Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid to Make Closest Recorded Pass to Earth

unassimilatible writes "A 100-ft diameter asteroid will make the closest (26,500 miles, or about 3.4 Earth diameters) pass of earth ever detected in advance today, NASA reports. Asteroid 2004 FH's point of closest approach with the Earth will be over the South Atlantic Ocean. Using a good pair of binoculars, the object will be bright enough to be seen during this close approach from areas of Europe, Asia and most of the Southern Hemisphere. While we are in no danger this time, it is good to know NASA's LINEAR guys are on the job, for when that Death Star-sized object pays us a visit."

455 comments

  1. Huh? by dolo666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "100-ft diameter asteroid" ... "that Death Star-sized object"
    The Death Star was bigger than 100 ft dia! Maybe the miniature Lucas used was that size? :-) If LINEAR can pick up 100ft dia objects, anything bigger would be easy. Now I can feel safe until this one veers off due our shoddy ozone, and smacks down on my hometown.

    1. Re:Huh? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, who cares? If an asteroid hits, I promise, you won't feel a thing.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Huh? by aipotsid · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...NASA officials say they detected the asteroid after it hit a parked car in Queens....

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoddy Ozone? What is that going to do to change an asteroid's course?

    4. Re:Huh? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 0

      So where can I reach you if you're wrong?

    5. Re:Huh? by Fishstick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really. Being hit by a planetkiller that causes extinction of humans on the earth doesn't worry me. Who will miss us?

      My biggest fear is that we will be hit by a not-quite planetkiller that will cause enough devastation to ensure the survivors live in misery for the rest of their (short) lives. That would suck.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    6. Re:Huh? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      The author probably meant THAT, not this object. THAT - the one which is on our way to destruction :)

    7. Re:Huh? by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Why? You could always kill yourself.

    8. Re:Huh? by fermion · · Score: 2

      Chalk it up to another misunderstanding of units. Some engineer must have confused ft and km again. We really must insist that the aggie colleges start a remidial unit analysis class.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:Huh? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Read Lucifer's Hammer ... It's an excellent book by Jerry Pournell that covers that scenario.

    10. Re:Huh? by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      I don't think is saying that this thing is the size of the Death Star. I think he saying when something that is the size of the Death Star comes our way and poses a serious threat that we'll be able to do something about it because it's apparent we'll be able to see it, as we've detected something much smaller.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading the prose -- he said "for when that Death Star-sized object", meaning the inevitable planet-killer all the doomsayers talk about, not the 100-footer that is about to swing past.

    12. Re:Huh? by hankwang · · Score: 4, Funny
      The Death Star was bigger than 100 ft dia!

      The death star in Star Wars was able to shatter a planet to pieces. One can calculate that the energy needed to overcome the gravitational pull is about G*rho^2*r^5, where G=the gravitational constant, rho the planet's density, and r its radius. For an earth-sized planet, that amounts to 1e30 J, or 6e13 kg of matter to be converted into energy. If the Death Star were completely consisting of concentrated antimatter, then it would have been 3 km in diameter and be able to fire exactly one shot. Yes, that is more than 100 ft. :)

    13. Re:Huh? by aipotsid · · Score: 0

      ...NASA officials say they noticed the asteroid after it hit a parked car in Queens...

    14. Re:Huh? by The+Jarvi · · Score: 1

      umm..he wasn't stating that the asteroid in question was as big as the Imperial Sphere of Destruction, he was saying that he was happy to know these guys are on the watch for WHEN the ISD does finally appear. "...Go hard...don't be a coward.."

    15. Re:Huh? by essreenim · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dammit,
      So near and..yet so far!!

      I presume, there are intersting gravity experiments that could be set up with it though.

    16. Re:Huh? by MagicDude · · Score: 1

      Asteriods, like any other weapon or natural disaster, has many zones of devistation. There's an immediate zone of mass obliteration; they're the lucky ones. Outside that zone is the secondary kill zone where the massive pressure wave that develops at impact moves outward and anyone viewing this cloud has about enough time to crap their pants before being blasted. Then there's zones where things are buried under mountains of dust and beyond all salvaging. And so forth as you head outwards. If an asteriod lands in China, I doubt that the US will suffer any immediate casualties (unless the asteriod totally shatters the planet, which is not the usual destruction senario) until the atmosphere gets clogged with dust and soot and we enter an ice age. Crops die, animals migrate away, thinks generally suck afterwards. Unfortunately, most people who would die from an asteriod strike would be from the aftermath rather than the initial strike. It would be a long, drawn out, painful death.

    17. Re:Huh? by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      The real danger would be if it was in a reversed orbit so the closing speed was much higher. Most objects in the solar system orbit in the same direction, and as such, the closing speed may be quite low, so there should be time to see it, and if the technology was available, to deal with it, but coming in the opposite direction, i.e. head-on, I have my doubts.

      A 100 foot object would of course be rendered relatively harmless by a suitable nuclear warhead, given the means to deliver it, which might not exist, because it would need to get very close to escape velocity, unlike an ICBM, to intercept an asteroid at a safe distance.

    18. Re:Huh? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      I don't think is saying that this thing is the size of the Death Star. I think he saying when something that is the size of the Death Star comes our way and poses a serious threat that we'll be able to do something about it because it's apparent we'll be able to see it, as we've detected something much smaller.
      According to this the Death Star from Star Wars was between 120 and 200km in diameter, and the Death Star from RotJ may have been as large as 1000km diameter. While it might be nice to be forewarned of our impending doom, there won't be anything we can do about it.
    19. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, it was ambiguous and likely could have been worded better.

    20. Re:Huh? by shokk · · Score: 1

      We really must insist that the aggie colleges start a remidial unit analysis class.


      Would that be before or after remedial spelling?

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    21. Re:Huh? by lionelrooskie · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely that the human race would become completely extict by bollide impact. An asteroid has never completely stripped the earth of edibles, and in competition for resources with any other animal/s, we win.

    22. Re:Huh? by PS2+INFORMANT · · Score: 1

      The author is just speaking figuratively, (as of in terms of a possible future "Death Star-sized object paying a visit to earth at some point.)

  2. Lucky by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the article there are normally 2 of these every year. It seems a bit tongue-in-cheek to say "The important thing is not that it's happening, but that we detected it" [Chesley]. They were lucky, that's all.

    It *will* give them a chance to study the thing as it passes, since all the other ones were only detected after they'd gone (and presumably therefore couldn't be easily studied). If it's close enough to see with binoculars, it ought to be possible to resolve quite well in a good optical 'scope.

    The other point I guess is that it's only 100 ft across (why not 30m ?) so it would have burnt up on entry into the atmosphere, but still, good to know about these things. An asteroid that big would make quite some bang on entering the atmosphere, I reckon :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Lucky by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember reading about NASA's (and others') ability to detect these in advance... apparently this science has improved immensely over the last ten years.

      But you do bring up a good point - if this object would have hit Earth, would it have burnt up, or would something dangerous remain?

      Much smaller items hit Earth all the time - they don't get burnt up completely. Of course, many end up the size of maybe pebbles or baseballs...

    2. Re:Lucky by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      What about the ones that do not completely burn up in the atmoshpere? Does anyone know how large those started off as? Every now and then you hear about a meteor hitting someones house and putting a hole in the roof. I'm just wondering if those are these 100 ft objects that make it through somehow, or are they larger and more rare than these.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Lucky by Slowtreme · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Would this really burn up? Skylab was less than 50ft long and hollow inside. Many of it's parts made it to the ground. I'd image a solid rock hitting our atmosphere at that speed would not lose too much mass on the way in and do some pretty significat damage if it hit near a populated area.

      This one is flying pretty darn close for comfort.

      --
      Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
    4. Re:Lucky by pe1rxq · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A solid mass entering the atmosphere would explode due to the pressure differences inside.
      You get really big fireworks.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    5. Re:Lucky by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      100 ft across (why not 30m ?)

      Because NASA is part of our "stupid american" culture.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    6. Re:Lucky by sponge_absorbent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it depends on the composition of the object and the angle and speed at which it enters the atmosphere.
      I imagine that if it were a roughly spherical, dense, metallic object it would have a good chance of hitting the surface.

    7. Re:Lucky by 0x41 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Skylab was going 100 times slower than this asteroid, hence it didn't burn up.

    8. Re:Lucky by ObjetDart · · Score: 1
      The other point I guess is that it's only 100 ft across (why not 30m ?) so it would have burnt up on entry into the atmosphere

      I'm pretty sure a 100ft diameter rock would make it to the ground. Meteors as small as 3ft can make it to the ground. It depends on what they are made of and whether they break apart when they hit the atmosphere.

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    9. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FTFA:

      Astronomers have not ruled out that the asteroid and our planet could meet again sometime in the future. If the two were to collide, the asteroid likely would disintegrate in the atmosphere, Chesley said.

    10. Re:Lucky by Eevee · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Except if you read the NASA site, they use metric measurements, then give the "stupid american" measurements. You have to blame the Associated Press for not using metric when they reported this on the wire.

      For those too lazy to click the link, this is the relevent quote from the press release.

      ...is roughly 30 meters (100 feet) in diameter...
    11. Re:Lucky by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 4, Informative

      But Skylab wasn't going as fast - Celestial mechanics isn't my strong point, but something falling from a gradully-decaying orbit around the Eath (eg Skylab) won't be going half as fast relative to the Earth as something aproaching perihelion on a huge elliptic orbit round the sun (eg an asteroid) - things on elliptic orbits go faster the closer they get to the thing they're orbiting. Conservation of angular momentum or something.

      And as Skylab wasn't going as fast, it wasn't heated up so much in the atmosphere, so more bits of it reached the surface than most meteorites.

    12. Re:Lucky by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 0, Troll

      you are an idiot, right? pressurce differences inside a solid mass? wtf... this rock would have been able to do some serious damage to a major city. maybe 20 square blocks completely gone, with related damages further out.

    13. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point of that sentence. The important thing is that technology and observation time are now at a level where even harmless asteroids like this one are (Or at least can be) detected.

      This is a significant milestone in reliably predicting (potentially) hazardous asteroids.

    14. Re:Lucky by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod the parent back down. The AC which already replied and was marked as flambait is right. This guy is an idiot. The only exception where his statement might hold water would be if the object were solid water...and then, maybe. And then, it wouldn't be because of "pressure differences", it would be because of super heating, causing steam to form inside, causing it to explode.

    15. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everything in space within the Earth-Moon system is going at the same speed. Skylab was going much, much slower relative to the Earth as this asteroid is.

    16. Re:Lucky by Phisbut · · Score: 1

      It all depends on speed and angle of the entry. A meteor that is one meter in diameter can make it to the ground if it's going straight for the ground, at a right angle, while a larger meteor of 30 meters in diamater could have the time to burn up entirely if it entered the atmosphere nearly parallel to the ground.

      The first one (coming straight for us) would only have to pass through about 10,000 meters of atmosphere, while the second one could travel several hundreds of thousands of meters before reaching the ground (or disintegrating completely)

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    17. Re:Lucky by p4ul13 · · Score: 0

      And the lord said: "Let the Simpsons lead the way".

      Amen Brothah:

      Homer: What's everyone so worked up about? So there's a comet -- big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head.
      Bart: Wow, Dad, maybe you're right.
      Homer: Of course I'm right. If I'm not, may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    18. Re:Lucky by Mateito · · Score: 1

      100 ft across (why not 30m ?)

      1) Because the internationally agreed standard for measuring asteroids is "hey, we saw it first, and we speak imperial" and

      2) 100 is a bigger number than 30 so it makes the people who spotted the asteroid look like bigger heros. Of course, if it was going to hit Bolivia or Siera Leone and there was bugger all we could do about it, the asteroid would only be 30m to stop people panicking and looting everything in site.

    19. Re:Lucky by K1-V116 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The meteor that made Barringer Crater in Arizona (1.6k across and nearly 200m deep) was ~45m in diameter -- only about 50% wider and roughly twice the mass of the one detected. This rock _could_ have spoiled someone's day....

      --

      Got mead?

    20. Re:Lucky by BackwardEngineer · · Score: 1

      Well, probably the lattice structure of the asteroid is not completely uniform so when one end of the asteroid is recieving more stress than the other, the lattices will break.

      Also, who said it was totally solid? there could be pockets of gas in the asteroid. the release of which could change the trajectory of the asteroid. ETC ETC... but you already took that into account, didnt you?

    21. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're saying the 30-meter meteor is meatier than the 1-meter meteor, but you wouldn't necessarily meet your maker if the more-meatier meteor passed though more meters of atmosphere than the less-meatier meteor?

    22. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading about the LINEAR teams work it seems amazing that they can detect such events at all, the computational cycles used must be immense.

      Problem: search all of the known sky for moving objects, calculate its velocity and extrapolate its position to see if it satisfies a simultanoeus equation with Earths position at any time in the future.

      Full respects to the these scientists.

    23. Re:Lucky by DigitumDei · · Score: 5, Informative
      Not quite pressure differences inside.
      Taken from the following NASA article.

      Asteroids move faster than the speed of sound in Earth's atmosphere. As a result, the air pressure ahead of a fireball can substantially exceed the air pressure behind it. The difference can be so great that it actually crushes the object
    24. Re:Lucky by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's silly.

      As another poster pointed out, it depends on the composition of the asteroid. If it's methane ice, there may not be any fireworks at all.

      And of course there are pressure differences in solid masses. Construction engineers have to deal with it all the time.

      As an example, take my monitor stand at home. It's a cradle lattice of wooden 1x2s that I threw together since the original monitor stand broke. If I set the monitor's weight on a pair of 1x2s laying their two-inch surface, they'll break. However, if I set them on their one-inch surface (making them two inches tall), they'll hold up just fine.

      The original arrangement would break because there's too much negative pressure in the lower portion of the 1x2, causing it to tear apart. However, the top of the 1x2 stays intact (except as the tear rises, but I'll get to that.) because there's only compressive forces at work.

      (As the tear rises, the portion of the 1x2 experiencing the negative pressure changes to wherever the top of the split is, causing more wood to split.)

    25. Re:Lucky by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      And the steam inside would cause it to explode because of... pressure differences.

      Steam itself is not a terribly volatile substance...

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    26. Re:Lucky by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      If it's a solid lump of rock (ie, not permeated with ice or some other frozen gaseous substance) it could make it, possibly. A solid lump of metal - sure. From what I recall about several other asteroid studies, including the one of the "potato" (Quail's having a flashback) is that they are an amalgam of dust, rocks, etc. Such an object should explode/come apart when heated sufficiently by entry into the atmosphere. A few pieces probably will hit the ground, but they should be of insufficient size to cause significant harm unless you're in its path or a car.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    27. Re:Lucky by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      LOL....you might go back and read what I said.

      I clearly stated, "The only exception where his statement might hold water would be"....

      Thanks for restating what I said and then imply I was somehow wrong.

      You've cleared so much up.

      Thanks. ...Shesh....

    28. Re:Lucky by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A hundred foot object would punch through at many miles per second, so time to ablate would be short. A few seconds in the atmosphere at most. (The scenes in Armaggedon of rocks tumbling down were silly; in reality you would barely have time to blink before you were dead from the shock wave. FLASH: blink: dead) It may break up into fragments, which doesn't help much in the kinetic energy department, IE we still get hit with tens of thousands of tons at many miles per second.

      Little objects like a grapefruit weren't a hundred feet wide. A hundred foot wide ball or potato-shaped rock could break up and would rain down millions of grapefruits at n miles/sec., if it broke up at all. Think of a hundred thousand ton blast of buckshot at 5 miles/sec. Or a 100K ton cannonball at the same speed.

      Big mess.

    29. Re:Lucky by Opie812 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because NASA is part of our "stupid american" culture.

      While I agree your culture is stupid, don't them sciencey types use metric pretty much universally?

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    30. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we want to be logical about this, and we of course know that logical people are basically just party poopers. How about this for brain food.

      The earth is pretty old. In fact, I'm sure that it dates back at least 2000 years, maybe a few million or even billion, maybe even infinitely more if you assume that the thing didn't just appear out of nowhere because some god or something put it there, materializing it magically. The earth has been hit by at least one or two asteroids over that period of time. In fact, there are some craters which would lend proof to quite a few times. We have now had interest in tracking asteroids for almost 10 years thanks to some interesting hollywood movies. NASA is investing more money into tracking asteroids now. They have even found some that come really close. Now, I'm having a hard time imagining that we've been watching with a real budget for almost 2 whole years and we haven't seen one that threatens the existance of life on earth. I'm terribly disappointed by that. I think the scientist need to look harder and maybe launch craft to redirect the tragectory of a good sized comet towards earth so that we can justify the expenditure of the research on the topic!!

    31. Re:Lucky by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Superheating is can occur in other liquids than just water.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    32. Re:Lucky by Kombat · · Score: 1

      According to the article there are normally 2 of these every year.

      RTFA, it's once every 2 years, not two every year. Not to nitpick, but you were off by 400%.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    33. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read what you said. It looks like the guy you're replying to did also. You said it would have nothing to due with pressure differences unless it was water. He said the water would create steam and the pressure from the steam would blow up the asteroid. He then argues that this could occur with different substances in the asteroid (and this doesn't seem too far fetched to me), which is what you were arguing against in the first place.

    34. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you have this back to front. The WORST thing a small asteroid can do is disintegrate completely in the atmosphere. When this happens the kinetic energy of the asteroid is converted into an explosion efficiently and rapidly. And since the atmostphere is only a few tens of miles high, this isn't happening at a safe distance.

