Slashdot Mirror


New Asteroid Becomes Earth's Biggest Threat

inexion wrote to mention a story on PhysOrg stating that we're all doomed. "A space rock capable of sub-continent scale devastation has about a one in 1,000 risk of colliding with Earth early next century, the highest of any known asteroid, watchers said on Thursday. The rock, 2004 VD17, is about 500 metres (yards) long and has a mass of nearly a billion tonnes, which -- if it were to impact -- would deliver 10,000 megatonnes of energy, equivalent to all the world's nuclear weapons. Spotted on November 27 2004, VD 17 was swiftly identified as rock that potentially crossed Earth's orbit, with a 1 in 3,000 risk of collision on May 4 2102."

232 comments

  1. Numbers And Pictures by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


    For anyone interested in the hard numbers, here's NASA's impact risk summary of 2004 VD17.

    For those like myself who prefer pretty pictures, here's the 3D orbit diagram of 2004 VD17 (Java required).

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Numbers And Pictures by el+borak · · Score: 1

      Odd. When I plug May 4, 2102 into the orbital calculator it shows the asteroid well outside the orbit of Mars at that point...

      --
      An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
    2. Re:Numbers And Pictures by toddbu · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they're expecting a change in the orbit of the Earth as well. Can anyone say "conspiracy theory". :-)

      --
      If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
    3. Re:Numbers And Pictures by kek.+kek. · · Score: 1

      Try Nov 8, 2014

    4. Re:Numbers And Pictures by justinmikehunt · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      May 4 is one of the times that Earth crosses the orbit each year, and looking at May 4, 2032, Odds seem much better!

    5. Re:Numbers And Pictures by qeveren · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess you missed the part where it said:

      "This applet is provided as a 3D orbit visualization tool. The applet was implemented using only 2-body methods, and hence should not be used for determining accurate long-term trajectories (over several years or decades) or planetary encounter circumstances."

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    6. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Dausha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Best to watch the whole thing with Mercury as the center, not the Sun. Much more entertaining.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    7. Re:Numbers And Pictures by kek.+kek. · · Score: 1

      *Nov 8, 2104 It seems to be 0.0256 AU from Earth (about 3'829'705.5 km). But yes, it is still a long time projectory and so it's not to be taken seriously.

    8. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Denney · · Score: 1

      Even though this tool is not supposed to be accurate over long-term, try May 3, 2032. Both May 3, 2032 and May 4, 2032 has the two objects superimposed (colliding).

    9. Re:Numbers And Pictures by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's... disturbing. Orbits way, way far apart, and then too damn close together.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    10. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May 3, 2032 @ 0.0064 AU
      Nov 10, 2154 @ 0.0081 AU

      Good nights to be on a telescope!

    11. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's OK. I put in the year 2200 and it was still there. If it had hit the Earth in 2100s, it wouldn't still have an orbit, right?

    12. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Isn't that when any program written in C is supposed to expire like the Y2K bug?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    13. Re:Numbers And Pictures by enjerth · · Score: 1

      And if the moon were in that simulator, it would be superimposed (colliding) with the earth, too.

    14. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Are you actually acting surprised that a Google search for a NASA designation turned up the NASA site first?

      Think before you ask these questions, Mitch.

    15. Re:Numbers And Pictures by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Good nights to be on a telescope!

      Looking well above the horizon in case there is a sudden flare of light from the surface.

    16. Re:Numbers And Pictures by st1d · · Score: 1

      Come on now, give AC a break, he/she/it probably just realized MSN wasn't the only search engine... :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    17. Re:Numbers And Pictures by wernercd · · Score: 1

      Yeah so... one day MSN will be the bestest eva!

    18. Re:Numbers And Pictures by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Using the orbit diagram, it looks like May 3, 2032 is a hit as well, and as for 2104, Nov looks more likely, but, it says on the page itself not to trust the diagram's accuracy for far-off projections. We should trust those rocket scientists more than the diagram programmers...right? ;)

    19. Re:Numbers And Pictures by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing out the NEO orbit diagram. That's cool! I can't wait to go home and show it to my 10-year-old.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    20. Re:Numbers And Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please look here.

  2. So what do we do about this? by Kasracer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure everyone has seen the movie Armageddon. Is drilling even an option in real life? Should we fire some nuclear warheads at it to try and change it's path?

    I don't know much about the science of this but I have always been very interested in what we would do about this. I saw on the Discovery channel a long time ago that we could do something like shooting a laser at it to try and break it apart as well as some solar sails. They also mentioned placing some rockets on an astroid and moving it.

    Now I'll be dead by the time this thing gets close enough. Should we just assume we'll have better technology then and fire some photon torpedos at it?

    1. Re:So what do we do about this? by wpanderson · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure many people avoided Armageddon as much as they could; unfortunately I was one of those suckered in by the trailers full of blinkenlights and Liv Tyler shots. Damn you, Bruckheimer and Bay, damn you all to hell!

      As for the "science bit", Phil 'Bad Astronomy' Plait rips the movie to shreds quite succinctly, putting paid to the notion that it includes usable science. Read his review with spoilers, or if you're one of the lucky few never to have seen it, read the spoiler free summary. What would be "easier" would be to catch the object early and gradually change the orbit using electric ion engines or similar to nudge it out of our way.

      --
      neuro at well dot com (when I post, it's my opinions, no-one elses)
    2. Re:So what do we do about this? by raider_red · · Score: 1

      In that ammount of time, I don't see why we can't fly a big ion thruster up there. We could then land it on the asteroid and, over the course of several years, nudge it off its current vector.

      This would give us the dual advantage of not having to rely on nuclear weapons or Bruce Willis to save us at the last minute.

      It might be good to start this program today, since getting it through appropriations could take the first thirty years, and development of a suitable thruster another twenty.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    3. Re:So what do we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows what will be possible by then? An equivalent amount of time in the past Bleriot had only just flown from France to England.

    4. Re:So what do we do about this? by srock2588 · · Score: 1

      I don't like this 1 in 3000 estimation. I think we need some harder evidence of the trajectory before going and changing anything. The last thing we want to do it push it INTO earth orbit by accident. I am far more concerned with the asteriod with a 1 in 3000 chance of hitting us tomorow that we didn't find 100 years ago. SHIT tomorow if Friday too.

      --
      Ehh...this is the life we chose.
    5. Re:So what do we do about this? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      In general, the earlier the better on these things. A percisely flung screwdriver from the ISS right now would lessen the probablities significatly. (Though working out exactly what velocity and timing need to be imparted on that screwdriver would be a supercomputer-level job.)

      Here's an idea: Send a scientific probe there, to study asteroid composition. Again, if you were to land it on the right vector, you could achive a noticible difference in the orbit. Deploy it with some long term thruster (ion, solar, that level) and we could make a major orbit change.

      Breaking it apart doesn't help, if all the pieces still hit us. (All it does is mean more of the energy is dissipated in the atmosphere, which is actually worse...) A high powered laser could do something: Basically that's building a low-power thruster. Solar sails are the same. (See above.) Nueclear missiles is like trying to drive in a screw with a hammer: it can be done, but it's not really the right tool, and are likely to cause more problems then you solve. (You could break it up, but not change it's vector, for instance.) What is needed is thrust, applied correctly.

      Of course, you have to determine if the cost is worth it...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    6. Re:So what do we do about this? by Mursk · · Score: 1
      You just know that instead of 'nudging it off its current vector' we're going to change its course just enough to slam directly into earth.

      It's like when you're at the grocery store, and you get out of the checkout line you've been in for 10 minutes to go to the 'faster' line, which then suddendly becomes the slow line.

      Until we're more sure where this thing is going, I say we leave it alone.

      --
      "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    7. Re:So what do we do about this? by Cujo · · Score: 1

      We're nowhere near being able to do that reliably. Ion thrusters aren't big. Let's say it's a small asteroid with a mass of only 10 million metric tons, or 10^10 kg. Then going with the most optimistic numebrs tossed around for an ion engine (ejection velocities of 200,000 mps), then you need about 10^10/(2e5) or 5e4 kg of ion propellant just to budge it one meter per second. That's a couple of orders of magnitude more than we can do now, and we're talking about a small nudge to a small asteroid. A more typical asteroid would be 10^13 - 10^15 kg in mass by my back of the envelope calcs (about 10^2 km^3 with one metric ton per cubic meter, or the density of water.)

      The amount of nudge you need to move it's probablity ellipsoid off the Earth depends on how much time you have, and you'd probably be constrained to thrusting about its spin axis, but I would say it's on the order of 1 meter per second or greater. SO, if the potential impact is 100 years away, the first thing you do is track it really well for a few years to get the ellipsoid smaller. If the Earth still passes through it, then you can develop something to give it a nudge.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    8. Re:So what do we do about this? by qeveren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just paint half of it white. The difference in light pressure from the Sun would change its orbit usefully over this length of time.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    9. Re:So what do we do about this? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nuclear missiles from a distance have been proposed as a way to move it: you use radiation pressure to push it. It's a fairly complicated issue, however, as you also heat one side of the asteroid at the same time, thus increasing its blackbody radiation, which will affect its orbit.

