Slashdot Mirror


Mars Asteroid Impact More Likely Than Before

sheldie writes "The probability of asteroid 2007 WD5 impacting Mars has been revised following further observations. The chance of impact has increased from 1.3% to 3.9%" This is a follow-up to earlier coverage of this asteroid from last week.

207 comments

  1. Taking All Bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ok people, the likelihood has tripled!

    Taking all bets at 1:25 odds now! Hurry before it becomes even more likely to hit! Lock in your bets early before the odds increase even more! I'll bet you wish you had jumped on those lucky bastards who will be paid out 1:75! Don't wait any longer!

    Hey, who says nerds can't gamble?

    1. Re:Taking All Bets by ladoga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there any sensible reason to care about moderations? It's something that has escaped me,
      but I'm relatively new here so maybe someone could elaborate.

    2. Re:Taking All Bets by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If a comment is modded down far enough, it won't be seen. If a funny or interesting comment is modded "troll" or "offtopic" there's a chance I'll miss a chuckle or worse, Ill miss being enlightened about something.

      Then there's the karma thing. I'm not worried about mine, as it seems (so far knock on wood) to be impervious to anything; I get modded troll and offtopic all the time (sometimes they mod me offtopic and they're right, like this one should be) but someone whose karma is merely "good" could miss a chance to have that talk he wants with his fellow slashdotters.

      But what rankles me is the ones who mod you down for seemingly no reason. They especially do it to ACs, thinking (I guess) that a negative mod won't hurt someone not logged in, but forgetting that you can check a little box to post AC.

      I especially hate being called a troll. Mod me offtopic but damn it, I do NOT troll.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Taking All Bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you cluless n00b.

    4. Re:Taking All Bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I especially hate being called a troll. Mod me offtopic but damn it, I do NOT troll.

      Trouble is, that's what trolls say too.

    5. Re:Taking All Bets by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      I agree. The solution? Non anonymous moderation. You mod someone a troll? You should have to 'splain yourself.

      That owuld be fine by me - it would make the rating MEAN SOMETHING REAL, and while fewer people would give "bad" mods, it would also lead to better posts, because you would have to write something worthwhile.

      God ferbid.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    6. Re:Taking All Bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would just lead to mod wars and people going out of their way to mod down foes and mod up friends. Anonymous moderation has its place, the problem is more that very few people meta-mod.

    7. Re:Taking All Bets by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      that's what trolls say too

      Can you quote one? Actually I'm a recovering biter. Here in Springfield we do our trolling offline!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  2. This is going to decimate all life on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Decimate is the word of the day. See how many stories you can incorrectly apply it.

    1. Re:This is going to decimate all life on Mars by jombeewoof · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would imagine 1/10 of the stories it will be used incorrectly on today.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    2. Re:This is going to decimate all life on Mars by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why are all the on-topic AC posts being modded offtopic? Could it be explained by this?

      Oh, and on topic: ATTENTION MODS- THE FUCKING STORY IS ABOUT THE ODDS OF AN ASTEROID HITTING MARS. if you don't know what "Decimate" means you might care to look it up in your dickshunairy.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:This is going to decimate all life on Mars by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      You mean Lucille Ball?

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
  3. Wow by snowraver1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would truly be an amazing event. The science that could be learned in the event of a collision would be massive! I, for one, welcome our planet smashing overlord!

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    1. Re:wow by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      thats like a 300% greater chance

      It is 200% greater. Or 300% as great.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Wow by 0.693 · · Score: 0

      It would be cool. But what science would be learned from it ?

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've experiments to be run. There is research to be done. On the planets who are still alive...

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      On Soviet Mars, planet smashes planet smashing overlord!

    5. Re:Wow by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      It would be amazing! Too bad most of us wouldn't get a good view of it.

      Of course the big thing to worry about is not one hitting Mars, but one from Mars hitting Earth - especially if it lands somewhere near Grover's Mill, New Jersey. (And even worse if the name Yoyodyne is associated with it!)

    6. Re:Wow by Debello · · Score: 1

      This is stunning! Is the impact going to be, shall we say... DEEP?

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That could happen! If Sir Richard Branson stopped bickering with his staff and launched a full-scale initiative to provide cheap flights to Mars.

      Sadly, the name-calling will go on and we will never see the glories of Martian super-destruction.

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

      I, for one, welcome our planet smashing overlord!

      That must be the first Martian post on Slashdot.

    9. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You must be new here.

    10. Re:Wow by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, the slashdot crowd gets younger every year (and I'm so old I was a beta tester for dirt. We never did get all the bugs out).

      Does nobody remember Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994? Hell I even remember that and there was a catastrophe in my home town... oh wait, no that was 1993. The comet hitting Jupiter was a year later.

      But at any rate, we had a extinction-causing (if it would have happened on Earth) impact in less than the last fifteen years!

      How many collisions do you guys need, anyway? Jees! Leave poor little Mars alone!

      -mcgrew
      A letter from Linda

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    11. Re:Wow by snowraver1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would cause alot of dust and dirt to become airborne, allowing spectral analysis to determine the presence of substances. The argument about water existing on the planet would likely be answered, and we could get a good look on what resources might be available on mars if humans were ever able to establish a base camp.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already know there's water on Mars. But all we know about is ice and a tiny bit of water vapor. The real questions are "how much water," and "is any of it liquid?" Observing an impact could help pin that down as you said. The same methods could also give more insight about the mineral makeup of the surface of Mars. Additionally, we'd have a crater with freshly exposed material to study from orbit, and of a known age, supposing we are at some point in the future able to study it closer.

      Lastly, it could tell us more about the nature of impacts on a rocky body (like Earth) and how they effect it both locally and globally.

  4. Preview of news media coverage by bwintx · · Score: 5, Funny

    "BREAKING NEWS! [SFX: Ridiculously melodramatic sounder]

    "NASA now says an asteroid impact on Mars is now three times more likely than previously thought.

    "At this rate, the impact's likelihood will exceed 150% in just a few days."

    --
    Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    1. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair, a "1 in 24" is much better odds than "1 in 76." So yes, It is three times more likely and yes, that is a pretty big deal.

      A fresh impact crater would reveal all sorts of valuable, once-in-a-lifetime data about the planet that is likely to be the first humans will tred on since Earth. Don't underestimate the science.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "science" do you have in mind? Mars has already a bazillion craters to look at, and now it will have a bazillion+0.039 craters.

    3. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now for fun stats, what's the likelyhood of said asteroid hitting one of the rovers and/or hitting close enough to disable one? Does their insurance plan cover asteroid impacts?

    4. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What "science" do you have in mind? Mars has already a bazillion craters to look at

      But no FRESH ones. All the craters are millions of years old and have been weathered and contaminated. A fresh divot would expose deeper soils and rocks that have not previously been exposed to the atmosphere.

      Also, there are things to learn about the mechanics of larger impacts on Earth-like planets. Since comparisons have been drawn between this and the Tunguska explosion, perhaps studying this will help prove or disprove that theory.
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that noticed the dates on the NASA article? This was suppose to happen yesterday. I think they should get the dates right before updating the probability of impact. *Thwacks head*

    6. Re:Preview of news media coverage by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Now for fun stats, what's the likelyhood of said asteroid hitting one of the rovers and/or hitting close enough to disable one?