    35. Re:Lucky by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Informative

      The speed doesn't make as much of a difference as you'd think. You're going faster, but you also have much less time for the heating to have any effect. The direction of travel is also important. If the asteroid were traveling perpendicular to the atmosphere, the parts of the atmosphere that matter are only about 50 miles thick. Typical combined speeds for an object coming from solar orbit are in the range of 20-30 miles per second. In that case, the asteroid would only have about two seconds to completely vaporize before it met the ground. Even if it did vaporize, you still get all of the energy it contains being released in a giant explosion. Assuming this rock is made of solid iron (which is most likely not correct, but it should be roughly correct for the density), I get a figure of about 100 thousand tons for its mass. By contrast, Skylab was 76,295kg; less than a thousandth of the mass.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    36. Re:Lucky by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Very true, but remember that the atmosphere will slow the object, and that such objects rarely approach the Earth straight on. More often, they strike at an oblique angle. The Peekskill meteor crossed the sky for forty seconds.

      More worrisome to me is "Neun und Neunzig Luftballon" scenario, where an incoming object explodes in the atmosphere, is mis-interpreted by NORAD and Whoops! It's Armageddon!

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    37. Re:Lucky by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The scenes in Armaggedon of rocks tumbling down were silly; in reality you would barely have time to blink before you were dead from the shock wave. FLASH: blink: dead
      The shock wave would travel at the speed of sound. That's not so fast. Commercial airliners cruise at about Mach 0.8 and certainly don't cross the sky in the blink of an eye.
    38. Re:Lucky by nadda · · Score: 1

      The other point I guess is that it's only 100 ft across (why not 30m ?)
      (NASA engineers were probably talking amongst themselves)
      Which ones larger 30M or 100Ft? I don't know. Lets go with the 100Ft, it sounds larger.


      Yeah I know, 100Ft is larger.

    39. Re:Lucky by mikerich · · Score: 4, Interesting
      you are an idiot, right? pressurce differences inside a solid mass?

      No he's not.

      It depends if it solid rock. many stony asteroids are apparently spongy having once contained volatiles that have subsequently been lost to space. These fragile objects will disintegrate in the atmosphere as atmospheric deceleration crushes them.

      Its for this reason that carbonaceous chondrite meteorites - the black ones with the exciting organic compounds are relatively rarer on Earth than their abundance in space would suggest. We're regularly encountering them, they just don't make it through to the surface.

      Having said that a 25m chunk of anything disintigrating in the atmosphere would produce a blast in the high kiloton, low megaton range. One of these smashing into a city would be a catastrophe.

      And they seem to be more common than we think - there is obviously Tunguska in 1908, but then there are reports of something exploding over the Amazon basin in the 1930s, the more than 100 small impacts that hit Sikhote-Alin in Russia in 1947 and the most recently uncovered biggish impact at Wabar in Saudi Arabia - a Hiroshima-sized explosion in either 1863 or 1891 (there is no agreement on the date, since Arabic scholars saw two bright meteors heading in that direction on different dates, it's only recently that scientists have been able to determine the relative youth of the Wabar craters).

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    40. Re:Lucky by mikerich · · Score: 4, Insightful
      50% wider and roughly twice the mass of the one detected

      If both bodies were the same shape the larger would have eight times the volume.

      As for mass, Barringer was definitely iron which makes it comparitively rare - less than 6% of observed meteorite falls are iron, yet they make up over 80% of collected meteorites. The latter number is easy to explain - iron meteorites don't look anything like rocks found on Earth, the much more common stony meteorites (which form over 80% of all observed falls) are very hard to distinguish from the stuff on the ground.

      More than likely this is a stony body which would give it a much lower density - round about 3.6 gcm-3 as opposed to 7.9 gcm-3 in iron meteorites.

      Having said that - a lump of stone that size hitting the Earth would still be comparable to a hydrogen bomb going off - as you say it would have spoiled a whole lot of people's days.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    41. Re:Lucky by flewp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But if the object is broken up, it increases surface area, and the smaller parts will burn up at a faster rate than as if it were a whole piece, wouldn't they?

      Also, wouldn't these smaller parts have the potential to have a much slower terminal velocity? Sure, it might not have time to slow down to terminal velocity speeds, but you never know.

      Of course, it all depends on where it breaks up. If it's a loosely enough packed ball of rubble, the gravity of earth may break it up before it even reaches our atmosphere. Also, depending on where it breaks up, parts may go into the ocean that would have landed on land and vice versa.

      BTW, I have absolutely no idea if what I'm saying is in any way based on fact or even following any form of logic.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    42. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading your post again:

      And then, it wouldn't be because of "pressure differences", it would be because of super heating, causing steam to form inside, causing it to explode.

    43. Re:Lucky by Steve+G+Swine · · Score: 1
      ...only 100 ft across (why not 30m ?)
      Might be 100m across, for all we know. This is NASA talking, right?

      (The biggest problems with our space programs is the ease with which interested people can take cheap shots...)

      --
      "Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer." - Linux Advocac
    44. Re:Lucky by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The rock would be moving at something like Mach 30 - at any rate at miles per second. The atmosphere is around 60 miles deep. It would be a blink. For it to be faster than a blink, for you, you'd have to know it was coming, be focused on the spot in the sky, and follow it. 60 miles/7 mps (supposing)= 9 and a fraction seconds to boom. Then you'd wait for the supersonic shock wave. Depends on how close you are to the impact(s). If you don't know it was coming, you'd maybe see a short flash of light, followed by death in a second or at most a minute or two. As for my Armageddon reference, I belive I was dead on. If you were in Manhattan, ground zero, you'd have seen a brief flash followed by a supersonic shock wave in less than a couple of heartbeats. It'd be like nuclear detonations, only without the radiation. As Heinlein said in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, just like a sparks from a hammer. Just a really BIG hammer.

      And shock waves aren't sound, so they can move quite quickly. The air itself would be moving at hypersonic speeds, mixed with vaporized solid matter from ground zero. Dust, really fast dust, and gravel.

    45. Re:Lucky by MagicDude · · Score: 1

      Skylab was made of tempered materials meant to withstand harsh conditions. You would figure that it would be able to hold up to an atmospheric re-entry burning better than your average brittle space rock.

    46. Re:Lucky by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      Pressure differences in solid objects? How come the Moon doesn't explode then? It's a solid object and it's in a vacuum. Or are you saying that if we some created an atmosphere around the moon then it would explode? Then why doesn't the Earth explode?

      I'm sorry but you're just so wrong it's not funny. Of course the universe would be a lot more fun if things just started exploding more.

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    47. Re:Lucky by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The other point I guess is that it's only 100 ft across (why not 30m ?) so it would have burnt up on entry into the atmosphere,

      Uh, no. Even 1 ft across wouldn't completely burn up on entry into the atmosphere (but would either break into small pieces or otherwise slow down enough to be mostly harmless).

      Depending on the composition -- mostly ice, mostly rock or mostly nickel-iron -- it would either completely detonate at altitude -- like the Tunguska explosion in Siberia early last century -- or plow into the ground and detonate. Meteor Crater in Arizona, nearly a mile wide, was formed by a nickel-iron meteor only a bit bigger than this one. (150 ft vs 100 ft, so maybe it would only dig a crater a half mile wide and 300 feet deep.)

      About equivalent to a largish H-bomb. Not that big a deal if you're more than fifty miles or so away, unpleasant otherwise.

      --
      -- Alastair
    48. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just quoting the article ....

      Simon

    49. Re:Lucky by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Consider how much of the Shuttle Columbia (or for older folks, Skylab) hit the surface. Granted, that was protected part of the way by shielding (Skylab wasn't) and only entered at about half the speed of a typical meteorite, but it gives you an idea. (Higher speed means more energy to heat up the rock, but also less time to do it in before the rock hits the ground.)

      The stuff that burns up completely in the upper atmosphere is dust to sand size.

      (Or just watch the opening credits of "Smallville" ;-)

      --
      -- Alastair
    50. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about heating up the meteor. As stuff burns away and heats up crazy shit would happen. And stuff does explode all the time in the universe, you know all those shiny lights in the sky? Those are caused by millions of nuclear explosions due to pressure in a star's core. Oh and by the way, the moon and earth are solid objects but that in no way means that they don't have pressure differences in them.

    51. Re:Lucky by XaosTX · · Score: 1
      > The other point I guess is that it's only 100 ft across (why not 30m ?)

      This is exactly why it DIDN'T hit the earth. We all know that confusing unit conversions help protect planets from spacefaring junk.

    52. Re:Lucky by AJWM · · Score: 1

      When they break up at altitude they slow down faster -- increased drag-to-mass ratio on the pieces. (Also, the force of any explosive break up will slow down the rearward pieces, but speed up forward pieces.) A grapefruit sized piece will slow down quite a bit (maybe even to its terminal velocity), with something larger it'll depend on the shape and composition. Of course, a hundred foot siderite (nickel iron) won't slow down hardly at all.

      It also depends on the angle -- straight down is statistically improbable, and an angular approache will give it more time in atmosphere just due to geometry and maybe a little from aerodynamic lift.

      (At a very shallow angle, it could just "bounce off" the atmosphere. Such an incident was fortuitously recorded on film (or video) some years ago over the northwest, the estimated size of the rock was "about as big as a locomotive", it entered the atmosphere enough to leave a trail and then skipped/bounced out into space again.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    53. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, from the article: "Astronomers have not ruled out that the asteroid and our planet could meet again sometime in the future. If the two were to collide, the asteroid likely would disintegrate in the atmosphere, Chesley said. "

    54. Re:Lucky by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      It'd be like nuclear detonations, only without the radiation.

      Oh, from an explosion like that, you'll get radiation -- X rays and such from the high temperature plasma. Just not us much radiation (no neutrons) as from a nuke, and no fallout. (Well, not radioactive fallout. Plenty of dust.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    55. Re:Lucky by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Skylab was going slower, but not 100 times slower.

      Typical meteor speed is on the order of 40,000 MPH. Typical orbital velocity (Skylab) is about 18,000 MPH. Skylab was going about 1/2 the speed -- 100 times slower would be subsonic.

      (Moderators should only moderate "informative" unless they know for a fact that the the information is indeed correct. There should also be a (-1, factually wrong) moderation. Sigh)

      --
      -- Alastair
    56. Re:Lucky by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

      50% wider and roughly twice the mass of the one detected

      If both bodies were the same shape the larger would have eight times the volume.


      Er, 1.5^3 = 3.375, not eight. Other than that you're doing fine ;-)

      --
      -- Alastair
    57. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, but the proper engineering term for this kind of pressure in a material is stress, and it's not just the very bottom that experiences negative (or tensile) stress, it's the entire cross-section of the beam below a certain axis (called the Neutral Axis). The location of the neutral axis is dependent on the cross-section of the beam itself.

      In this case, the reason they work better when 2" high is that the moment of inertia for a rectangle is (base)X(height)^3 /12, so you obviously get the greatest moment of inertia (and correspondingly, a higher stiffness) by maximizing height.

      Sorry, just got back from a structural design class, felt the need to share. :)

    58. Re:Lucky by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Ooops sorry, in my mitigation (he said reaching for the Bumper Book of Excuses 1999 (revised) edition).

      The Barringer object is estimated at 50-70m in diameter which is about twice the size of the thing whizzing towards us.

      Not a bad excuse eh?

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    59. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that this asteroid is so close that if you're outside and jump the second it passes by, it's gravity will pull you up into space and you'll be lost forever. Is this true?

    60. Re:Lucky by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      Problem: search all of the known sky for moving objects, calculate its velocity and extrapolate its position to see if it satisfies a simultanoeus equation with Earths position at any time in the future.

      Maybe they should just hire quarterbacks?

      (that would be North American football for our readers across the pond)

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    61. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, try it.

    62. Re:Lucky by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      No, it would definitely not burn up. Large hollow metallic things might, but solid rock, or iron, or nickel, will only lose a little bit of its diameter. This thing could wipe out a medium-sized country, or if it hit in the sea, drown many thousands of miles of coastline.

      It might even send a shock wave right through the earth to trigger a massive volcanic eruption on the other side. (Note that the Yucatan meteorite and the vast eruption of the Deccan plateau lavas in India are thought to be of about the same age, case not proved, but I wonder...)

      An object of this size is in the region where very serious damage is inevitable if it hits, but probably well short of complete destruction.

    63. Re:Lucky by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      Yes and no. Skylab was not almost solid, mostly sheet metal I would imagine. You are right about the kinetic energy, it would be about half for an orbiter, compared to something that had come from a standing start at "infinity", accelerated by the Earth's gravity alone. Also, Skylab was essentially spiralling, it was heated relatively slowly for a longer time.

      A fast, dense object will have time for its outer layers only to get really hot, it will lose some mass, possibly by explosion due to trapped gas, so bits may be ejected violently, but no way will the centre of a large object get hot, so most of it will remain intact. But, a small object will be heated right through and will melt, vapourise or shatter. I think the size of solid needs to be to reach the ground is measured in inches, or a few feet at the very most, if it is a dense solid.

      With this one, 100 feet diameter, it might lose a few feet but there would still be the equivalent of a very large nuclear explosion, except that any fallout will only be basically muck and dirt, as long as it does not hit a nuclear power station of course.

      An object this size could wipe out a small to medium country, so much depends on the relative velocity, squared, so there is quite a bit of room for variation as you indicate. Now, if it was in a retrograde (backwards) orbit, the closing speed could be enormous.....

    64. Re:Lucky by EigenHombre · · Score: 1

      If both bodies were the same shape the larger would have eight times the volume.
      Um, assuming spherical asteroids, (1.5)^3 ~= 3.4, not 8. The increased ratio of volumes is still appreciable, though.

      --
      EOT
    65. Re:Lucky by doctorfaustus · · Score: 1

      I love Slashdot.... Please take the time to read the constant bikering of who was right and who was wrong for the following 150 or so posts.....

      God bless ya, goddamnit!

    66. Re:Lucky by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Typical meteor speed is on the order of 40,000 MPH. Typical orbital velocity (Skylab) is about 18,000 MPH. Skylab was going about 1/2 the speed -- 100 times slower would be subsonic.

      Your numbers (in real units ;-) are about 18 km/s for the meteor, 8 km/s for Skylab. Those sound pretty much right, except that the asteroid is in an orbit pretty similar to the Earth's, with the Earth coming up behind it near its aphelion: so it might be going even slower than that.

    67. Re:Lucky by instarx · · Score: 1

      I live on an eighth floor apartment, so I hope the next one of the 2 or 3 per year that "should" burn up in the atmosphere do so well before there are only 80 feet of atmosphere left.

    68. Re:Lucky by Silburn_Luke · · Score: 1

      I googled up some info on the Tunguska event earlier. Recent work in Siberia has shown up a bunch of pebbley 'shrapnel' all over the destruction zone - so the latest consensus is that the Tunnguska object was a rocky body rather than a cometary fragment. Which I didn't know before yesterday.

      Estimates based on the pattern of destruction are that it was about twice the size of this one (ie ~60m diameter) and had an explosive yield of around half a megaton or so.

      Other things being equal (which of course they never are) and going by the cube law, this one would have yielded ~65 kton if it actually hit - a shade under 4 Hiroshima bombs in other words. So it was certainly large enough to whack a decent sized city if it came down in the right (or rather wrong) place.

      Regards
      Luke

      --
      #include witty_one_liner.h
    69. Re:Lucky by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · · Score: 1

      According to Jay Manifold, since the rock spends most of its time between Earth and Mercury, it must be composed of something refractory (i.e., it ain't ice).

      The back of Jay's envelope says that assuming it is a perfect sphere with twice the density of water, and assuming a velocity relative to Earth of 18 km/s (7 km/s + acceleration due to Earth's gravity), if you apply V = 4Pr^3/3 and KE = 1/2mv^2 the result is 4.6e15 joules. At a rate of 1 kiloton of TNT equals 4.2 MJ, this works out to about 1.1 megatons.

      Yes, this would not cause widespread damage, but nobody would enjoy being within a few miles of the impact point.

  3. Yay! by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Time to dust off the "Thumb" and see if I can get off this godforsaken mudball.

    Is the asteroid construction-equipment yellow, with lots of lumps?

    --
    Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
    1. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And does it hang in the air like a brick doesn't?

    2. Re:Yay! by Xaleth+Nuada · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't forget your towel.

      --

      I read Slashdot for the .sigs
  4. It's the one you don't see or hear that gets you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you hear the thunder, that means the lighting didn't kill you.

    If you hear the gunshot, the bullet didn't kill you.

    If you smell the engine burning, the car wreck didn't kill you.

    If you are still reading, the asteroid missed.

  5. Bennifer, You're our only hope!?-SarcarticVersion by mynameis+(mother+... · · Score: 2, Informative
    Guess what everybody: There is another asteroid heading right for us. NEA 2004FH is due to arrive around 5pm EST today. Recently Discovered, the object is ~30kmmeters across, and will pass within 30k miles of earth. "Scientists look forward to the flyby as it will provide them an unprecedented opportunity to study a small NEA asteroid up close." Also worthwhile, the view showing it's orbit [superimposed over our's] notes "The locations of the asteroid and Earth are indistinguishable at this scale."
    • Which should be shattering to all those who felt their Solar-model-with-lightbulb-as-sun was truely 'to scale.'

    • Affleck was not immediately available for comment.
    [caugh]How can this not be the 11th planet: it has a rather round orbit that is very similar to earths own?! [/caugh]

    In related news, Ron Page now claims this was the 'NEA' he was referring to as terrorist last month.
  6. And when this is a threat we will... by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 2, Funny
    or when that Death Star-sized object pays us a visit.

    At which point we will hide behind our moon and send a squadron of George Bush sponsered space monkeys to penetetrate it's interior and fire photon blasters into a two meter hole to destroy it and save the earth.....

    1. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whereas if John Kerry wins the election, the earth will be destroyed waiting for the U.N. to decide on an appropriate "police action".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by hkg4r7h · · Score: 1

      That's no moon..

      --
      -- duh
    3. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...and fire photon blasters into a two meter hole...

      Why not 6 ft? :D

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    4. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by mwood · · Score: 1

      Nah, since they're *monkeys*, they'd be smart enough, once they've escaped and reached the Millennium Falcon, to just nuzzle the ship up to the entryport force-field and turn the main reaction thrusters on full. A couple of tW of directed energy ought to gut a Death Star quite handily.

