Slashdot Mirror


Schoolboy Corrects NASA's Math On Killer Asteroid

spiracle writes "A German schoolboy, Nico Marquardt, has revised NASA's figures for the chances that the Apophis asteroid will hit earth. Apparently if the asteroid hits a satellite in 2029, its path could be diverted enough to cause it to collide with Earth on the next orbit, in 2036. NASA had calculated the chances as 1 in 45,000 but the 13-year-old, in his science project, made it 1 in 450. NASA agreed." Update: 04/16 16:47 GMT by Z : This is not entirely accurate, it turns out — more details.

491 of 637 comments (clear)

  1. Not peer reviewed. by Plazmid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not peer reviewed.

    1. Re:Not peer reviewed. by commander_gallium · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I call bullshit on this story. You can clearly see that NASA hasn't "agreed" at all.

    2. Re:Not peer reviewed. by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Informative
      You are right that NASA has not updated it's site since 2006. Here's what they said a while back:

      The future for Apophis on Friday, April 13 of 2029 includes an approach to Earth no closer than 29,470 km (18,300 miles, or 5.6 Earth radii from the center, or 4.6 Earth-radii from the surface) over the mid-Atlantic, appearing to the naked eye as a moderately bright point of light moving rapidly across the sky. Depending on its mechanical nature, it could experience shape or spin-state alteration due to tidal forces caused by Earth's gravity field.

      This is within the distance of Earth's geosynchronous satellites. However, because Apophis will pass interior to the positions of these satellites at closest approach, in a plane inclined at 40 degrees to the Earth's equator and passing outside the equatorial geosynchronous zone when crossing the equatorial plane, it does not threaten the satellites in that heavily populated region. So what is being claimed here is not so implausible. It is going to pass within the geosynconous orbit distance.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    3. Re:Not peer reviewed. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thinking about the likelihood of a satellite collision in the first place, and then the probability that it would adjust the orbit of Apophis so that it would impact Earth, I'm going to have to intuitively agree with NASA on this one. The odds of an impact with a satellite should be vastly below 1 in 450, which alone means that this should be wrong. Let's wait for a real account of this, not a pop-media summary with a lot of holes.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    4. Re:Not peer reviewed. by commander_gallium · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are right that NASA has not updated it's site since 2006. Just to be clear, the Impact Risk Page is kept current (pretty much to the day). You'll see the link for Apophis if you scroll down a little. If the odds of impact jumped by a factor of 100, this would be one of the first places to show it.
    5. Re:Not peer reviewed. by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the definition of peer review? I mean one person correcting the published work of another.

    6. Re:Not peer reviewed. by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 1

      "The odds of an impact with a satellite should be vastly below 1 in 450"

      Are you talking about the known satellites, or all of those unknown ones *gulp* that no one wants to talk about?

      --
      You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
    7. Re:Not peer reviewed. by arivanov · · Score: 1

      May I ask what exactly did you use to extrapolate the current satellite population to 2029 level?

      OK, we more or less know what we are going to launch till 2015. What about later on?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:Not peer reviewed. by ZX3+Junglist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Honey, Hi. It's Me. Your sense of humor. Can't we sit down and talk sometime? I'm a mess without you. Please say you miss me. I know deep down you feel the same way.

    9. Re:Not peer reviewed. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Whoops, modded you up before time.

    10. Re:Not peer reviewed. by olof_the_viking · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the rocket scientists launching satellites know beforehand, that there is going to be an asteroid coming through inside of geosynchronous orbits, they will be primarily putting their satellites where that asteroid will not be coming through. Just the reasonable thing to do; maybe I can patent that method? Dang, too late now, I suppose.

    11. Re:Not peer reviewed. by pkphilip · · Score: 1

      Your comment has been modded funny, but it is actually pretty insightful.

      This error on NASA's part was not so much a miscalculation as the fact that NASA failed to consider other factors which could influence the probability.

      What I am more concerned about are mathematical errors which don't seem to have been caught by peer review even years after the erroneous finding was released.

      Example:
      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/20/0340238/

    12. Re:Not peer reviewed. by WK2 · · Score: 1

      I think he is saying we need another 13 year old kid to review this kid's work. It doesn't count if NASA does it, because they aren't his peers.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    13. Re:Not peer reviewed. by anonymous_echidna · · Score: 1

      You mean NASA hasn't published it yet. However, what NASA calculated remains intact: this wasn't a maths error as such.

      --
      In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
    14. Re:Not peer reviewed. by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Is this the same NASA that the cheesy global warming proclamation came from last week? How could we possible doubt them?

    15. Re:Not peer reviewed. by Rub1cnt · · Score: 1

      In the words of Wikipedia... {Citation Needed} I need a citation, two physycists, a supercomputer, a book that says on the back cover in large friendly letters 'Dont Panic', a gin and tonic, and a man from Betelgeuse STAT!

      --
      Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you... :)
    16. Re:Not peer reviewed. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not really like NASA would take some person's calculations, glance at them, and say, "Yup, he's right." If nothing else, it's terrible science, because you won't have put any real rigor into the check.

      I'm agreeing on the BS call. If NASA agreed, NASA wouldn't just pass off some quote to a German newspaper. They'd have a press conference.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    17. Re:Not peer reviewed. by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah anyway! You have to account for all those uncrashable space liners out there.

      Asteroid! Dead ahead!

      Even with the probability of an impact at 1 to 45,000. Shouldn't we be devoting more energy towards
      resolving the prevention of a strike instead of quibbling about the numbers.

      It's like two fleas arguing about when a hairbrush might hit the dog.

      I know we're a geek site, but c'mon. Bad Science aside. Don't we (as the human race) have anything to deal with a potential impact?
      It's not necessarily imminent, but I'm tired of close calls. On the plus side, this might be the push NASA needs to get us into space.
      Money and security!!

      Join the space force!
      See all that you can see!
      Mine untold wealth in an off world colony! A chance to begin again . . .

    18. Re:Not peer reviewed. by cababunga · · Score: 1

      OK, we more or less know what we are going to launch till 2015. What about later on? It doesn't really matter. According to current predictions, the asteroid will pass about 50 to 100 thousand km above Earth. There are no useful orbits at this range. Geostationary orbit is 36.7 thousand km, junk orbit is few hundred km above that, apogee of molniya orbit is 39.5 thousand km, apogee of tundra orbit is 47 thousand km. There is no much reason for satellites to be above that altitude.
    19. Re:Not peer reviewed. by electricbern · · Score: 1

      My dog agrees with him.

      --
      alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
    20. Re:Not peer reviewed. by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      This is within the distance of Earth's geosynchronous satellites. However, because Apophis will pass interior to the positions of these satellites at closest approach, in a plane inclined at 40 degrees to the Earth's equator and passing outside the equatorial geosynchronous zone when crossing the equatorial plane, it does not threaten the satellites in that heavily populated region. So what is being claimed here is not so implausible. It is going to pass within the geosynconous orbit distance. What happened to "However, because Apophis will pass interior to the positions of these satellites at closest approach, in a plane inclined at 40 degrees to the Earth's equator and passing outside the equatorial geosynchronous zone when crossing the equatorial plane, it does not threaten the satellites in that heavily populated region. "
      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    21. Re:Not peer reviewed. by BrazilianLothario · · Score: 1

      Hey yes this is er yes funny but how does it er relate to the subj. at hand ? Sounds like my current doe-mestic er sit-uation. Have tried not to be a Koward but not even managed to Post witho ur without clothes. Totally un-nerd

    22. Re:Not peer reviewed. by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to let you know this way, but I'm with Irony now. She has a much better bum.