      The odds are zero according to NASA.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:Preview of news media coverage by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      The far more likely effect would be a sun-obscuring dust cloud that would shut the rovers down.

    8. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      January, not December..

    9. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The impact ejecta will cover the "exposed deeper soils and rocks" within minutes.

    10. Re:Preview of news media coverage by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      If they have Geico, they most certainly will NOT have coverage. But if they have Geico and are hit by the asteroid (through no fault of their own), then their rates will most certainly double.

    11. Re:Preview of news media coverage by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They said the rovers would only last a few months, too. We all see how badly they botched that timeline up.

    12. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I doubt NASA would tell the rovers if there was a chance anyways.

      Better to just allow the rover to see a shadow, look up, and emit:
      0x68 0x6f 0x6c 0x79 0x20 0x63 0x72 0x61 0x70 0x21

    13. Re:Preview of news media coverage by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Check your insurance policy. This would fall under the force majeure or acts of God clause. They don't pay for major calamities. In some cases they don't even pay for minor ones such as hurricanes.

    14. Re:Preview of news media coverage by JetJaguar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But no FRESH ones.

      That's not really true. The orbital cameras around Mars have detected new craters from impacts that occurred in just the last few years. Here's just one example.

      --

      Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

    15. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Dan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Since comparisons have been drawn between this and the Tunguska explosion, perhaps studying this will help prove or disprove that theory. Actually it wouldn't help prove or disprove Tunguska, since assuming that it was an asteroid or meteor, it would have had to explode as it made planetfall. Now Barringer Crater (aka "Meteor Crater") on the other hand would make an excellent comparison, but we'd still have to remember that Mars has a fraction of the atmosphere, no real magnetic field to speak of (that I'm aware of anyway), no ozone layer... oh, and the meteor that dug out that piece of real estate in the Arizona desert was slightly larger than half a football field. How large is this rock again? (Seriously, I forgot, and I'm too tired to look it up again.) Poor, poor buggalo though, who's going to save the buggalo?
    16. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      Actually, the rovers were only guaranteed to function for 90 days. Everyone assumed they would get another few months of science out of them.

      Three years later, one of the "problems" being addressed is continued funding for a program that wasn't really expected to last more than a year.

      So, the expected lifetime of the rovers wasn't "botched".

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    17. Re:Preview of news media coverage by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Which is why we want to watch the whole thing. Don't forget that Mars' gravity is less than that of Earth, and things will fall slower, and fly further (especially with the much thinner atmosphere).

    18. Re:Preview of news media coverage by PixieDust · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm is obviously lost on you.

    19. Re:Preview of news media coverage by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "NASA now says an asteroid impact on Mars is now three times more likely than previously thought.

      "At this rate, the impact's likelihood will exceed 150% in just a few days."

      They meant to say "one third as unlikely".

    20. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      things will fall slower

      The orbit geometries of Mars and the asteroid -- which are driven by the Sun's gravity -- will almost totally determine the impact velocity. The effects of Mars's gravity will be trivial by comparison.

      OTOH, the thin atmosphere of Mars will alter the mechanics of the impact significantly compared to an Earth impact.

      rj

    21. Re:Preview of news media coverage by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      No doubt it would be interesting if it hit. For now it's much more likely to miss so it's not really news to the wider audience.

    22. Re:Preview of news media coverage by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 2, Funny

      One difference is that the atmospheric shock wave on Mars is expected to knock down many fewer trees than an impact on Earth would.

    23. Re:Preview of news media coverage by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure but I seem to have read, just recently, about a new impact crater on Mars. They dodn't see the actual impact, but the crater wasn't in that spot previously.

      Also, it seems that observing the impact itself could glean some information about Mars.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    24. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      A fresh impact crater would reveal all sorts of valuable, once-in-a-lifetime data

      Or it could muck up a really good probe, covering the solar panels with dust and forcing it to permanantly power down. Yes, a long shot, but so is the possibility of the thing hitting Mars.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    25. Re:Preview of news media coverage by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Yes. I was primarily referring to the detritus thrown up by the impact, though. I know that Mars' lesser mass would pull the asteroid in slower, but it will also decelerate much less through the atmosphere, so I'd say it's roughly a wash, not to mention the asteroid won't accelerate a whole lot from the current velocity delta that the two bodies have. That's from not even running any numbers, so I could be way off, but I doubt it.

    26. Re:Preview of news media coverage by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      A fresh divot would expose deeper soils and rocks that have not previously been exposed to the atmosphere.


      Way to catch the interest of the golfing crowd. Every time someone tees off they might remember to slam the club an extra couple of inches deeper into the ground.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    27. Re:Preview of news media coverage by lessthan · · Score: 1

      What would be hilarious would be the asteroid taking the various Mars satellites out before impact...

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    28. Re:Preview of news media coverage by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure if it is the same crater but I did see a picture of a new Mars crater which was just a smudge in the sand. The impactor had fallen apart before impact and just spread some darker dust around. I think it would be very interesting to see how much of this object actually hits the ground, and how much mass gets thrown into the atmosphere.

      Maybe I am counting on this too much. 4% is not that high. Cross fingers. Touch chipboard.

    29. Re:Preview of news media coverage by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      0x1b 0x1b 0x1b 0x03

    30. Re:Preview of news media coverage by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 1

      I do believe GP meant that whatever the impact kicks up will fall slower. I imagine that Mars' gravity will almost totally determine the trajectory of such ejecta. The effect of the Sun's gravity will be trivial by comparison.

    31. Re:Preview of news media coverage by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      besides, nasa can always make their own craters.

    32. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ python -c "print ''.join([chr(int(c,16)) for c in '0x68 0x6f 0x6c 0x79 0x20 0x63 0x72 0x61 0x70 0x21'.split()])"
      holy crap!
      $ # remember to drink your ovaltine!

    33. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      If you would be so kind as to inform me how to differentiate the "sarcasm" I am supposedly missing, from the bog-standard libertarian "Government/NASA can't do anything right/The 'Free Market', W00T!!!1!" B.S. that perodically sprays stupid all over everyone that reads it, I would be very grateful.

      Thank you!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    34. Re:Preview of news media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0x68 0x6f 0x6c 0x79 0x20 0x63 0x72 0x61 0x70 0x3f

      0x68 0x6f 0x6c 0x65 0x79 0x20 0x63 0x72 0x61 0x70 0x21

  5. Do your duty, people by plover · · Score: 4, Funny
    C'mon, people, it's our duty as annoying geeks to raise paranoia amongst our friends and family.

    Tell them that if the asteroid just barely misses Mars that its gravitational pull could actually slingshot the rock straight towards earth! You just don't have to tell them what the chances of that are (astronomical would be an accurate value.)

    Lets see how many people who failed math we can get to go hide in caves till it passes. :-)

    --
    John
    1. Re:Do your duty, people by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Lets see how many people who failed math we can get to go hide in caves till it passes. :-)

      You're just trying to get some dumb chick in a cave and maybe get your nerd license suspended, aren't you!

