Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tracking Possible Earth-impacting Asteroids

Posted by michael on from the live-fast-die-young dept.

EccentricAnomaly writes "NASA's Near-Earth Object program has announced the Sentry automatic impact monitoring program. Check out this impact risks page showing current asteroids that might impact the Earth. The current highest risk object is 2002 CU11 which has a 0.001% impact probability in 2049... an impact that would be 58,000 megatons."

18 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Somehow i seems so much larger... by itwerx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...to say "58,000 Megatons" vs "58 Gigatons".
    I mean hey, a Gigaton is big, but a 1000 Megatons? Whoa, you're talking some serious tonnage there!
    Personally I'd go for the max fear-factor and say 58,000,000 tons...

    1. Re:Somehow i seems so much larger... by the+phantom · · Score: 2

      No, I think that a mega ton sounds much more impresive than a ton, and after you get above three or four zeros, it is all the same: "really big number." 58 Gigatons sounds smaller than either 58,000 Megatons or 58,000,000 tons. However, 58,000 Megatons seems bigger than 58,000,000 tons, because they are both "really big numbers," but megaton has the prefix "mega-", making it seem large. People just can't handle "really big numbers."

      --
      Rhapsody in Numbers
    2. Re:Somehow i seems so much larger... by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most people are used to measuring atomic explosives in terms of kilotons and megatons. Gigatons just don't register the same way mentally even though the number come out the same. It's the same reason that we continue to talk in microns instead of nanometers for microchip wire sizes and in cubic feet instead of cubic yards when dealing with the size of large tanks of liquid. You use a frame of reference people are familiar with.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Somehow i seems so much larger... by aminorex · · Score: 2

      58,000 megatons seems bigger than 58,000,000 tons
      because it is 1000 times bigger than 58,000,000 tons.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:Somehow i seems so much larger... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      No, 58,000,000 Kilotons, or 58,000,000,000 tons. Or just 0.058 Teratons. Totaly harmless ;-)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  2. Better Keep that Bomb Shelter Ready :) by the+phantom · · Score: 2

    Alright! For the last two years, I have been looking for a reason to keep the bomb shelter in good repair. Before I was born, it was there in case of nuclear war. Then, the cold war ended, and there was a time when the shelter served no purpose. Thank the gods for y2k, there was once again a reason to keep it clean. But the computers continued to work, damn it! I damn well want to us my bomb shelter! Now, I have 47 years of anticipation. Well, its better than nothing, I suppose.

    --
    Rhapsody in Numbers
  3. trinitrotoluol!!! by Perdo · · Score: 2

    Sentry automatic impact monitoring system... Damn thing better monitor the impacts automaticly. It's not like there will me any people to care after an impact with an energy equil to the detonation of 52,727,272,727,272,727 grams of trinitrotoluol!!!

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  4. Kirk could stop it. by Perdo · · Score: 2

    But it would take much less TNT to wound a Gorn.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  5. 47 by isorox · · Score: 2

    So in 47 years we might die.

    Tahts scary. Not the dying bit, the fact its 47 years - by far the most common number in the universe.

    1. Re:47 by Perdo · · Score: 2

      Don't feel bad, next year it will be 46 years and you can lay your numerology on the 4/7/2047 earthquake or the 47 straight razor causing your demise.

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  6. Meteoric Death by Perdo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure these guys have the metric/standard thing fixed for these trajectory calculations. I mean it is NASA and they would never make a silly mistake like that right? um.. right?

    How many times has your computer spit out the wrong answer but you accept it as true, just to find out later that you fed it the wrong data? I would sort of like to see them put at least as much effort into tracking earth crossing asteroids as say... modeling nuclear explosions.

    I mean the JPL's computer is number 374 on the top 500 list not number 1, with number 5 acting as a glorified graphics card.

    ASCI Blue, a 32,524,800,000-transistor graphics card: 50 million dollars
    GeForce 4, 63,000,000-transistor graphics card: 450 dollars.
    Time for ASCI blue's power to be available at retail following Moore's law: 14 years

    Amateur computer enthusiasts and astronomers saving the world: priceless.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  7. What will we do!??! by leviramsey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bruce Willis will be 94 in 2049! How will we get someone that old into space to blow up the asteroid?

    1. Re:What will we do!??! by breon.halling · · Score: 2, Funny

      You obviously haven't seen Space Cowboys. ;)

      --
      "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
    2. Re:What will we do!??! by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Bruce Willis will be 94 in 2049! How will we get someone that old into space to blow up the asteroid?

      Make him a Senator, then let him rant about how space tourism is wrong after his flight.

  8. Re:Rocks by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

    I doubt a 40-meter meteor would burn much, relative to its size, on the way down.

    I hate to say it, but an impact from one of these "small" rocks might be a good thing. Get a nuke-size detonation (I'm guessing a 40-meter rock would be a Hiroshima-equivalent?), preferably but not necessarily in an unpopulated area, and the world's governments might wake the fuck up to how serious the danger is, and the fact that an active space program that doesn't have to plan its launches months in advance is our best defense.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  9. Asteroid odds vs (let's say) the lottery by Arkhan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Assuming the submitter did his/her math correctly...

    I know 0.001% isn't *that* great a probability (1 in 100,000), but it's a little daunting to think that the probability of Earth being smacked by a huge asteroid during my lifetime is about 1000 times better than my chances of winning the lottery.

    (And yeah, that's just that one asteroid, so the real chance would be even a bit higher.)

    Gives new meaning to "live for today", eh?

  10. 0.001% is the probability in 2049 by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 2

    The probability for an impact in 2049 is 1e-5 which is 0.001%. If you take range of years you can get a higher probabilty, but I thought the probabilty of impact in a given year was more interesting than over an arbitrary range of years.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
  11. Re:Rocks by markbark · · Score: 2

    With the annoying inverse square law for radars, you're be pretty much reduced to optics

    ... and the major problem with "eyballing it" (well.... CCD'ing it anyway) is that a lot of Kuiper belt objects have an albedo of ~0.03-0.05. That's about the same as printer toner. Hmmm.... let's look for the black rock 10km across that's 2x10^9 km away.
    Asteroids are a little brighter, but it still takes a LOT of patience, comparing multiple shots of the same piece of sky to look for the movers and THEN try to calculate a trajectory

    MAB