      Perhaps we can get together again if you lose some weight.

  2. Damn zeros by jfholcomb · · Score: 1

    What's a couple of zeros when it's life or death...

    1. Re:Damn zeros by kcbanner · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess NASA was using MS Excel to do their calculations.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    2. Re:Damn zeros by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess NASA was using MS Excel to do their calculations.

      Or faced political pressure to predict something other than a fairly decent chance of doom. I mean really: does anyone think a 13-year-old outsmarted every scientist at NASA?

    3. Re:Damn zeros by arivanov · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He is from a country where they teach terrorist sciences like Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, etc in school. I would not be so sure.

      He would not have the political drive to lie either.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Damn zeros by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      What would be the point to lie? As the cutest mecanic on TV said, "Sure. Yeah ...I think so, 'sides, if I mess up, it's not like you'll be able to yell at me."

    5. Re:Damn zeros by Sique · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the U.S. where terrorists just learn to fly commercial airplanes?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Damn zeros by vikstar · · Score: 1

      and give weapons to the terrorists to fight Russia in the Soviet-Afghan War.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    7. Re:Damn zeros by redne · · Score: 1

      I mean really: does anyone think a 13-year-old outsmarted every scientist at NASA?

      Does anyone think that every scientist at NASA calculated this?
    8. Re:Damn zeros by belligerent0001 · · Score: 1

      I am thinking that it wasn't a Microsoft product at the root of this problem. When were the original NASA calculation done? I am betting int he mid 90's when the Pentium was first being implemented. Remember the floating point process issue? I bet thats it. http://www.willamette.edu/~mjaneba/pentprob.html

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    9. Re:Damn zeros by yincrash · · Score: 1

      Because it makes sense that every scientist at NASA performed the calculations for this asteroid.

    10. Re:Damn zeros by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      naaah, they've got a beowulf cluster of pentiums.

    11. Re:Damn zeros by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      It's amusing to me that at least six people thought a massive government cover-up sufficient to silence scientists from informing us of impending doom was more likely than a 13 year old kid's school science project having the math wrong.

      Occam's Razor proved wise again, yet I doubt that it will cause you or the moderators of your comment to reconsider the basis of your opinions of the people we have in power. It should.

    12. Re:Damn zeros by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor proved wise again, yet I doubt that it will cause you or the moderators of your comment to reconsider the basis of your opinions of the people we have in power. It should.

      No, it shouldn't. Besides misinterpreting my post (which was not a jab at the government), your suggestion is inane. If I were to say the government was involved in a cover-up and was proven wrong, I now have to have a positive opinion of the government?

      And as to your first part: welcome to the conversation much later than it started. Since the story broke it has been refuted, but after the comment you replied to was posted. But before you tie this into the whole "it's easier to say something was wrong after the point and you just said so yourself" Iraq war justification (I can see that coming from someone), keep in mind that I posted a comment and did not attack a country.

    13. Re:Damn zeros by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      dude, you can grab commercial plane CBTs off the torrents. and flight sims. and small-blade tutorials. and ESL crap...(did I miss anything?)

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    14. Re:Damn zeros by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      If I were to say the government was involved in a cover-up and was proven wrong, I now have to have a positive opinion of the government?


      Read it again. It doesn't say that at all.
    15. Re:Damn zeros by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      reconsider the basis of your opinions of the people we have in power

      Then please explain what it meant and what it "meant" (denotation and connotation). It would be appreciated.

  3. space race consequences? by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

    I thought that all this removal of music and art from our public education system was to make us super-strong in math...

    1. Re:space race consequences? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Or was it because it's hard to understand music or art without a minimum of math skills?

    2. Re:space race consequences? by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      ...which actually brings up an interesting point, as music is one of those rare things that brings together those of extreme mathematics and of extreme artistic personalities. There are many who play music without really understanding any of the math behind it (though I usually shudder at their rhythm skills), just as there are those (like one of my best friends) who are as strict as possible with their interpretations. Eh, no matter. But it is true that music helps out with math and reading.

  4. No suprise here... by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A friend of mine "used" to work at NASA JSC. He would tell me stories of people with a clue being broken by people in charge that had no clue. He finally got fed up and left... He is not alone.

    1. Re:No suprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this observation is applicable for exactly what reason? Are you claiming that NASA management is screwing up the calculations? Or are you just talking out of your ass and trying to insinuate that NASA is always incompetent in whatever it does?

      Btw, in case you are not aware, the NEO office is at JPL--not JSC. And JPL is run by Caltech for NASA--not directly by NASA.

      Now that we have that cleared up you should feel free to continue your bullshitting and insinuating via hearsay.

    2. Re:No suprise here... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine "used" to work at NASA JSC. He would tell me stories of people with a clue being broken by people in charge that had no clue. He finally got fed up and left... He is not alone.

      Like the outside is all that logical?

    3. Re:No suprise here... by rednaxel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who is John Galt?

      --
      If you can read this, thank an english teacher.
    4. Re:No suprise here... by menkhaura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NASA is a big organization. Perhaps he's trying to insinuate that NASA is sometimes incompetent at some things it does (imperial vs. metric anyone?) I'm about as unamerican as any other non-USian citizen out there, but I've dealt with big organizations, government or otherwise before,and I've seen my share of corporate stupidity and employee stupidity, which may be not even this case, because, as big as NASA is, they don't cater for the underachieving.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    5. Re:No suprise here... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Now that we have that cleared up you should feel free to continue your bullshitting and insinuating via hearsay. You know all those moon landings? I heard they were real!
      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    6. Re:No suprise here... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Who is John Novak?

      Oh wait, alt.shrugged chronicles the death of Usenet, not NASA.

    7. Re:No suprise here... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I was told of the climate change y2k miscalculation long before it came out. However, that would jeopardize a departments funding, so it never went up the chain until it went public. So while they don't "mess up calculations" they sometimes withhold corrections or better models if a department is at stake. If you want to see more of this, look into the pilot seats for the space shuttle...

    8. Re:No suprise here... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      He may still get occasional NASA sub-contracts. I am not sure anymore, as he can't talk about it much. It seems that NASA is not as secretive as some of his new clients.

    9. Re:No suprise here... by lortho · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that NASA management is screwing up the calculations?...Btw, in case you are not aware, the NEO office is at JPL--not JSC. And JPL is run by Caltech for NASA--not directly by NASA. Um, there's certainly precedent for suspecting NASA management of screwing up calculations provided by other companies...
  5. Oh, greeeaaaat. by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA:

    The shockwaves from that would create huge tsunami waves, destroying both coastlines and inland areas, whilst creating a thick cloud of dust that would darken the skies indefinitely.


    And thanks to little Nico, we now know that the likelihood of this happening is one thousand times greater than we thought.

    Thanks, little buddy! You're a regular ray of sunshine.
    1. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Funny

      one hundred, do you by chance work at NASA? :P

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by mabersold · · Score: 1

      Looks like we'll need to assemble a ragtag team of oil drillers.

    3. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      one hundred, do you by chance work at NASA? :P Yes, and he's using the Imperial probability system, not the metric probability system.
    4. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      If not, there's always Steve Buscemi.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    5. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      If not, there's always Steve Buscemi. Okay lets start some research on ways to survive an impact.
    6. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and he's using the Imperial probability system, not the metric probability system

      Both of which are governed by phone numbers.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:Oh, greeeaaaat. by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, very funny.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting at Goddard to get to.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Damn him! by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Funny

    Little bastards gonna get us all killed!