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  6. wow by wwmedia · · Score: 0, Redundant

    thats like a 300% greater chance

  7. That first picture... by dattaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

    See that first picture where the arc of the asteroid makes a flyby right into our orbit, while just passing Mars?

    1. Re:That first picture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/right into/close to/
      s/just passing/intersecting/

    2. Re:That first picture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...that's where it's already been. Since it didn't hit us, that means things are okay.

      But not that it matters how close it came to our orbit: It moves faster than Earth, so it didn't really come all that close, because we aren't in that area of our orbit.

  8. Versus Jupiter by us7892 · · Score: 3, Interesting


    How come the experts cannot mathematically say for certain whether this rock will hit Mars? What's the wildcard in this calculation that injects uncertainty?

    1. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're waiting to see whether or not John McEnroe will volley it back. If he whiffs it we'll still be in for one helluva show, so it's win/win as far as I'm concerned.

    2. Re:Versus Jupiter by plover · · Score: 5, Informative
      Measurement inaccuracies in the observations of its current trajectory. It's not like we can hold a tape measure up to it and figure out its precise position, or put it on a scale to check its mass.

      The more it moves, however, the higher the precision of the measurements can be. So as time progresses, the astronomers will be able to reduce the circle of uncertainty.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Versus Jupiter by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Your talking about something very small, hurling though space at ungodly speeds, being effected by tons of ifferent forces, trying to hit something itself going very fast. Toss in all the things we can't see, as well as unpredicable forces (like solar wind, rogue astriods/comets, etc) and the timescale, and its still a shot in the dark. As It gets closer, however, the numbers will change, and they will be able to make a better estimate.

    4. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Accuracy of measurements, mainly.

      Also, regarding Jupiter and Shoemaker-Levy 9: Jupiter is a much larger target with a much larger gravitational field. In fact, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was actually orbiting Jupiter (not the Sun), and it was easy enough to see that its orbit was decaying. That fact alone means a collision was near certain.

    5. Re:Versus Jupiter by blhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, there is. It is called the:

      "not knowing the exact position, velocity, and mass of the object due to inadequate funding that has been, instead, spent on countless "beautification" projects around major cities uncertainty principal"

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    6. Re:Versus Jupiter by friedman101 · · Score: 1

      I would guess that the only variable is the mass of the asteroid. While we've had decades to accurately estimate the mass of Earth and nearby planets, the mass of an asteroid hurdling through space might be more tricky to ascertain. I would think that the trajectory of the asteroid is a complex equation involving the gravitational pull of planets (which we know) as well as the asteroid's momentum (unknown mass and known speed).

    7. Re:Versus Jupiter by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      The more it moves, however, the higher the precision of the measurements can be. So as time progresses, the astronomers will be able to reduce the circle of uncertainty.

      "The data's in. Let's see, it's going to miss Mars, and on Dec. 31 hit the 3rd pla[NO CARRIER]

    8. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With only one month to go, it would be more effective to look for earlier pre-discovery observations to significantly reduce the ellipse of uncertainty.

    9. Re:Versus Jupiter by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      What's the wildcard in this calculation that injects uncertainty?

      It's small size. It's diameter is only 30m.

    10. Re:Versus Jupiter by Markrian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, since the asteroid's mass is negligible to that of the planets, its mass is irrelevant to its trajectory as it can be considered a test particle. We only need to know six pieces of information - three spatial coordinates, and three velocity components. It's easy to measure four of these very accurately, but the radial distance and velocity of the asteroid with respect to us are harder. These are where the majority of the uncertainty comes from.

    11. Re:Versus Jupiter by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. How many volkswagen beetles is that?

    12. Re:Versus Jupiter by jmichaelg · · Score: 0, Troll
      Your question is currently the question on the Minor Planet Mailing List. This morning's post by Alan Harris summarizes the situation quite well:

      the problem we see is the error
      model, or put slightly different, data weighting. The specific problem
      with the 2007 WD5 orbit is that the block of six positions reported by
      Spacewatch II on December 4-5 are isolated by a week or two before and
      after from any other observations. Of the six, three have residuals
      exceeding 1 arcsecond (two of the three by 2 arcsec), leaving some
      uncertainty as to which three are the bad observations. Spacewatch II has
      RMS fit residuals on all reported positions of about 0.5 arcsec, according
      to Andrea's NEODyS site, so two of the observations, the ones discarded in
      Aldo's solution, deviate by 4 times the average dispersion of Spacewatch II
      observations. Chesley did something similar when he "up-weighted some of
      the low noise astrometry", but how does one know? And does this imply that
      Spacewatch II astrometry, with RMS errors of 0.5 arcsec, is not "low noise
      astrometry"? In this instance, decrying the "lack of a rigorous
      statistical error model" seems like trying to sew a silk purse from a sow's
      ear -- what we really have here is simply some bad observations. Even more
      useful that trying to beg 8-m time to take a few more images of 2007 WD5
      would be for the Spacewatch folks to go back and look at their December 4-5
      observations and try to find the problems with them, and if possible
      correct the errors or at least identify which ones are bad (e.g., due to
      image confusion). That's not going to tell us definitively whether it will
      hit Mars (although it could tell us definitively that it won't), but it
      would go a long way toward showing that impact probability estimates can be
      done better than an order of magnitude uncertainty (0.3 vs. 3% impact
      probability) if one only takes the time to make sensible (even if not
      optimum) uncertainty evaluations.


      I think it's worth noting that if it's this hard to predict whether a rock is going to hit a planet when there's confidence in the computational model but uncertainty in the observations, then it's absurd to talk about the climate in 2030-2100 when we have neither certainty that our models are accurate nor do we have very good data.
    13. Re:Versus Jupiter by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Looking at the budget of 2007, looks like a good portion of those major cities were in Iraq :)

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    14. Re:Versus Jupiter by Cally · · Score: 1

      The uncertainty is because the object's orbit has only been loosely constrained. IIRC there have only been two or three "prediscovery" images and a similar number afterwards. Google up the equations of orbital motion and bend your brain a little with the level of postitional uncertainty over an orbit that goes out to Neptune when you only have positions for the object covering a few weeks.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    15. Re:Versus Jupiter by Prune · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Funny, but you wrote "principal" whereas you should have typed "principle". It's neither a typo nor a misspelling, but a grammatical mistake.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    16. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's absurd to talk about the climate in 2030-2100 when we have neither certainty that our models are accurate nor do we have very good data.
      I think it's absurd to talk about steroids in baseball when we really aren't even certain if the credit crunch is going to lead to an economic recession.

      Wait... is this unrelated topics day for everyone? Or is it just for you and me?
    17. Re:Versus Jupiter by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's worth noting that if it's this hard to predict whether a rock is going to hit a planet when there's confidence in the computational model but uncertainty in the observations, then it's absurd to talk about the climate in 2030-2100 when we have neither certainty that our models are accurate nor do we have very good data.