      Imperial Stormtroopers in the boat bay, you say? I don't see any now.

      Then they fly out through the wreckage and go collect their medals from the Princess.

    5. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Ah, how nice to have the good Senator join us in person!

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    6. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the Empire uses Imperial units like ft. All rebel scum use units of the Republic.

    7. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be republican after these past years? I used to be, before the age of reason hit me.

    8. Re:And when this is a threat we will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, that'd be cool. Unfortunately no sorry.

  7. Oh Great... by hardcode57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they'll be able to tell us in advance we're all going to die and there's damn all they can do to stop it. Still, I guess that's a better excuse for a really reprehensible party than most:)

  8. But ... isn't it tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will it miss? Hollywood always taught me that killer asteroids come equipped with state of the art in tracking with the cross hairs firmly locked onto an American city like New York.

    Hollywood special effects must have made a mistake this time around.

    1. Re:But ... isn't it tracking? by mwood · · Score: 1

      Maybe we'll be extremely lucky and it's locked on Hollywood instead.

  9. And if... by ForestGrump · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it was going to hit the earth and cause a massive extinction of the human race...
    I highly doubt we will be told about it. Instead, our world leaders will gather in a cave somewhere with their mistresses and 500 years worth of refried beans...that ought to keep the human race going.

    -Grump

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:And if... by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Imagine what the cave would smell like after 500 years of refried bean consumption.

      Come to think of it, I can't think of a better fate for our 'leaders'.

    2. Re:And if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should stage a simulation for them :)

    3. Re:And if... by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 1

      500 years worth of refried beans.

      And don't forget plenty of Rico's nacho cheese. It's the profitmaker!

    4. Re:And if... by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would our world leaders have anything to do with it? It is the scientists that know what is going on, and the people that they would tell, in this order would be 1) other astronomers, 2) their families 3) the politicians 4) the journalists. There would be enough people that knew about it before the politicians that it would be impossible to cover up even if they wanted to.

    5. Re:And if... by !Freeky2BGeeky · · Score: 0

      As if politicians could keep quiet about anything?

      --

      Visualize Whirled Peas

    6. Re:And if... by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Why would our world leaders have anything to do with it?
      Because they're the ones who worry about things like "mineshaft gap."
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:And if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're being a bit naive: 1) astronomer (who is straight scientist) tells their boss, 2) boss (who is a politician) tells the world leader directly, then tells astronomer that they've verified the data and it'll be a miss, not to worry, 3) boss and world leader go off to hide in cave while astronomer double-checks and rechecks their data scratching their head.

      *adjusts tin-foil hat, walks off whistling*

    8. Re:And if... by pavon · · Score: 1

      That is an awesome idea! I'm surprized the Libertarians didn't think of it sooner.

      Quick Mr President, you must get down to the bomb shelter, for good of mankind. This television will show what is happening on the ground and this gauge will tell you when the radiation is safe enough to come out.

      Meanwhile, we cue the ILM generated apocoliptic images and get on with our life. It's like the B-Ark, only cheaper!

    9. Re:And if... by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      I did not have sex with that woman...
      he kept quiet, but the rest of the world couldn't.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
  10. NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by shibbie · · Score: 1

    "it is good to know NASA's LINEAR guys are on the job"

    Yeah? What can they do to stop an asteroid a couple months before impact? Its better we didn't know if we don't have line of defence.

    1. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by glpierce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose our best "defense" would be to evacuate as much of the impact area as possible. Nuclear winter theories aren't as respected as they used to be.

      --
      G
    2. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by shibbie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it amusing that a threat to everyone thats a far bigger catastrophe than terrorism has no defence (I'm British, this is our spelling 8P ). In all likelyhood (imho) its the biggest continents that will suffer the most. The UK will either just be wiped out or get missed entirely (we've always had bad weather)...

    3. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Read the article - it was discovered on Monday. That would have barely given our politicians enough time to argue over whether it's Osama's fault or not, let alone do something constructive.

    4. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that ignorance is bliss?

    5. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Or get immersed by a three mile high title wave.

      C//

    6. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      ...three mile high "title" wave.

      If the asteroid doesn't get us, maybe the opening credits will?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      A better defense would be to develop something that can be launched to intercept planet killers even given 1 day of notice

      Any economic incentive for space stations would be helpful

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    8. Re:NASA's on the job. Can they save the world? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Hey that was pretty funny.

      C//

  11. um and? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ok so in the future we will know when a 100km diameter asteroid is gonna hit earth. Problem is, there is shitall we can do about it. I personally would rather not know when my time is up then sit and worry..

    oh wait... screw that. If I knew the end of time was coming I'd l00t! Cuz that's what all good capitalist swine do!

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:um and? by MC_Cancer_Pants · · Score: 1

      Ok so in the future we will know when a 100km diameter asteroid is gonna hit earth.

      You realize that a 100km asteroid would not be an asteroid, it would be the second largest planet in our solar system (jupiter being around 140km)--9 times larger than earth. Do you REALLY think that there is any way that we could stop a planet 9 times larger than us that's in a collision course with us? Secondly: We would be able to see a 100km dia. planet coming toward us for decades before impact. I think it would be nice to know when life ends, better than this waiting crap.

    2. Re:um and? by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      well if i knew the end was a few days away, id spurge and get an athlon64 system with a gig of ram, a huge SATA raid array and finally....a fucking radeon 9800XT

      i bet theyd still take their pretty time getting doom3 out the door, no sneek peeks or anything, wait and see

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    3. Re:um and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, Jupiter is only 87 miles in diameter? That's a lot smaller than I thought, it must be really dense.

    4. Re:um and? by Lebannen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jupiter being 140km?

      Crikey, that puts a 2km cycle to work in perspective. No wonder I'm always turning up late!

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" whilst looking for a rock
    5. Re:um and? by tilmanb · · Score: 1, Informative

      >>Ok so in the future we will know when a 100km diameter asteroid is gonna hit earth.

      >You realize that a 100km asteroid would not be an asteroid, it would be the second largest planet in our solar system (jupiter being around 140km)

      There is a slight mistake here (mod parent wrong!):

      Jupiter has not 140km diameter but 140k km (142984 km to be exact).

      --
      cd pub; more beer
    6. Re:um and? by erlando · · Score: 1

      You do realize that he said 100 kilometers, right? As in 100.000 meters == ~300.000 feet. I'd say Jupiter is a bit bigger than that...

      --
      Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
    7. Re:um and? by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      You realize that a 100km asteroid would not be an asteroid, it would be the second largest planet in our solar system (jupiter being around 140km)--9 times larger than earth. Do you REALLY think that there is any way that we could stop a planet 9 times larger than us that's in a collision course with us? Secondly: We would be able to see a 100km dia. planet coming toward us for decades before impact. I think it would be nice to know when life ends, better than this waiting crap.

      -1 Absofucklinglutely Retarded? Jupiter has a diameter of 1 556 824 020 km. So 100km times about 10^7.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    8. Re:um and? by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      (Source en.wikipedia.org btw)

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    9. Re:um and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over a billion km? I think you're wrong. You were looking at the distance the planet is from the sun.

    10. Re:um and? by MC_Cancer_Pants · · Score: 1

      sorry, I live in the states, we use miles, I use k to mean thousand, I guess my mind subconsciously didn't want me to say 140kkm.

    11. Re:um and? by MC_Cancer_Pants · · Score: 1

      I haven't slept much recently, for some reason that struck me as 100,000km. I guess I play too much UO and don't sleep enough. (k as in thousand gp, gold is worthless, so everything is sold in K's (thousands) or M's (millions))

    12. Re:um and? by MC_Cancer_Pants · · Score: 1

      I meant to say 150k km, or 150.000.000meters. according to what NASA says the diameter of Jupiter is c.a. 142.984.000meters. Wikipedia is not as correct as most people assume. Infact, wikipedia blew up the figure 10888x in this case.

    13. Re:um and? by MC_Cancer_Pants · · Score: 1

      (so even though mine was a typo, I was still 10 times as accurate as you were, RTFcorrectM)

    14. Re:um and? by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      Oops, give me the same -1 I gave him then. It didn't seem right, but I know that Jupiter is illogically large. I just doubled the radius it gave, "Mean radius 778,412,010 km" without looking at the heading. Correction: Equatorial diameter 142,984 km

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    15. Re:um and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      140kkm.... wouldn't that be 140Mm?

  12. Dammit by Viggeh! · · Score: 2, Funny

    I cant believe its gonna miss! Now i cant throw my wicked end-of-the-world orgy-party! *sigh*

    1. Re:Dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I cant believe its gonna miss! Now i cant throw my wicked end-of-the-world orgy-party! *sigh*

      Why not?

    2. Re:Dammit by Dogers · · Score: 0

      why should it missing stop you? :)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    3. Re:Dammit by Moeses · · Score: 1

      I cant believe its gonna miss! Now i cant throw my wicked end-of-the-world orgy-party! *sigh*

      I don't know, that never stopped the SubGenius from having their annual-end-of-the-world orgies.

    4. Re:Dammit by Powercntrl · · Score: 2, Funny

      I cant believe its gonna miss! Now i cant throw my wicked end-of-the-world orgy-party! *sigh*

      Wouldn't it suck if the world was really going to end and no girls showed up to your orgy-party? Order your REALDOLLS today while there's still time!

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    5. Re:Dammit by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      Dude, if you need a reason to party, you shouldn't be partying.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    6. Re:Dammit by merchant_x · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it suck if the world was really going to end and no girls showed up to your orgy-party? Order your REALDOLLS today while there's still time!

      Realdolls? It's the end of the world dude, spring for some whores.

  13. Gravitational Effects? by fishdan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any astronomers out there know if this will have a measurable gravitational affect on the planet? I know it's awfully small on a planetary scale -- but it's mass might be great. And, as I understand it, we're pretty good at detecting gravitational shifts. I know there won't be high tides or coastal flooding -- just if an object that small will have ANY noticable effect.

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
    1. Re:Gravitational Effects? by kalidasa · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's 30 m across, and the earth is 12,760,000 m across, volume is pi r^2, assuming the same density, and gravity is proportional to mass - probably not. If we could do that, we wouldn't need line of sight radar - we could just track airplanes by their gravitational effects without line of sight.

    2. Re:Gravitational Effects? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Informative

      100' diameter ==> 15m radius ==> around 15000 m^3 ==> somewhere around 5x10^7 kg if it's rock.

      26500 miles is around 4000 times further away from the surface of the earth than the 35,000 feet at which planes fly.

      So the gravitational effect this rock will have at the surface of the earth is around the same as the effect from a 3kg bag inside a plane flying overhead. Probably not noticable. :)

    3. Re:Gravitational Effects? by TGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er.... volume is 4/3 pi r^3. pi r ^ 2 is area.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    4. Re:Gravitational Effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.

    5. Re:Gravitational Effects? by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, it's not that hard to figure out. Assume the 100' diameter (30.48m) thing is a sphere made of solid steel (density ~8000 kg/m3). That sphere has a volume of 14,827 m3, so would have a mass of ~118.6e6 kg. At a distance of 26,500 miles from earth's center, it will exert a force of 2.6e7 newtons (about 3000 tons) on the earth. This would make the earth accelerate toward the asteroid at only 4.3e-18 m/s2 (the asteroid, though, accelerates toward earth at a whopping 0.2 m/s2).

      If you were standing on the asteroid, and you weigh 150 lbs on earth, you'd weigh only 0.0005 lbs (assuming the asteroid was the only thing around).

      If you were standing on earth and the asteroid were directly over your head (at 26,500 miles from your center) and you weighed 150 lbs, it would reduce your weight by 6.6e-17 pounds. Not exactly a weight-loss program.

      Those numbers seem pretty hard to detect directly, but we might be able to use indirect means.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    6. Re:Gravitational Effects? by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      As others have said, probably not, but the effect in the other direction is pretty substantial, changing the asteroid's direction by about 15 degrees.

    7. Re:Gravitational Effects? by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot Gauss's theorem. You should estimate the gravitational effect by measuring distances to the center of the earth, not its surface.

      Tides are caused by the gravitational effect of the sun and the moon on the whole surface of the earth, not on a single point. Let's assume a flat distribution of water on earth's surface. Gauss says that the gravitational force applied to a sphere is equal to the force applied to the same mass positioned at the center of the sphere.

      Now, the relevant comparison would be to estimate the relative gravitational effect of our asteroid and the sun. Mass(A)=5x10^7kg, Distance(A)=5x10^7m, Mass(S)=2x10^20kg, Distance(S)=1.5x10^11m. The sun's gravity field on earth is 1,600 times higher than our asteroid's.

      So yes, the asteroid will have a negligible effect on earth's surface but not THAT negligible and not for the same reason. Using your logic, my mother (200kg) would have a higher gravitational impact on earth's surface than the sun provided she hovers less than 150m above the surface. Ok, she's fat but not THAT fat :)

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    8. Re:Gravitational Effects? by azaris · · Score: 1

      You forgot Gauss's theorem.

      "The integral of the divergence of a vector field over the entire volume is equal to the normal-oriented integral of the vector field over the surface area"?

      Or did you mean Gauss's Law?

    9. Re:Gravitational Effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So THAT's why I can only have one carryon bag!

    10. Re:Gravitational Effects? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correcting that, you're right, of course. Give the man another mod point (and keep mine overrated).

  14. wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    bush as the source of the next wave of humanity?? evolution would be set back 100,000 years.

    It would be like going back to the caveman!

    1. Re:wonderful... by bellings · · Score: 4, Funny

      Intelligent life evolved from chimp-like creatures once. It could happen a second time.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    2. Re:wonderful... by Virtex · · Score: 1

      So what happened to those intelligent life forms? Did they become extinct?

      --
      For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
  15. The big one... by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Funny
    "it is good to know NASA's LINEAR guys are on the job, for when that Death Star-sized object pays us a visit."

    So that we can all enjoy the peace-of-mind of knowing that we're all about to die, in advance. ;)

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:The big one... by tuffy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So that we can all enjoy the peace-of-mind of knowing that we're all about to die, in advance. ;)

      We're all going to die eventually. But throughout all of history, mankind has yearned for the day when we all get to die at the same time. It's not as scary as dying alone, or as scary as the thought the world will go on without us.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    2. Re:The big one... by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Funny
      "We're all going to die eventually."

      Speak for yourself.

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    3. Re:The big one... by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      But throughout all of history, mankind has yearned for the day when we all get to die at the same time.

      Actually, since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.

    4. Re:The big one... by cherokee158 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're a lot of fun at parties, aren't you?

    5. Re:The big one... by mwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if they give us 10-20 years' warning (which is not at all absurd, given that these rocks are not under power and thus utterly predictable) we can mount an expedition to deflect the thing, crush it to small pieces that shouldn't cause serious trouble, or just mine it out of existence.

      (Hey, a few megatons of nickel-iron might not make us all rich, but it could defray at least *some* of the expense of saving our lives. Cost recovery is good.)

    6. Re:The big one... by Mateito · · Score: 3, Funny
      So that we can all enjoy the peace-of-mind of knowing that we're all about to die, in advance.

      I wouldn't worry, if its just an asteroid, Bruce Willis will die to deflect it.

      If, however, its a shitload of Vogons, we are fucked.

    7. Re:The big one... by Jesus+2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Won't work:

      Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

      Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to deflect the aster...

      Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

      Speaker: All in favor of the amended asteroid-slash-pervert bill?

      (Congress): BOO!

      Speaker: Bill defeated.

      Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

    8. Re:The big one... by stateofmind · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if families with loved ones in cryo-freeze units will get a refund if the earth is wiped out...

      Josh

    9. Re:The big one... by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right, the scary part about armageddon is actually surviving the initial event, and being forced to adapt your strategy instantly.

      Talk about the ultimate episode of survivor.

    10. Re:The big one... by hpulley · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, if they give us 10-20 years' warning (which is not at all absurd, given that these rocks are not under power and thus utterly predictable) we can mount an expedition to deflect the thing, crush it to small pieces that shouldn't cause serious trouble, or just mine it out of existence.

      Hmm, except that this one was detected Monday. 3 days notice isn't enough to do anything. Larger ones should be detected earlier but how much earlier?

      --
      $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
    11. Re:The big one... by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      But at least we'll be spared to Vogon poetry.

    12. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say so. The rest of your non-americans can barely get together to organize a tea-party.

    13. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you don't get the 'humor' yet you still call others "dumb ass americans"? haha.

    14. Re:The big one... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Would you rather such an important mission turned out like the 60's race to the Moon, or like the POS International Space Station?

    15. Re:The big one... by Wog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously.

      I plan to live forever.

      *looks at watch*

      So far, so good!

    16. Re:The big one... by flewp · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'll be lots of other people willing to work on such a project,

      Yeah.... seeing as you're doing such a great job with spelling and grammar, I'll put my money on you to save the planet.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    17. Re:The big one... by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1
      Talk about the ultimate episode of survivor.

      The anti-gun nuts would get "voted off" by the pro-gun nuts who happen to be kind of hungry ...

    18. Re:The big one... by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      3 days notice isn't enough to do anything

      Not even for Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck?

      --

    19. Re:The big one... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Naw, the pro gunners would just eat them.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    20. Re:The big one... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Anyone else reminded of that old Tom Lehrer song, We Will All Go Together When We Go?

      No, just me? Okay, nevermind then.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    21. Re:The big one... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Hmm, except that this one was detected Monday. 3 days notice isn't enough to do anything."

      For something that size, we can fling a few nuclear missiles at it. Pretty light show. ;)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    22. Re:The big one... by knobmaker · · Score: 1
      This won't work. All that will accomplish is that our world will be destroyed by radioactive chunks.

      If a big un comes before we get into space on a routine basis, we're doomed. And we don't even have much of anyone looking for big uns. Double doom.