    --
    This space available.
    1. Re:Damn him! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Damn straight. I was happier not knowing. How am I supposed to sleep at night now? I'm going to lay awake for the next 21 years worrying.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    2. Re:Damn him! by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now lets burn down the observatory so this can never happen again!

    3. Re:Damn him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Righhht.... sure, Lord Apathy, we believe ya....

    4. Re:Damn him! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Now lets burn down the observatory so this can never happen again! What? Attack Germany? That will never work.
  8. Other news stories on this by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    NASA previously estimated the chance "Apophis" the asteroid would strike earth in 2027 was 1 in 45,000. But a german schoolboy, Nico Marquardt, pointed out that NASA overlooked the probability the asteroid would strike one of the 40,000 sattelites orbiting Earth and enter a new solar orbit intersecting Earth in 2036. A german newspaper reports that NASA now concurs the chance this will happen is about 1 in 450. If the 200 billion tonne ball of iridium and iron stikes the planet then it's literally light's out for earth: 800 foot tidal waves followed by an indefinite period of dust cloud covered darkness, not to mention metal vapor in the atmosphere. The original Slashdot discussion was in 2007 when the odds were better. At that time it was known that there was a small risk of a gravitational slingshot dropping it into the 2036 collisional orbit, however, to do so the asteroid had to pass through an improbable 400 meter wide strike zone to be properly deflected, as described in 2006 in Popular Science from 2006. Today's announcement of the new finding is here and here.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Other news stories on this by Plazmid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Still, no one has scrutinized the boy's work for math errors. So don't start training Bruce Willis just yet.

    2. Re:Other news stories on this by metlin · · Score: 1

      NASA previously estimated the chance "Apophis" the asteroid would strike earth in 2027 was 1 in 45,000.
      Hah! I bet they now regret not naming it Anubis! ;)
    3. Re:Other news stories on this by Devar · · Score: 1

      200 billion tonnes of iridium and iron? Where's my shovel, I gotta mine this baby before someone else does! *eyes turn to dollar signs*

      --
      It's a Bagel.
    4. Re:Other news stories on this by arivanov · · Score: 3, Funny

      That should be "Do not start cloning Bruce Willis just yet". Fixed that for ya...

      We are talking 2036 after all... Unless it will be a tragicomic spoof of both Space Cowboys and Armageddon.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Other news stories on this by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You were probably going for +5, Funny, but I think you might be on to something. Turn this sucker over to some company, who can have all the ore, as long as they make sure to grab it all and address the safety concerns before it gets here.

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    6. Re:Other news stories on this by Digestromath · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If nobody has criticised it yet, that means its every /.ers responsibility to, regardless of thier actually knowledge of the facts or math.

      So I'll bite the bullet.

      First off... how does a 200,000,000,000 tonne asteroid (200,000,000,000,000 kg) travelling at any substantial inter-planetary speed be deflected by a satellite travelling at 3070 m/s and at most wieghing 10,000kg?

      Of course thats presuming an elelastic collision as opposed to the satellite deflecting off the asteroid in a cloud of debris.

      Its been a while since I've done any physics, and I'm just grabbing numbers from the article (which are likely to be wrong anyways).

      But to bring it all together in a car analogy for the fellow /.ers... How does a .22 bullet deflect an oncoming semitruck forcing into the little old lady on the sidewalk?

    7. Re:Other news stories on this by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Funny

      But to bring it all together in a car analogy for the fellow /.ers... How does a .22 bullet deflect an oncoming semitruck forcing into the little old lady on the sidewalk? Aim for the driver.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re:Other news stories on this by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So I'll bite the bullet.


      First off... how does a 200,000,000,000 tonne asteroid (200,000,000,000,000 kg) travelling at any substantial inter-planetary speed be deflected by a satellite travelling at 3070 m/s and at most wieghing 10,000kg?

      It gets deflected by a small degree, but because this object makes close approaches to large objects like Earth, small impulses can have their affect amplified.

      This object is in an orbit which resonates with our own orbit. It is certain to continue close approaches with Earth until either (1) it hits us or (2) is thrown into a totally different orbit, most likely as a result of a very close approach.
    9. Re:Other news stories on this by dstates · · Score: 1

      The article you cite says he considered collision with an earth satellite, not a gravitational slingshot. Which is it? Gives new meaning to the implications of space junk.

      --
      Statesman
    10. Re:Other news stories on this by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      NASA previously estimated the chance "Apophis" the asteroid

      Well, at least we know NASA scientists are fans of Stargate SG-1.

    11. Re:Other news stories on this by icebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

      Multi-body orbit problems are highly chaotic... part of my senior design program was writing a program to simulate this asteroid's trajectory and a spacecraft observing it to refine the data, then projecting the refined data forward. Essentially, we wanted to find out how long we would need to observe said asteroid in order to get our error ellipse down to a specified level.

      Turns out that even tiny velocity changes (well below 1m/s) had huge effects on the rest of the trajectory. If our spacecraft's first measurement was off in the wrong direction, our solution never converged in the time we needed it to.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    12. Re:Other news stories on this by anonymous_echidna · · Score: 2, Informative

      Still, no one has scrutinized the boy's work for math errors. So don't start training Bruce Willis just yet. Wouldn't be so sure about that; he did not do this alone. You get a lot more information in German. He had support with formulas from Professor Spahn of Potsdam University, and with calculations from Professor Landgraf from the ESA satellite Control Center. http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/2008/04/04/ich-hab-den/weltuntergang-ausgerechnet.html
      --
      In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
    13. Re:Other news stories on this by mfh · · Score: 1

      These objects are in space, not on the road. Physical impacts are far greater on their trajectory, than they would be in Earth gravity.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    14. Re:Other news stories on this by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for another slashdot article: "NASA corrects schoolboy's math on killer asteroid".

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    15. Re:Other news stories on this by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      If nobody has criticised it yet, that means its every /.ers responsibility to, regardless of thier actually knowledge of the facts or math.

      Or spelling or grammar.

      But to bring it all together in a car analogy for the fellow /.ers... How does a .22 bullet deflect an oncoming semitruck forcing into the little old lady on the sidewalk?

      By killing the driver!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:Other news stories on this by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 5, Informative

      First off... how does a 200,000,000,000 tonne asteroid (200,000,000,000,000 kg) travelling at any substantial inter-planetary speed be deflected by a satellite travelling at 3070 m/s and at most wieghing 10,000kg?

      The same way sunlight can push a 270m rock around. Lest you think I am kidding, let's read what NASA has to say about that:

      For example, the team found solar energy can cause between 20 and 740 km (12 and 460 miles) of position change over the next 22 years leading into the 2029 Earth encounter. But, only 7 years later, the effect on Apophis' predicted position can grow to between 520,000 and 30 million km (323,000 and 18.6 million miles; 0.0035-0.2 AU).

      The effect of a small force integrated over years and a few billion miles produces a significant effect. In this case a relatively small deflection gets magnified by the 2029 flyby.

      Of course thats presuming an elelastic collision as opposed to the satellite deflecting off the asteroid in a cloud of debris.

      Its been a while since I've done any physics, and I'm just grabbing numbers from the article (which are likely to be wrong anyways).

      It's obviously been a long time. Any impact will impart momentum to the asteroid. I don't know if you mean "elastic" or "inelastic", but it doesn't matter. Bits of satellite bouncing off the asteroid represent momentum transferred from the asteroid.