      Speaking of that, that's another proposal to move an asteroid: paint part of it, and use the change in solar radiation pressure to alter its orbit.

      Landing on an asteroid is tricky (it can, and has, been done, but they have irregular gravitational fields and it's hard to stay in place; I'd think it would be especially hard if you're trying to thrust, even a little bit). Another proposal is a gravitational tug, in which you have a probe with splayed thrusters keep itself just ahead of the asteroid, slowly pulling the asteroid toward it.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    10. Re:So what do we do about this? by jtorkbob · · Score: 1

      What about using the gravitational influence of a large object? I've read about that before, I'm no physicist but it seemed feasable at the time.

      --
      AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
    11. Re:So what do we do about this? by queazocotal · · Score: 1
      Earlier is better, generally.

      It's about a hundred years out, and, if it's aimed dead-on, then it needs moved about 10000Km, to be 'safe'.

      80 years (say a 20 year lead time), that's about 120Km/year, or 4mm/s.

      It has a mass of 3*10^11Kg, so would need an impulse of 1.2GN m/s.

      Or, a thrust of about 40N (4Kg) over 1 year.

      At an ISP of 10000 (typical of some ion engines), that's around 15 tons of propellant, and power use of some 40Kw.

      Assuming an average radius of 2 AU, that's under 5 tons of solar panels.

      This can be done with todays technology.

      The alternative is not to drill into it and nuke it, which won't really work, but to detonate large nuclear weapons at some 600m from the surface.

      The intense x-ray radiation from the bomb is absorbed in the top few centimeters of the body. This heats it to beyond its boiling point, and it explodes outwards, pushing the rock the other way.

      (round numbers, I haven't checked very thouroughly)

    12. Re:So what do we do about this? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      A meter a second? For how much time? Where did you pull that magic number from?

      If the thing is a year away from hitting earth, you've got 31,556,926 seconds to play with.

      The earth is a ~12,756,300 meter wide target. Add on another 1,000,000 meters on either end so that you don't have it torching atmosphere. That's a ~15,000,000 meter diameter so moving something aimed for dead center at least ~7,500,000 meters off course.

      The change you need to make to it's course is only (7,500,000/31,556,926 = ) 0.2377 meters/second.

      That's with starting your thrust one year before impact. If you've got more than half a century before impact, you only need to move it on the order of a centimeter/second.

    13. Re:So what do we do about this? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I don't see why it needs to be an ion thruster at all. Just send up a small nuclear reactor, and have it power some kind of linear motor, steam catapult, high-tech trebuchet or other means of hurling material. With a 1 gigaton rock and a relatively low-performance catapult that pushes to 1000m/s, you would need to load up and eject 1 million tons of rubble to nudge the orbit by 1m/s. That sounds like a lot, but it's only equivalent to a the mass held in a few large seagoing cargo ships, and you have almost a century to get the job done.

    14. Re:So what do we do about this? by Cujo · · Score: 1

      It's not linear like that. You need to assure that you don't just set up another collision at a later time. The problem isn't straightforward, but if the asteroid is in some sort of resonance, you may need to disrupt that, which could take substantially more than 1 m/sec.

      I don't mind assumptions being challenged, but if we show you're several orders of magnitude from the state of the art, then we're not all that sensitive to assumptions.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    15. Re:So what do we do about this? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Well certainly when you are are plotting which way to change it's trajectory, you are going to plot it's future trajactory to make sure you don't hit earth the following year, or in 100 years, or anything silly like that.

      My point was if you have 50+ years of warning, we are already two orders of magnitude closer in ability than your 1m/s requirement would suggest. I'll take a leap of ability of two orders of magnitude anytime I can get it. Two gets us a lot closer to that 'several' orders needed.

    16. Re:So what do we do about this? by Cujo · · Score: 1

      That's probably a more resonable strategy - use the asteroid's own reaction mass and a simple magnetic gun to expel it. There are a number of non-trivial technical problems with this, but I don't see any showstoppers.

      Almost anything could work if you tried hard enough, but it would be nice to use technology that would be useful for mining asteroids in the first place, so we'd get something else back for the billions it would cost.

      The only thing I'm pretty sure wouldn't work well would be nuking the asteroid. The physics just aren't with you on that one. However, a Daedalus type nuke propulsion device could work.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    17. Re:So what do we do about this? by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      Screw that. If I'm still alive in 2102, I'm going to do my best to be at the point of impact, 'cuz what a way to go.

    18. Re:So what do we do about this? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Now I'll be dead by the time this thing gets close enough. Should we just assume we'll have better technology then and fire some photon torpedos at it?

      No and yes.

      Chances are if you can live another 30 years, you will live in an era where technology is going to keep you a live from more than 200-500 years (and by then they'll figure out the rest of the problems so you'll end up living past then).

      And we'll most likely have large mass drivers and various other technology that would make little work of such an event.

      If not... Then what the hell were we doing in the past 100 or so years? Dancing naked in the woods and retruning to nature?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    19. Re:So what do we do about this? by hcg50a · · Score: 1

      We do more observations of it to further refine its orbit and discover that it has no chance of impacting the earth.

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
    20. Re:So what do we do about this? by jdray · · Score: 1

      That only works if the same side is facing the sun all the time. Most objects in the solar system have some sort of rotation.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    21. Re:So what do we do about this? by Rei · · Score: 1

      If it's at risk of colliding with Earth, it's not in some sort of resonance. Close passes with planets alter orbits somewhat chaotically. It's a major factor in why it's so hard to predict orbits of asteroids past close passes with planets. How close it passes determines how much its direction gets changed.

      In a hundred years, 1 m/s initial delta-V can lead to radical differences. Even in a year, 1 m/s can be significant, depending on the situation.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    22. Re:So what do we do about this? by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you have to throw the rocks really, really hard. If you just lob them off the surface, you'll give the asteroid a minute nudge as the rock flies away, but there will still be a gravitational attraction between the asteroid and the piece of rock you threw. If they remain close together (and I'm speaking of close in astronomical terms), then they will just make up a two-body system with the center of mass precisely where it was before. Eventually, the asteroid and the cloud of rocks you threw will just attract each other back together right at the pre-existing center of mass, with no net change in orbit.

      You need to fling the rocks far enough away so that some other body becomes more important to them, gravitationally speaking. Once the cloud of rocks get dragged away by the Earth, the Sun, Venus or some other convenient gravity well, they are far enough away from the asteroid to be really out of the picture in terms of influencing the asteroid's orbit.

      If you start soon enough, you don't have to throw them so far, since the small rocks' orbits around the sun will decay sooner than the asteroid. However, you'll need a couple of dozen solar orbits to really make them fall inward much, taking them out of the asteroid's influence. Since each asteroid's orbit is almost two years, if you want to land a cannon and start flinging rocks, you need to be at T-60 years (30 orbits) for it to be effective. That means a working gas cannon/rail gun/etc., on the asteroid, flinging rocks, in 2040.

      The Navy is thinking about a ship-mounted rail gun. This can fling a 15kg round at 2.5km/s, with a rate of fire of 6-12 rounds per minute. It would need a dedicated nuclear reactor, and a machined 5kg sabot for each round, and machined rounds, but nevermind. Assuming that this rail gun could fling 22kg rounds at 10 per minute at 1km/s, that's one metric ton every 10 minutes, or 6 metric tons an hour. If you can sustain that rate of fire for 12 hours out of every 24, day in, day out, that means you'd have flung your 1,000,000th metric ton 13,888 days after you start. That's 38 years of continuous operation. Land 10 rail guns, it's 3.8 years.

      Keeping the gun(s) fed would be a challenge. Add in the operation and mainenance for the guns, the reactor, and the munitions manufacturing facility (where you turn rocks into rounds), the mining facility (where you dig up the rocks in the first place), not to mention the living quarters, and you've got all of the problems of a major space colony. Oh, and the cosmic rays would probably kill any astronaut who is on-site operating or repairing it.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    23. Re:So what do we do about this? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      It might be good to start this program today, since getting it through appropriations could take the first thirty years

      Nah, you can probably get it through appropriations in a few hours if you put your mind to it. What you do is you claim that moving the asteroid is part of the War on Terror, and voila, you have your cash. If you claim that you need to build 3 aircraft carriers to do the job, you will get Pentagon all worked up too, and you'll probably get three times as much money as you need.

      You could probably even have the NSA put a wiretap on the thing within a week too. That might be the solution. They would have to get a wire up there, and then we can have one or two guys pulling on the wire a little, just a nudge here and there... Increasing the speed of the thing like that would change it's trajectory.