      I disagree that that's worth noting. There is absolutely no doubt that the distance between this asteroid and Mars is going to continue to decline for awhile. That type of qualitative statement is much closer to making climate predictions. The analogy of whether it will hit is closer to making weather predictions for 2 decades out, which I agree is absurd.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    18. Re:Versus Jupiter by slashname3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And you don't even mention Mars' version of Bruce Willis taking off in a flying saucer with a team of wild cat water drillers to plant nuclear weapons in the asteroid in an attempt to divert it from a direct strike on Mars. They have to factor in the possibility of that happening too.

    19. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but you wrote "principal" whereas you should have typed "principle". It's neither a typo nor a misspelling, but a grammatical mistake.

      Yeah, it's one of those "homo" mistakes.

    20. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but you wrote "principal" whereas you should have typed "principle". It's neither a typo nor a misspelling, but a grammatical mistake.

      I would say it depends on intent... if you know the difference, and meant to write the correct one, but when typing hit the wrong keys, then it certainly is a typo. If you know the word (whether or not you know the difference between the two words) but think that it's spelled that way, then it's a misspelling. Only if you know that there are different words, but mix up their usage, is it a grammatical mistake.

    21. Re:Versus Jupiter by anethema · · Score: 1

      Well other than the obvious difficulty in even knowing its exact trajectory...

      I imagine the problem might have something to do with the Three body problem.

      Once 2 gravitational fields are affecting and object plus its own, it is, as far as I know, Impossible to predict its path. Even if all variables are known.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    22. Re:Versus Jupiter by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of funding, it's a matter of the asteroid being very small and hard to see. You need the biggest telescopes on the planet to image it and to track it. This requires rather long exposures on scopes that have had their viewing time booked months and years in advance.

      And even then, forces such as the effect of the solar "wind", as well as thermal heating from Sunlight can affect the trajectory.

      There are variables that no amount of funding can calculate nor account for.

      The only thing we can do is continue to track it (viewing will get better later in January, when the relative positions of the asteroid, the Earth and the Sun change enough to permit easier tracking) and refine its trajectory.

      This is real life, not Star Trek, where the Vulcan or the Android can get an instant and accurate to ten decimal places calculation of the trajectory of an object that has just been detected by the main technobabble device of the week.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    23. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Your talking about something very small, hurling though space at ungodly speeds, being effected by tons of ifferent forces

      Yeah, those damn ifferent forces will get you every time :)

      Here, let me clean that up for you, since after three tasty, perfectly chilled, very high-potency beers, I'm feeling generous and not at all cynical :):

      "You're talking about something very small, hurtling though space at ungodly speeds, being affected by many different forces, trying to hit something that is itself going very fast. Toss in all the things we can't see, as well as unpredictable forces (such as solar wind, rogue asteroids/comets, etc.) and further considering the timescale involved, it's still a shot in the dark at this point. As it gets closer, however, the numbers will change, and they will be able to make a better estimate."

      HTH. HANNY (Have A Nice New Year's)!

      Now, where's my damn beer?!?

    24. Re:Versus Jupiter by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      It's not impossible, there is a rapidly converging series that approximates it. But there is no general and nice closed form solution.

    25. Re:Versus Jupiter by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the tone in the question, I would guess that you've never taken a proper science class.

      The basic point with scientific measurement is that you can take measurements, but you need to have realistic expectations as to the accuracy of those measurements and retain the error bounds throughout the calculations. For example, 1cm read from an ordinary ruler shouldn't be taken as 1.00000000000000 cm. It should be taken as something like 1cm plus or minus 0.05 cm. That's a possible error bound of plus or minus 5%.

    26. Re:Versus Jupiter by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      It's about .04 Libraries of Congress.

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    27. Re:Versus Jupiter by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      A sig I saw here a few days ago fits that comment (im)perfectly: "I have measured my velcity with such exquisit perfection that I have no idea where I am".

      Ok, so that applies to particles and not astronomy. Fuck up a perfectly good joke...

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    28. Re:Versus Jupiter by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, blame OUR government! Like there aren't any other governments, or like Europe doesn't have a space agency, or China, or Russia. Or like ours is the ONLY inefficient government.

      I mean, my government (with the best legislators money can buy) really sucks, but it's not like any of the others do such a great job, either. Maybe ours sucks worst but they all suck.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    29. Re:Versus Jupiter by AgentPaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wrong unit of measure - the school bus is the accepted unit for items longer than a Beetle but smaller than a football field. 1/3 field = 1 bus = 3 Beetles. Alternately, 30 meters equals about 60% of the height of the Library of Congress' dome.

      Figures aren't available on how many light bulbs it will power, though.

      --
      First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
    30. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does an object orbit Jupiter, but not the thing that Jupiter orbits?

      Copernicus called, he wants you to hear about his new theory of heliocentrism.

    31. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but the prediction seems pretty certain to me: most likely, it will miss. A three point something percent chance it will hit is not the same as a three point something percent chance the prediction will be correct.

    32. Re:Versus Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you know that there are different words, but mix up their usage, is it a grammatical mistake.
      Like it and is?
    33. Re:Versus Jupiter by blhack · · Score: 1

      you'll never read this unless you check your profile page and notice but:

      #1 i was being sarcastic.
      #2 what country are you from? I'm from the US but wasn't blaming the US gov't. It was a joke, and in the context of the joke i was blaming every government on the planet...saying that they waste money on planting flowers that could have been wasted on seeing if an asteroid is going to hit mars.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
  9. New history by maclizard · · Score: 1

    Wow, it would be cool to see Mars take a major hit... Maybe it would push enough gas out of the molten part of the planet to produce an atmosphere.

    1. Re:New history by tgd · · Score: 1

      So many things wrong there...

      I'm going to just assume it was a bad attempt at funny moderation, not a serious post.

    2. Re:New history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It would be spectacular. Mars is up all night right now. It's just past a opposition so it's huge and bright. It's still dark at 3:00AM so if it's going to hit I'll definitly be up at 2:23 with my scope and watch it.

      Oh crap; I live in the Pacific Northwest. In January there's no chance of seeing anything in the sky.

      But you might want to go out with binoculars.

  10. scared for earth by jupiterssj4 · · Score: 1

    I am fearful for Earth if anything is coming near us... since they can't even for sure estimate if it will hit us a month from impact.

    1. Re:scared for earth by cswiger · · Score: 1

      The good news is that Earth-based telescopes would have a better view of incoming at us then they do of things incoming towards Mars (which is anywhere from 0.5 to 2.5 AU's away, depending on their relative orbital positions [1]) and would be making more accurate estimates.

      The bad news is that it's not clear whether having more time would help, if something big actually was on a possible collision trajectory with Earth.

      [1]: Y'all can see the orbital paths yourself here (link needs Java enabled):

      http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2007+WD5&orb=1

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
    2. Re:scared for earth by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same object missed us by 5 million miles -- about 1/8 the separation between Earth and Mars orbits -- two months ago and we didn't see it until two weeks later.

      rj

  11. That's no astroid! by techpawn · · Score: 1

    It's a space station!

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:That's no astroid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I find your lack of original conversation disturbing.

