Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Upset About Asteroid Panic
DrMorpheus writes "According to the New Scientist, astronomers are horrified by press scares over asteroids - including the recent furore over QQ47 - which briefly had a one-in-a-million chance of crashing into our planet in 2014. So much so that they are toning down the scale they use to rate the threat posed by asteroids in an attempt to discourage journalists from covering potential collisions. Some even want the way asteroids are assessed to be completely overhauled."
Space.com had a nice piece about this too.
karma capped
Multiply probability of impact by consequences of collision and you get a meaningful weighed probability of disaster.
Low probability * Low damage = Low danger
High probability * Low damage = Medium Danger
Low probability * High damage = Medium Danger
High probability * High damage = High Danger
Seems reasonable to me
>> orthogonal scalars
>
> Would you mind clarifying how that works?
When mathematics hits language... no good outcome. I suppose the original poster meant that the Torino-scale combines two completely unrelated scales with each other.
The probability of an impact has nothing to with its potential (desastrous) effects.
Two orthogonal vectors are linear independent from each other, that is, one isn't a multiple of the other.
If you'd measure impact-probabilty on the x-axis, and the effects on the y-axis, any combination of these two can be described by a vector in this 2d-plain. however, if you only name the length of the vector, thus give only a single value where otherwise two would be needed (i.e. x,y coordinates or length and polar angle), your scale looses much of its meaning.
I've been following the Current Impact Risks page ever since I found out about it over a year ago.
In order to report on this issue responsibly, all that's required is to ignore any object on the list until the NEO survey folks has collected observations over a span of 20 days or more. Before that, the orbits are too unclear to be worth reporting upon. Practically all objects fall of the list before the obeservations span 20 days.
Sadly, some reporters want to get the story out first, so they jump the gun.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I don't think it misrepresents anything. Each value is associated with both a specific kinetic energy and a specific probability. The Torino value not just the result of multiplying the two numbers (which would introduce the orthogonal vectors issue you mentioned) but rather a unique area on the plane defined by those two 'vectors'.
~Idarubicin
Barring any glitches, it should be churning out production data in three years. The observation program will then proceed over three to five years, depending on funding. Given the short cycle time between individual observations, PanSTARRS should usually be able to accurately calculate an object's orbit by the time a science editor gets wind of it. It beats a sharp stick in the eye.
Other projects intended to detect objects down to several hundred meters are still in the planning stage.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Channel 4 news, a fairly mainstream and usually reliable UK news program which was almost unbelievable. The reporter opened the report by saying that an asteroid of such and such a size was going to hit the earth on such and such a date and the consequences were going to be this and that. It was only half way through the report they mentioned that the probability of it hitting was virtually zero, despite earlier saying that is was going to hit us, without any qualification. I can only assume this is exactly the kind of reporting these astronomers are talking about.