    23. Re:The big one... by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 1

      > "We're all going to die eventually."
      >
      > Speak for yourself.

      <Yellowbeard> They'll have to kill me before I'll die! </Yellowbeard>

    24. Re:The big one... by bpiltz · · Score: 2, Funny

      More likely the debate would be in the UN.

      French ambassador after finding out the asteroid is heading for his country:
      "We must act now to remove the threat of this weapon of mass destruction."

      US ambassador with a devlish grin:
      "Veto!"

      --
      Goals for 2011: 1. Stop plate tectonics. 2. Prevent animal predation. 3. End supernovae now. 4. Rid the world of evil.
    25. Re:The big one... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      "We're all going to die eventually."

      I would greatly prefer to die suddenly. That "eventually" business sounds like a real drag.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    26. Re:The big one... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      (Hey, a few megatons of nickel-iron might not make us all rich, but it could defray at least *some* of the expense of saving our lives. Cost recovery is good.)

      And just why do you think that bringing this here from space is going to be more profitable than just digging it out of the ground? Nickle and iron aren't exactly rare, you know.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    27. Re:The big one... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Well, if they give us 10-20 years' warning (which is not at all absurd, given that these rocks are not under power and thus utterly predictable)

      Except, of course, for the perterbations from Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and almost anything else it comes near.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    28. Re:The big one... by !3ren · · Score: 1

      Why would we want to bring it to Earth? The problem is getting large amounts of material _into_ space for construction.

    29. Re:The big one... by mwood · · Score: 1

      If there's a net positive result *at all* then it's better than no profit at all, and we have to put the rock *somewhere*. Besides, compare the effort to recover iron from a nickel-iron asteroid to the effort involved in recovering the same amount from a pile of taconite hiding under a mountain. High-grade iron ore is becoming harder to find, and nearly-free metal has been unavailable, short of tapping the core, for aeons. Consider also the relative environmental impact (which can be expressed in dollars, if you wish) of the two operations. Maybe the economics don't work in our favor, but maybe they do -- we should find out.

      And in the longer term, construction projects *in space* would do well to consider consuming the more bothersome asteroids, since they are the *only* source of iron and nickel that doesn't have to be dragged out of a planetary gravity well.

      After all, if you're gonna talk about astroengineering, the first thing you gotta do is *think big*.

    30. Re:The big one... by mwood · · Score: 1

      Notice that the planets are not powered either, so their influences are also predictable. They add some fuzz to estimated paths, but we can cope with that. (I'm not up to date on the current status of the N-Body Problem -- it may be that all feasible methods are estimates. Nevertheless we should be able to come up with a reasonable watch list and schedule.)

      A more serious objection is that I hadn't realized this was all done visually. Somehow I thought we ran regular radar surveys or something. Maybe we should start.

    31. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything else you'd like to add, Captain Obvious?

    32. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Death Star will be in range in... five minutes."

      Such a perky voice, it was.

    33. Re:The big one... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      and nearly-free metal has been unavailable, short of tapping the core, for aeons

      Except, of course, for the millions of tons of refined iron in all the various scrap piles and so on. It can be reused again and again and again, as long as we want or need to.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    34. Re:The big one... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Even fairly close encounters with other asteroids can change the orbit. And yes, I do happen to know that all the calculating methods are estimates. I worked, years ago, with the late Daniel J. Alderson, who wrote JPL's original space-probe navigation software. Not one thing we sent up ever missed its target or failed because of his software. All the problems we've had recently have been run by its replacement.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    35. Re:The big one... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Or we can get Kevin Costner to show us where dry land is once the asteroid causes global flooding. Oh what a glorious post-apocolyptic future this will be.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    36. Re:The big one... by Tripster · · Score: 1

      They say it helps to have a backup plan, what's yours? :)

    37. Re:The big one... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      My underware is tight and binding.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    38. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I find the thought of dying in a major disaster scarier than dying "alone". I'm fairly confident that I'd find it easier to come to terms with knowing that I'm going to die of some disease I have than that the entire population is going to be destroyed.

      Even though I don't view the world in a very positive light, the thought that life will go on with out me when I'm gone is somehow comforting. Many people with children would like to die knowing that their children will live on.

    39. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US would love it. Ol' Hally could get a no-bid contract to help 'rebuild' wherever the 'roid hit.

      Roy Moore 04!

    40. Re:The big one... by Wog · · Score: 1

      Backup?

      I'm sure I've got myself backed up around here.

      Somewhere.

      *looks worried*

    41. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually its is ok to die alone. All the species in this world has just one thing common, to fight the extincion of that species. We humans also exibit that same behaviour but more at a personal level; like caring very much for out children etc. To think that our species is going to go away for good in the near future is more disturbing to me than the thought of death. In fact every linving being on this planet by its nature want its species to continue even after its death and that is why we have evoluved and are still alive.

      And you are wrong about man yarning to become extint (waiting for day when we all get to die together)!

    42. Re:The big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a large nuclear warhead would vaporize 100^3 of rock easily

    43. Re:The big one... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Hmm, except that this one was detected Monday. 3 days notice isn't enough to do anything.

      For a number of these objects, the issue is not hitting us now, but hitting us years later in some later approach. Tracking it now gives information to plot its orbit for a few thousand years, during which time you might find a possibility of impact.

      Or perhaps you could slow it down into an orbit around the earth, and have an instant space station framework. A 100 foot diameter asteroid would probably be a bit small for that, though.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    44. Re:The big one... by Rembrant · · Score: 1

      Right, democracy doesn't work that's why you've decided to stay and not move to Cuba! That's why you decided to speak your mind with out fear of being thrown in jail like in China, your actions speak louder than your words.... Consensus is a bitch but I don't see any better alternatives do you?

    45. Re:The big one... by jerilyn7sc · · Score: 1

      this is my first time looking at this site, but was surfing the net to try and find an answer. Today while at the store I picked up a tabloid paper, which headlines read "Killer Asteroid heading towards Earth", then below the heading, "President Bush holds panic meeting to discuss the possibility of an asteroid heading towards Earth", I didn't read it or buy it, but can anyone tell me anything about this?

  16. Hmm by Czernobog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Either there's an ever increasing number of asteroids coming ever closer to Earth (unlikely methinks) or this is truly indicative of how blind we have been all thse years to what was happpening in space.
    Sort of puts our achievements into perspective...

    --
    /. Where the truth
    1. Re:Hmm by Khomar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Either there's an ever increasing number of asteroids coming ever closer to Earth (unlikely methinks) or this is truly indicative of how blind we have been all thse years to what was happpening in space.

      Or God is sending us warning shots across the bow.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe somebodies aim is getting better.

    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or an indication of how blind we still are.

      Without some sort of long range detection (think radar except over much longer distances) I think we miss most of the large objects flying by us.

    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      think radar except over much longer distances

      You mean like radar? There's nothing in the definition of radar about short ranges. They've bounced radar off of Jupiter's moons. They still call it radar.

    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radar will not work with current technology, otherwise they'd already be using it dumbass.

      Radar is using radio waves. We need something faster and longer range. Radio waves can certainly travel a great distance, but we arn't very good at detecting the reflections.

    6. Re:Hmm by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Or God is sending us warning shots across the bow.

      Be thankful for your inane idiots claiming to know the mind of a god to keep us from being left behind. With friends like these, who needs fundamentalist terrorists?

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    7. Re:Hmm by Khomar · · Score: 1

      Easy, man, easy. It was meant as a joke. However, if you wish to take it seriously, then consider this: when one compares how we are living our lives in the world today compared to how life was laid out to be lived in the Bible, God certainly does have just cause to be angry.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faster than radio waves? That's pretty fast.

    9. Re:Hmm by Zaak · · Score: 1

      Radar is using radio waves. We need something faster and longer range.

      Faster than radio waves? Got something you'd like to share with the rest of us?

      TTFN

    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology needs to be developed.

      They did it on Star Trek. The only reason why it hasn't been done already is because the government is trying to limit our access to other species. This would lead to a cashless system where they wouldn't be rich so they won't allow it.

    11. Re:Hmm by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Easy, man, easy. It was meant as a joke.

      I'd say the same. It was meant to be a joke to your joke.

      ... life was laid out to be lived in the Bible, God certainly does have just cause to be angry.

      Since you keep bring it up.. claiming to know the mind of a god again? How the fuck would you know what would anger a god? Whatever.

      Humans wrote the bible. The bible is humans telling other humans how to live, an instruction manual if you will. Hiding behind some "god" thing as a vehicle of wrath and vengence for not following your rules is quite cowardly, don't you think? Why not just own up to it and say, "Hey! What you are doing is pissing me off!" Then the rest of us can laugh directly at you for thinking you know better how everyone else should live their own life rather than pity you for not being able to think for yourself.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    12. Re:Hmm by Khomar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The Bible does not claim to be an instruction manual. It claims to be the very Word of God. On the same token, Jesus is not just a good teacher. He claimed repeatedly to be the Son of God. This was the real reason why the Pharisees crucified him, because he was being blasphemous. If he is not correct -- if he is not the Son of God -- then he is a lunatic or a devil. Would you listen to a man who claimed to be a poached egg?

      The reason why Christians "hide" behind the Bible is because they believe it to be the inerrant Word of God. It is not so we can tell others how to live their lives, but so we can understand why God made us and how we were intended to work. It is also not a vehicle for vengence and wrath, but rather a warning from a holy, loving God who would rather of us change our ways and follow Him than have us suffer our just and proper punishment. Just as a parent warns their child of the impending spanking in the hopes of avoiding it altogether, so God tries to warn us.

      As for thinking for yourself, is it better to just blindly follow the world's pattern of greed, selfishness, anger, and lust or to seek obedience to God's command in that we love the Lord our God with all of heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves?

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    13. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As for thinking for yourself, is it better to just blindly follow the world's pattern of greed, selfishness, anger, and lust or to seek obedience to God's command in that we love the Lord our God with all of heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves?

      In a choice between foolishness and delusion, I'd choose neither.

    14. Re:Hmm by cens0r · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not to start a hard core religious debate here, but could you point me to the passages where jesus repeatedly refers to himself as the son of god? He does refer to god as his father, but that was not unusual for jews of the day to do; they were all god's children. He also refers to himself as the 'son of man', but again in the arameic context that was more akin to use a pronoun for yourself. I think during the trial in Mark, Jesus might actually refer to himself as the messiah. And even if you accept the fact that it is word for word accurate, the messiah being a literal sun of god is a later christian idea and not a jewish one.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    15. Re:Hmm by Khomar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In John 8:58, Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I AM." The usage of "I AM" is a direct reference to what God said His name was to Moses in Exodus ("I AM that I AM"). Throughout that entire chapter, he continually takes a position of equality with God. In Matthew 26:62-64, the priests ask Him point blank if He is the "Son of God" to which He replies, "You have said it yourself" and that He would sit at the "right hand of power". In Luke 20:70, they ask him the same question, and he replies, "Yes, I am" afterwhich they make their decision that He should be crucified.

      In addition, he makes statements through the gospels that could only be made by God Himself. For example, he forgives the sins of a lame man (Matthew 9:6), a thing that all Jews knew could only be done by God. He also claimed to be "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8). There are many more passages like these. In fact, the book of John is filled with claims of deity and equality with God.

      In regards to the Messiah being a Christian idea, I would have to do more research to find the passages in the Old Testament that speak to His deity. I recall on passage in the Psalms where David refers to Jesus (who is his descendant) as his Lord. David could never refer to his offspring as a lord unless He was God. If you are interested, I can get to you with more.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    16. Re:Hmm by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Or God is sending us warning shots across the bow.

      <BadMovieReference>Or Insect-like aliens are sending us warning shots across the bow</BadMovieReference>

      :-)

    17. Re:Hmm by cens0r · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But none of those things are actually statements that he is the son of god.

      Jesus doesn't explicitly say he is forgiving sins, what he does could quite possibly be interpetted as him saying god forgives your sins. Jesus also said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. That would imply he believed everyone was lord of the sabbath.

      My bad. It was Luke and not Mark. I always get them confused. If the gospels were consistent maybe it wouldn't be so tough :)

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    18. Re:Hmm by leob · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      As for thinking for yourself, is it better to just blindly follow the world's pattern of greed, selfishness, anger, and lust or to seek obedience to God's command in that we love the Lord our God with all of heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves?

      Where does this black-and-white world view come from?
      I, for one, am perfectly capable of forming my own pattern of greed, selfishness and anger, and lust, and pride of it (NB: all in moderation). I don't need to follow anyone else's pattern, thank you. And as far as your obedience, love, heart, soul, mind, strength and other nice qualities stop one inch short of my personal space, I'll love^H^H^H^Hrespect you too as myself.

  17. Hey! by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Using a good pair of binoculars, the object will be bright enough to be seen during this close approach from areas of Europe, Asia and most of the Southern Hemisphere."

    Great. Now even the Universe hates America.

    1. Re:Hey! by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Do these kinds of "asteroid misses Earth" stories make anyone else feel like this is just one big "dunk tank?"

    2. Re:Hey! by pe1rxq · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its pissed of by hollywood's type-casting of asteroids.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:Hey! by GooberToo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The flip side of this is that the universe is taking its practice shots to make sure, when the shot really counts, it hits France with the first shot.

      I know the universe sure would be embarrassed if it was aiming for France and it got Germany. I think these practice shots are pretty important. After all, it's just warming up. ;)

    4. Re:Hey! by crayz · · Score: 1

      You can see a 100ft object 26,500 miles away?

      Does that mean I can see a one foot object 265 miles away?

      A 1.2" object 26.5 miles away?

      They must have bigger binoculars in "Europe, Asia and most of the Southern Hemisphere." I can see Paul Hogan now: "That's not a pair of binoculars. This is a pair of binoculars"

    5. Re:Hey! by ]ix[ · · Score: 1

      If its bright enough you will see it. Do the calculations again but use a star instead of the asteroid, then be amazed that the sky isnt black all the time.

      --
      This is my sig, show me yours
    6. Re:Hey! by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      Light a 1' diameter hunk of Magnesium and see how far you can see it. Well, how far you can see it from while you can still see. (No, it's not a 100 ft hunk of magnesium, but the amount of light emitted would be similar).

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    7. Re:Hey! by bdeclerc · · Score: 1

      Sure you can see it, you just won't "resolve" it. Remember, it'll be visible as a tiny dot of light.

      By your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to see any stars, because they are too "small" to see...

      A light-emitting or reflecting object against a black background can be visible even if it's very very small...

    8. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone cares, I did look up some numbers. The asteroid will reach .15 arc-seconds. Alpha Centauri is .01 arc-seconds. Neptune maxes out at 2 arc-seconds. I don't know how to compute the magnitude of the asteroid, that would be more interesting to compare.

    9. Re:Hey! by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

      Great. Now even the Universe hates America.

      At least you got to see Comet Hale-Bopp. From the Southern Hemisphere, where I live, Hale-Bopp never rose above the horizon during its month of best visibility.

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
    10. Re:Hey! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Wow...I'm constantly amazed at the idiots out there that have no sense of humor. Flamebait? Ya right. What an idiotically moron of a moderator.

      Get a life and sense of humor while you're at it you loser moderator. Shesh.

      What a dolt.

  18. Alien Rock by PRES_00 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The first one is not a miss, it's just used for calibration. The second will be create a 10 cm crater but its organic content will exterminate all life on this miserable rock.

    1. Re:Alien Rock by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Put a warning shot across the bow!"

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    2. Re:Alien Rock by johnalex · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you've forgotten: A firefighting cadet, two college professors, and a geeky-but-sexy government scientist will destroy the organic life with dandruff shampoo.

      --
      JA
      http://www.johnalex.org/
    3. Re:Alien Rock by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      The first one is not a miss, it's just used for calibration.

      Would you like to find out more about killing bugs? Here's how!

  19. This is sserious by cda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Section of an IAU Statement prepared by Dr. David Morrison, 14 March 1998
    The International Astronomical Union's (http://www.intastun.org/) list of 108 known ''potentially hazardous objects,'' or PHOs.
    Most of the asteroids that could strike the Earth and cause a global catastrophe have not yet been found. For the year 2028 (or any other year) the chances of an unknown asteroid hitting the Earth are much greater than the chances of this particular asteroid hitting. If an unknown asteroid should hit us, we would likely have no warning at all. The first we would know of the danger is when we saw the flash of light and felt the ground shake. At the current rate of discovery, it will take more than a century to find 90% or more of the objects this large with Earth-crossing orbits. For better or for worse, the astronomers who carry out these searches and orbit calculations work in the public eye. The idea that a threatening asteroid could be kept secret (or that anyone would want to keep it secret) is ludicrous.
    For further information see the NASA asteroid and comet impact hazard website at:

    1. Re:This is sserious by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The idea that a threatening asteroid could be kept secret (or that anyone would want to keep it secret) is ludicrous.

      I should hope so, but a few weeks ago, wasn't there a potential threat known before passing that wasn't announced after it had already passed? The time was small, so delaying an announcement by a day isn't hard.

    2. Re:This is sserious by cda · · Score: 1

      This is technically hard. There are plenty of people at various Astrocenters, Laboratories that are keeping wyes on this issue. Most of them are here http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Dangerous.htm l Actually if we were hit and I mean a Big Hit we'll be vanished. The current technology we have is limited by means of defense. What probably will be of some assistance has to be a dual objective project - full coordinated planetary monitoring and a set of tools for defense.

  20. How about using the metric system? by Dayflowers · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Its much more practical, and these days everyone is adopting it (with few exceptions).