    2. Re:That's no astroid! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Thank God for that! I'd rather be mooned than to be hit by an Asstroid.

      -mcgrew

      (latest journal is a letter from a prison inmate)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:That's no astroid! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      I seriously regret that I cannot mod this up a point or two.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  12. a few quick calculations by a govt agency... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ... and... there. We need to put 3 x as much armor on the new rover. Done. Next?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  13. General Buck Turgeson Is On It, Sir! by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    we can get to go hide in caves till it passes ... My God! The rooskies could be working on the very same thing right now!

    Mr. President, we must not allow a gravitationally slingshotted asteroid cave society gap!
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:General Buck Turgeson Is On It, Sir! by plover · · Score: 1

      Invites to the cave will be marked BYOPBF, by the way. (Bring Your Own Precious Bodily Fluids.)

      --
      John
    2. Re:General Buck Turgeson Is On It, Sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the women will be selected based on attractiveness & similar qualities. Animals will be ... bred and SLOUGHTERED! ... it may even be ... a desirable existence ... compared to how we live now.

    3. Re:General Buck Turgeson Is On It, Sir! by Slorv · · Score: 1

      >Mr. President, we must not allow a gravitationally slingshotted asteroid cave society gap! wait-a-minnit, are you trying to patent something here... here some prior art.

      --
      Bikers.....The only people that understand why a dog hangs his head out a car window.
    4. Re:General Buck Turgeson Is On It, Sir! by Slorv · · Score: 1

      Damn, that preview button got stuck....
      >Mr. President, we must not allow a gravitationally slingshotted asteroid cave society gap!
      wait-a-minnit, are you trying to patent something here...
      here some prior art.

      --
      Bikers.....The only people that understand why a dog hangs his head out a car window.
  14. What! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    Oh god! We're all gonna die!

    Wait, what?
    Oh. Never mind.

    1. Re:What! by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Oh god! We're all gonna die!.....

      Indeed true, given enough time!

      --
      All theory is gray
    2. Re:What! by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      In the event one of them come in our direction, all we need to do is slashdot it and hope no one opens the cache.

  15. Look at it this way... by ToSeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the Bad Astronomer notes, the odds of nothing happening have shrunk from 99% to 96%.

    1. Re:Look at it this way... by eebra82 · · Score: 1

      As the Bad Astronomer notes, the odds of nothing happening have shrunk from 99% to 96%. By writing this, you just ruined a NASA scientist's day who had a boner until now.
    2. Re:Look at it this way... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You do realize that Phil Plait IS a NASA scientist.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Look at it this way... by cplusplus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, I'm a "My glass is 3.9% full" kind of guy.

      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Look at it this way... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm a "My glass is 3.9% full" kind of guy.

      your glass must be in a vacuum. My glass is full, but at it's current temperature and pressure I could displace enough air to add 25.6* more liquid as is currently contained within.
    5. Re:Look at it this way... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I sound really really stupid after this, but isn't the gravitational system governing the movement of this asteroid deterministic unless a new variable is introduced?

      I guess what I am asking is there some set of variables (comets coming in from the Oort, gravitational anomolies, changes in the solar wind) that are constantly changing the system or are we just not seeing the whole picture (unobserved asteroids, possible collisions we can't predict) or some combination of the two that result in these probability numbers?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    6. Re:Look at it this way... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It's the quantum fluctuations of observing it.

    7. Re:Look at it this way... by cswiger · · Score: 1

      As others have mentioned, as soon as you have three or more bodies which are heavy enough so that their masses interact, no, that is not deterministic. This asteroid isn't big enough to affect things like planets significantly, but the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn are all big enough to have mutual interactions which affect everything smaller.

      (Well, you can do heavy numerical simulation to figure out the future positions for a limited period of time with reasonable accuracy, but you can't determine what things will look like a thousand years from now just by plugging some numbers in and getting a quick answer.)

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
  16. Increasing probability by Will_Malverson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember how these things work - they made a few observations, from which they made a cone through which they're 95% (or whatever) sure that the asteroid will pass. Mars filled up about 1.3% of that cone, and so they can say that there's a 1.3% chance that Mars will be hit by the asteroid.

    A few days later, with better observations, the cone shrinks, and now Mars takes up 3.9% of the cone. As the cone shrinks, Mars will continue to consume a larger and larger portion of it, right up until the time (maybe) that the cone shrinks outside of Mars and they determine that there will be no impact.

    So remember, this is not unusual, and *every* non-impact event follows this pattern: Scientists find potential impact. Impact probability increases. Impact probability increases. (maybe a few more repetitions, too) Suddenly, they decide that it's not going to hit, and impact probability goes to zero.

    1. Re:Increasing probability by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      they made a few observations, from which they made a cone through which they're 95%...

      Oh, the visuals: You screem, I screem, we all screem for.....asteroid!!!

    2. Re:Increasing probability by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Very similar to the National Weather service predictions of how many hurricanes are going to happen this year and where they will hit once they actually form. Until it actually hits they don't know for sure just where they will land.

    3. Re:Increasing probability by rasantel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The impact probability does not *have* to increase just because the asteroid moves on and more data is available. There is no reason why the cone has to magically center on Mars so that Mars takes a bigger and bigger part of it. Mars could have as well "moved" outside the cone in the last prediction adjustment. If chances raised to 3.9% that Mars is hit, it is not because "inevitably" Mars consumes more and more of the cone's space. It means that it is truly more likely that Mars is hit according to new data, than expected initially. The initial estimate was just an estimate (as the current one is also an estimate), not something necessarily doomed to grow.

    4. Re:Increasing probability by noidentity · · Score: 1

      So remember, this is not unusual, and *every* non-impact event follows this pattern: Scientists find potential impact. Impact probability increases. Impact probability increases. (maybe a few more repetitions, too) Suddenly, they decide that it's not going to hit, and impact probability goes to zero.

      What's funny is how they describe it as the probability changing, yet what's really changing is our (their) perception of the possibility. Hell, possibility itself is nothing more than a measure of our ignorance of what will happen. Flip a coin and let one person look. To that person, the outcome is 100% certain, yet to another person who doesn't know, it's still 50/50.

    5. Re:Increasing probability by entrigant · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the parent post? That's kind of exactly what he said. To sum up, he said as long as mars remains in the cone the probability will increase as the cone shrinks. If the cone shrinks to the point mars is no longer in it then the probably suddenly drops to 0. He was simply outlining a trend for the probably to increase before it drops to 0 for non impact events.

  17. Is that asteroid by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

    from Klendathu? /Service guarantees citizenship //Would you like to know more?

    1. Re:Is that asteroid by c0ck_l0rge · · Score: 1

      The only good bug is a dead bug..

      --
      nothin' sounds quite like an 808
    2. Re:Is that asteroid by ekgringo · · Score: 0

      I'm doing my part, are you?

    3. Re:Is that asteroid by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's from Khan. He keeps missing his target.

  18. 17,000 KM by mbone · · Score: 1

    That is (roughly) the size of the current transverse error ellipse at the closest approach to Mars, so statistically the Asteroid should pass at least that close to Mars.