      But to bring it all together in a car analogy for the fellow /.ers... How does a .22 bullet deflect an oncoming semitruck forcing into the little old lady on the sidewalk?

      Bad analogy. The elasticity and friction of the tires cancel out any effect of the impact. These effects don't exist for an asteroid.

      A better analogy would be a bowling ball on a lane with one pin. There's a tiny pebble halfway down the lane. How does a 1g pebble deflect a 12 pound bowling ball? By getting run over. If the lane was 100 miles long, a grain of salt would have a significant effect on where the ball ends up.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    17. Re:Other news stories on this by defile39 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew there was a use for chaos theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and Schroedinger's cat . . . let's just all close our eyes preceding the collision . . . if we never observe it, we never know the outcome . . . and we'll all survive . . . or not . . . but we'll never know.

    18. Re:Other news stories on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Supposing we built a giant wooden badger. Then place it in a precise orbit so that it gets hit, but this... badger has sufficient mass to change the orbit of the asteroid so that it no longer is resonating with the Earth's orbit.

    19. Re:Other news stories on this by PyroGX2000 · · Score: 1

      With only 5 bullets.

    20. Re:Other news stories on this by phpmysqldev · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that if now in 2008 we have the ability to shoot down a satellite with a missile, which is like diverting a .45 caliber bullet with a .22 caliber bullet, then in 19 years I would hope we could hit an asteroid with a larger missile.

      And yes it would rain down many smaller fragments that could do extensive damage, but enough of the mass may burn in the atmosphere to prevent it from completely destroying all life.

      Thats a time when we may have to make the decision of possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths versus human extinction.

    21. Re:Other news stories on this by matt+me · · Score: 1

      Dude, you don't need to hold your breath between 'reply' and 'post'.

    22. Re:Other news stories on this by Otter+Popinski · · Score: 2, Funny

      This object is in an orbit which resonates with our own orbit. It is certain to continue close approaches with Earth until either (1) it hits us or (2) is thrown into a totally different orbit, most likely as a result of a very close approach.
      Option (3) involves Bruce Willis and is considered by NASA to be a last resort.
    23. Re:Other news stories on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      just shoot the tire you idiot!

    24. Re:Other news stories on this by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      When I read "A german newspaper reports", I thought "Uh-oh, another Bild article about "killer astroids", so if it isn't made up, it's totally blown out of proportions." Hey, it wasn't Bild, but none the less false - says The Register. So take that with a grain of salt, too.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    25. Re:Other news stories on this by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll play along. I'm qualified to do so on this forum: I've read slashdot for years and I've never studied orbital mechanics or anything else pertinent to the subject.

      The original NASA estimate was based on the probability that on the previous orbit Apophis would hit a small window of opportunity that would slingshot it around Earth into the final collision orbit. What the kid did was demonstrate that the window is actually much larger than NASA had first estimated, since collisions with small stuff known to be orbiting the Earth could funnel Apophis into the slingshot zone.

      Oh, you wanted a car anology:

      Consider a photographer at an auto race who has jumped the safety barrier to get some real good photos of the cars roaring into a hairpin turn. He knows that there is some small risk that a car will spin out as it approaches him and smash him flat, but to his mind it is an extremely low risk. There is only a narrow trajectory that would cause him danger.

      But what if a bunch of ball bearings had been strewn onto the track in front of the curve? That changes the whole equation: if a race car teetering on the verge of spinning out hits one of these, it is much more likely to plow into the luckless photographer. The range of dangerous trajectories is much wider than the photographer estimated, since the track is not as clean as he pictured it in his mental model.

    26. Re:Other news stories on this by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bad analogy. The elasticity and friction of the tires cancel out any effect of the impact. These effects don't exist for an asteroid.

      A better analogy would be a bowling ball on a lane with one pin. There's a tiny pebble halfway down the lane. How does a 1g pebble deflect a 12 pound bowling ball? By getting run over. If the lane was 100 miles long, a grain of salt would have a significant effect on where the ball ends up.

      I think this is a bad analogy too. If a bowling ball runs over a pebble, the ball will be deflected. However, the pebble will be pushing against the earth and could not be deflected downward. Assuming that the pebble remained stationary during the collision and the pebble did not sink downward into the ground, the situation would not be an impact of a 12 pound bowling ball vs a 1 gram pebble. It would be a 12 pound bowling ball pushing into the earth. The effects would be negligible. If the pebble did move, the results would not be accurate because the pebble could not move in the direction in which most of the force would push (downward into the floor). You also claim that the tires cancel out the effect of the bullet. However, the satellite is not completely solid. It would be crushed on impact at some of the energy that would deflect the asteroid would be absorbed. Is this not similar to the tires?

      Could a satellite potentially deflect the asteroid? Yes, if one even hits it. Will it even hit a satellite much and will it cause it to hit the earth, I don't know.

    27. Re:Other news stories on this by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen Mr. Willis lately but I don't think he's fat enough to stop an asteroid even if you strap him on a rocket.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    28. Re:Other news stories on this by oni · · Score: 2, Interesting

      even tiny velocity changes (well below 1m/s) had huge effects on the rest of the trajectory.

      Yes, but a strike from a satellite will impart certainly less than 1mm/s. And you're talking about your senior design program. This is a schoolboy we're talking about here. I doubt he has bested you.

      I remain skeptical of this story. I'd like to see it *researched* and reported by a reputable source. I'd like to see it posted on a NASA website. So far, what I've seen is that what amounts to a tabloid posted the story and some other news agencies have parroted it, apparently without doing any original research.

      I think this story is a hoax.

    29. Re:Other news stories on this by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That's a tabloid you're linking to, BTW.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    30. Re:Other news stories on this by patniemeyer · · Score: 1

      The effect of a small force integrated over years and a few billion miles produces a significant effect. In this case a relatively small deflection gets magnified by the 2029 flyby. In this case it's not a small force integrated over years but a small force integrated over the fraction of a second of the impact with a satellite. And while surely even a tiny change in course could lead to a large change over the long period of its orbit, what makes us think that there would not be hundreds or thousands of impacts of equal or greater significance during that period? I applaud the kid for thinking about this but I think the error bars on this one are more significant than calculation.

      Pat
    31. Re:Other news stories on this by swimsaturn · · Score: 1

      If the 200 billion tonne ball of iridium and iron a ball of iridium and iron? Um, no.
      1) Iridium is much more abundant in meteorites than on the Earth (elevated Ir levels at the KT boundary is one of the key lines of evidence for the impact theory of dinosaur extinction), BUT: Ir is still only present at the ppm level even in iron meteorites (which have the highest Ir concentrations).
      2) Apophis is not a ball of iron - its density is too low. Like other asteroids (and for that matter, the majority of meteorites), it's a chunk of rock. In terms of impact energy, composition is irrelevant (mass is the key parameter). "Ball of iridium and iron" is just crappy, sensationalist writing because getting hit by a ball of metal seems worse than getting hit by a rock.
    32. Re:Other news stories on this by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This object is in an orbit which resonates with our own orbit. It is certain to continue close approaches with Earth until either (1) it hits us or (2) is thrown into a totally different orbit, most likely as a result of a very close approach. A very close approach to something else. If it's a close approach to Earth that deflects it, it will continue to return to that point as a part of it's new orbit.
      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    33. Re:Other news stories on this by wtansill · · Score: 1

      Could a satellite potentially deflect the asteroid? Yes, if one even hits it. Will it even hit a satellite much and will it cause it to hit the earth, I don't know.
      I think it's too big a risk to take. We'll just have to blow up all the satellites before the asteroid has a chance to hit one. There! Problem solved!
      --
      The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
    34. Re:Other news stories on this by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a strike from a satellite will impart certainly less than 1mm/s. That's the magnitude of the change I'm talking about (or even smaller). And I'm not talking about whether the boy's prediction of the odds is correct or not... many people were saying that they didn't believe a tiny change could affect the outcome at all. I'm just trying to explain that tiny changes can indeed have a very large effect later on.
      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    35. Re:Other news stories on this by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      I think this is a bad analogy too.