    24. Re:So what do we do about this? by AgentDib · · Score: 1

      ESA has a good article about the feasibility of deflection located here: http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ACT-RPR-4100-DI-COL ORADO2005-OnTheDeflectionOfPotentiallyHazardousObj ects.pdf

      I like the notion of impact deflection personally. Flying a rocket full of cement into an asteroid would make great news footage.

    25. Re:So what do we do about this? by mahmud · · Score: 1
      I could never understand people who seem to hold fascination for dieing in some particular, preferably "spectacular" way - mountain climbing accidents, unopened parachutes, and of course being blasted into oblivion by an asteroid impact, to top them all.

      Perhaps you can explain what's the big deal?

    26. Re:So what do we do about this? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Then paint the whole thing white.

      I don't think it will help though. PI*(250)^2 m^2 (if the thing is spherical) of mediocre solar sail won't have that much effect on a billion tonnes over the next 100 years. You might nudge a strike into a near miss, but you might nudge a near miss into a strike too.

    27. Re:So what do we do about this? by st1d · · Score: 1

      Sorry, just had an image of a guy sitting there saying, "not yet...wait...98%, 99%, 100! Okay folks, now that we know it's going to hit, we should get to work on this problem." :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    28. Re:So what do we do about this? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A billion ton rock isn't going to have much gravity. If you literally stood on it and lobbed rocks off the surface they would exceed escape velocity.

    29. Re:So what do we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than a bomb, which would shatter it into pieces, some of which would hit the earth, we could land an ion rocket and very gently alter it's orbit to miss the earth.

    30. Re:So what do we do about this? by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't express myself clearly. People are accumstomed to thinking of escape velocity as just that, the velocity at which you can leave an earth orbit. No one ever thinks about the effect of the gravitational pull that the spacecraft is exerting on the earth, because they don't need to, it's trivial.

      However, when you fling those rocks off the surface of the asteroid, the pull that they exert on the asteroid is non-trivial, especially since you're going to be chucking a significant % of the asteroids mass. Fling the rock to the left, the asteroid moves slightly to the right... until the mutual gravitational pull of the rock & asteroid pulls them back together, when the rock comes flying back to the left and the asteroid moves slightly back to the right.

      //high school physics analogy mode:ON//Imagine an ice skater who throws a baseball. She moves to the right slightly, it moves to the left a lot. But if the ball is on the end of a bungie cord, and they continue to intereact, it will eventually come back fast, she will move back slightly, and they will meet in the middle, right where they started.//high school physics analogy mode:OFF//

      It's not really an escape velocity problem where you're trying to get the rock out of an orbit around the asteroid... if the rock comes back, then that negates the effect of its having been flung. If you don't fling the rock away really, really fast, it's essentially a two-body system; you need to keep them apart long enough to give some third body a chance to interact with the system. Put a lot of space between then by giving the rock a lot of energy, and it's more likely to encounter some other gravity well to keep it away for good. Decay of its solar orbit, contact with earth, or some other third body.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    31. Re:So what do we do about this? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If the rock achieves escape velocity then it doesn't come back. That's what escape velocity means. The rock will continue forever away, carrying with it momentum that must be precisely canceled by the asteroid, moving forever off in the other direction.

      We all seem to be working with the million tonne ejected number, so let's go with that. A million tonnes thrown off a billion tonne asteroid. Is 0.1% a significant percentage?

      The gravitational attraction of both the asteroid and the rock you're tossing off it is SO small that pretty much ANY velocity you give it will more than swamp the effect of gravity. You can jump off of Phobos and it's a LOT more massive than this asteroid.

      To use your analogy, there is no bungie cord. The figure skater doesn't worry about the gravitational attraction of the ball she threw, does she? The asteroid is a bit bigger, but not a whole lot, in the scheme of things.

      So you're quite correct, you have to give the rock you toss of the asteroid enough energy to exceed escape velocity, but escape velocity is very, very low. Of course, the more velocity you give it, the less you need to throw in the first place.

    32. Re:So what do we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About as realistic as using a large lever.

    33. Re:So what do we do about this? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Probably the best solution is to build a big mirror in space so we can "burn" the asteriod to change its mass and/or motion in space, which will make the asteriod miss the Earth from a safe distance. Besides, the mirror can be used to aim at other threatening asteroids in the future, too.

      A more long-term solution--provided we have a decent form of space travel between the Earth and the Moon--is to slow down the asteroid with an electric-ion rocket and actually put it in the Lx gravitation zones between the Earth and Moon. This way, the asteroid can be mined for minerals.

    34. Re:So what do we do about this? by beetlefeet · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be 1 meter per second PER SECOND anyway? (accelleration).

      Any constant propulsion like from some kind of ion engine is going to be constant accelleration so we'd be able to move it heaps over a few years at only one meter per second per second.

    35. Re:So what do we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A million tonnes thrown off a billion tonne asteroid. Is 0.1% a significant percentage?

      Then why don't we harvest another, smaller rocks and accelerate them head-on toward the big rock to slow it down bellow it's own solar orbital speed (or at least change its trajectory into small radius circular one)? Besides, breaking it apart could help, although the idea was ridiculed: same mass, divided into many "rubble" chunks with much greater overall surface, would result in greater friction during atmospheric descent, which would decrease overall damage on the Earth's surface (OK, of course taking a hit is not really a "plan A", but if avoidance fails...)
    36. Re:So what do we do about this? by famebait · · Score: 1

      technology is going to keep you a live from more than 200-500 years

      Even then it will only protect you from natural causes. Frustrated younguns will probably have instigated several waves of "geriatric cleansing" by teh time any significant number of people reach anything like 200.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    37. Re:So what do we do about this? by Cujo · · Score: 1

      Good point. However, is it not possible that a rare close encounters do occur in a resonance orbit, and that the near-collision enounter would be the first such?

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    38. Re:So what do we do about this? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not really. Resonance orbits occur where perturbations in the path end up getting smoothed out. Perturbations in a path that passes close to planets, however, leads to magnifications of the perturbations. Planetary gravitational fields are irregular, and even if they weren't, the mere act of passing by a perfect gravity well in a slightly different position or velocity would still magnify the change.

      It's like playing billiards: picture a perfectly aligned series of billiard balls. You hit them dead-on, and they all impact each other dead-on, and the last one still moves in the same direction as the cue ball. Now get just a tiny angle off on the cue ball. What happens to the last ball? It shoots out in some crazy angle.

      The same thing happens here, but to a greater extent (picture your billiard balls being twenty miles apart - now think of what just a tiny change in angle on the cue ball will do!). Now, you're not "bouncing off" of planets; however, moving through their gravitational fields causes the same sort of amplification of imperfections in orbits.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
  3. Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's drill out every bit of oil and dig up every bit of coal and force feed the economy into olympic level steriod consumption. We'll revoke all the anti-pollution laws. We'll ignore global warming, planing to use the newly generated riches to get off the planet just before the asteriod wipes this shithole out.

    What do you think ?

    1. Re:Proposal by aborchers · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Let's drill out every bit of oil and dig up every bit of coal and force feed the economy into olympic level steriod consumption. We'll revoke all the anti-pollution laws. We'll ignore global warming, planing to use the newly generated riches to get off the planet just before the asteriod wipes this shithole out."

      PROOF CONCLUSIVE THAT GEORGE W BUSH POSTS ON SLASHDOT!!!

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
  4. Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Spotted on November 27 2004, VD 17 was swiftly identified as rock that potentially crossed Earth's orbit, with a 1 in 3,000 risk of collision on May 4 2102"

    Today is March 2, 2006. Our government defines 15 months as "swift"?

    1. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by oojah · · Score: 1

      It's old news. I've known about it since before september 2005 and it's not as though I keep up to date with these things.

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
    2. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by portwojc · · Score: 1

      Honestly what are you going to do differently today because you learned an asteriod might hit the Earth in 2102?

    3. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, remember, this IS rocket science, after all.

    4. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Heckuva job, Griffie!"

    5. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Post a comment to slashdot.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    6. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by dmoen · · Score: 1
      Today is March 2, 2006. Our government defines 15 months as "swift"?

      Zonk posts old news on Slashdot and it's the government's fault?

      --
      I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
    7. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah.
      The speed government gets anything useful done could make continental drift look fast.

    8. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by 01dbs · · Score: 1

      It takes months of watching the path of an asteroid in space to be able to pinpoint its orbit, and then time to do the calculations to identify the risk. So several months is about as swift as it gets.

    9. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      It takes longer for some stars to be identified as stars, let alone asteroids...

    10. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Hey give them credit.

      We announced that we'd have Usama bin Laden in custody swiftly after 9/11. It's been four and a half years. The speed of this rock being identified as dangerous and the info released to the public is absolutely amazing!

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    11. Re:Government defines 15 months as "swift"? by uab21 · · Score: 1
      With context from TFA:

      Spotted on November 27 2004, VD 17 was swiftly identified as rock that potentially crossed Earth's orbit, with a 1 in 3,000 risk of collision on May 4 2102.