    (Mars's volumetric radius is 3389.5 km, and 3.9 % probability of impact roughly means that the error ellipse is 1 / 0.039 ~ 25 times the projected area of Mars at the time of closet approach. This ignores gravitational focusing, but this is not too important for Mars.)

    So, based on the current error ellipse, not only could it hit Mars, it could also hit Deimos, as the error ellipse is now entirely inside Deimos's orbit.
    The satellite is so small, however, that this is pretty unlikely.

    I wonder which will be the first of the three Mars-orbiting spacecraft currently active to observe it ? That would help to improve the OD (orbit determination) in a hurry.

    1. Re:17,000 KM by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      I wonder which will be the first of the three Mars-orbiting spacecraft currently active to observe it ?

      It would also be interesting to know if, given that there's an impact, the Opportunity Rover has a chance of seeing it. One report describes the possible impact point as "north of" the rover, but doesn't say how far.

      rj

  19. Wait... by Toonol · · Score: 1

    Does Hot Fudge Sundae falls on a Tuesdae that week?

    1. Re:Wait... by gilboad · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... In case someone doesn't know what the OP meant [1].

      - Gilboa
      [1] http://www.nss.org/resources/books/fiction/SF_018_lucifershammer.html

  20. Impact results by lpangelrob · · Score: 3, Informative
    No one's brought up the consequences of a collision yet, so here it is, from the first press release:

    If the asteroid is indeed on a collision course, it would hit Mars with a velocity of about 13.5 km/s (8.4 miles per second), and would produce an explosion equivalent to about 3 MT of TNT. We can only speculate as to the effects of such an impact, but it would be reasonable to expect a crater nearly a kilometer across and a significant amount of dust lifted into the atmosphere.
    It also notes the asteroid is 160 ft / 50 m across, and any impact probably will not be observed (by human eyes, anyways) because it will impact Mars where there are no instruments.
    1. Re:Impact results by teslar · · Score: 1

      any impact probably will not be observed (by human eyes, anyways) because it will impact Mars where there are no instruments.
      It says no such thing in the press release you linked to. Regarding instruments, all it says is:

      The zone of potential impact on the surface of Mars is approximately 800 km wide, and sweeps across the Martian equator from southwest to northeast, crossing the equator at roughly 30 deg W longitude. The MER Opportunity rover is close to the southern edge of this possible impact zone but clearly outside it.
      Which I would assume addresses the concern that any of our expensive equipment over there may get vaporised rather than that of a possible observation of the impact. Regarding possible observation, it says:

      When it closes in on Mars, it will approach from the day side, and would then be very difficult to observe from any of the spacecraft on or around Mars.
      So any difficulties of observation are due to daylight rather than the absence of instruments. Note, however, that this merely refers to the observation of its approach, but not of the impact itself.
  21. ye old Simpsons reference by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 0

    Three times more likely?

    It's in times like these I wish I were a religious man
    *Reverend running wild* It's all over people! We don't have a prayer!

  22. Large Object Also Heading For Earth by Ed+Almos · · Score: 5, Informative

    2007 TU24 - approaching
    Approximate diameter: 319 meters (H=20.131)
    Closest Earth approach: 1.44 LD at 0826 UTC on 29 Jan. -----
    Inside ten LD of Earth: 24 Jan. until 3 Feb.
    Inside Earth's Hill sphere: 27 to 31 Jan.
    Closest Moon approach: 2.20 LD at 1533 UTC 29 Jan.
    Data based on: JPL SSD orbit solution #13 downloaded 6 Dec.
    based on 87 observations spanning 54 days
    Optical observation: observed from 13 locations during 53.8661 days
    discovered at 0626 UTC on 11 Oct. by the Catalina Sky Survey
    last observed at 0313 UTC on 4 Dec. by the Spacewatch 1.8m telescope

    This shows that a rock 319m in diameter will pass by the Earth on January 29th 2008, it's closest point will be about 1.4 times the moons orbit or about 357,000 miles. This is VERY VERY close.

    Regards

    Ed Almos

    --
    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
    1. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 5, Funny

      If 357,000 miles is "VERY VERY close" then I am practically inside Angelina Jolie's vagina, considering my proximity to her and what I assume you propose for varying degrees of closeness.

    2. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Hey, stop it! It's getting crowded in here.

    3. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by The+Dotmeister · · Score: 0

      If that is "VERY, VERY CLOSE" then how can I not smell what the Rock is cookin'?

    4. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Can you move your elbow, dude? It's getting crowded in here.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    5. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Evidently astronomy majors have to take what they can get. Oh, who am I kidding, I'm in chemistry. The best I get is that I can stare enviously at those biology jocks with all their hot undergrab lab assistants.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fear not. There's hope.

      --
      Qxe4
    7. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      You could make the same argument using Roseanne (maybe more so, enjoy _that_ image!).

    8. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, close is a relative term. You see, the Earth is very, very big, so a distance of "only" 357,000 miles is very, very close when compared to the size of the Earth. Angelina Jolie, however, probably several hundred miles away from you, so when we calculate the relative distance, factoring in the size of your penis ... ;-)

    9. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by ekgringo · · Score: 1, Funny
      The best I get is that I can stare enviously at those biology jocks with all their hot undergrab lab assistants.

      Freudian slip much?

    10. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Doubling my dating? Doubling zero is still zero.

    11. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, if you think that's close, you've not been watching enough spacenews.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

      Not only closer than the moon, but WITHIN geosynchronous orbit (It'd be cool if we could slow that down, eh?)

    12. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      I believe the comment "VERY VERY close" is used here when one considers that a small change in one or more of the variables (measurements) would put it spot on to the surface of the Earth.
      To put it in more familiar terms, one sneeze and some location on Earth is toast.

      And yes, there have been some asteroids that were only seen or discovered to have been very close to an Earth impact when they were going the other way, away from us, as if we were looking out the back window of a car or bus. "Gee, that thing could have hit us, too bad we didn't know about it until 2 weeks later!"

      So, the Big One that finally hits us within our lifetimes may just be a complete surprise.
      Some of the speeds of these things are such (15,000 mph) that the popular movie scenario where the asteroid enters the atmosphere, blazing through the sky while the actors have time to say their lines, would not be happening.
      So fast, that a quick "Holy Sh_t" wouldn't fit. BOOM and you're done is more like it.

      However, having said that, I note that the 1908 Tunguska event was seen as follows:
      (Quoting from Wikipedia)
      "On the 17th of June, around 9 in the AM, we observed an unusual natural occurrence. In the N Karelinski village (200 verst N of Kirensk) the peasants saw to the North-West, rather high above the horizon, some strangely bright (impossible to look at) bluish-white heavenly body, which for 10 minutes moved downwards. The body appeared as a "pipe", i.e. a cylinder"

      Apparently, the "10 minutes" referred to was viewable time above our atmosphere.
      Outside of where an asteroid might "catch on fire", or flame in contact with our atmosphere.

      Maybe that's what we'll get when the asteroid with our name on it makes an appearance.
      Also, the "strangely bright (impossible to look at) bluish-white" object that the peasants saw reminds me of an arc that a welding torch would make, i.e. "impossible to look at".