    --
    I am a speak english. Do you not? - Saroto
  21. Impact risks by xlation · · Score: 3, Informative

    For a long list of Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) see: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/PHACloseApp.h tml

    Also, for information on assessment of the
    impact risks using the Torino Scale, which is
    kinda like the Richter Scale for impact risk,
    see: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

  22. also to be noted by cda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/

    THE SAGA OF ASTEROID AL00667 = 2004 AS1

    Brian G. Marsden (from CCNet, 15 January 2004)

    "That this latest PHA should have generated so much heated discussion on numerous mailing lists and the internet on the basis of four observations covering a time interval of one hour on the morning of Jan. 13 is surely quite amazing. On the routine arrival of the night's LINEAR data at the Minor Planet Center at 5:15 p.m. EST that day, the usual computations on them were quickly done, and, within a matter of minutes, five of the objects were placed on the MPC's WWW "NEO Confirmation Page" as being of potential NEO interest, predictions of the expected positions and their uncertainties being provided in the hope of securing early confirmation from observers in Europe. It was evidently cloudy over most of the continent, however, and the only follow-up observations immediately forthcoming were in fact from a single observer in the U.K. Also according to usual procedures, on the receipt of these U.K. observations, the predictions on the WWW could be quickly and significantly refined, well in time for further observations to be presumably made from North America. There was in fact also rather extensive cloud cover that night over North America, particularly over the numerous professional and amateur observatories in the frequently blessed Southwest.

  23. Stock up on Cambels Soup by gt25500 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At this rate of asteroids getting closer and closer, we're due for impact next month!

    --
    _________ Help me get a PSP!
  24. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by MC_Cancer_Pants · · Score: 1

    If you hear the thunder, that means the lighting didn't kill you.

    When struck by lightning people hardly ever die immediately. Most of the time the residual effects will kill you over the duration of a year or so.

    If you hear the gunshot, the bullet didn't kill you.

    So if I shoot you in the heart, you die immediately? The soundwaves would likely hit you at seemingly the same time as the bullet. I seemed to think that a gunshot wound to the heart or lungs that went untreaed wouldn't kill you for at least 5 minutes.

    If you smell the engine burning, the car wreck didn't kill you.

    Once again, the vital organ thing. Unless your brain suffers damage, fatal damage to your vital organs takes a few minutes to kill you.

    If you are still reading, the asteroid missed.

    Actually, the asteroid just hit me. you lose.

  25. Damn it, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    will one hit us already, the suspense is killing me.

    I always wanted a seaview from my city apartment.

  26. How far away? by pesc · · Score: 3, Informative

    A 100-ft diameter asteroid will make the closest (26,500 miles, or about 3.4 Earth diameters)

    If "feet" or "earth diameters" are not your preferred units of measurement, what the article is trying to say is that the asteroid is about 90m in diameter and will pass the earth at a distance of about 42600 km.

    --

    )9TSS
    1. Re:How far away? by pesc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ouch! meant 30m in diameter. *blush*

      --

      )9TSS
    2. Re:How far away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 3.2808 feet in a metre, for those of you still metrically challenged.

    3. Re:How far away? by Larsing · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And that's exactly why NASA has lost so many Mars probes: the Imperial System

      1 in = 25.4 mm
      1 ft = 12 in
      1 yd = 3 ft
      1 fm = 2 yd
      1 rod = 5 1/2 yds
      1 chain = 4 rod
      1 fur = 10 chain
      1 mile = 8 fur

      I.E. 100 ft = 30.48 m and 26500 miles is, quite correclty, roughly 42600 (42638.5) km.

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    4. Re:How far away? by Seahawk · · Score: 0

      Yes - one could wonder how your original post got modded +4 informative! ;o)

    5. Re:How far away? by interiot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also note that geosynchronous orbit is at 42,250 km. Which means this asteroid is potentially coming very close to some of the satellites we've put up there.

    6. Re:How far away? by TotalTossa · · Score: 1, Funny

      100-ft = 90m?????
      You didn't have anything to do with the previous NASA Mars mission did you?

      --
      No, you can't wash your face in my sig!
    7. Re:How far away? by DiscoDave_25 · · Score: 1

      Or of course this is 1749000 Libraries of Congress high

    8. Re:How far away? by TigerNut · · Score: 3, Interesting
      They didn't say anything about the relative angle at which the asteroid would be approaching. Geostationary sats occupy a fairly narrow belt around the equator (see, for example, this applet - assuming your computer is less Java-hostile than mine) 3D satellite simulator

      Any object approaching from angles significantly above or below the equator will have only a very small chance of nailing a geostationary satellite.

      --

      Less is more.

    9. Re:How far away? by interiot · · Score: 1
      AWESOME link, thanks. :)

      Even if didn't come physically close to one of the satellites, it's still pretty frightening that the asteroid is coming as close to us as our geostationary satellites are.

    10. Re:How far away? by zx75 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, 100ft diameter does not translate into 90m in diameter. Its approximately 30m in diameter, or about 15m radius.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    11. Re:How far away? by catfry · · Score: 1

      Well.. They *are* a third of the way to the moon, so 'close' is a relative term :)

    12. Re:How far away? by ralphh · · Score: 1
      I just think it's interesting to compare this distance to geosynchronous orbit - 35,785 kilometers (22,236 miles).

      It's almost going to pass close enough to (very remotely) endanger satellites.

      --
      "A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
    13. Re:How far away? by Imprestavel · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.com.br/search?q=100+feet+in+m&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=pt-BR&btnG=Pesquisa+Google&meta =
      http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF -8& oe=UTF-8&q=26500miles+in+km&btnG=Pesquisa+Google&m eta=

      giyf hehe

  27. Training material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be prudent to test out a plan to divert these things or blow them while they are still well out in space, yet close enough for us to practice? If you ask me, we should be capitalizing on these opportunities to test out methods of deflection/destruction.

    If they do decide to try this, I just hope that NASA doesn't miscalculate and hit the wrong side of the rock. :)

    1. Re:Training material? by jridley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have no technology that can deflect an asteroid that's going to hit anytime soon. We can't even GET to an asteroid that's going to hit us unless we detect it several orbits back. If it's going to hit soon, then it's so far away that we can't get to it with any booster that we currently have with enough mass to make any difference.

      Hell, we don't even have a booster that could get people to the moon anymore, and even if we still had operational Saturn V's, they still wouldn't boost enough mass out of Earth's gravity well to move a rock that big.

      If we had a moon base (far shallower gravity well), and had big ass boosters there (which we wouldn't; why would we have such a thing?) AND we detected an impactor several YEARS early, we might be able to do something. But if we have a significant impactor in the next 100 years or so, we're pretty much fsck'd. Just have your wild party and watch the shock wave come at you at the end.

    2. Re:Training material? by timbit · · Score: 1

      Well, you know, something in me says that faced with the immenent destruction of our entire race, we could get pretty resourceful. Besides, we don't need to get *people* to the rock, we just need to get a few H-Bombs up there. If the military can hit a tiny little bunker on the other side of the planet, surely they can put their skills to good use and nail a few hundred foot asteroid.

    3. Re:Training material? by jridley · · Score: 1

      With what? We *do* *not* *have* *boosters* that can even take h-bombs out there.

      We're getting, at best, a week's notice. If we had a booster ON THE PAD, ready to go, when we discovered the asteroid, we still couldn't do anything about it. If it's on an elliptical solar orbit, we'll get practically no warning, maybe a day. If we launched instantly, the thing would be within a few hours of impacting when the bomb got to it.

      The bomb isn't going to do much, either. In space, a bomb is just an energy release. Unless it hits very close to the object, it's not going to deflect it AT ALL. So you've got an object coming in at perhaps a mile per second or faster, our rocket going outwards at a mile per second, we don't have really solid ephemeris on the rock so we don't know exactly where it is, and we need to hit it within a hundred yards.

      This is a much different proposition than hitting a stationary target that we know to the inch where it is.

      Even if we got an h-bomb to blow up on the surface, so what? Bombs do not erase mass from the universe, they just break it up or redirect it.

      The mass will still be going the same speed, and will dump the same energy into the Earth when it hits.

      With only a few hours to a day before impact, the mass will still hit the earth. We don't have good enough data to know where it will hit, and we can't guarantee what vector a bomb will impart to the object; we might take something that was going to hit the desert and steer it into Las Vegas.

      I think we should keep impact defense in mind as we develop technology. But building a system strictly for this purpose would be a waste. Building it as part of an outward expansion system would be much more sensible. If we had a lunar base that was used for asteroid mining, then we would have:

      - lunar telescopes that could find these things WAY earlier and with WAY more accuracy
      - mass boosters intended to move asteroids.

      THAT would make sense to do; it would have a payback even if we never encountered a major impactor.

      Also, getting humans off the earth is the only SURE way to survive whatever happens to the Earth. Of course, this is very long term; there's no way we're going to have viable, self-sustaing colonies for hundreds of years yet. But it's a nice goal.

  28. Protect and Swat by FraggedSquid · · Score: 0

    To protest against these all you will need is to build the space elevator and have a guy on the viewing platform with a long baseball bat (or rounders bat if there's a UK version). The World Series would finally mean what it says.

    --
    You don't need a lab to make mud.
  29. Pictures by cuban321 · · Score: 1

    Someone in Europe, Asia, or in the water should take pictures for the rest of us to enjoy!

    Thanks!

  30. You want to know by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Funny

    how much the asteroid will tug the earth?

    Are you serious?

    100 foot diamater. Thats smaller than bunker hill.

    20 busses parked together and loaded with people from Overeaters Anonymous would probably have more mass...

  31. I think you mean 30m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10ft is approximately 3m.

  32. Did we manage to /. NASA? by STFS · · Score: 1
    --
    You don't think enough... therefore you better not be!
    1. Re:Did we manage to /. NASA? by flabbergasted · · Score: 1

      This just proves the danger of these near earth asteroids. While this one wasn't large enough to cause a mass extinction, it was big enough to wipe out a small web server.

  33. Distributed computing? by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there a LINEAR@Home type thing? I would prefer to use my spare cpu cycles protecting life on earth. "meta-environmentalism" I guess.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Distributed computing? by Diphthong · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do not think the project is CPU-bound. If you happen to have an extra GEODSS telescope in your backyard, though, maybe they could use the extra data. :)

    2. Re:Distributed computing? by Zode · · Score: 1

      According to this distributed computing index, there doesn't seem to be a project to detect such objects. Seems like a pretty obvious use of DC, doesn't it?

  34. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by rokzy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    you suck.

    ever heard of a thing called shock?

    even a non-fatal hit totally messes up your senses e.g. when Agent Smith shoots Neo the phone ringing goes quiet.

    btw, most bullets travel much faster than sound.

  35. I am so happy ! by tgrasl · · Score: 3, Funny
    "it is good to know NASA's LINEAR guys are on the job, for when that Death Star-sized object pays us a visit."

    What are they going to do ? Send Bruce Willis up to save us ?

    1. Re:I am so happy ! by Noxx · · Score: 1

      He's the second string choice, now that Mark Hamil has retired.

      --
      Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
  36. dreamed about this by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Wow, I had a dream about an asteroid hitting the earth the other morning [being a dream sequence, all laws of physics are suspended]. I went outside and everybody was looking at the horizon and this round, crater covered cliche' asteroid was coming right at us, and then it just passed right overhead (that was a big relief!). After a few orbits and just as it was about to plunge into the earth it all turned into a Wallace & Grommit clamation scene, so it cratered in claymation with a big sucking noise and out from a ring around the impact area, up popped a bunch of advertisements for stuff.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  37. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

    I think the whole be an optimist in the face of absolute danger concept was lost on you. And it is "if you hear the bullet whistle, you aren't shot" or something to that effect, as when you hear the whistle it means if flew past you.

    --
    Sleep is for the weak.
  38. The real threat of these small ones by bwallace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine if you will that this thing actually penetrated the atmosphere. Okay - so it wouldn't reach ground, but there would likely be a fairly significant blast (this one is only about 1/3 to 2/3 the diameter of the Tunguska object, and that one made a hellish blast).

    Imagine now that this penetrated the atmosphere over, say, North Korea, or the Sea of Japan, or somewhere over India/Pakistan. It is not much of a stretch to suggest that this might precipitate a limited nuclear exchange. Not a for-sure, but enough of a "could-be" that somebody's day could be ruined.

    This is why it is important to look for (small) potentially hazardous objects - not because they will (directly) cause the extinction of the human race, but because they could precipitate an all-too-human conflict, just out of ignorance.

    Note also that, as good a job as LINEAR and others do, there is a class of asteroids that are damn hard to see form the ground - the "Aten"-class asteroids, which orbit mostly inside earths orbit and thus come at us from out of the sun. These ones also need to be catalogued and a watchfull eye kept out for.

    So, when people start to ask the value of asteroid hunting, bring up these ideas. Sadly, nuclear war is a much more real threat to most people compared to mass extinction.

    1. Re:The real threat of these small ones by alfredw · · Score: 1

      From Sky & Telescope's AstroAlert on the asteroid (distributed by email):

      According to the orbit calculated by Gareth Williams, associate director of the Minor Planet Center, 2004 FH belongs to the Aten class of asteroids. It circles the Sun in just under 9 months in very nearly the same plane as Earth's orbit. At perihelion it swings well inside the orbit of Venus; at aphelion (as currently) it ranges just outside that of the Earth.

      Emphasis is mine.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, sig types you!
  39. Who the hell ? by Mr.Dippy · · Score: 0

    Who's shooting all these asteriods at us? Has Johnny Ricco and the RoughNecks been alerted to this?

    --


    -Dipster
  40. 100km? by Eevee · · Score: 1

    Dude, you need to get out more often. 100km is about an hour's worth of driving at highway speeds (or about 40 minutes worth if there aren't any cops out.)

    Basically, you're off by about three magnitudes: Jupiter isn't 140km in diameter, it's around 143,000km.

  41. slide rule, anyone? by malia8888 · · Score: 1
    From the article The asteroid's close flyby, first spied late Monday, poses no risk, NASA astronomers stressed. "It's a guaranteed miss," said astronomer Paul Chodas, of the near-Earth object office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    Makes me hope Paul at the lab made good grades in math:P

    --
    Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
    1. Re:slide rule, anyone? by camsbad · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but we can only hope that the same peeps @ nasa that do the metric > english conversions are not working on this one too !!

    2. Re:slide rule, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > From the article The asteroid's close flyby, first spied late Monday, poses no risk, NASA astronomers stressed. "It's a guaranteed miss," said astronomer Paul Chodas, of the near-Earth object office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
      >
      >Makes me hope Paul at the lab made good grades in math:P

      You'd prefer him to say it was a guaranteed near miss instead?

      According to my calculations, it'll be a near miss. Wait for it... in 3... 2... 1... *WHAMMMMM*

      See? That asteroid nearly missed us!

    3. Re:slide rule, anyone? by azaris · · Score: 1

      From the article The asteroid's close flyby, first spied late Monday, poses no risk, NASA astronomers stressed. "It's a guaranteed miss," said astronomer Paul Chodas, of the near-Earth object office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

      Makes me hope Paul at the lab made good grades in math:P

      "According to my calculations the robots won't go berzerk for at least 24 hours...Oh I forgot to, ah, carry the one."

    4. Re:slide rule, anyone? by Noxx · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Peter and Mary are checking his work in between doobie breaks.

      Wait.

      Is this guy related to Commander Chode? Lemme go find my crash helmet...

      --
      Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
  42. 3 earth diameters.. that's close enough to .. by intertwingled · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If we hadn't wasted billions of dollars on the Space Shuttle we might have the technology now to travel out to that asteroid, and park it in earth orbit. If it is mostly metal then it would be a bonanza grab. And if not, it would make a fine space station. *sigh*

    --
    -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
    1. Re:3 earth diameters.. that's close enough to .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... because we would have had the ability to supply enough delta-V to shift the orbit of a ~30m sphere of metal from sun orbiting to earth orbiting...

      Get a clue. Better yet, get a textbook on orbital mechanics.

    2. Re:3 earth diameters.. that's close enough to .. by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      If we hadn't wasted billions of dollars on the Space Shuttle we might have the technology now to travel out to that asteroid, and park it in earth orbit.

      At which point the liability insurance would eat up all the money and mothball the mission, assuming you could get it. I'm not sure even Lloyd's of London would touch that one.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    3. Re:3 earth diameters.. that's close enough to .. by trinitrotoluene · · Score: 1

      Were the moon missions insured? (Especially the first one.)

      How about the first orbital or sub-orbital flights?

      --
      boom boom boom
    4. Re:3 earth diameters.. that's close enough to .. by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      A failed Moon mission would not have the potential to take out a major population center.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    5. Re:3 earth diameters.. that's close enough to .. by intertwingled · · Score: 1

      The Moties did it. =P

      --
      -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
  43. Upon closer examination... by Slur · · Score: 1

    ...it became apparent their initial impression had been wrong. Said they: "That's no asteroid. It's a space station."

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  44. 100 ft may seem small, but .... by innerweb · · Score: 4, Informative

    From what I am reading in the articles on the net, 100 feet can still create some serious, albeit localized damage. If this bad boy were to hit over the ocean, probably not much, but over land, it could cause serious local destruction. Anyone out there serious about their astronomy?

    The Tunguska Blast over Siberia was an object about 100 meters in diameter. Sure it burned up in the atmosphere, but it was devastating to the ground anyway. This article also mentions that at about 50 meters, these rocks make it through the atmosphere and can do serious localized damage. So, since 100 feet converts to is 30.48 meters, this rock would more than likely to have an effect that we will notice on the ground.

    For further reading, here is a site that has already compiled links and information And, of course, the Yahoo listings on Earth Impact information online.

    InnerWeb

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    1. Re:100 ft may seem small, but .... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I agree, if a rock that size landed in a metropolis before burning up in the atmosphere, I think it could kill hundreds, if not more.