      Further observations and calculations have prompted the risk on that day to be upgraded to "a bit less than 1 in 1,000," said NASA Near-Earth Object (NEO) expert David Morrison in an emailed circular.

      The 15 months was the time required to refine the prediction, not give the original estimate. (The original estimate may have also been 15 months - dunno, not listed, but unlikely)

      -m

  5. What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by vasqzr · · Score: 1


    They should be able to calculate the exact spot on earth and the exact time it's going to hit. They're NASA for Christs sake

    1. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by sobeks_eye · · Score: 1
      They should be able to calculate the exact spot on earth and the exact time it's going to hit. They're NASA for Christs sake

      Right, because NASA has already solved the 10,000 body equation that was needed to precisely pinpoint where the asteroid will be in roughly 100 years.

    2. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that they still haven't figured out why our probes are slowing down while trying to escape the solar system. (Unless I'm really out of date and just haven't heard that they finally did.)

    3. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by DrFrob · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as they get their unit conversions correct.

    4. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      As usual with a new discovery, theorbit of the asteroid isn't well-known. I mean, they probably have a handful of observations over a short period, accurate to a few arcminutes and from this, they should be able to pinpoint it's position 100 years from now? (when you add in the gravity of the planets, it becomes even harder). The only reason NASA can pinpoint the positions of their probes to within a few kilometers is because they're equipped with radio transmitters which can give very precise velocities and positions. An asteroid has no radio transmitter, leading to much higher inaccuracy.

    5. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Wilk4 · · Score: 1

      plus we obviously haven't discovered every rock that's out there in orbit, so we don't know what other masses might come close enough to it to perturb its orbit enough to make it miss - or hit...

    6. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Troll


      Actually, they did...or at least they think so...

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    7. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Jon+Luckey · · Score: 1
      They should be able to calculate the exact spot on earth and the exact time it's going to hit. They're NASA for Christs sake

      Maybe that's what NASA really stands for:

      Needs Another Succesive Approximation.

      --
      -- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
    8. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you hold NASA in too high regards like most of America. Just because it's NASA doesn't mean they can predict an asteroid colision precisely. Sure, they are talented people (at least the one's I've met) and they generally know what they are doing. It's unfortunate that when they make mistakes, they cost hundreds of millions. There are few jobs with that high level of risk.

      It's complicated problem that will have number of unforeseen occurences between now and when they predict it will hit. The fact is they have spotted it and will continue to monitor the situation and update their predictions.

      That same thinking could be applied to any organization presented with a complex problem. How could any terrorists operate within our country? They are the CIA and FBI for Christ's sake.

    9. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by SeeMyNuts! · · Score: 1

      Right, because NASA has already solved the 10,000 body equation that was needed to precisely pinpoint where the asteroid will be in roughly 100 years.

      Well, perhaps they just found a use for all those Itaniums, besides driving the steam plant for heating all their buildings?

    10. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by spun · · Score: 1

      This new theory of scalar-tensor-vector gravity explains galactic rotations, mass distribution in galactic clusters, and the slowing of the Pioneer probes. However ,it doesn't look like it will explain the cosmic microwave background radiation, which kinda negates all the other points.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Needs Another Succesive Approximation.

      Your post needs a spelling adjustment.

    12. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by hcg50a · · Score: 1

      As with any observation, there are errors. The errors cause predictions of the future position of the asteroid to be basically a "fuzzy ellipsoid", instead of a point.

      At two points in the future, an apparently small section of this fuzzy ellipsoid partially intersects the earth. From that intersection, they calculate a roughly 1 in 1000 chance that it will actually hit the earth.

      As more observations of the asteroid are made, the orbit becomes better refined, and the ellipsoid shrinks. If they keep up this process, eventually it shrinks so that it no longer intersects the earth.

      So, a month from now, the probability may be 1 in 2000. A year from now, 1 in 10,000. And, finally, two years from now, zero.

      Articles like this are essentially crying "wolf!"

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
    13. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Jon+Luckey · · Score: 1

      I had it approximately right! :)

      --
      -- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
    14. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Articles like this are essentially crying "wolf!"

      Don't you mean Wolf-Beiderman?

      http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/di2.html

      Thomas Dz.

    15. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

      NASA doesn't know the difference between yards and meters. How are they expected to get something like this right? Sheesh! I wouldn't trust them to tile my bathroom!

      --
      return 0; }
    16. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by st1d · · Score: 1

      On the upside, if the plan requires us to embed ion engines deeply into the surface of the asteroid, NASA already has the software written for that. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    17. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by carpltunl · · Score: 0

      The post did say "sub-continent".

      Yeah, I know, next year then!

      --


      Mama, I got 'dem ole cosmic blues again.
    18. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      Articles like this are essentially crying "wolf!"

      Nah. Articles like this are essentially crying: "Give us more funding so we can put better detectors into place so that we can give you a better answer."

    19. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cosmic carrier wave? :P

    20. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      yes, but if they're wrong and they say it won't hit us and it does and the world blows up they'll get sued and that would be bad.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    21. Re:What's this 1 in 1000 crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding..."clumsy numbers can throw you off"...

      And to think I haven't even figured out how to get on one of those clumsy numbers.

  6. 500 Meters = 500 Yards?? by justinmikehunt · · Score: 0

    "The rock, 2004 VD17, is about 500 metres (yards) long" Since when are Meters and Yards same?!?! 500 Meters is more like 550 Yards!

  7. Oh No!!! by Jumbo+Jimbo · · Score: 2, Funny
    The rock, 2004 VD17, is about 500 metres (yards)

    Oh no!! Earth is going to be destroyed by VD!! Blame the damn liberals!!

    1. Re:Oh No!!! by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

      Oh no!! Earth is going to be destroyed by VD!! Blame the damn liberals!!

      I, for one, welcome our VD-infested liberal overlords from space.

      --
      Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
    2. Re:Oh No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your VD are belong to us.

    3. Re:Oh No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are on the way to painful urination.

    4. Re:Oh No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the damn liberals!!

      It isn't the Liberals that fail to stress the importance of SAFE SEX, or PROTECTION.
      Blame the conservatives.
      Maybe we should all just practie asteroid-abstinance. Then nothing will happen.

    5. Re:Oh No!!! by st1d · · Score: 1

      I really don't want to post this, but I can't help it...

      I wouldn't start panicking until Uranus starts burning...

      Sorry folks... :(

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  8. In a few years it will be like this. by Escogido · · Score: 1

    BREAKING NEWS! A newly found asteroid does not present a threat to Earth!

    The piece of space rock that has no chance of colliding with Earth any time soon has been prompty dubbed Benevolent by astonomers and journalists everywhere. In an interview a well-known scientist states that Benevolent is the first astral body found in the last decade that doesn't pose a threat to our mother planet, and hopes that more funds will be raised to learn the secret of this 'space phenomena'.

    In other news, there are 723 remaining asteroids of different sizes on a collision course with Earth that still have a less than one-in-million chance of causing the death of all life on the planet until the end of the year.

    Film, of course, at 11.

  9. Good odds by smvp6459 · · Score: 1

    I'll go for the 1 in 3000 chance. I don't like the 1 in a 1000 chance. WTF? It's one or the other, right? Great editing Zonk.

    1. Re:Good odds by LordSkippy · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      Spotted on November 27 2004, VD 17 was swiftly identified as rock that potentially crossed Earth's orbit, with a 1 in 3,000 risk of collision on May 4 2102.

      Further observations and calculations have prompted the risk on that day to be upgraded to "a bit less than 1 in 1,000," said NASA Near-Earth Object (NEO) expert David Morrison in an emailed circular.

      Its odds of striking the Earth were "upgraded".

      1) Is that really an "upgrade" for us?
      2) Zonk still could have been more clear in his editing.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    2. Re:Good odds by im_mac · · Score: 1

      It was originally 1:3000 but "further observations and calculations have prompted the risk on that day to be upgraded to 'a bit less than 1 in 1,000.'"
      Great reading of TFA

    3. Re:Good odds by allanc · · Score: 1

      In 2004, when they first spotted it, they gave it a 1 in 3000 chance of hitting us. Now they've upped that to a 1 in 1000 chance.

      It was clear to me.

    4. Re:Good odds by Erioll · · Score: 1
      1) Is that really an "upgrade" for us?
      hehe. No kidding. Saying "up" for raising the probability is correct, but an "upgrade" for us? Ya, I'd choose different words myself.
       
      ;)
    5. Re:Good odds by punee · · Score: 1

      1 in 1,000 risk of collision. 1 in 3,000 risk of collision on May 4 2102. Or so I understood.

  10. Survival Options? by Rhoon · · Score: 1

    Anyone have the number for a team of the world's best deep core oil drillers?

    --
    "If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door." - Paul Beatty
    1. Re:Survival Options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe we're all dead, we just don't know it.

