustrating the uniform distribution of impacts, an equal area projection is better. Peters is horrible, hence Molyweide.  
> **username_3**: Probably worth mentioning the sizes of the circles don't represent crater areas, in case that impression is given.  
> **username_1**: I would have thought that was fairly obvious, unless there are a lot of craters in the sea, and a very large chunk of Russia is missing!  
> **username_2**: Oh sure, you definitely want an equal area projection for this application. And it's hard to disagree that Peter's is bad. ;) BTW, you might enjoy this [xkcd forum thread](http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=76384) on projections. There's some great stuff there, but also some ranting you may want to skip over... or which you might find hilarious. :)  
> **username_3**: @JamesK It's obvious to *you* but keep in mind that many Astronomy SE visitors won't find that obvious.  Obvious is relative. :-)  
> **username_4**: Heres some info about sporadic meteorites,  their times and portholes http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/random-meteors-arent-random02112015/  
> **username_5**: It's a nice map but does not prove the conjecture.  To be rigorous, one must analyze, say, the number of hits in each 10 km x 10 km region of the globe and show that the distribution of meteorite hits is consistent with the premise of a uniform distribution function (Bayesian statistics and all that)  
> **username_1**: Nor would that prove the conjecture, at best it would show it is "consistent with a uniform distribution". But I think the map illustrates that there are no "impact zones along the equator quite well. The question was not "is the distribution uniform" but "are there impact zones and do they move"  

---