    2. Re:100 ft may seem small, but .... by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      According to the "Solar System Collisions" page:

      ---begin results---
      YOUR COLLISION PARAMETERS

      Projectile: Rocky Asteroid
      Diameter: .03 kilometer(s)
      Velocity: 20.0 km/s
      Target: Earth

      RESULT: Explosion 5-20 km Above Tibet [note: they made this part up;)] in Asia!!
      Energy Released = 2 MT (MegaTons of TNT)
      (Largest Nuclear Weapon: 100 MT)

      A collision this large occurs roughly once every 58 years.
      ---end results---

      Now, we don't know much about this object's composition, so it could be iron. If so, and if it were moving a bit faster (30 km/s), this is what we get:

      ---begin results---
      YOUR COLLISION PARAMETERS

      Projectile: Iron Asteroid
      Diameter: .03 kilometer(s)
      Velocity: 30.0 km/s
      Target: Earth

      RESULT: Impact into Australia [note: they made this part up;)] in Oceania!!
      Energy Released = 12 MT (MegaTons of TNT)
      (Largest Nuclear Weapon: 100 MT)

      QUAKE!! Magnitude 6.3 (largest recorded Earthquake: 9.5)

      Crater Diameter: 752.0 meter(s)
      Crater Depth: 146.0 meter(s)

      A collision this large occurs roughly once every 280 years.
      ---end results---

      If the iron version hit the ocean, it'd create quite a significant tsunami - though not a catastrophic one unless it hit near the shore.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:100 ft may seem small, but .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, since 100 feet converts to is 30.48 meters

      Next time don't bother tracking down some obscure site with a conversion table or function. Just use Google: 100 feet in meters.
    4. Re:100 ft may seem small, but .... by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Using obscure sites introduces them to others. No need to hunt it down, since it is bookmarked. This site offers more than accurate unit conversions.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  45. Meteor Crater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    An 80ft asteroid caused Meteor Crater at 1.2km wide. A 100ft one may likewise not burn up. Meteor Crater

    1. Re:Meteor Crater by 216pi · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of nice pics of craters on earth here.

    2. Re:Meteor Crater by SeaDour · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correction, it was an 80 ft. *METEOR* that created that Arizona scar. The asteroid was probably much, much larger before it plunged through the atmosphere and shrunk into that 80 ft. meteor. - Asteroid: the rock before it touches our atmosphere - Meteorite: the rock as it's plunging through our atmosphere - Meteor: the rock after it's hit the ground.

    3. Re:Meteor Crater by skinny.net · · Score: 1

      Correction, part two:
      Asteroid: the object before it touches our atmosphere; a large meteoroid.
      Meteorite: The rock after it hits the ground.
      Meteor: The light display of a meteoroid entering the earth's atmosphere.

    4. Re:Meteor Crater by skinny.net · · Score: 1

      An 80' meteorite caused Meteor Crater at 4000 feet across. The original asteroid was much larger. I suppose 'Meteor Crater' has a better ring to it than 'meteorite crater.'

      A meteor is simply the light display of a meteoroid entering the earth's atmosphere. Meteor == shooting star.

    5. Re:Meteor Crater by rocket97 · · Score: 1

      Correction, it was an 80 ft. *METEOR* that created that Arizona scar. The asteroid was probably much, much larger before it plunged through the atmosphere and shrunk into that 80 ft. meteor. - Asteroid: the rock before it touches our atmosphere - Meteorite: the rock as it's plunging through our atmosphere - Meteor: the rock after it's hit the ground.

      if you are going to try to act smart at least get your facts correct.

      Meteorite: Stony or metallic object that is the remains of a meteoroid that has reached the earth's surface.

      Meteor: A bright trail or streak that appears in the sky when a meteoroid is heated to incandescence by friction with the earth's atmosphere. Also called falling star, meteor burst, shooting star.

      --
      "The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
    6. Re:Meteor Crater by mog007 · · Score: 1

      You forgot "Meteroid" which is a synonym for "asteroid". Watch that continuity!

    7. Re:Meteor Crater by SeaDour · · Score: 1

      *bites his foot* Apologies, everyone. Thank you for correcting me. But the point of my comment remains: the asteroid was considerably larger than 80 feet before it struck the ground.

    8. Re:Meteor Crater by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      But the point of my comment remains: the asteroid was considerably larger than 80 feet before it struck the ground.

      And what's the basis of this claim? The NASA web site called it an 80 ft asteroid.

  46. This one *does* orbit inside the Earth's orbit. by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

    Note also that, as good a job as LINEAR and others do, there is a class of asteroids that are damn hard to see form the ground - the "Aten"-class asteroids, which orbit mostly inside earths orbit and thus come at us from out of the sun. These ones also need to be catalogued and a watchfull eye kept out for.

    The JPL web page about this asteroid gives a diagram of its orbit, and it is mostly within the Earth's orbit. They don't say whether the picture is the "before" or "after" picture --- the pass near Earth changes its direction by 15 degrees, which will make a noticeable change to its orbit.

  47. Personally it worries me we discover them so late by arock99 · · Score: 0

    Personally it worries me that this asteroid wasnt found until only 2 days ago (according to the newscientist article). This isnt the first time either, a few months ago a much larger asteroid was not discovered until AFTER it passed earth. Both cases are too late to do something about should one be on a colision course with earth. I think better monitoring has to be in place.

  48. Solar system collisions simulator by copper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plug in some numbers and find out :)

    copper

    1. Re:Solar system collisions simulator by bbc22405 · · Score: 1

      Interesting.
      That page to which you linked says that impact speed will always be at least 11.2km/sec if you try to give it a lower number than that.

      I couldn't find anywhere the speed of 2004 FH at it's nearest approach.

      A web page said it will take 31 hours to pass completely cross the moon's orbital path. Moon orbits at 384,000km radius, I think. Simple math for that yields 6.9 km/sec, I think. So, that's a rough lower bound. (2004 FH might not travel a full moon diameter. On the other hand, as it falls toward earth, it speeds up, then slows down as it leaves. The 6.9 km/sec is obviously an average across moon's orbit.) So, at what erm tangential speed will it pass, and if we'd moved it over the needed 4 earth diameters, how fast would it be moving then at impact? (I.e., what number should I plug into that web page?)
      The remaining variable is the composition of the asteroid. Wooo, maybe it's made or iron!

    2. Re:Solar system collisions simulator by Shanes · · Score: 1

      Acording to the NEO Close approach page the relative velocity of 2004 FH will be 8.0 km/s.

  49. Calin by BlueTooth · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Near miss? It's a near hit! A collission is a near miss. BOOM! Look, they nearly missed"
    -George Carlin

    --
    SPAM
  50. Distributed seeing by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Informative
    The computations aren't that hard given the quality of data they have to work with. A lot of these objects are spotted once and never seen again for a variety of reasons. What's needed are more data, not more cpu cycles.

    Amatuer astronomers continue to make significant contributions to the field. It was an amatuer who first noticed that al0667 might hit the earth and it was another amatuer who recorded the key observation that placed the same object on a safe trajectory. If you're serious about wanting to help spot these things, you can start here.

  51. A not-entirely offtopic story by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have an acquaintance. Call him...Jack. (Name changed to protect the obsessed.) Jack has picked two goddamn things about which we can do absolutely nothing to freak him out: near-Earth asteroids and megavolcanoes. He was my friend's boss for a while, and we ended up at a lot of the same parties and restaurants and such. He would always corner me, because I was usually the only aerospace engineer there, and talk for hours about how life as we know it was shortly going to be wiped out by a really big rock, and how this was the greatest threat ever to face humanity.

    After this happened a couple of times, I told him that I was comfortable playing the odds that an extinction-level event would hold off for the couple of centuries it would take us to actually be able to deal with it, given the scale of geologic time time to human achievement. He nearly spit his beer across the room.

    In conclusion: Space is really big, really empty, and some people just need things to worry about.

    -Carolyn

    --
    Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
    1. Re:A not-entirely offtopic story by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      I was comfortable playing the odds

      As if we have any other choice. What good is all of his worrying gonna do? "Greatest threat ever to face humanity," fine. But if there's nothing we can do about it for a while, he's not exactly affecting the situation much by moaning about it, is he?

      Sorry, some people just don't have enough "real world" problems.

    2. Re:A not-entirely offtopic story by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, pretty much.

      But he's a cool guy outside his flaming-death-of-all-humanity fixation.

      -Carolyn

      --
      Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
    3. Re:A not-entirely offtopic story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That or, a la Matinee, he was trying to lower your inhibitions ...

    4. Re:A not-entirely offtopic story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would always corner me, because I was usually the only aerospace engineer there

      Or, uh, more likely because your name was "Carolyn" and not "Steve".

    5. Re:A not-entirely offtopic story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another good point to make when someone says that something like this is the "greatest threat ever" is that the threat has existed as long as humans have.

      Also point out that statistically, there is no such thing as being "overdue" for an event; for something that is random (or effectively random) and occurs on average once every N years, it's no more likely for it to occur again in the year last+N than it was in the year last+1.

  52. Bah, there goes the neighborhood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    100-ft "asteroids", teeny-weenie new "planets" .. the solar-system is going to hell in a hand-cart these days. Couldn't we get some of those hot super-jovians like other solar-systems have?

  53. A gifthorse is disguise? by Hiigara · · Score: 1

    Really these NEA are like a universal strip tease rather then big rocks of death. Imagine parking a couple of these things in orbit, we could mine it out and turn it into a space station. We could even use it as to start a human colony in orbit. If it was slightly bigger that is. :/

  54. So, a question for the astronomers by Walkiry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That good fellow is going to pass quite close to earth. Now, the question I have is, how close does an asteroid such as this have to pass so that it is captured by Earth's gravitational field and become a satellite? It could be useful to have a big rock in stable orbit.

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    1. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Now, the question I have is, how close does an asteroid such as this have to pass so that it is captured by Earth's gravitational field and become a satellite?

      It can't. The approach speed and retreat speed relative to the Earth has to be the same- due to conservation of energy. By definition, a meteorite approaching the earth arrives with higher than escape velocity so it is only going to be a visitor (unless it hits the Earth or the Moon).

      There are only 2 ways that an object can end up in Earth orbit, and neither are likely to be stable:

      a) just skimming the Earths atmosphere, deeply enough that it loses enough speed on the first pass to stay in Earth orbit (trouble is this orbit will still intersect the atmosphere on each pass- this means that its orbit will rapidly decay.)

      b) be perturbed by the moons gravity and locked into orbit. However this too is likely to be only a short term thing, since the orbit that it would end up on nearly intersects the orbit of the moon, and after a few months the moon will end up perturbing it again- the object will be ejected from the earth-moon system sooner or later, usually sooner.

      That's actually why there aren't any rocks except the moon in Earth orbit right now- it's essentially impossible for them to be captured.

      It could be useful to have a big rock in stable orbit.

      Most people call this 'the moon' :-)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      *Scratch head*

      Well, bear with me, my strong point is biochemistry :D

      But if that's the case, how does it work for those satellites that are considered to be "captured" by planets, like Neptune's Nereid? Does that involve the collision of two or more objects or something like that?

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    3. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      But if that's the case, how does it work for those satellites that are considered to be "captured" by planets, like Neptune's Nereid? Does that involve the collision of two or more objects or something like that?

      It's really not very well understood. What you are suggesting would probably work though.

      Some planets like Jupiter- it has so many big moons that it's pretty easy to see how it can gain/lose moons; but the Earth and Mars with only one big moon and two tiny moons respectively; it's a bit hard to see how that came about.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Jupiter and Neptune have a LOT more mass than Earth, so it might be easier for them to slow down an incoming asteroid and get it to stay in orbit. As for Mars and Earth, there are theories that the moon came from earth when an asteroid hit it during the early stages of the solar system's formation, the asteroid's hit could have caused the moon to spin out away from the earth, but not at such a speed to escape the earth's gravity. As far as Mars goes, both Daimos and Phobos are very tiny when compared to earth's moon, they probably got snagged by Martian gravity from the asteroid belt.

    5. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Jupiter and Neptune have a LOT more mass than Earth, so it might be easier for them to slow down an incoming asteroid and get it to stay in orbit.

      The problem is that gravity is a 'conservative force' which means that it doesn't on it's own change the speed of incoming asteroids, which means they can't get captured.

      What can happen though is that gravity can rearrange the energy among multiple moons- for example an incoming asteroid can bounce around the Jupiter system- interacting with half a dozen moons and gradually edge its way into a stable position.

      A lone planet has *no* way of capturing moons. The origin of Deimos and Phobos is very problematic; it is an open research question.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    6. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by pclminion · · Score: 1
      The problem is that gravity is a 'conservative force' which means that it doesn't on it's own change the speed of incoming asteroids

      Sure it can. Energy is conserved, but some of it could be transferred to the massive object. How do you think gravitational "slingshotting" works? This is the same thing, except in reverse.

      It would require a very specific set of conditions for an asteroid to be captured by a planet. It would have to approach the planet "from behind" (i.e., in the same direction as the planet is moving, overtaking the planet), coming close enough to be deflected around the planet. This "manuever" would result in some of the asteroid's momentum being transferred to the planet, decreasing the kinetic energy of the asteroid.

      In order to actually enter orbit, it would be helpful to have other bodies nearby. The actual capture process would be a complicated interaction. But anyway, the basic point is that an asteroid can loop around a planet and emerge with more kinetic energy than it started with -- it just means that the kinetic energy of the planet has been reduced accordingly.

    7. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Energy is conserved, but some of it could be transferred to the massive object. How do you think gravitational "slingshotting" works? This is the same thing, except in reverse.

      Um. Actually no. That's a three body process.

      In order to actually enter orbit, it would be helpful to have other bodies nearby.

      Essential.

      But anyway, the basic point is that an asteroid can loop around a planet and emerge with more kinetic energy than it started with -- it just means that the kinetic energy of the planet has been reduced accordingly.

      This turns out not to be the case; atleast from the point of view of the center of mass between the planet and the asteroid; unless there is a third body involved.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    8. Re:So, a question for the astronomers by weecol · · Score: 1

      have you considered the affects of an additional moon?
      We would get extra events like the ones we already experience from the moon:
      Tides and eclipses to name a couple.

      --
      A sig is only as good as it's creator, that doesn't mean it is as good as it's creator.
  55. Spellcheck, you're our only hope! (more sarcastic) by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    "the object is ~30kmmeters across"

    not 30 kmmeters. 30 meters. I dont think this qualifies as a planet, compared to the approx 1700km diameter of Sedna...

    are you a troll or what?

  56. I'd hate to be a by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    geo-synchronous satellite. 26km is just about their orbit. Shouldn't we try to protect them?!?

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    1. Re:I'd hate to be a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of a huge lump of rock whizzing past all that stuff nicely spaced out around the Clarke orbit. I do hope it gives my satellite TV company a butt-puckering moment.

    2. Re:I'd hate to be a by MURL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Geosynchrous orbit is 22,500 miles or 36,210 km. This thing could definitely take one out.

      --
      --- Have you seen MURL?
    3. Re:I'd hate to be a by jridley · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that *should* be modded as "funny".

      Sure, what do you suggest? Maybe we should spend a billion buck or so to go out and tweak it on the 1-in-10^6 (probably way higher, I'm just guessing) chance that it'll hit a $50M bird?

    4. Re:I'd hate to be a by Noxx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Won't someone _please_ think of the satellites?!?!

      --
      Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
    5. Re:I'd hate to be a by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      +funny (even if it was a little weak ;)

      The birds are quite expensive like $250M (or $1B - the reference to SIGINT is unclear) or Thuraya multi-part system at $1.1B or $350M satellites.

      But I think setting up a system to protect them would also gain us much knowledge to protect us, which is a much bigger task. (I also concur in advance that the system would have a harder time detecting smaller objects, but an easier time dealing with them, as compared to those objects damaging to the planet. Of course, the detection network could server double duty)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:I'd hate to be a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that we should probably be more worried about solar storms damaging satellites, which can definitely happen.

  57. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What a classic /. response. This guy quotes reality, based on what he's seen on The Matrix.

    Our schools have failed.

  58. luckily we have gen-x'ers by enrico_suave · · Score: 2, Funny

    We have a whole fleet of people who have grown up practicing on the USS Triangle using vector based simulation software (asteroids).

    e.

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
  59. Beans? by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    What so they can have healthy foody AND a clean energy source

  60. Perhaps you should actually read what it says by hpulley · · Score: 2, Informative
    ...While we are in no danger this time, it is good to know NASA's LINEAR guys are on the job, for when that Death Star-sized object pays us a visit.

    The heading doesn't say the current 100 ft object is Death Star-sized. It says the author is glad LINEAR will be on the job for the time when one that large comes by.

    --
    $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
  61. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by trinitrotoluene · · Score: 1

    Haven't you seen Blackhawk Down?

    "A his means it's close, a snap-" And then the shooting started.

    Presumably, a snap is not close.

    --
    boom boom boom
  62. The effects are calculated here by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    THIS may come to pass.

  63. Well, out with it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    For further information see the NASA asteroid and comet impact hazard website at:

    [ Reply to This ]

    Don't leave us hanging here.
  64. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

    Bullet wounds often cause hydrostatic shock, so you may very well get nasty brain hemorrhaging from a bullet shot to the torso.

  65. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

    "If you hear the thunder, that means the lighting didn't kill you.

    When struck by lightning people hardly ever die immediately. Most of the time the residual effects will kill you over the duration of a year or so."

    Either way, your ear drums explode, and people never hear (they hardly even remember) the "lighting".

    "If you hear the gunshot, the bullet didn't kill you.

    So if I shoot you in the heart, you die immediately? The soundwaves would likely hit you at seemingly the same time as the bullet. I seemed to think that a gunshot wound to the heart or lungs that went untreaed wouldn't kill you for at least 5 minutes.
    "

    You need to study what happens with sound waves more, if the bullet is supersonic, and it hits you in the brain, there isn't a chance you'd hear it, even if you survived, you wouldn't hear it due to the fact your in the noise "cone".

    "If you smell the engine burning, the car wreck didn't kill you.

    Once again, the vital organ thing. Unless your brain suffers damage, fatal damage to your vital organs takes a few minutes to kill you."