      I said it was a better analogy, not a good one.

      If the pebble did move, the results would not be accurate because the pebble could not move in the direction in which most of the force would push (downward into the floor).

      It won't be accurate anyway because one object is a rolling bowling ball and the other is an asteroid moving without friction.

      You also claim that the tires cancel out the effect of the bullet. However, the satellite is not completely solid. It would be crushed on impact at some of the energy that would deflect the asteroid would be absorbed. Is this not similar to the tires?

      No. Momentum is conserved. Crushing can reduce the elasticity of the collision, but there will be a momentum transfer. The truck can transmit the momentum into the ground. The asteroid cannot.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    36. Re:Other news stories on this by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      You "only" have to move the asteriod a few thousand miles to make it hit the Earth the next time around. Next time around is on the order of ten years. That's (say) a 100 foot per year velocity or about 4 inches per day.

      The abouve is very crude numbers but you get the idea: You don't have to push it so hard, nothing even close to the .22 cal bulet hitting the truck

      Next, maybe you don't know it but the satilites weight many tones and are about the size of a trailer that a semi might pull. And they are moving maybe 20 times faster then the .22 cal bullet. Could hitting one of these change the asteriod's speed by a few inches per day?

    37. Re:Other news stories on this by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      what makes us think that there would not be hundreds or thousands of impacts of equal or greater significance during that period?

      The fact that we can put satellites into orbit without them getting smashed. If there were enough 1 ton asteroids flying around that Apophis was running into one every week, Earth would be under constant heavy bombardment.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    38. Re:Other news stories on this by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Option (4) involves a female that is apparently attracted to Bruce Willis. I don't have much information about her but I'm told that she's "perfect" ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    39. Re:Other news stories on this by philspear · · Score: 1

      Unless it will be a tragicomic spoof of both Space Cowboys and Armageddon.


      Ugh. I'd rather be smooshed by the asteroid.
    40. Re:Other news stories on this by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If the semi was going to be very close, and the little old lady(LOL) is far enough away, then your analogy is just plain wrong.

      In this case, it will change it's orbit, since it is in space. As opposed to a truck that has rubber tires, a driver, and is being pulled on with a significant about of gravity.

      How do you think the planets in a solar systems end up mostly on the same plane?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:Other news stories on this by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You know that linking to Bild is the equivalent of linking to the Weekly World News, right?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    42. Re:Other news stories on this by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You also claim that the tires cancel out the effect of the bullet. However, the satellite is not completely solid. It would be crushed on impact at some of the energy that would deflect the asteroid would be absorbed. Is this not similar to the tires?

      No. The tires transmit the momentum of the bullet to the ground. Furthermore, the driver will simply turn the wheel to cancel out any deviation on the vechile's course. But if that truck were in freefall, it would indeed have its course altered by the bullet.

      When and if the asteroid hits the satellite, the satellite's course changes. It will most likely be smashed into bits, some of which might possibly stick to the asteroid and some of which will scatter around. Since the satellite's course changes, the course of the asteroid must also change, because otherwise the conservation of momentum - one of the fundamental laws of nature - would be broken.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    43. Re:Other news stories on this by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      isn't there the same probability that it will hit the orbiting satellite at a different angle pushing the asteroid off of our orbit. No. The primary source of deflection force remains Earth's gravity. Any collision will have an entropic effect on the asteroid's vector resulting in a course deviation toward Earth, not away. It would take a very fast satellite indeed to catch up with the asteroid from behind to push it away.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    44. Re:Other news stories on this by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Or the front left tire.

    45. Re:Other news stories on this by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Or push the old lady into traffic. Damn bluehairs. ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    46. Re:Other news stories on this by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I knew that would happen.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    47. Re:Other news stories on this by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Physical impacts are far greater on their trajectory, than they would be in Earth gravity.
      I wasn't aware that physical laws (such as F = ma) only applied in the terrestrial jusrisdiction.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    48. Re:Other news stories on this by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But the earth's gravity is there in both cases, whether it hits a satellite or not. The alleged satellite impact is merely 'fine tuning' it, so I agree with the GP - it could as easily turn a hit into a near-miss as the other way round.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    49. Re:Other news stories on this by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The alleged satellite impact is merely 'fine tuning' it, so I agree with the GP - it could as easily turn a hit into a near-miss as the other way round. But that's not what the GP said. He was suggesting it had the same probability of making a near miss a greater miss than a hit. It isn't a matter of the satellite nudging the asteroid; it's a matter of the satellite slowing it down so that the influence of Earth is greater.

      Any collision will slow the asteroid down, increasing Earth's effect on the trajectory. It's moving too fast for a satellite to hit it from behind and deflect it away, and it would have to be a damn big collision to offset Earth's pull. One satellite collision could be enough to make a miss a hit. It would need to hit a hell of a lot more satellites to make that hit a miss again on the other side of the planet.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  9. Impending doom by HalAtWork · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess we might as well start an impendingdoom tag meme?

    1. Re:Impending doom by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      No, but we can replace Netcraft with Nico.

    2. Re:Impending doom by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna sing the doom song now.

      (sorry, couldn't resist)

    3. Re:Impending doom by Barny · · Score: 1

      Worse? Or BETTER?

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  10. oh shit! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1, Funny

    Not Good!!!

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    1. Re:oh shit! by hosecoat · · Score: 2, Funny

      do not want

  11. In other news... by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    In other news, the sales of fallout shelters has dramatically increased within the past few days.

    1. Re:In other news... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      fallout shelters won't help.

      It would interesting if funding in SpaceX and the other alt-space companies went up as a result of this.

      Rich people: get us off this rock.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:In other news... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Ya know, even primitive LISP AI system from the 80s understood that if there is two ways to parse a sentence and one of them doesn't make sense, you go with the other one. I said:

      Rich People: Get us off this rock.

      Note the syntax here:

      :

      You'll see the same pattern up there where I used "I said:" and then a quote of myself. So the ambiguity, it seems, it in the word "us". You took it to mean "all of us" whereas I meant it to me "the rich people", and as I said, the parsing you went with was the one that didn't make sense.

      I sure hope you are not a knowledge base management system, cause if you are, we've gone backwards since the 80s.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:In other news... by isorox · · Score: 1

      Because without others they wouldn't be rich. They'd have to clean their own toilets, make their own food, shoot each other themselves...

    4. Re:In other news... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

      Rich people: get us off this rock.

      No, that's not how it works: rich people will get themselves off this rock. You and I are stuck here.

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
    5. Re:In other news... by TommyMc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the parsing you went with was the one that didn't make sense.

      As did everyone else who replied to you. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

      --
      Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people thinks it's a joke; also cool.
    6. Re:In other news... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Rich People: Get us off this rock. As a disciple of Robert Heinlien I feel obliged to point out that no matter how many people we ship off the planet the population on Earth will continue to grow until every square metre looks like South Korea, ie, smothered with human beings.