  11. Another One? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By now we have what, 30? 40? Asteroids about to destroy us.

    1. Re:Another One? by st1d · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, so this is what it's like to be Darl McBride. Interesting. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  12. Re:500 Meters = 500 Yards?? by menkhaura · · Score: 1

    10% difference. Hence the "about". Ah, and to be a pedant prick:
    http://www.google.com/search?&q=1+meter+in+yards&b tnG=Search

    --
    Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
    Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
  13. Re:500 Meters = 500 Yards?? by cbelt3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And so NOW how do you feel about our ability to calculate probability ?

    "NASA Scientists reveal same computer used for ill-fated Mars Orbiter now used to compute asteroid orbits. Announces probability of collision with Earth to be 'like, maybe, we dunno. Kilometers, miles, who the hell understands all this metric crap anyway ? Please just increase our budget and we'll stop trying to scare you !"

  14. DOOOOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doom Doom Doooooom

    1. Re:DOOOOM by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      Deekin? Is that you?

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    2. Re:DOOOOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Gir. Either one works really.

  15. Wow by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

    Yesterday it was mind control sharks, and today its collision course astroids. THis is getting to be a who's who of bad movie plots. What's next? A small group of hackers take down The Man? A government copmputer becomes hell bent on Global Thermonuclear War?

  16. E = mc ... WHAT??? by LeDopore · · Score: 0

    "10,000 megatonnes of energy"

    I'm pretty sure they mean the energy equivalent of 10,000 megatonnes on TNT, which is only 465 kg of energy in terms of E = mc^2. Still, that'll hurt more than a snowball...

    --
    Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    1. Re:E = mc ... WHAT??? by qeveren · · Score: 1

      It's pretty standard (layman's) usage that 'megatonnes', when talking about energy, is referring to 'megatonnes of TNT'. Silly. :)

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  17. HURRY! by Compulawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

    We only have 96 years to save ourselves!

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  18. Problem with hitting it away by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    There's just one big problem with hitting it away: if we guess wrong on the mass of the asteroid, there is a good chance that we could actually hit it into a more direct collision course with Earth. We're better off letting it swing past us. Knocking it off course might work this time, but since its orbit is left to question, the next time around it may hit us for sure, with nothing we can do about it.

    Of course, there's also the option that we just split it into more targets, that we either have to nuke or will hit us and also do damage. So basically, if it's gonna hit, then we're screwed.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Problem with hitting it away by doug · · Score: 1

      If you are going to hit it, just bump it off of the plane of the ecliptic. I haven't RTFM yet, but most objects are on the same plane, so a lot of solar system is more or less 2D. By pushing it "high" or "low" (whatever they mean), then you've added a new degree of freedom, and thus reduce the chance of impact with Earth.

      <geek>
      Just think of the Enterprise attacking Kahn. Kirk was able to move down and out of Kahn's path.
      </geek>

      And even if it does break up, I'd rather have Earth hit by a fragment than the whole thing.

      - doug

  19. At more risk from Yellowstone Park erupting by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    and spewing dust and rock into our atmosphere.

    Heck, the effects of global warming are probably bigger.

    Unless the asteroid hits a densely populated area of the earth, like China, or India. If it hits Australia, well, not much impact on earth population.

    Besides, in 2102 I'll be dead. My head will be in a jar, recounting how our civilization failed to aliens from another planet.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:At more risk from Yellowstone Park erupting by Walpurgiss · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't really matter where it hit, it would cause global devastation in the form of massive dust clouds, huge tsunamis, etc; etc. That size, that hot from entering the atmosphere, with the kinds of speeds it would have, I doubt it would make a difference where on earth it impacted.

    2. Re:At more risk from Yellowstone Park erupting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, the effects of global warming are probably bigger.

      Nope, global warming doesn't exist. When weather guessers can tell me the exact temperature, cloud cover and rain probability 10 days from now I'll start listening to what might maybe happen in 100 years.

    3. Re:At more risk from Yellowstone Park erupting by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>If it hits Australia, well, not much impact on earth population.

      Well, aside from the possibility of tsunamis whipping across the Pacific and wiping out Chinese/Indian coastal cities anyway, I'd hazard a guess that Australians probably think the impact on earth's population would be pretty severe...

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    4. Re:At more risk from Yellowstone Park erupting by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      >>If it hits Australia, well, not much impact on earth population.

      Well, aside from the possibility of tsunamis whipping across the Pacific and wiping out Chinese/Indian coastal cities anyway, I'd hazard a guess that Australians probably think the impact on earth's population would be pretty severe...


      That's on a personal scale, not a worldwide population impact scale. For that matter, if it impacted on Washington DC, the density levels are pretty low there.

      Naturally, I was thinking of it hitting, oh, say, around Alice Springs. Hopefully, the impact would be less there than a coastal area. If we presume that dinosaurs died out from an asteroidal impact just off the coast of Panama, on the eastern side, where it's shallow, the impact zone is magnified by the echo chamber formed by the ocean shores and the fairly low elevations.

      Optimal would be some area lightly populated, inland, but with soils that might cushion such a blow.

      We also need to consider the following:

      1. At some point Yellowstone will blow and it will dramatically impact our ecosystem, based upon Krakatoa and other prior volcanic eruptions, as well as Yellowstone's geology and position in the airstreams.

      2. Australia is, even today, lightly populated. A hit on the Eastern side of the continent would probably cause the least damage, due to the local of large populations near sea level to the Northwest of Australia. A hit at, say, Perth, would be catastrophic and cause tsunamis beyond belief. Even worse would be Rat Island just off Perth, which would be entirely surrounded by water.

      3. The angle of impact may be critical. A direct vertical strike might cause greater earth tremors and rebound effects, a side strike at say 45 degrees might create a wave in the direction of impact, a more horizontal strike might burn up or even bounce off the earth's atmosphere, but could reduce atmosphere slightly.

      4. Lots of people predict orbits based on, admittedly, very minimal data. We are projecting based on our current knowledge of orbital position and time, but a longer period of observation may correct our projections and find the asteroid will impact on the moon - which might be worse - or miss entirely. Over a period of just less than 100 years it is likely that orbital refinements of projected trajectories may shift, so I'm not going to stay up late worrying about this one.

      5. Mothra will fly up and burn it up anyway, when we summon the Giant Moon Moth to our rescue. So it's all a moot point.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:At more risk from Yellowstone Park erupting by nasch · · Score: 1

      Something that big is not going to burn up or bounce off, and as the other poster said it's a global catastrophe no matter where it hits. Yes, perhaps fewer people would die if it hit Australia, but it's probably a matter of not-as-many-hundreds-of-millions-dead, not "whew, that was almost a problem".

  20. Composition? Blessing in disguise? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    This could be a blessing in disguise, if the composition of the rock is largely metals rather than being just stone - it could force us to intercept it and mine it for the resources to avert it, forcing us to develop the technology and skills needed to mine other asteroids.

    Also - a large impact would lower temperatures a lot....

    1. Re:Composition? Blessing in disguise? by mstahl · · Score: 1

      I admire your optimism, but an asteroid impact can't really be described as a "blessing in disguise" for a number of reasons.

      First off, "stone" is mostly a terrestrial thing. Anything flying around in space is either "various metals" or "ice" or "cosmic dust". It's not as if you could have an asteroid made out of fine italian marble flying around space.

      Secondly, mining asteroids isn't even a very practical way of acquiring useful metals, much less an effective means of saving the planet from an impact. Determining the exact composition of an asteroid isn't really an exact science unless we can get up close enough to do it accurately. Of course, if the asteroid does hit the Earth, then it'll save us the trouble by littering our atmosphere and the Earth's crust with whatever it's made of.

      The fact of the matter is that we don't really have any easy ways to dispose of celestial objects that are about to hit us, and cancelling out global warming with another great extinction doesn't really sweeten the deal that much.

  21. More likely to be hit by an unknown object by delete · · Score: 1

    There's a slightly less alarming article on New Scientist, where the manager of NASA's Near Earth Object Program suggests that this risk posed by this asteroid is likely to be significantly less than 1/1000:
    "The most likely situation, by far, is that additional observations will bring it back down to a zero."

    Slightly more disturbing is his second comment:
    "We're more likely to be hit between now and then by an object that we don't know about."

    1. Re:More likely to be hit by an unknown object by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We're more likely to be hit between now and then by an object that we don't know about.

      Or worse, our global sports broadcasting networks will collapse when a key satellite is destroyed by an LEO golf drive.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  22. A clever plot by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Yesterday it was mind control sharks, and today its collision course astroids.

    I think it's a clever plot by the mind control sharks to draw off attention from them and make us pay attention to the killer asteroids while they usurp control of our world leaders.

    Anyone notice that the entire staff of the white house is wearing I Love Sharks pins today?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:A clever plot by Daravon · · Score: 1

      What we need is a video game that'll teach kids to violently beat sharks to death, mind powers or not. Only then will our future be safe!