      With the current high level of science allowing us to come up with all sorts of discoveries and predictions concerning asteroid impacts, the old Tunguska event is getting lots of press nowadays, after staying in the shadows for 100 years.
      Imagine actually having a Rover on a planet that just might get clobbered.
      Mars, too, of all places.

    13. Re:Large Object Also Heading For Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would also make Brad Pitt "practically" inside your rectum.

      How delightful!

  23. close-but-no-plume-department by eddy · · Score: 1

    You could just tell them about 2007 TU24 instead:

    Approximate diameter: 319 meters (H=20.131)
    Closest Earth approach: 1.44 LD at 0826 UTC on 29 Jan.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  24. Good thing by bytesex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well then, it's a good thing we're not living there yet, isn't it ?

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  25. Vegas lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wonder what odds the bookies are offering for the meteor hitting one of the rovers.

  26. obAhnold by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    Get your asteroid to Mars!

  27. Helping the Asteroid... by Danathar · · Score: 1

    So....

    How hard would it be to launch a nuke and hit the asteroid in such a way that increases it's chances of hitting mars?

    Of course this would probably cause an interstellar war with the Martians, but still...

    1. Re:Helping the Asteroid... by railman99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Of course this would probably cause an interstellar war with the Martians, but still..."

      Nah, that war with the Martians ended 65 million years ago, when they blew up the home (5th) planet with their worm hole doomsday device, and both camps of survivors in space settled the only viable candidate planet in this Solar System, Earth. Yes, we are their descendants. LETS TRY REAL HARD NOT TO REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE IN A ROW, PEOPLE!

    2. Re:Helping the Asteroid... by Danathar · · Score: 1
  28. Have We Found A Way to Blame This by TrollMaster+9000 · · Score: 1

    . . . on Evil Oil corporations, Big Pharm, and the Republicans yet?

    Get to it, / whiners!

    1. Re:Have We Found A Way to Blame This by wilec · · Score: 1

      Sure your not just ticked because you haven't found a twisted way to blame Clinton yet? I would have bet some nut like you would have connected it to the BJ by now. Wabi-Sabi Matthew

    2. Re:Have We Found A Way to Blame This by largesnike · · Score: 1

      whiners? it looks like you've come here specifically to whine.

      --
      "Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
  29. The rovers by ACS+Solver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there any information yet on whether Spirit and Opportunity might see anything if there actually is impact - such as maybe seeing the dust rise or even capturing a glimpse of the asteroid in the Martian atmosphere?

    1. Re:The rovers by Ardipithecus · · Score: 2, Funny

      A calculation using Murphy's law suggests direct impact on Spirit with a sub-orbital bounce to Opportunity.

  30. Time-date translations by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

    The reason I note that is because if it hits, the predicted time is 2:56 am PST Jan 30.

    Note the PST please. Now, that translates to 5:56 am EST, and its going to be well on its way to brightening up for the day here in WV. I had visions of setting up my elderly DS-10 with my Sony TRV-460 hanging on an eyepiece adapter with a 37mm thread and a 25mm eyepiece in the adapter so I could record the event if I can collect enough light to actually do a movie at ntsc frame speeds. That will also put it (I'm making a SWAG here folks) well down in the western sky for me, and thence out of sight, either behind a goodly sized hill to the west or buried in the trees on this hill.

    However, I do not know how to calculate this out and confirm it, and I would appreciate it if someone more conversant in orbital stuff could tell me if I have a chance, or would I waste a good nights sleep & probably catch a cold trying?

    Thanks.

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
    "Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with
    the ideal never goes unpunished."
    -- Goethe

    1. Re:Time-date translations by pease1 · · Score: 1

      If you are serious, get on a plane and take your stuff to Hawaii. From WV, even if it is above the horizon, you'll be looking through so much of Earth's atmosphere you won't see any detail on the surface of Mars anyway. From Hawaii, however, the red planet will be nice and high in the sky. Assuming something happens and the 96% chance that it won't occur are beaten, and it's clear, the package of scopes on Mauna Kea will be very nicely placed.

    2. Re:Time-date translations by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      That assumes I have a card that I can deplete by a mid 4 digit amount just for transport. Retired, with SS as the main income, that is not the case.

      Thanks.

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
        soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
      A lifetime isn't nearly long enough to figure out what it's all about.

    3. Re:Time-date translations by pease1 · · Score: 1

      Here and here as well, when it comes to having a card to deplete at will! :-)

    4. Re:Time-date translations by winomonkey · · Score: 1

      You could send all of your equipment up here to Alaska! I promise (with a certainty of 3.9%!) that you would even get most of it back.

      ...

      Well, newer data is making me change my estimates to state, with 100% certainty, that you will get SOME of it back.

  31. a very narrow error ellipsoid 600 by 400,000 KM by mbone · · Score: 1

    Having RTFA, the error ellipse is not nearly circular - there is a very narrow ellipsoid that is only 600 km wide and 400,000 km long and
    600 km transverses Mars. The error ellipse of course still crosses Mars, but given this error ellipse, it could still pass many 100,000's of km away.

    I have to say, though, that having the 600 km wide part of the error ellipse cross over Mars makes me suspect that this object is going to come pretty close to Mars.

    Either Phobos or Deimos could also be hit with this error ellipse, although, again, it's pretty unlikely given the small sizes of these moons.

  32. But his point was... by Junta · · Score: 1

    That the probability of the calculations may logically either: increase (so long as mars is a subset of the cone, not necessarily the center) or, ultimately, drop to zero. Of course, since the cross section of mars compared to the scope of uncertainly isn't infinitely small, and other factors are involved, there are some logical situations that would lead to a decrease without totally zeroing.

    But, saying that it's nearly certain their estimates will either increase the probability or nearly eliminate it isn't a stretch, depending on how their processes work and the size of the uncertainty 'cone' vs. the cross section of mars (if a cone is an accurate model of how those predictions work, which is how they animate it for the unintiated), it might be a correct characterization..

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  33. From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To find out if the two will collide, the orbit of the asteroid must be very well determined, and that's hard. Astronomers have to get a precise location of the asteroid as it moves along its orbit, but that's not really possible. There are errors that crop up from measuring it in the images, from distortion in the detectors, atmospheric distortion, and so on. These add together to make the position of the rock a bit uncertain that far in the future.

    Reading TFA can be a good thing!

  34. But what about... by martyb · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The probability of asteroid 2007 WD5 impacting Mars has been revised [CC] following further observations. The chance of impact has increased from 1.3% to 3.9%"

    But what about 2007 WD40? My bet is that one WILL slip past us! <grin>

  35. What terrifies me about the potential impact by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is the tons of utter bullshit that Richard Hoagland will then spew about all the fantastic discoveries revealed by the impact, proving that there was an advanced civilization on Mars, that NASA is suppressing.

    Dear Jeebus, please let the asteroid hit the "Face On Mars" dead center, just to piss off that con artist Hoagland.

    Thanks!