      This problem isn't going to go away. Maybe our engineering will get better but that will be a two edged sword.
    7. Re:In other news... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit? Once there is an independent technological human presence on another rock, this rock can be engulfed by the Sun for all it matters. Survival of the species is not the same as the survival of Earth.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:In other news... by xehonk · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, an asteroid impact of this order might take care of the problem of overpopulation for a while.

    9. Re:In other news... by ObitMan · · Score: 1

      ...and sanitize their own phones.

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    10. Re:In other news... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1
      The dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program, but imagine the hilarity if they did!



      Who would have the last laugh if they returned to eat the barbecued humans?

  12. Unix 1 - Humanity 0 by rubypossum · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the 2038k problem solves itself, thus vindicating Ken Thompson and pessimists everywhere.

    --
    I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    1. Re:Unix 1 - Humanity 0 by Ethan+Allison · · Score: 1

      What if this is his doing? I bet it is... let's kill him and see what that does for his precious "probability"!

    2. Re:Unix 1 - Humanity 0 by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      2038 years should be enough for anybody

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Unix 1 - Humanity 0 by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      What was supposed to happen in the year 20380000? ;)

    4. Re:Unix 1 - Humanity 0 by boris111 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how long it would take for someone on slashdot to mention this.

  13. Either NASA was using FORTRAN again... by Theatetus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...or they forgot to do the metric conversion. Again.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
    1. Re:Either NASA was using FORTRAN again... by Save_Clippy · · Score: 1

      No, NASA obviously used meters instead of metres.

  14. His peers by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Still, no one has scrutinized the boy's work for math errors. Well surely we can find another school boy to peer review it.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:His peers by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thoughts of another schoolboy:
      "But if we make it strike the Earth and not one of those sattelites in 2029, the probability of it striking the Earth in 2036 is NIL. NASA agreed."

    2. Re:His peers by arivanov · · Score: 5, Funny

      We just need to make sure it is in a place like Germany, France or Russia where they still teach terrorist material like mathematics, physics and chemistry in school.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:His peers by Avtuunaaja · · Score: 1

      If it hits, it'll hit the north atlantic. Lights-out for all the coasts...

    4. Re:His peers by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1

      Well surely we can find another school boy to peer review it.


      You've just made a classic schoolboy error!

      Come on this isn't rocket science!
    5. Re:His peers by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      there is no rocket science. by that point, it's called engineering.

    6. Re:His peers by whyloginwhysubscribe · · Score: 1

      Well surely we can find another school boy to peer review it. I hope he doesn't re-evaluate the odds to 1 in 4.5...
    7. Re:His peers by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Or, maybe a 55-year old monsignor? He could say his numbers came from divination (and would divide a nation, or more...).

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    8. Re:His peers by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Rocket Surgery.

      It's not Rocket surgery.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

  15. So..... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's Plan B?

    Giant laser? Kinetic kill vehicles?

    Nuke it from orbit?

    1. Re:So..... by kcbanner · · Score: 1

      No, the plan is Harrison Ford.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    2. Re:So..... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Try sticking your head in between your legs and kissing your ass good bye. Well us old farts have one major advantage over you young nerds. We'll be to senile to give a fuck. Hell, for most of us it might be a mercy killing.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:So..... by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      I've heard that nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure.

    4. Re:So..... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nonsense. Everyone knows that for an asteroid on a collision course with Earth you call Bruce Willis. At least he has a drill, a nuke and a fatherly love for Liv Tyler. It's very different from the kind of love I have for Liv Tyler, and makes him do heroic things like blow up killer asteroids at his own peril.

      All Harrison Ford has is a stupid whip. All that's good for is killing Nazis and stealing rocks from crazy people.

      And if anyone says Chuck Norris, I'm gunna scream. You call him when someone steals your Mountain Dew.

    5. Re:So..... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Run in circles, panicly mumbling "astroid, astroid, astroid".

    6. Re:So..... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Isn't it doing the equivalent of nuking us from orbit? Maybe it just wants to make sure?

    7. Re:So..... by kamochan · · Score: 1

      ...and by the time you posted this, Chuck had already exacted his chilling revenge. For what are we in the Intertubes, except our avatars, which in ./ means our usernames. What else do we have except our username, and our dignity? The latter you dealt with with the Bruce Willis reference. And, ahem, have you noticed your username recently? Sorry, dude... never cross the Chuck.

    8. Re:So..... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I've heard that nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure. No then it will just fall and destroy the only bridge out of town.
    9. Re:So..... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      move our satellites out of the way? Thats strange, the AC has a good idea.
    10. Re:So..... by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      No, no. I assure you that Professor Ripley is quite certain that nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure.

    11. Re:So..... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      We throw more satellites at it. No, wait. That makes it more likely for it to hit, so we clearly need to throw some satellites the other way.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:So..... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      All Chuck Norris has to do is look at it sternly, while folding origami.

      Origami made from titanium plates.

    13. Re:So..... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Or we could be dead already. That'll show them young whippersnappers! Go ahead, stand on my lawn - see if I care!

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    14. Re:So..... by quo_vadis · · Score: 1

      Im surprised no one has said this already ... but we have Richard Dean Anderson and the rest of SG-1 standing by with a cargo ship...

      Killer Asteroid named APOPHIS .... come on :)

      For those who are not as geeky - I am referring to Stargate SG-1, specifically the episode "Failsafe"

      --
      Legally obligatory sig : My opinions are my own... etc etc
    15. Re:So..... by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      So you're going to have this asteroid playing fetch? Not that great of a plan when it comes back with our satellite in tow, full of slobber mind you, waiting for us to launch another?!

      Drop it, Apophis.. Drooop! DROP IT!! Good job!

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  16. Where's the math? by meatmanek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want to see the math. What miscalculation did NASA make? Did they use centimeters instead of meters? Was it a simple math error? Did they use an incorrect statistic?

    Why did the kid have access to this information?

    1. Re:Where's the math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      He didn't really correct NASA. He only extended their prediction: NASA predicted, correctly, that the asteroid had a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting the earth in 2029. Nico pointed out, also correctly, apparently, that if the asteroid missed the earth but hit a satellite in 2029, then it would have a 1 in 450 chance of hitting the earth in 2036.

    2. Re:Where's the math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You and your parent need to RTFA. The kid didn't find a math error. He found a conceptual error.

    3. Re:Where's the math? by crowbarsarefornerdyg · · Score: 1

      I don't think the three R's are taught in American schools anymore. Well, considering that only _one_ of the three R's ACTUALLY BEGINS WITH R, I think that's a good thing.
      --
      "Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
    4. Re:Where's the math? by fmarkham · · Score: 4, Funny

      The fourth R which is no longer taught is RTFAing

    5. Re:Where's the math? by dave1791 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IIRC - The last PISA study put Germany and the US next to each other in the math rankings - i.e. neither had any reason to brag.

      Interestingly, this caused shock in Germany as Germans had regarded themselves as having one of the best education systems in the world. In the US, people are so used to the idea of having a shitty education system that it passed without notice.

    6. Re:Where's the math? by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I want to see the math. What miscalculation did NASA make? Did they use centimeters instead of meters? Was it a simple math error? Did they use an incorrect statistic? Why did the kid have access to this information? Why wouldn't he have access to the info? Scientific data gets published. You know, so that other people can read it and check the results. And correct them if they're wrong. Like in this case (though as others have pointed out, it may be less of a correction and more of a clarification).
    7. Re:Where's the math? by spungebob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You want to see the math?!?

      What part of TFA lead you to believe that it was a case of NASA scientists not being able to multiply numbers together correctly??? (besides the blatantly misleading title and crappy summary, that is...)