    I think he meant as in instant death. If your brain is squishyed, you wouldn't hear anything, even if you survived, if your neck is broken, you wouldn't smell anything.

    "If you are still reading, the asteroid missed.

    Actually, the asteroid just hit me. you lose."

    Doubtful, the asteroid of this size would explode in the atmosphere, demolitioning everything underneath it. This happen in Siberia a few years back, looked like someone dropped a N-bomb, but it was from the shockwaves. A direct hit would be possible if your in that new high altitude plane..

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
  66. They discovered this thing on *Monday*? by smithmc · · Score: 1


    Wow, that leaves me remarkably free of warm fuzzy feelings.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  67. Actually, land is better by Kombat · · Score: 1

    If this bad boy were to hit over the ocean, probably not much, but over land, it could cause serious local destruction.

    Actually, it would do much, much more damage if it hit the water than if it hit land. If it were to hit land, it would completely destroy a (relatively) small area, killing up to a few thousand people (depending on the population density of where it hit).

    If it were to hit water, on the other hand, the resulting wave would potentially wipe out hundreds of kilometers of shoreline on either side of the ocean, killing far more people and destroying much more property. Also, there would be a delay of several minutes, or even hours (depending on where it hit) between impact in the ocean and the actual tidal waves hitting the shore. Imagine the panic as millions of people tried to flee the shoreline areas. The deaths, injury, and destruction from that panic alone would rival the toll of a land-bound impact, before the tidal wave even arrived!

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  68. not closet approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely the approach photographed over Grand Teton in the late 70s qualifies as a closer approach? It was in the atmosphere!

    Surely Chixulub, Arizona Meteor, the Iowa incident during the baseball game many decades ago, Tunguska, not to mention many other astroblemes show closer approaches than 'mere' geosynchronous altitude?

  69. if we had a couple weeks notice.. by clem9796 · · Score: 1

    What about aiming a nuke at it? a little test of the actual first hand effects of detonating a nuke on the surface of an oncoming asteriod would be a useful experiment. Modified trajectory, actual damage incurred... this would be a great opportunity!

    --
    IANALOOA
  70. Some Deductions by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Look at the facts and deduce your answer. I didn't have time to googleconfirm any of this, so I assume the risks of some numerical errors.

    Man-made objects that come down are very light, hollow and fairly slow. Asteroids and comets are guaranteed to be the opposite.

    Asteroids are 2 different types: metallic, stony and finally "carbonaceous chondrite". The metallic are essentially chunks of nickel-iron. The stony are just rock. And the CC types are rocky but composed significantly of some ices and other nearly-organic material.

    (Comets are mostly icy material with some rocky inclusions ... there may even be a small core, or it may end up being a rubble pile after most of the ices burn away. The 1908 Tunguska event was probably a small comet, which exploded in the strato- or tropo-sphere. Still, it caused enormous damage in a vast ellipse over Siberia.)

    Knowing these things, we can perhaps make some deductions.

    A 100ft object of asteroidal material (often compacted rubble) probably weighs at most 120LB per cubic foot. I say this since 150LB/ft3 is a good rule of thumb for any rock you pick up on Earth. Hence, assuming a roughly spherical shape, the object will weigh ~31000 tons.

    The largest man-made object to destructively re-enter couldn't have exceeded 100 tons. Hence, the object is over 300 times more massive.

    It is also coming in at interplanetary speeds; since these tend to be about 30km/s, and orbit is about 7km/s, then it will encounter (30/7)^2 more resistance upon re-entry ... about 16 times the forces ever encountered by Mir or Skylab.

    Opposing that: 300 times the mass. I can only imagine that the mass will win.

    Now, "win" means that it will overpower destructive re-entry ... that it probably won't "burn up". But we must allow for the chances of mid-entry detonation.

    This depends on what type of asteriodal material that the 30m object is, and how that material is arranged. The less metallic, and the more rubblized, then the greater the chances that it will explode, and the higher up it will do so. Even at 31kt mass, re-entry is harsh enough to force streams of plasma into even small cracks, and the pressure can crack it open along many fault lines. With volatile ices stuffed through the object, this becomes even more explosive.

    Overall, even not knowing the object's composition except to bet that it's asteroidal and not cometary, I'd say that if it did aim for the Earth, we'd be in for at least a huge explosion in the upper atmosphere. I don't have the equations sitting before me, but such an explosion can be in the ten-megaton range. But this explosion can happen anytime before it strikes the ground.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    1. Re:Some Deductions by Liquor · · Score: 1

      According to the Linear impact risk page, the total impact energy for 2004FH would be 380Kilotons of TNT, i.e. about 30 Hiroshima bombs.

      High in the atmosphere - Hmm, is the EMP effect from a nuclear airburst actually dependent on the energy source being nuclear?

      --

      Liquor
      Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
    2. Re:Some Deductions by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      380Kt? Wow, I was off by an order of magnitude. Shit.

      EMP is an electromagnetic event. I'm not exactly sure, but it is a natural byproduct of a thermonuclear explosion where a lot of radiation is produced (and EM is radiation).

      I'd expect something similar from an asteroidal explosion, since the plasma of the re-entry (why do I call it "re" entry since it never was in the atmosphere the first time? ... "entry") produces electromagnetic energy. Recall that the re-entry plasma envelope has always been a signal blocker to ships returning from space (and only recently that satellites have been used to get signals to the Shuttle from the rear where the envelope is essentially open).

      But at best, entry plasma produces weak EMism. Like lightning, meteors produce EM pulses ... they are just far weaker. People have even come up with a transmission methodology that capitalizes on the intermittent small meteors that happen in the sky all the time ... they make use of the plasma trails, envelopes and explosion plumes. The signals bounce from these in over-the-horizon shots.

      I can see that the EMP of even a 1000ft (Tunguska sized?) asteroid entry is nothing to worry about.

      I'd say EMP detection is one way to determine if a large atmospheric explosion was due to cosmic material. That, and residual radioactivity readings around the area.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  71. Increasing number of fireballs? by freeweed · · Score: 1

    Either there's an ever increasing number of asteroids coming ever closer to Earth (unlikely methinks)

    Actually, I've been wondering about this lately, and perhaps some Slashdotters can confirm/deny my observations:

    I've always been a sky-watcher. Since before I was in school, I've been looking at the sky. Many summer nights I've spent looking for meteors, etc. So for the past 20 odd years, I've been regularly looking up at night. Often for hours at a time.

    Now, in the past year or so, I've noticed a lot more fireballs than usual. For those that don't know, fireballs are like a shooting star, but instead of a short, dim streak, you see something that lasts several seconds and is a LOT brighter. Essentially, things with more mass/lower speeds that last a lot longer before burning up. I haven't been looking up more often, in fact a lot less now that I'm back in school. But I'm finding that at least once a month (sometimes several times in a night) I see a fireball. Not because I'm staring up for hours at a time - I'm talking while driving home, or going out on the porch for a breath of air for 5 minutes.

    When I was a kid/young adult, most nights I'd be lucky to catch 1 or 2 shooting stars an hour. A fireball maybe once a year, and it was very memorable. These days, I'm hardly looking up and yet I see regular fireballs, sometimes as often as 2 or 3 in a night.

    I realize this is entirely unscientific, but it's freaking me out. Before this past year (other than the wonderful Leonids in 2001), I think in my life I'd seen maybe a dozen fireballs. In the past year alone, I've seen easily that many. I've not seen anyone else mention this online (or obviously in mainstream news), just wondering if anyone else out in Slashdot land has noticed the same thing.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Increasing number of fireballs? by Zaak · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid/young adult, most nights I'd be lucky to catch 1 or 2 shooting stars an hour. A fireball maybe once a year, and it was very memorable. These days, I'm hardly looking up and yet I see regular fireballs, sometimes as often as 2 or 3 in a night.

      My first guess would be de-orbiting space junk. The number of tracked debris objects that deorbit increases every year.

      TTFN

    2. Re:Increasing number of fireballs? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Well I'm sure asteroids and the like aren't really scattered uniformly throughout space, many many are formed by processes resulting in 'clusters' of objects (such as Leonids). I would guess, or at least it even seems likely to me, that it would be natural to have some variation then even over longer periods (e.g. months, days, years, decades, centuries) as various bits of various such 'clusters' in the galaxy pass through our solar system. The duration would depend on the nature of the objects (e.g. a long destroyed planet or moon or asteroid (cf. asteroid belt?)), and the speed and distribution of the objects. So if we imagine some event similar to e.g. what created the asteroid belt, but without the objects remaining in orbit around something large but rather simply 'floating off' into space and slowly becoming relatively widely spread out, then those bits and pieces, were they to pass through our solar system, could conceivably create a statistically measurable increase in such 'fireballs' over the course of years or decades. If you've been observing for twenty or thirty years, that is just a 'blink of the eye' on the planet's timescale, such fluctuations probably occur all the time over millenia.

  72. Almost geosynchronous height! by pvera · · Score: 3, Informative

    Back in my Army SSDC days our main geosynchronous comms satellites were on a 22,300 mile orbit. This thing is going to pass just above. Suddenly these 26,500 miles don't look *that* far to me.

    --
    Pedro
    ----
    The Insomniac Coder
    1. Re:Almost geosynchronous height! by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      chances of a 30m rock hitting your satellite in geosynchronous orbit?

      About 30 in 1.15E+16 (one chance on the way in, one chance on the way out)

      (If asteroids like that arrive every 280 years, you might expect one to hit the satellite during the first 2E+17 years, if the satellite is still there after so long)

    2. Re:Almost geosynchronous height! by pvera · · Score: 1

      You did not get my post. After 5 years spent keeping two SSDC satellites clicking and ticking, those 22,300 miles feel really damn close. That's why to me the rock zipping by at 26,500 miles is of an order of magnitude that I can grasp too well for my comfort.

      Plus, if the trajectory is known then FMC can order a temporary relocation maneuver to push the bird in danger out enough so the probability of impact is null.

      BTW, sorry for the acronyms. SSDC is Space and Strategic Defense Command (the former Army Space Command). For some reason I never figured out, DoD comm payloads are run by the Army, and the other onboard systems are run by the USAF. FMC is Falcon Mission Control in Colorado Springs, the guys who would do the actual orbital maneuvers.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
  73. The year, 2004 by garang · · Score: 1

    "From out of space, comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the moon, unleashing cosmic destruction. Man's civilization is cast in ruin. Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn. A strange new world rises from the old. A world of savagery, super-science, and sorcery. But one man bursts his bonds to fight for justice. With his companions, Ookla the Mok and Princess Ariel, he pits his strength, his courage, and his fabulous Sunsword, against the forces of evil. He is Thundarr, the Barbarian!"
    (thanks IMDB)

  74. No, grandparent is correct. by SB9876 · · Score: 1

    Uh, no.
    The parent is entirely correct. Incoming meteors have enough velocity that the air on the front is actually compressed to a solid with a complete vacuum behind. The pressure differential very efficiently transfers the reentry energy to the material of the meteor, causing it to explode with enormous force.

    The Tunguska explosion of 1908 is now believed to have been a stone asteroid about 100 feet in diameter that blew up through this very mechanism.

    If this metor had been a stone one, we'd have seen a nice recreation of the Tunguska blast. Had it occurred over a populated area, it would have been equivalent to a multimegaton nuke going off.

    1. Re:No, grandparent is correct. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Ah..no.

      You may want to re-read what the original post said. He was talking about internal pressures. Not external pressures where the astroid might be caught in between.

    2. Re:No, grandparent is correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure if it occured over an unpopulated area it would be equivalent to a nuke going off also... it would just not matter quite as much.

  75. The World Is Ending! by heekee · · Score: 1

    Time to retreat to the United Heekee Society..

  76. Re:Personally it worries me we discover them so la by jridley · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't matter. See my other post in this thread here. We couldn't do anything about it anyway; we don't have the equipment and even if we had a Saturn V to bolt onto this thing and fire, it wouldn't give it enough delta-V to help unless we'd detected it in time to get the rocket there and firing at least weeks in advance.

  77. Superman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe a super human being will come down in his spaceship during the ensuing chaos and we will one day have a superman on our hands.

    --Note to self: Stay out of smallville, USA when this happens.

  78. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by flewp · · Score: 1

    It's not that the schools have failed, it's just that Matrix has won. Or was it the terrorists? Ahh, forget it.

    --
    WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  79. geosynchronous orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The distance this asteroid is to approach is very close to geosyncrhronous orbit ( 22,241 miles); wonder if it'll get close enough to any sattellites to take a few of them out.....

  80. Are we on the bullseye in 2053? by Liquor · · Score: 3, Informative

    I may be reading the impact risk table wrong, but right now it seems to say that the distance it will miss by on Jan 12, 2053 is .01 earth radius. I assume that this means that we are very near the center of the area of uncertainty about where it will impact, and that the areo of uncertainty is currently extremely large.

    On the other hand, I seem to recall that most previous predicted near misses had us further out from the centroid, and as the orbital data was refined, the area of uncertainty shrank until we were no longer in it. I suspect that reducing the uncertainty without changing the orbital prediction would raise the calculated risk with time.

    As I read it the impact energy would be about equal to a 300Kiloton bomb. Not a particularly large hazard area if it came straight down (it probably won't), but it would certainly be big enough to mess up somebody's day. For that matter, has anyone actually run a prediction of what the effects (thermal, weather, etc.) would be from a grazing strike where it travelled parallel to the surface for a long way before breaking up or leaving the atmosphere?

    --

    Liquor
    Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
    1. Re:Are we on the bullseye in 2053? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      A grazing strike would mean more atmosphere to pass through, burning off more of the asteroid, and making it more likely to break up before reaching the surface.

      I'm not sure how different the damage would be if it hit the ground. A low velocity strike will splash a lot more debris in the direction of the impact, but I have the impression that the cratering caused by this type of impact is caused more by extremely hot vaporized material expanding in all directions from the site rather than just the asteroid pushing stuff out of its way. Most large craters seem to be pretty circular, anyway...

  81. We came pretty close. by icejai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It takes the earth about 6 minutes to travel a distance equivalent of its own diameter.
    So basically, to avoid a direct hit, the the timing of of a near-earth-asteroid only needs to be altered by 6 minutes over the course of its orbit(s).

    What I can't get over is that we *missed* this asteroid by only 12 to 18 minutes!

    That's just crazy.

  82. Re:Spellcheck, you're our only hope! (more sarcast by Liquor · · Score: 1

    Yep 30 Kilo-millimeters. Same thing.

    Oh, and put a warning on the wall outlets - "Caution 115,000 millivolts" while you're at it.

    --

    Liquor
    Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
  83. In reply to the last story.. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Slashdot just had a story a couple of days ago about finding ways to detect/destroy planet-killer asteroids. There were a lot of comments to the tune of "well the odds are really low of being killed by an asteroid, so we should cure cancer instead because rocket scientists can easily slide into that position." Does this asteroid open your eyes a bit?

    The chances of Earth being hit by an asteroid aren't one in a million. They're one in two. That's right, 1:2. Either we will be hit or we will not. The variable is when. Question is: Do you want to bet your species on it, or do you want to be prepared?

    Sorry for the rant guys, still got a little bit of steam to blow off from people trying to downplay asteroid impacts with odds. The truth is, we just can't see far enough to have enough time to do something about it. I'm hoping that more funding and technology make their way towards watching the sky a little more carefully.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:In reply to the last story.. by Warlok · · Score: 1

      I like to think of it this way...

      It's a big farking universe out there.

      These asteroids are missing Earth.

      They're also missing the Sun, which is a lot bigger and has a lot more pull around here than Earth does.

      At this stage in our technological evolution, what can we do about them anyway? Nuclear missiles strikes to deflect/break up the rock? Ask Bruce Willis and his team to attach some rocket packs to deflect it? Ask everyone on Earth to lean East at once to speed up our rotation a bit so the asteroid hits in the ocean?

      When there's something that can be done, let's do it as fast and as well as we can. When there's nothing to be done, worry is wasted thought.

      --
      ...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
    2. Re:In reply to the last story.. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "They're also missing the Sun, which is a lot bigger and has a lot more pull around here than Earth does."

      Actually, that great big pull is probably what's protecting the sun. Pulls them into orbit instead of sucking them in (as well as the Earth) like a giant vaccuum.

      "At this stage in our technological evolution, what can we do about them anyway?"

      Given enough time, we develop the means. If the means are unfruitful, then alternative plans to save the race from extinction can go into effect. Just because we don't have an anti-asteroid missile today doesn't mean something creative can't be developed.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  84. NASA is worse than Microsoft by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

    I swear they come up with the worst FUD ever.

    Congress told them to scan for only objects 1km or larger. They are out there finding pebbles. The Siberian Explosion has never been confirmed to have actually been an asteroid, and not only that, but it'd be nigh impossible to determine the actual size of it.

  85. Re:Spellcheck, you're our only hope! (more sarcast by br0ck · · Score: 1

    Not really a troll. He's just trying to be funny. If you read his subject, his intention was to be like a sarcastic version of the (awful!) movie Armageddon with Ben Afflec. It seems obvious when you realize that the original article IS ABOUT NEA 2004 FH. This is NOT another asteroid!

    And if you click the 30 km mmeters link, it goes to a Google conversion of 30,000 meters equalling 30 meters. All just silliness. Laugh?

  86. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, it's not just a slashdot thing but an (North-?) American thing: "I saw it in the movies so it must be true!"

  87. Exactly by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    Thanks, that's what I meant.

    IOW, when armageddon comes - i.e., the LARGE object visits - we'll have a few hours notice.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  88. From the book of Revelation: by Non+Dufus · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Rev 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
    Rev 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
    Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

    Now just hope they don't name some asteroid "Wormwood".

    1. Re:From the book of Revelation: by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

      Nah, they named a city Wormwood.

      Though you probably know it better as Chernobyl...

  89. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new Asteroid Overlords...

  90. Insight from the AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why is it that we never heard of all those people worrying about asteroids say... two years ago? They weren't dangerous before?