      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    2. Re:A clever plot by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

      What we need is a video game that'll teach kids to violently beat sharks to death, mind powers or not. Only then will our future be safe!

      But they may need training in dodging lasers first. Some of those sharks have frickin' lasers on their foreheads, and may be ill-tempered.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  23. Not to worry by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    These asteroids have a way of correcting their course once NASA gets more funding.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grin

    2. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Bruce Willis?

    3. Re:Not to worry by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought that they'd be more likely to gravitationally attract more asteroids onto the same collision course the moment NASA realises it's onto a good thing.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  24. Why stop it, why not bring it into orbit by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
    Seriously wouldn't manipulating the orbit of the asteroid into one around earth or in one of our L points make a lot of sense in the creation of orbiting settlements. Rather than simply blowing the sucker up.

    Worked for Gundam. And I would think by that point we would have gotten our collective heads out of our asses to be making a legitimate play at space settlements.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    1. Re:Why stop it, why not bring it into orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to take a physics class. The energy required to put that much delta-V on an asteroid is more than all the energy ever produced by all the power stations on earth AND every nuclear bomb ever made.

      There is a huge difference between changing an orbit a little and changing it by the amount you're talking about.

    2. Re:Why stop it, why not bring it into orbit by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Yep, and destroy our tides, and possibly the moon in the process. Absolutely genius!

    3. Re:Why stop it, why not bring it into orbit by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

      The thing is 1/2 km in diameter. it's effect on the tides, even if we put it into LEO, is almost nill.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    4. Re:Why stop it, why not bring it into orbit by RhadamanthosIsChaos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the problem with the Gundam universe.... somehow they managed to find the resources to mine the huge, colony-anchoring asteroids and construct the colonies out of them. The amount of metal in one colony alone is mind-boggling.

      Then again, by 0087 they also had gas-mining operations in the atmosphere of Jupiter, so they've definitely got some pretty awesome technology.

      --
      +++OUT OF CHEESE ERROR+++ REDO FROM START +++
  25. Not to worry by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    We'll just preserve Harrison Ford and Aerosmith in cryostasis until 2100, and I'm sure they'll be able to take care of that asteroid no problem.

  26. Crap by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Crap! Well...someone better go ahead and notify Bruce Willis. And Aerosmith for that matter...so they can start writing a new song for this.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  27. FSP! by qmaqdk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Forty seventh post!

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
  28. How is this a "new" asteriod? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought these asteroid things had been roaming the glaxaly for thousands of years? Even if they meant to say "newly discovered", that still isn't quite right. The thing has been being tracked for over a year now.

    Anyway, it says the impact wouldn't happen till 2102. I plan to be quite dead by that date from normal causes so it's not my problem:P

    1. Re:How is this a "new" asteriod? by tricorn · · Score: 1

      What are you doing to further your plans of being quite dead by then? Myself, I'm planning on being quite alive by then, though probably not on this planet.

  29. According to Homer Simpson by srock2588 · · Score: 1

    It will burn up in the atmosphere. Only those huddled in the bomb shelter will be killed when the small ball strikes the shelter directly.

    --
    Ehh...this is the life we chose.
  30. It's just a 2 on the Torino scale by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    This is a 2 on the Torino scale:

    A discovery, which may become routine with expanded searches, of an object making a somewhat close but not highly unusual pass near the Earth. While meriting attention by astronomers, there is no cause for public attention or public concern as an actual collision is very unlikely. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to re-assignment to Level 0.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:It's just a 2 on the Torino scale by sbowles · · Score: 1

      New government funding for telescopic observations very likely will lead to re-assignment to Level 0.

      --
      You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
    2. Re:It's just a 2 on the Torino scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for comparison, Bode Miller was a 5 on the Torino scale and he missed every time.

    3. Re:It's just a 2 on the Torino scale by st1d · · Score: 1

      I like how they'd like to stop using the Torino scale, because it might alarm people. Isn't that kind of the purpose, to indicate varying levels of worry?

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  31. dont be scared again and again by cycledance · · Score: 1

    its so simple...just let something explode next to it and alter its flying curve. even a veeery minimal change leads to a drastic alteration in the end. no asteroid can match the size of the problems we have on earth.

  32. And the largest piece... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    ...will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head.

  33. Why??? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

    Why do they even bother releasing this to the public. All it does is lead to mainstream journalists disasterbating. I mean, yeah, it's interesting to NEO experts and various nerds, but the general public, which has almost no functional science education, either gives 1/1000 of a rat's ass or panics unneccessarily. I know I harp on this every time, but please, give it a rest. Wake me when you find something that has at least a 1% chance of hitting sometime in the next century.

  34. May I be the first to wish everyone... by spot35 · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...around on the day it hits -
    "May the 4th be with you"
    1. Re:May I be the first to wish everyone... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Who is the bigger dork here? Me for laughing at it, or you for writing it?

  35. My favorite is the "500 metres (yards)" comment by pbrammer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think someone forgot the conversion number to put inside the parenthesis as yards does not equal meters at a factor of 1:1 ... Should've been, 580 metres (638 yards). Also, 500 is not correct as according to the JPL, the diameter is 580 meters.

    1. Re:My favorite is the "500 metres (yards)" comment by jjon · · Score: 1
      I think someone forgot the conversion number to put inside the parenthesis as yards does not equal meters at a factor of 1:1 ... Should've been, 580 metres (638 yards). Also, 500 is not correct as according to the JPL, the diameter is 580 meters.

      From the JPL page you linked to:

      the diameter estimate should be considered only approximate, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two. [emphasis added]

      When you're talking about errors that great, whether it's "around 500 feet" or "around 500 meters" or "around 580 meters" doesn't really matter. In fact, saying "638 feet" implies a lot more accuracy than you really have. See "False precision" on wikipedia

    2. Re:My favorite is the "500 metres (yards)" comment by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      The article said it was about 500 meters, JPL said it was about 580 meters. One "about" was simply more generous than the other. Given a notable asteroid can vary in size from tens of meters to thousands of meters, saying 580 is about 500 and a meter is about a yard seems reasonable.

    3. Re:My favorite is the "500 metres (yards)" comment by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

      ALso they forgot to mention that they're using NASA units to measure probability. According to NASA units I have a 25% chance of winning at least $100,000,000 in a lottery next year.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    4. Re:My favorite is the "500 metres (yards)" comment by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yards, not feet. There are slightly more than three feet in a metre so that would be well outside of the factor of two NASA says.

      But come on, you can multiply a rough estimate by a very precise conversion factor and get a high precision value can't you? They seem to do it in business all the time.

  36. Damn, I just finished reading Lucifers Hammer by IMightB · · Score: 1

    OK this is a little freakish...

  37. perspective by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

    A 15 month delay in notification for an extremely unlikely event which might happen (if at all) 1176 months from now is not a big deal.

    This is roughly equivalent to your wife finding out yesterday (March 1, 2006) that there is a 1 in 3000 chance that she might blow $900 on a spa trip with her mother for Mother's Day (May 14, 2006) and waiting one day to tell you about it.

    Potentially catastrophic? Sure. Something to be worried about? No, because the overwhelming likelihood is that as the date approaches, the probability of the event actually taking place will drop to zero, just like all the other "near misses" that never happened, like the proposed mother/daughter cruise to Turkey, or that "girl's night out" to Las Vegas they keep talking about.

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:perspective by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      Have you considered they might keep talking about it because it actually did happen?

  38. "Sub-continental" only puts an upper limit, by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    doesn't it?

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  39. Fellow space brothers! by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    Time to quickly put on our fancy suits and power up our rockets. We have a mission to complete! We have a world to save!

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  40. My reading of about by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

    How did "1 in 3,000" get to be "about one in 1,000" in the first sentence? I don't think those are in the about range.

  41. According to my calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    11-08-2104

    1. Re:According to my calculations by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 1

      I get the same thing...

      --
      Unpleasantries.
  42. Plenty of time... by Xaroth · · Score: 1

    Bah. By "early next century", I plan to already be dead.

    The only real downside for everyone else is that they won't be able to bring Bruce Willis out of retirement to save the planet.

    1. Re:Plenty of time... by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      I'm certain the immortal Chuck Norris will roundhouse this problem away, but only at the opportune dramatic moment.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    2. Re:Plenty of time... by st1d · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? At Hollywood's rate of increasing greed, by 2100+, they'll not only have DRM cracking worthy of capital punishment, but they'll have implemented both DNA replication for actors as well. No sense only being able to replicate copyrights like Mickey Mouse, might as well have the "DNA rights" to Bruce Willis and others, too. Of course, they'll have to appease the fundamentalist christians, and make sure that their clones aren't "real people", which will have the added benefit of not having to pay the clones, either.