      The story itself explains that there was no miscalculation per se. The kid pointed out a factor in their scenario that NASA hadn't considered: given how close the asteroid will pass Earth, what if it hits one or more of our orbiting satellites? The fact that he was mathematically inclined allowed him to recalculate the scenario himself, instead of waiting for NASA's brainiacs to confirm.

      His math skills are somewhat incidental to the real story, which is that he has better disaster planning skills than NASA. But that wouldn't be nearly as sensational as implying that even a German schoolboy could add up numbers better than those dumb ol' NASA people.

      --
      It takes an idiot to do cool things - that's why it's cool!
    8. Re:Where's the math? by turkeyfish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even so, it would be nice to see the math. The only place I have seen such equations solved is in Feynman's Physics volumes, which unfortunately I lost to Katrina.

      What is the error estimate on the precise trajectory of the asteroid and its velocity? How can they arrive at a 400 m window, when they don't even have a good tracking of all the space junk in orbit? How many satelites were taken into consideration in reaching the 1:450 number? Can these really be ignored if the trajectory is to be computed this precisely? Have all the calculations taken into account numerical precision associated with floating point representation? Have the gravitational effects of the other planets been adequately accounted for? With what precision?

      Just questions it would be interesting to look at to assess how these figures are arrived at.
      It wouold be instructive to see what figures NASA or the German schoolboy used in their equations.

    9. Re:Where's the math? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Or maybe German math education is better than American math education? I don't think the three R's are taught in American schools anymore. Righteousness, Rhetoric and Religion?
    10. Re:Where's the math? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Redirect The F'ing Asteroid?

    11. Re:Where's the math? by v1 · · Score: 1

      looking at the numbers, maybe it was a decimal slip? looks to be off by 100.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    12. Re:Where's the math? by cashdot · · Score: 1
      Personally I find it very hard to believe, that if you take into consideration, that this 200 billion tonnes asteroid may hit a, let's say 1 ton satellite, the chances of hitting the earth goes up by two orders of magnitude.

      If the orbit of asteroid can be changed significantly by simply letting it collide with such a small object as a satellite, it would be very easy to counteract an asteroid collission threat.

    13. Re:Where's the math? by samkass · · Score: 1

      If the orbit of asteroid can be changed significantly by simply letting it collide with such a small object as a satellite, it would be very easy to counteract an asteroid collission threat.

      It is relatively easy to counteract an asteroid collision threat... given enough time. In this example, hitting a satellite during one close pass could deflect it enough to cause significant deviation 7 years later. It's made especially easy in this case because the asteroid has two close approaches, so the energy required to put the diversion mass in front of it the first time is much less.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    14. Re:Where's the math? by PIBM · · Score: 1

      There's nothing said about the base collision probability of 2036 I believe

    15. Re:Where's the math? by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

      in other news:
      the probability of the meteor hitting earth, given that he will hit earth, is 1.

      let's panic.

    16. Re:Where's the math? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      What do 'math rankings' really mean? Which would be more desirable, having the largest number of people in the top 1 percentile or the entire population being slightly more math literate than anywhere else?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  17. What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...is if this asteroid can't even properly hit Earth, as big a target as it is, how the hell is it going to hit a satellite -- even if there are 40,000 of them?

    If the entire increase in risk is due to this, that means he's basically giving this thing a 1 in 450 chance to hit a satellite. Somehow, I don't think so.

    1. Re:What I want to know... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that hitting a satellite would just be a bug splat on the asteroid's windshield - it won't make any difference at all. My guess is that this German article was published on 1 April.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:What I want to know... by shadanan · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The German school boy is asserting that GIVEN that the asteroid hits one of the satellites, the probability of the asteroid hitting the earth subsequent to this event is 1 in 450.

      If we consider it this way, the probability of the asteroid hitting the earth is still the number predicted by the NASA scientists because the probability of the asteroid hitting one of the satellites is very close to zero and has very little effect to the original prediction.

    3. Re:What I want to know... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that hitting a satellite would just be a bug splat on the asteroid's windshield - it won't make any difference at all. Check me.

      mass of asteroid 2 E14 kg

      mass of satellite 2 E3 kg

      mass ratio 1 E-11

      encounter speed seems to be about 5 km/s but I can't find exact numbers.

      So it should lose about 55 E-9 m/s which is 17 metres of displacement over 10 years.

      So yeah it doesn't seem like much.
    4. Re:What I want to know... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The asteroid has a 1 in 45000 chance of hitting Earth. Due to the satellites we have note one but 40001 objects up there, making the asteroid's chances of hitting something 40001 in 45000 or roughly 8 in 9. It's practically certain that the asteroid will hit a satellite.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  18. So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

    And how long will it take to figure out if we're boned? 2 years? That leaves about 5 years to do something about it.. or, ya know, go on a long killing spree.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And how long will it take to figure out if we're boned? 2 years? That leaves about 5 years to do something about it.. or, ya know, go on a long killing spree.

      That's the depressing part.

      To answer your question: Probably a few months after the 2027 encounter (and hypothetical collision with the satellite), but at that point, it'll be impossible to do anything about it in the 9 years between 2027 and 2036.

      The right strategy is to use the 20 years between now and 2027 to build an orbiter/lander (with a big-ass nuke, nuclear reactor powering a big-ass laser, or big-ass solar sail of reflective/absorptive paint -- and as much as I like nukes, the big can of paint's probably the best way to go -- attached).

      We use the 20 years to build the orbiter/lander. We send it up to rendezvous or orbit in 2027. If Apophis smacks into a satellite (or we're just unlucky), we'll have an orbiter and countermeasures in orbit around the asteroid on that pass, and those countermeasures will have nine years in which to do their work. A nuke's pretty cool, but it can't compete with nine years of momentum transfer from the sun shining on a rock painted white on one side and black on the other side.

      Suppose we cut it short and by 2027 we still don't have any good countermeasures - just a crappy-ass nuke as a last-ditch measure. Even if we go this route, we've still got 9 years for this orbiter to give us an exact gravity map of this object, and we'll have a couple of years after that to figure out where to land the nuke for maximum trajectory deflection away from the earth. (Hell, if we get the orbiter up there early enough in 2027, we can blow the nuke at/near closest approach to Earth and guarantee a miss in 2036!)

      But we're short-sighted. So we'll do nothing between now and 2027. And odds are it'll sail on by in 2027 and we'll conclude that the odds of an impact in 2036 are only one in a few tens of thousands. But what an irony -- if we're wrong, then it'll be too late in 2028 for us to send anything to catch up to the rock and do anything about it. For the sake of a month's pork-barrel spending in Iraq, we'll condemn a few billion of our fellow humans to certain death in 2036.

      If it's not Apophis, it'll be some other rock in the next few centuries. Just like the dinosaurs, we'll go extinct because we don't have a space programme. Unlike the dinosaurs, this time around, we'll deserve it.

    2. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the sake of a month's pork-barrel spending in Iraq, we'll condemn a few billion of our fellow humans to certain death in 2036. Or, you know, some of the remaining few billion of the fellow humans might come up with their own countermeasures. It doesn't necessarily have to be America.
    3. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why don't we just take all satellites out of orbit starting now, or right before the potential event in 2027? Seems a little cheaper than building a huge orbiter and weapon to move the asteroid.

    4. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Your idea is actually a good one, as since the detonation of a 1 MT nuclear bomb will occur as Apophis goes away from Earth, it will change the orbital path and that will ensure the remains of Apophis will miss Earth by a substantial margin when it returns in 2036.