    I'm not threatened by a passing fad...

    Also i wonder if this near-miss is gonna prompt some other sect to kill itself so all of it's disciples can "take a ride on the comet towards our gods" like what happened when we last heard about a large asteroid doing a near-miss.

  91. Blimey! by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    These asteroids keep getting closer and closer, until someday .... bang!

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  92. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by sharkdba · · Score: 1

    even a non-fatal hit totally messes up your senses e.g. when Agent Smith shoots Neo the phone ringing goes quiet.

    and

    This guy quotes reality, based on what he's seen on The Matrix.

    I don't think he based his statement on what he's seen on the Matrix. The statement he used is true (shock messing up the senses), he just used Matrix as an example, since most /.ers can relate to this easily. It's a difference quoting a movie to prove something, as opposed to just illustrate a point. Hollywood even though it dramatizes things, sometimes do make good illustrations of life problems.

    --
    The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
  93. I betcha we would all die by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

    because of another metric conversion error! :(

  94. Ignorance is *better* by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
    Why are we even looking for these and freaking out the "less informed"? This search is rather futile at this time. Even if we find a large hunk of rock heading our way, we will have NO way to do anything about it.

    If we even have a 100m ball of iron heading our way at 30km/s, that ball of Iron would have the kinetic energy of ~2e19J. And since on megaton of TNT is 4.18e15J, then the ball of iron has the energy of 4500 megatons of TNT!! How the hell are we suppose to defend against that (with today's technology)??? We can't even hit the damn thing, not to mention changing its orbit!!

    If the same ball of iron travels at 40km/s, then it has the energy of 18000 megatons of TNT!!

    Of course, most of the crap flying around might be (is) significantly larger than that. Anyway, until we can move asteroids around at will, there is really no point in finding objects that threaten us - WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEM!!!

    Futhermore, more people will probably end up dead as a result of stress that these "discoveries" do to people.

    I say we ignore these things until we can actually do something about them (a sign of actually be able to do something about asteroids might be when people finally have a mining operation on an asteroid. Or ability to use something better (stronger, faster, cheaper, safer :) than chemical rocket....

    When at least it comes to asteroids, ignorance is bliss ... for now (or next few dacedes!) :)

  95. A slight problem: by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

    It's a rock the size of a football field moving at over ***36 000 km/hr***. How do you stop something like that, besides blocking it with the earth? And if you do, but the rock contains frozen organisms (bacteria, virus, or think Aliens) which we release, then the gift horse has become a Trojan horse!

  96. Don't count your chickens before they're smashed by coachvince · · Score: 0

    According to the CNN article, at least, the asteroid, 2004 FH, is expected to make its closest approach at 5:08 p.m. EST That's over 4 hours from the time of the parent post, or 280 minutes. With an acceptable margin of error of 18 minutes, we're still not quite clear yet (1:35 EST as I write this). However, there will still be plenty to worry about right here, without extraterrestrial assistance... www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami_qa nda.shtml (Remove space from link) A nice 6 to 9 hour warning time for those in the US on the East Coast, less for those closer to Europe (but they won't get those lovely 30 meter waves).

    --
  97. Yeah, they're doing their jobs, alright... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    In other news, NASA today announced that a pebble the size of, well, a pebble, will be passing within 1,000,000,000 billion miles of the Earth today. This pebble does not put Earth in danger, NASA spokespersons said.

    (Later, while NASA continued to track this pebble, a rock six times the size of the sun came by and hit the Earth head-on. The entire planet became completely smashed up and is now a minor blemish of dirt on the face of the big rock. Oh well.)

    1. Re:Yeah, they're doing their jobs, alright... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Later, while NASA continued to track this pebble, a rock six times the size of the sun came by and hit the Earth head-on.

      There is no material, rock or otherwise, which could support its own weight if it was six times as large as the sun.

      The only reason the sun itself doesn't collapse is because of the radiation pressure from the nuclear reactions going on inside it.

  98. But is it in the ecliptic plane of the Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    If not, then it would miss us no matter what.

    1. Re:But is it in the ecliptic plane of the Earth? by coachvince · · Score: 0

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but it shouldn't matter whether or not the asteroid is traveling in the plane of the ecliptic; the significant fact is that it will cross the plane at a point within roughly 3 Earth diamters of where the Earth will be at that point in time. Simply put, it doesn't matter what it's vector or path has been, if that path is leading to Earth. A+ certified, and potty-trained Equally proud of both

      --
  99. A city-killer, not a planet-killer by geoswan · · Score: 1

    100 feet makes it significantly smaller than Tunguska, which was theorized to be 50 to 80 meters. So, it is a city killer, not a planet killer.

  100. We'll be killed by imperial units! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to the clueless Americans, who are too dumb to learn metric even after the Mars Climate Orbiter disaster, this asteroid won't be just passing by Earth! Instead, it will land directly onto the White House in Washington D.C., because of yet another unit conversion error!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

  101. because 30m looks like 30 miles to the cool cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because 30m looks like 30 miles to the cool cats - metric cats eat dookie

  102. and Halliburton would "win" the contract to clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Halliburton would "win" the contract to clean it up

  103. Crushing it to small pieces won't help. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's all mass. A billion ton rock flying through space at 50,000 miles per hour hitting the earth all at once is mechanically no different from a billion tons of loose sand flying through space at 50,000 miles per hour hitting the earth all at once.

    "Oh - we'll blow it up. That'll make it go away."

    Wrong. Mass and inertia are mass and inertia. The results might be a bit different - a dense solid object will tend to penetrate the surface a bbit deeper, but the heat generated from a billion tons of sand travelling 14 miles a second would instantly superheat the atmosphere, and the impact on the earth would be incredibley destructive - the silicon, magnesium, sodium, etc. in the stuff isn't going to disappear, and the associated mass has to transfer its inertia into some other form of energy, and a billion tons of inertia is a billion tons of inertia.

    The best thing to do is to a solid chunk is to deflect it. If the asteroid is solid metal and valuable metal at that, it might be a good idea to dump it on the moon or Mars, where the metal can be used to make buildings and space craft.

    Otherwise, pitch the sucker into the sun. Or Venus. Or someplace else. In fact dumping it into Venus might be cool - see what kind of wreckage develops...

    Now, if it's a loose piece of crap, like a semi-shattered dead comet, that would*suck* because deflecting something like that would be pretty difficult. A billion tons of ice and gravel is still a billion tons of ice and gravel.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Crushing it to small pieces won't help. by spun · · Score: 1

      Scientific American had an article on this very subject in the past 6 months or so. The problem with deflection is that a billion tons of inertia is a billion tons of inertia ;-) What will you use to deflect it? Rockets? Where will you get the fuel? You can't use bombs, that might break it apart. What if it is spinning? How do you attache and orient a rocket on a billion tons of rotating asteroid?

      If it is already loose rubble, you might need a net. For reaction mass, you could find some way of using the asteroid's own mass. Or you could stop it's rotation and put a reflective cover over the sunward side to act as a solar sail. With enough advance warning, you could use nuclear powered ion engines to ever so gently nudge it off course. The engines would need to lodge firmly in the surface without causing enough strain to crack the asteroid while firing.

      In short, it isn't going to be easy, and we need as much advance warning as possible. 100 years would be about right. With 10 years warning we could still probably do it, depending on how big it was and how directly it was aimed at us. Anything less than that for any large asteroid and we are pretty well toast.

      And I do mean toast. Scientists have calculated, and observation of ash layers in rock confirm that the entry and impact of the Jurrasic era asteroid instantly ignited most vegetation over a good portion of the world. The side opposite the impact as well, as even the ejected material raining back down had enough kinetic energy to superheat the atmosphere to over 500 degrees farenheit. Most of the earth turned into an oven in a matter of minutes. Then there was the year or two where the clouds of ash blocked out all light, then the dozens of years of permanent winter.

      We really might want to make looking for asteroids a priority.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  104. Hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look everyone, someone doesn't know what Murphy's Law is!

    1. Re:Hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An asteroid that is going to miss Earth by 6 earth radii is going to be deflected by ozone? What does Murphy's Law have to do with this?

  105. never tell me the odds by Zode · · Score: 1

    No, the odds are 1:1 -- Earth will be hit by at least one asteroid. Will it hit in our lifetime? Probably. Will it be big enough to notice? Probably not.

    But I'm betting on the asteroid. And buying a lot of duct tape. ;)

  106. Wormwood by popo · · Score: 1

    ...is also the wood from which Absinthe is derived.

    So more likely than being an asteroid, its a poetic reference to substance abuse.

    "and the waters became wormwood (absinthe); and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter".

    (Absinthe addiction causes profound psychological depression, "bitterness".)

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  107. No Bruce Willis, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...If you see an 18 wheeler with a gremlin on the front of it, hide.

  108. Ask the dinosaurs... by marko123 · · Score: 1

    I think they'd agree that one (or two) came closer.

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  109. This is all besides the point.... by efuseekay · · Score: 1

    I don't know what are you talking about in this sentence :

    The pressure differential very efficiently transfers the reentry energy to the material of the meteor, causing it to explode with enormous force.


    (a)Why "pressure differential" can "efficiently transfer" "reentry energy" to the material of the meteor?

    (b) What is "reentry energy"?

    (c) Why does tranferring energy into the meteor cause it to explode? (Adding energy to any system does not cause it to explode, it just, uh, adds energy.)

    And, the whole thread is really a bit besides the point anyway. A 100ft thing heading straight into earth's path will have a relative velocity of, maybe, about 30km/s, may even be faster (or slower) depending on its orbit aroudn the sun. Earth's orbit at around 30km/s, which is where I took my number.

    The earth's effective atmosphere is about 200-250 km (also about where Skylab is orbiting). That gives it about 8 secs travel time : I don't see what physical mechanism, can burn a 100ft thing in 8 secs. This meteor, my friends, is going to hit the ground. And that means a nice E=1/2 m v^2 release of explosive energy. A few nukes I guess (I don't know the explosive power of nukes nowadays....)

    And, say, if you can really invent some mechanism to "explode" the meteor up in the atmosphere, the energy release will still be the same. I.e. it's like doing a Nuke Test in the sky....and we all know what THAT can do.

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:This is all besides the point.... by SB9876 · · Score: 1

      Whether or not a meteor can reach the ground is dependent upon what its composition is. A metallic meteor will most likely survive the trip through the atmosphere and impact the surface of the Earth. A stone or ice object will not. The pressure differential that develops on an incoming meteor is sufficient to cause the stone to shatter. The remaing fragments then quickly burn up. This causes a complete dissipation of the meteor's kinetic energy in the atmosphere. This only occurs to larger stone meteors since smaller ones lose enough velocity in the upper atmosphere before hitting the dense air near the surface.

      Although the total energy released is the same, the effects are very different. A ground impactor causes a massive release of debris into the atmosphere and siesmic activity. An airborne explosion is much closer in effect, as you mention, to a nuclear detonation.

      The observed anamolies of the 1908 Tunguska blast are consistent with this theory. Incidentally, the Tunguska meteor was estimated at ~100 feet in diameter so it is quite possible for an object of that size to not reach the ground.

      http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file= /n ature/journal/v383/n6602/abs/383697a0.html

      http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file= /n ature/journal/v361/n6407/abs/361040a0.html

      http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberia.html

  110. just realised something by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    this article made me realise that if comets are sometimes made of ice, then water obviously exists in other solar systems, hence very probably life. mod me down for being OT if you want, but i thought i might as well share it, as i will forget in a few mins anyway.

  111. concerning the Death Star... by Vthornheart · · Score: 1
    1337 nerds agree, the diameter of the Death Star would be nowhere *near* 100ft. According to one ultra-nerd site:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstarsizes.html

    Death Star I diameter: ~ 120km Death Star II diameter: ~ 270km

    ... dear God, someone please Mod me down for posting that. I would delete this post and then shoot myself, but the humor of the fact that I took the time to find this information should be shared with the world. I'll just slink quietly away now...

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
    1. Re:concerning the Death Star... by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

      Unless of course all the sentient lifeforms in the Galaxy far, far away were teeny tiny midgets.

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  112. uh oh.... by MatrixBandit · · Score: 1

    With NASA's decrepit budget they're probably still using old intel's with the floating point problems. i.e. 3.4 Earth_diamaters_away = collision Or actually, more realistically, there probably is no asteroid at all, at least not one in this galaxy.

  113. Uh by xihr · · Score: 1

    You mean except for all the asteroids that have hit throughout Earth's history. Certainly the bolide which skipped off the Earth's atmosphere in the 1970s came much closer than 3.4 Earth diameters, since the Earth's atmosphere doesn't extend anywhere near that far.

  114. ROFL by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    "in competition for resources with any other animal/s, we win"

    2 words for you :
    Rats. Cockroaches.

    and that just what come from the top of my head!
    I won't even go into maritime life...

    Just a thing you should know... When they tested the firsts A bombs, they had the surprise of finding that the cockroaches and the scorpions survived through it...

    Scorpions, by the way, also survive beeing "deeply frozen".

    I'm so sorry I could never collect my bet on you after you get formal proof 8p

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on now...
      We all know that when the end of the world rolls around, the only survivors will be cockroaches, microbes and Apple II computers...

  115. Closet Pass? by Jexx+Dragon · · Score: 1

    What about the one the killed the Dinosaurs?

    --
    I don't have time to comment my code, the program is late already.
  116. Re:It's the one you don't see or hear that gets yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send in the Marines!!! Old timers cant setenv the fact that it no longer is the same as it used to be.

  117. I guess it is safe now :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The two orbital experts I talked to today each
    made the observation that an astroid discovered on
    Monday would have a series of observations with very
    little angular change and thus the resulting orbit
    prediction would be of poor quality. Now obviously
    the folk at JPL correctly predicted a 'miss' but it
    will be interesting to see what later observations
    turn up to actually have been the case!
    A.C.

  118. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't realize that storm troopers were that small.

  119. Asteroid with binoculars by Edward+W. · · Score: 1

    The first sentence had me worried that the asteroid might hit Earth. So I breathed a sigh of relief when the second sentence said "the object" was "using a good pair of binoculars." That means it will be able to see us and avoid us. Thank God!

  120. Remember that old Thor's hammer-project by perpeduumimmobile · · Score: 1

    of an old Shadowrun storybook? While I always doubted it's possible to get some heavy things up in the sky with appropiate costs, some guys could decide to take a few pieces of such an object to position them in the orbit. Such they'd be able to "throw" them on targets on the earth's surface, with quite a little economical effort - makes a perfect tactical weapon with good destruction and no radiation...

    1. Re: Remember that old Thor's hammer-project by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Read Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to see how you can throw megatonnage at the Earth for cheap.

      Did Gerard K. O'Neil live in vain? The trick is to be on top of the gravity well, and throw things down that already were up there. Lifting them off of the Earth first is absolutely nuts.

  121. It would take us centuries to deal with it? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    I was comfortable playing the odds that an extinction-level event would hold off for the couple of centuries it would take us to actually be able to deal with it

    Isn't it much too pessimistic to believe that we'll be totally defenseless for centuries?

    If we had a warning time of a few days, that would be sufficient to calculate targeting information to launch a few ICBMs to intercept an incoming rock. The intercept would take place above the atmosphere (some ICBMs are suborbital, and some of them are able to put payloads in orbit).

    With a bit longer warning time (a few months), we could fit a more powerful launch vehicle (say, a Titan IV) with a nuclear warhead. This would allow the intercept to take place well away from the earth (reducing the magnitude of the angular deflection needed to make the object miss Earth entirely).

    And with a few years' warning time (and a few billion dollars), more sophisticated approaches than a brute-force nuclear attack could be implemented. (I.e., attaching ion engines to the asteroid in order to change its orbit, or painting it white in order to make the increased reflection of sunlight subtly change its orbit.)

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:It would take us centuries to deal with it? by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 1

      Isn't it much too pessimistic to believe that we'll be totally defenseless for centuries?

      I don't really think so, unless something sets off another space race. We're really not too effectual outside of LEO.

      If we had a warning time of a few days, that would be sufficient to calculate targeting information to launch a few ICBMs to intercept an incoming rock. The intercept would take place above the atmosphere (some ICBMs are suborbital, and some of them are able to put payloads in orbit).

      This would only work on a little bitty rock, and in that case you might as well play the odds that it's going to hit somewhere sparsely-populated rather than risk an atmospheric nuclear detonation. Sure, the rock will hit really hard, but at least it will be a clean explosion with no fallout.

      Then there's also the political worry of ICBM launches triggering retaliation. You have more faith in human nature than I if you think the governments of the world can get it together within a couple of days.

      With a bit longer warning time (a few months), we could fit a more powerful launch vehicle (say, a Titan IV) with a nuclear warhead. This would allow the intercept to take place well away from the earth (reducing the magnitude of the angular deflection needed to make the object miss Earth entirely).

      This is certainly within the realm of possibility, but I think you may have seen Armageddon once too often (and once is too often. ;) This is much more likely to fail than it is too succeed...but I would definitely want to try if faced with the choice. Because really, what else are you going to do?

      And with a few years' warning time (and a few billion dollars), more sophisticated approaches than a brute-force nuclear attack could be implemented. (I.e., attaching ion engines to the asteroid in order to change its orbit, or painting it white in order to make the increased reflection of sunlight subtly change its orbit.)

      The ion engines suggestion is entirely untenable, unless you were planning on having a few hundred of them and a handful of nuclear reactors to power them. I like the solar pressure idea; it's elegant, but we'd need lots of warning. Really, we lack the precision of observation necessary to tell if a rock is going to be a threat in a few years, and if we freaked out about every asteroid that looked as though it and the Earth might be on intersecting trajectories in the next decade, we wouldn't have the energy left to freak out about anything else.

      We are the Aztecs, and an extinction-event asteroid is Cortez. No real point in worrying about it, since it's got us so outclassed there's not much we can do about it.

      -Carolyn

      --
      Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.