2004 MN4 Asteroid Odds Inching Up Again

bfwebster writes "The latest update from NASA now gives 2004 MN4 a 1-in-37 chance (probability of 2.7%) of hitting Earth on April 13, 2029. That's a bump up from the 1-in-46 (2.2%) odds given this weekend and almost a 10x increase in probability from the original 1-in-300 odds announced late last week. Interesting times, indeed."

Comments

April 13, 2029

[akirchhoff]

Would this be Friday the 13th?

How long till we know?

[John Harrison]

How long does it have to be observed before we know whether it will hit or not? Will a year of observation give us certainty? The Torino scale is a bit strange, given the way that it combines chance of impact, time until impact, and severity of impact. I would think that a three dimensional scale would be more useful.

Re:How long till we know?

[Idarubicin]

More data points are great, but we need higher resolution data than radar can provide at that range.

The key here is that they're not necessarily looking for angular position--which, you're right, they can get much more accurately using a respectable backyard optical telescope. What Aricebo gives is better information on range and radial velocity (from the time for a radar pulse to return, and its Doppler shift, respectively). This information combined with the optical measurements we already have will give us a much better measure of its course than either technique alone.

Mainstream coverage

[mishmash]

Google news's collation of the worldwide media's coverage of this story seams to show that the mainstream serious media is ignoring this story.

Strange questions....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, we now know the probability of the object hitting the earth. What is the possibility of the object hitting the moon?

What impact will the earth have if the object hits the moon?

So what happens if reaches 100%?

[earthforce_1]

It will be intereresting to see what happens on the political front, if it is eventually determined that this thing will hit earth.

At 300m across, it is small enough to be nuked out of harm's way. And fortunately, we still have a lot of time on our side to plan and fly a mission to blast it to rubble, or at least into a different trajectory. But this would mean at least temporarily revoking some treaties regarding nuclear detonations in space. And how will the bill be divided up? What happens if is eventually determined that this thing will land in central Asia or Africa - will unaffected countries still be willing to pick up the tab?

Looks like we will need to develop some sort of (funded) international contingency plan to deal with dangers from space, even if it is eventually determined this particular rock will miss us.

Re:Impact energy

[HeghmoH]

Ocean would probably be worse. If it landed in the ocean, it would probably be like yesterday's unpleasantness with a great many people killed by tsunami. Landing on land, it would just make a big boom and put a lot of dirt into the air, unless it happened to land in a populated area. Worst case is a city, of course, but that's not likely.

Rocket Upper Stage?

[LakeSolon]

I don't see the original author having posted it yet, so here's a link to an interesting theory regarding the possibility that what we're looking at is in fact just the upper stage of a rocket launched some time ago.

~Lake

Re:One in 37

[TheCabal]

American roulette wheels have 2 greens. There are a few tables here in Vegas that have single green, and the smart roulette player (oxymoron) will take a few minutes to find that table. Most of the big Strip casinos don't carry them, or may have one, tucked away somewhere. The off-Strip casinos are a bit more open with their roulette wheels, or placement of low-minimum blackjack tables (try finding a $5 table at one of the big Strip casinos after 5PM).

Re:Impact energy

[MinutiaeMan]

Even if the energy released in 2004-MN4's impact were roughly equal to the energy released in the recent earthquake, I seriously doubt that the effects could be considered comparable. For one thing, ALL of the asteroid's energy will be released in one gigantic explosion when it enters the atmosphere and hits the surface (either land or sea), concentrated in a relatively small area. But the earthquake's energy was released along a huge (700 miles long) segment of the undersea fault, which almost certainly dampened the effects of the quake. Not to mention that quakes typically take place at least several kilometers underground...

(IANAGOP -- I Am Not A Geologist Or Physicist. But I am using what I think to be logical deductions based on what little I know.)

Re:Impact energy

[platypus]

I don't think it's so easy. While you are right that in deep water, the energy of the earthquake was distributed across a very long wave with a very low amplitude (i.e. big wavelength, sic), the shallower shore acted as a kind of "lense", concentrating the energy to a smaller area (shorter wavelength, higher amplitude).
I assume an asteroid might cause waves with shorter wavelengths even in deep water, but OTOH there'd be not such a "lense effect".
In the end, the product of amplitude, wavelength and the square of the speed of the wavefront determines the energy, so waves being taller in deep water does not mean they'll be more destructive when hitting the shore - i.e. the earthquake causes the whole of the sea to "move", while an asteroid might mainly impact the surface.
Since at around 800 km/h, wind resistance is a real factor, higher waves might even be considerably dampened on their way through the sea.