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:What terrifies me about the potential impact by railman99 · · Score: 1

      "Dear Jeebus, please let the asteroid hit the "Face On Mars" dead center, just to piss off that con artist Hoagland. Thanks!" Wondeful, another person with their head way up their ass, so far in fact, they probably deny that we landed on the moon, or their own existence, Greek thinking machines, Iraqi batteries, and other so-called "unexplicable" phenomena! My thoughts are all of these things simply exist due to prior HUMAN civilizations, no extra-solar origins are needed, simply belief based on observation and prior knowledge. Folks like Edgar Cayce, Zecharia Sitchin, and Richard Hoagland have brought out truth from centuries, millenia of just plain lies and disinformation. Have a nice day, Mr. I do not believe that you exist either!

    2. Re:What terrifies me about the potential impact by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Zecharia Sitchin, the fellow who claims that humanity was genetically engineered from primates, in order to mine gold for their Alien Overlords.

      Using the words "truth" and "Zecharia Sitchin" in the same sentence would result in an automatic beating with gym socks filled with dead hamsters if I have any say in the matter.

      And in this instance, where I DO have some say in the matter, using the words "truth" and "Zecharia Sitchin" in the same sentence, instantly and forever labels you a credulous and willfully ignorant fool, who has wasted the countless taxpayer dollars that were spent in a demonstrably futile attempt to educate you.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    3. Re:What terrifies me about the potential impact by Steve+B · · Score: 1

      Zecharia Sitchin, the fellow who claims that humanity was genetically engineered from primates, in order to mine gold for their Alien Overlords.

      "Why is it already in bars?"

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  36. i know what will happen. by xENoLocO · · Score: 3, Funny

    The asteroid will bust through the surface crust, exposting Mars' nougatty, caramel-filled center.

    Yummy.

    --
    "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    1. Re:i know what will happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your joke is probably lost on US readers. They call them Milky Way bars there, not Mars bars.

    2. Re:i know what will happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Your joke is probably lost on US readers. They call them Milky Way bars there, not Mars bars.

      Uh, we had Mars bars here in the US too. At least we did, before they were swallowed up by the Snickers label.

  37. My sympathies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go out to the people of Mars

  38. 3.9%! by ryan.rousseau · · Score: 1

    That's almost 5%!

    1. Re:3.9%! by Eudial · · Score: 1

      That's almost 5%!


      Are they 95% certain?
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  39. That's close enough by neolith · · Score: 1

    I'd go to a clinic, if I were you. You know, get checked out.

    --
    Like my comments? Try my podcast: http://www.baldmove.com
  40. Odds of astroid impact by WalletBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Never tell me the odds!"

  41. More Likely? by Mordaximus · · Score: 1

    "Mars Asteroid Impact More Likely Than Before" doesn't look right. Seems to me the probability hasn't changed at all, in fact the only thing that changed was the precision with which the probability was calculated. Or am I missing something, and should just resume my New Years Eve drinking binge?

  42. NASA announces... by Joseph+Hayes · · Score: 1

    January 22nd, NASA announces new information that puts the asteroid's impact within 1 mile of the Opportunity Rover. Calling for the implementation of the "Johnny 5, Stay Alive" emergency exit plan in which the rover will raise it's instruments upward, "scream" in modemspeak, and run like a bitch on fire - away from the projected impact zone.

    *FAN FICTION* ...yeah, I'm gonna get back to work now.

    --
    "The irony when tending a flock of sheep is the dogs you put in place to protect them are genetically mutated wolves"
  43. September 26th, 2084 by AlbanyTech · · Score: 1

    While NASA's comet orbit model http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2007+WD5&orb=1 is inaccurate after a few decades, flash forward to September 26th, 2084 when Earth gets fairly cozy, in cosmic terms, with 2007 WD5 by about 7 million kilometers. If the comet does not hit Mars in January, the orbit of the comet will probably change slightly; maybe I get to see some comet on Earth action shortly after my 106th birthday.

  44. Murphy's Law Re:Taking All Bets by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually, Murphy's law says that not only will the asteroid miss Mars, it says that the asteroid miss will be precisely enough to whip the rock around to a new orbit. One precisely timed and angled to aim it towards Earth where it will impact on some particularly inconvenient location. Like the 2008 Olympics, the city of Jerusalem, or something else of political import.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Murphy's Law Re:Taking All Bets by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      inconvenient? I think it hitting Jerusalem would be very convenient. At leat Israel and the Palestinians would have one less city to argue over. :-)

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  45. Won't hide in a cave.. by Dareth · · Score: 1

    ... it would dark, and I would most likely be eaten by a grue.

    But I will stock up on water, non-perishable foods, and plenty of ammo just in case it hits Mars, throws up a big cloud of "Martian Zombie Dust" which rains down on Earth causing a horrible outbreak of flesh/brain eating zombies.

    And people say I am a pessimist!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  46. A non-event of an event by celtic_hackr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unfortunately, they don't tell you everything. Sure there's now a 1:25 chance of it striking Mars, but what they don't tell you is that there is 4:1 chance it'll strike somewhere on Mars' darkside. Only those lucky Saturnian Overlords will get a view of it, and we'll have to pay hefty fees for the copyrighted DRMed videos of the impact. And then only on low-def capable viewers. :'(

    We should send some of our ELO defense missiles up there and shove a few more 'roids toward Mars. Hey, if we shoot enough at them maybe we can bust up the planet. Be some great fireworks then.

    Oh sure, you say, well maybe one of those 'roids will get shoved the wrong way and wind up wiping out Washington state, but hey, there's no great loss there is there?

  47. Misleading.... by HeavyDevelopment · · Score: 1
    While the uncertainty window is reduced and they have a better idea of the object's flight path, the overlapping window for which it could hit Mars has also reduced. So while it looks better on paper, in all reality they now think it will miss.

    Since the uncertainty region intersects Mars itself, a Mars impact is still possible. However, the most likely scenario is that additional observations of the asteroid will allow the uncertainty region to shrink so that a Mars impact is ruled out.
    --
    Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
  48. So what!! by listen_to_blogs · · Score: 0

    Okay, so how does an asteroid impact on Mars affect Earth??? listen_to_slashdot

    1. Re:So what!! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Okay, so how does an asteroid impact on Mars affect Earth???

      Three possible answers:

      1) Not at all.

      2) We observe, and learn more about both asteroid impacts and what Mars is made of; the sum of human knowledge is increased (in other words, no effect for those who don't consider knowledge intrinsically valuable).

      3) Matter ejected into space by the impact eventually makes it to Earth, as has happened in the past; the effect at this stage would be rather hard to predict without observation.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  49. Oh, the irony by l00sr · · Score: 1

    Did anyone notice this at the bottom of the page?

    Last Updated: NaN undefined NaN

    I hope they're better at calculating asteroid impact probabilities than they are at web development...

  50. Huh? OP doesn't understand English? by FredThompson · · Score: 1

    How in the world (boo, bad joke) could revising a formula change the chance of any occurrence?

    The actual chance is the same it was just before the predictive formula was revised. What changed was the predictive formula, not the chance itself.

    Typical Slashdot post...