[Rudder]

You are not reading critically. I did not post 45,000 nor did the article. The amount given in the article was 45,0000. They are off by one zero, and 45,0000 is a nonsensical number, especially for a scientific report.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Touche. I didn't catch the error.

Oddly, the error seems to either have been the poster's fault, or the editors caught it and changed it in the linked article.

An abstract of the actual paper states that the velocity used for the models was 20 km/s.

Simulations of asteroid impacts on water

My post to you was a reaction to the sometimes kneejerk skepticism of science that I have encountered here. Obviously I picked the wrong target. You were quite right to draw attention to the error in the article as posted.