      Of course, if NASA wants to borrow "New Bruce", it'll cost them a hefty penny, and Hollywood will retain all rights to the project, including any technology used to save the planet. Ah, what a fine future for our children... :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  43. Woohoo! by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

    I'm not gonna be alive when it hits, so I'll just let my children handle this one.

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  44. And the only fact that matters... by TCQuad · · Score: 1

    Torino scale (maximum): 2

    A two is the bottom of the category "Meriting Attention from Astronomers", above "Normal" but below "Threatening". From the site, about a two on the Torino scale:

    A discovery, which may become routine with expanded searches, of an object making a somewhat close but not highly unusual pass near the Earth. While meriting attention by astronomers, there is no cause for public attention or public concern as an actual collision is very unlikely. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to re-assignment to Level 0.

    If there's a clearer way to say "stop panicking everytime we see something", I'm not sure what it is.

    1. Re:And the only fact that matters... by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      If there's a clearer way to say "stop panicking everytime we see something", I'm not sure what it is.

      This is like when you can't find your glasses only to realize that you're already wearing them!

      The sad thing is that there are some people, usually scientists, who simply don't understand that in sensitive matters like this, you really need to stress that it doesn't warrant panicking without hiding it deep within a definition. Color coding it yellow doesn't help much either. It needs to be clearer that the threat from an asteroid such as this one is still near zero and does not need to make headlines.

      <disclaimer> Not sure if you intended to be sarcastic or not. If you did, then I apologize.</disclaimer>

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    2. Re:And the only fact that matters... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that there are some people, usually scientists, who simply don't understand that in sensitive matters like this, you really need to stress that it doesn't warrant panicking without hiding it deep within a definition.

      Silly layman, you don't get funding or fame that way!

  45. where will it land? by davez0r · · Score: 2, Funny

    if it crashes into the ocean, we already have trained sharks that can cut it up with laser beams. and the earth's surface is like 70% water, so i think we're safe.

    1. Re:where will it land? by glass_window · · Score: 1

      And that 70% water is 30% sharks.

  46. asteroid threat by kunzy · · Score: 1

    In this talk, http://seminars.moose.cc/salt-0200403-schweickart/ salt-0200403-schweickart.mp3 former astronaut Rusty Schweickart elaborates on the asteroid threat over the next 100,000 years. It's very interesting. Also available in ogg http://seminars.moose.cc/salt-0200403-schweickart/ salt-0200403-schweickart.ogg.

  47. (+1, Cynical) by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    Almost the perfect comment.

    However, you forgot to mention that poor people, women, and children will be the most affected.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  48. I wonder what I should do? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    Aha!

    I'll leave in my will that my great-grandkids, when/if they are born, should be given ample money to purchase helmets to be used in case of asteroid collision.

    There, problem solved.

    1. Re:I wonder what I should do? by JDSalinger · · Score: 1

      You going to adopt by yourself? Very noble... -C

  49. a la Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not current on my space science, but would something like this be able to be knocked out of it's orbit? It seems that a 580m object could be moved out of harms way with a large enough blast.

    I doubt an "Armageddon" style mission would work, but from a physics point of view, could this actually work?

  50. OUTFUCKINGSTANDING IDEA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I feel it does warrant one single question: To where shall we go?

    Just deep space past the Ort, using antimatter warp engines and hydrogen collectors like on Star Trek? Terraform a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri and deal with the mind worms whilst fighting amongst ourselves, again?

    Or some other option which you have deduced yourself, and felt it was unwise to share with the rest of us unwashed primitives?

    1. Re:OUTFUCKINGSTANDING IDEA! by st1d · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Underwear Gnomes reference:

      1) Build great big spaceships, using all natural resources up in the process.

      2) ???

      3) Prosper!!!

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  51. Big Rocks Bearing Down by cunamara · · Score: 1

    Armageddon outa here before that bog old rock hits!

  52. There are better ways by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Seriously wouldn't manipulating the orbit of the asteroid into one around earth or in one of our L points make a lot of sense in the creation of orbiting settlements. Rather than simply blowing the sucker up.

    The asteroid's orbit goes out past Mars, and in almost to Mercury. The delta V required would be probably be comparable to just take a hunk of rock from Earth's surface to L4/L5; I'd guess within a natural magnitude, and maybe in favor of lifting from sea level.

    Admittedly, it's easier to justify using quick-and-dirty Orion-style nuclear propulsion to move stuff when you stay outside a biosphere. OTOH, lifting from the lunar surface would be way cheaper than either plan, and also not involve a biosphere.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  53. Why worry? by mslinux · · Score: 1

    The suns gonna burn out in 4 to 5 billion years so unless a bunch of egg heads get together and figure out how we can get off of this rock onto another suitable rock in a resonable amount of time, it doesn't really matter whether this thing hits us or not. Always look on the bright side kids :)

    1. Re:Why worry? by st1d · · Score: 1

      Ah, if it were only that long. About 3 billion years from now, Andromeda will collide with the Milky way, and over the course of the next 500 million+ years, the two will interact, until they combine into a larger system. The best part? Some of the more intricate simulations have our solar system being launched directly into the center of the combined system. I.e., we're going to have to get a whole lot further away than a few solar systems, because our region of the galaxy is gonna find out what really happens when you enter a black hole. Not that that will matter much anyway, as the increased radiation from the center of the galaxy, or collision with another solar system will have already done us in by that time.

      On the upside, at least we dealt with that Janet Jackson Super Bowl problem. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    2. Re:Why worry? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      our sun will expand as it ages, and in less than 250 million years the earth will be too hot for mammals, and in 500 million years from now too hot for even microbal life. way before then all the ice on earth will melt. waterworld, baby, it's your future!

  54. Pratchett's Law by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    If the odds were 1 in 1,000,000 (EXACTLY one in a million) I would have been concerned, for as Pratchett's Law (named after the great living sage Terry Pratchett) wisely states, anything whose possibility is one in one million (EXACTLY one in one million) always happens.

    That not being the case then we're left with the far more optimistic Murphy's Law, a sure relief.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    1. Re:Pratchett's Law by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1
      That not being the case then we're left with the far more optimistic Murphy's Law, a sure relief.

      I wouldn't relax so quickly there, alex.

      Pratchett's Law is all and good, but this situation is a perfect example of Ball's Corollary, which states that odds can often be reduced (By Pratchett's Law) to a superposition of two things:

      1. a chain of odds, all 1/1,000,000 that lead to the event *and*
      2. 1/1 odds, also known as perfect certainty.

      In this particular case, it turns out to be fairly simply: there is a 1 in a million chance that NASA researchers will reclassify this asteroid's odds of hitting earth to exactly 1 in a million. The odds of it being reclassified as that are (you guessed it) exactly 1 in a million.

      According to Pratchett's Law, this means that it will be reclassified as 1 in a million, and then we will know for certain that it will hit earth. But then, given that it's odds of hitting earth have risen to 1 in 1, it would no longer be subject to Pratchett's Law, and instead would be subject to Murphy's Law, which has played havoc with prediction so long that the only thing we can be sure of the happening when we watch the weather is that the weatherman will be wrong in the only way that matters to us that day. Therefore, we can be certain that we will be wrong about being certain about the asteroid hitting earth.

      Or can we?
      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
  55. Were gana die on... by Drakin030 · · Score: 0

    May 3rd 2032 Thats when it seems to come closest. (Pulls out a bottle of shampain) Welp...it was good while it lasted.

  56. About Right by bahwi · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone know their history? The Mayans said December. Estimates are normally 2011 or 2012, so this sounds about right.

  57. Argh!! by sserendipity · · Score: 1

    So, it's bound to hit the earth, and it's GROWING!!!

    I'll be under my bed if anyone needs me.

  58. I hope we don't discover methods for detecting... by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1
    ...nearby mini-black holes hurtling through space. You can be sure that the moment someone does we'll have to endure endless news stories about mini-black holes with a 1 in 1000 chance of eliminating all life on earth. Same goes for predicting nearby supernovae, directed gamma ray bursts, unravelling cosmic strings and any number of other potential cosmic disasters.

    On the other hand, maybe we need more stories about asteroids potentially hitting the Earth. By time we've seen a few thousand people will finally catch on to the fact that these figures are bogus and we'll stop getting them.

    --
    "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  59. coincidence != causation by gansch · · Score: 1

    Why did the author(s) have to bring up dinosaurs?

    Although there is evidence of an asteroid impact around the time (meaning within a few million years in geologic terms) of the dinosaur extinction, there is no strong evidence linking these events. The extinction has also been related to volcanic activity, climate changes, supernova radiation, fireball explosions, or meteors.

    Apparently, creating an impression of impending doom sells more online publications (?), or at least produces public support for expensive research.

    1. Re:coincidence != causation by Anthony · · Score: 1

      However, there is a major boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary strata, above which there are no dinosaurs, ammmonites and a bunch of other missing phyla. There has also been found in a number of places a coincident iridium anomaly, indicative of a wide-reaching impact event. Of course scientists look for all possible explanations and exceptions. The asteroid impact theory is the latest one that has a lot of evidence supporting it.

      Is it the sole cause? probably not. Will another theory come along to supplant it? maybe. Science journalism is sometimes caught between the nebulous world of nascent theories and the need for understandable explanations.

      --
      Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  60. Ob. Zim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walk for your lives!

  61. So what? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    According to James Lovelock, civilization will fall in the next 100 years anyway as the effects of global warming will totally change the climate on a world that wasn't ready for it.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  62. So? My great-grandkids can suck it! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    I bet the little bastards will never even visit me in the nursing home.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  63. equivalent to all the world's nuclear weapons by Jokerz17 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone besides me ever noticed that every asteroid that almost hits earth would have done so with the equivalent to all the world's nuclear weapons? I think we need a new unit of measurement here. This asteriod will expend 1 wnw of power when it hits earth. Much easier to read.

    1. Re:equivalent to all the world's nuclear weapons by st1d · · Score: 1

      On the upside, it might mean that asteroids are getting smaller, as nuclear stockpiles aren't anywhere where they used to be during the cold war, due to lack of incentive and degradation over time.

      Besides, who really knows the effect of all those things going off? It seems awfully unscientific to proclaim such things without setting off all the world's nuclear weapons to establish a control baseline. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    2. Re:equivalent to all the world's nuclear weapons by o'reor · · Score: 1
      Wait, wait... do we really need a new measurement unit ?

      Let's see... If the Library of Congress were to hit Earth with a velocity of 15 miles per second, wouldn't it come close to the devastation caused by this asteroid ?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    3. Re:equivalent to all the world's nuclear weapons by nasch · · Score: 1

      They didn't say it would have the same effect as 1 WNW, they said it would carry the same amount of energy. But yes, further study is definitely required. ;-)

  64. Ha! by ghostfacehallik · · Score: 1

    The way things are going these days we will do ourselves in long before this asteroid dings us.

  65. Excellent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this civilization is killing itself anyway.
    Lousy and greedy politicians without any real visions and greedy magacorps with only one vision. This is not the world our parents and grandparents has worked and fought for.
    Somewhere in the late 70-ties ot 80-ties something went terribly wrong... and now we are anslaved by our own greed.
    --
    "I've got a dream" a wise man once said... sadly it is not a better world today, just different.

  66. easy peasy. by nblender · · Score: 1

    We just need something really big that we can send up to hover around it for a couple decades to suck it into our orbit where it can hang out with the moon to temper our tides a little bit... Then next time one of these rocks threatens us, we can just send our big pet-rock out for some more orbit modification therapy.... We don't need no steenking bombs when we can just use our friend Gravity.

  67. Do they even know what a megaton is? by hyp3r · · Score: 1

    How exactly is 10,000 megatons equal to all the world's nuclear weapons? A little research on wikipedia will show that there is estimated to be at least 29,000 nuclear weapons in existence today. Even if you assume that they only release the energy of the least powerful nuclear bomb, which is 9 megatons, that would put the energy released by all the world's nuclear weapons at around 261,000 megatons. That's an extremely generous underestimate, too. I'm not positive, but I think the average nuke is about 50 megatons, which would put the total at 1,450,000 megatons. Where did they get the 10,000 number from?

    1. Re:Do they even know what a megaton is? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Even if you assume that they only release the energy of the least powerful nuclear bomb, which is 9 megatons, that would put the energy released by all the world's nuclear weapons at around 261,000 megatons.

      I don't know where they got their numbers from either, but the least powerful atomic weapons are in the kiloton, not megaton, range - "Little Boy" was 15 kt, and I would presume "tactical nukes" are much lower.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Do they even know what a megaton is? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Even if you assume that they only release the energy of the least powerful nuclear bomb, which is 9 megatons, that would put the energy released by all the world's nuclear weapons at around 261,000 megatons. That's an extremely generous underestimate, too. I'm not positive, but I think the average nuke is about 50 megatons, which would put the total at 1,450,000 megatons. Where did they get the 10,000 number from?

      It's not 1956 any more. Big nukes went out of style as rockets got more accurate; when there's less chance of a near miss on a hard target, you don't need such big overkill, and if it's a city you want to roast it's more cost-effective to use ten small bombs than one big bomb.

      Fifty megatons is huge - the largest yield from any bomb ever detonated was some 57MT. Even one megaton is large for a modern weapon; I believe yields of a quarter to a half megaton are more typical.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Do they even know what a megaton is? by hyp3r · · Score: 1

      Okay, but I think you're missing my point. This is NASA we're talking about, and they seem to be tossing numbers out there without really looking too much into it. That really concerns me when they would release information which is bound to scare some people into thinking a meteor is going to kill all life on earth, and in the same report make a comment about a comparable size nuclear blast without really knowing what they are talking about. If they just made up that 20,000 megaton number thinking nobody would pay attention, how are we supposed to believe that anything else in the report has any merit?

  68. Re:About Right, but off by a smidge by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone know their history? The Mayans said December. Estimates are normally 2011 or 2012, so this sounds about right.

    I thought the original Toltec predictions had it on July 4th, 2002 ...

    Dang, I've been using the wrong calendar!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  69. Deadlines are great by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    In particular the whooshing noise they make as they cruise past.

    Betcha the governments of the world will leave it till the last possible moment, to a crappy rocket built to obselete specifications by the lowest bidder.

  70. Missing Simpsons quote by jamesh · · Score: 1

    As copied from a previous slashdot comment:

    Homer: "So there's a commet. Big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and whatever's 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."

    Moe: Quick... lets burn down the observatory so that this never happens again!!

  71. Puh-leaze by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

    The real asteroid/comet threat is that we can't possibly track everything that could hit us. If we're tracking it, I don't consider it a problem.

    --
    Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  72. Anyone Notice... by monkaduck · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice that if you set the orbit simulation from the link to the date in the article, the asteroid's not even close to Earth?

    --
    Napalm is nature's toothpaste
  73. nuclear weapons have a better chance by bhav2007 · · Score: 1

    Its a pretty handy metric to compare the asteroid's impact to all of the earth's nuclear weapons, considering that they have a much better chance than 1 / 1000 of going off before it gets here.

  74. FYI by Bombula · · Score: 1
    I ran NASA's java applet orbital projector thingo, and on May 4 2102 asteroid 2004 VD17 is outside the orbit of Mars, several AUs from Earth.

    WTF?

    --
    A-Bomb
  75. And for those who prefer to roll their own... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Impact Effects calculator.

    Input diameter 580m, density Dense Rock (3000 kg/m^3), impact velocity 21.36 km/s, and pick your own impact angle, impact site and observer's distance from ground zero.

    It doesn't really look all that bad. The nuclear war comparison is misleading: sure, it may be energetically equivalent, but a nuclear war would spread that destruction worldwide and target cities deliberately, quite aside from the fallout. It'd wreck a city and severely damage a smallish country, but a subcontinent? Not convinced.

    And taking into account the low probability that this will happen at all, I wouldn't call this 'Earth's Biggest Threat'. That would still be either the United States or Russia, as I'd reckon that the chances of one of those two going nuclear on somebody over the same timescale is rather greater than the chances of this rock hitting us.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  76. Err, it doesn't look like it by vikstar · · Score: 1

    On May 4th 2102 Asteroid (2004 VD17) looks like it is about 2AU away from Earth based on this site: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?sstr=2004+V D17&group=all&search=Search

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  77. escape velocity by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

    Escape velocity is defined as @sqrt(2GM/r). G is 6.67e-11 m^3 s^-2 kg^-1. M and r (hald the diameter) for this asteroid are 2.7e11 kg and 290 m, respectively.

    So, Ve for this asteroid is = @sqrt(2*6.67e-11*2.7e11/290) = 0.35 m/s

    This number is a *lot* lower that I would have guessed without having done the calculations.

    I stand corrected... if you can land any kind of functioning acceleration system, achieving escape velocity for material pitched off the asteroid will be no big deal, even if you want to use really big rocks.

    The Navy's rail gun gives a muzzle velocity of 2500m/s for a 20kg round. A system operating at even a fraction of this power level would be able to fling even very, very large rocks off at escape velocity.

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:escape velocity by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about the Navy system... they have a couple of drawbacks that you wouldn't have on an asteroid. They have to fire through atmosphere, their rail gun is IN atmosphere, they have to mount it on a ship and they have to hit a target.

      We can build in a vacuum, don't really care where the shot goes, so long as it's in the right general direction (ie a whole quadrant of the sky), and we don't have to have nice aerodynamic shells.

      Big drawback of course is that it has to be built on an asteroid in space.

  78. Earth and Asteroid Collide May 2, 2032 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else notice that according to Nasa's Orbit Simulation Earth and Asteroid (2004 VD17) will collide on May 2, 2032?

  79. I for one... by poopie · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome our new 2004 VD17 asteroid overlords.