    5. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by Zebedeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      You and I, we haven't been watching the same movies.

    6. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by jo7hs2 · · Score: 1

      That was what I felt was so ironic about the post. Based on the spelling of program ("programme"), it seems likely that we can conclude the original poster is NOT an American, yet his/her post clearly suggests that it is the Americans who should shoulder the economic burden of saving the world. Been there, done that, tired of it. Here is an idea world, pay your own damned way, CHEAPSKATES!

    7. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by Bourbon+Man · · Score: 1

      certain death in 2036 Only three things are certain: death, taxes, and lost data. At least this will eliminate the tax and data worries!
    8. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      The right strategy is to use the 20 years between now and 2027 to build an orbiter/lander (with a big-ass nuke, nuclear reactor powering a big-ass laser, or big-ass solar sail of reflective/absorptive paint -- and as much as I like nukes, the big can of paint's probably the best way to go -- attached). Interestingly, project constellation is supposed to allow for a mars mission around 2030. In fact, the Ares 5 is supposed to have its maiden flight in 2018, and it should have enough power to put interplanetary crafts in orbit. The rest of the time is spacecraft preparation and assembly.

      Maybe NASA is quietly working on this whole thing after all?

      Also, FYI, there's more to rendezvous than just being up there while the asteroid passes by, you also have to match speeds, which isn't easy given the speed with which Apophys will pass by, so orbiter/landers are right out. A more likely mission profile would be:
      - Launch from earth at some point around 2027, but on a powered orbit that goes lower on the gravity well and that intersects with Apophis on the far side of the solar system (big boom over there)
      - Launch around 2018 and accelerate away from earth so that Apophis eventually catches up after 2027
      - Put up a lot of tons of something in high earth orbit to hit Apophis as it passes by on 2027, dropping it into a lower orbit.

      Also, nukes in space are overrated. On earth they heat up the air to make it expand into a blastwave. In space you'd have to spray water around to get the same effect (Or drill down, but that too much of a cliche).
    9. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      I was reading the article and came to the same conclusion.

      Right now I would bet more on a China or China/India mission if one was needed, possibly with US backing.

      China has been working on their space program quite a bit lately, they have the manpower, resources, and industrial base to build what would be needed quickly, and they have the tradition and the zero compunction of "Suicide" missions.

      Say what you want to about the advanced state of technology, but the idea of putting a human mind "on the scene" making sure the plan gets implemented would increase the odds dramatically on any mission, and the ability to trim down (or outright discard) the "necessity" to return said human mind to earth dramatically simplifies any plan.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    10. Re:So if it does hit a sat will we know about it? by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for us all, it seems that much of the rest of the world will remain content to simultaneously revile and rely on America, as people have been doing since before this defense of America was published.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
  19. Friday the 13th by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    By the way, it passes by the earth in 2027 on friday the 13th. If it hit's it will hit in the pacific ocean. So California may get wet. The energy content is said to be 26,000 Hiroshimas which is not that much but recent calculation suggest is more than enough to darken the earth.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Friday the 13th by terrymr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > 26,000 Hirshimas

      So a little less than 1 Mt St Helens then.

    2. Re:Friday the 13th by Plazmid · · Score: 1

      Well, it just so happens that there are 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world. That's a lot more than 26,000 Hiroshimas, especially considering that nuclear weapons are a whole lot more efficient now. So if worst comes to worst, every country on Earth could aim every nuclear weapon on Earth at Apophis and still be able to repel it, even if it hits the atmosphere and starts falling. Of course detonating 27,000 nuclear weapons does not come without consequences...

    3. Re:Friday the 13th by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it hit's it will hit in the pacific ocean. So California may get wet.

      Is that in the same way that ~250k people in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives, Myanmar, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Thailand "got wet" after the earthquake in 2004?
      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    4. Re:Friday the 13th by Tom9729 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't getting hit by an asteroid be better than igniting our atmosphere and irradiating most of the planet?

    5. Re:Friday the 13th by Qiadron · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. With my luck, I'd be right in its path and be incinerated.

      I'd rather glow a delightful lime color prior to death. That'd be pretty awesome.

    6. Re:Friday the 13th by Dannkape · · Score: 1

      If California "gets wet" in the sense they need a towel to dry themselves afterwards , the India ocean residents barely dipped their toes in the water feeling the temperature (cartoon style)...

    7. Re:Friday the 13th by MishgoDog · · Score: 1

      California... a state with a bit less than 40 million people, many of which probably live inland.
      South East Asia, French Polynesia, etc; all over on the other side of the Pacific... multiply that population figure by more than 10, and almost completely all living in coastal areas.

      Yes, the only impact of 26,000 Hiroshimas in the pacific ocean will be a few people in the US getting wet.
      Not to mention Hiroshima itself...

    8. Re:Friday the 13th by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 1

      > So a little less than 1 Mt St Helens then.

      But what _if_ it HITS Mt St Helens?

      Then you'll have nearly TWO Mt St Helens!

    9. Re:Friday the 13th by SmokeyTheBalrog · · Score: 1

      Yes we have plenty of nukes. But rockets that can propel something out of Earth's orbit are in very short supply.

    10. Re:Friday the 13th by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      26,000 Hiroshimas?! Why, that's almost an Africa!

      --
      I hate printers.
    11. Re:Friday the 13th by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The energy content is said to be 26,000 Hiroshimas Huh, wait a second. The estimates for the Hiroshima bomb is 13-16 kiloton which would make it in the 340-415 megaton range. That's just 8 times the Tsar Bomba of 50 megaton the Soviets tested, and last I checked the world did fine. That number must be way off or the potential damages way exaggerated.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Friday the 13th by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Volcanic ash, when mixed with crushed limestone, makes some of the best concrete. At least, the Romans thought so. That's what they used. Set underwater, was strong enough to use on big construction projects like the Colleseum, and so on. (Concrete appears to have been invented by the Egyptians - the upper levels of the pyramids show evidence that the limestone was poured into place, not set as a naturally-formed rock.) I suspect ash from Mount St. Helens would be excellent in a Roman-recipe concrete.

      Also on the theme of Mount St. Helens, it stopped building the dome inside the crater at about the same time as swarms of earthquakes were detected off the coast of Oregon (usually a precursor to volcanic activity). There are no volcanos in the area the earthquakes were detected, so vulcanologists have ascribed the tremors (reaching 5.5 on the richter scale) to a shift in the magma flow. There was no suggestion - as far as I can tell - that the lack of mountain-building and the earthquakes were linked, but it wouldn't shock me. If that is corrct, then there's an awful lot of molten rock going somewhere - the dome was building a dumptruck's worth of rock per second, according to one quote I saw - and there are a lot of volcanos considered overdue for exploding.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:Friday the 13th by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      California... a state with a bit less than 40 million people, many of which probably live inland.

      South East Asia, French Polynesia, etc; all over on the other side of the Pacific... multiply that population figure by more than 10, and almost completely all living in coastal areas.

      Yes, the only impact of 26,000 Hiroshimas in the pacific ocean will be a few people in the US getting wet.

      Not to mention Hiroshima itself... I'm not quite sure on the math here, but wouldn't "26,000 Hiroshimas" to the middle of the Pacific mean that it wouldn't matter much if you were inland in California or not, you WOULD be flooded?

      Anyone more intelligent than I want to do the math on that? How big would the waves be? How far inland would they go? How much water would be forced into the air int he form of water vapor? How hot would that make things? For how long?
    14. Re:Friday the 13th by jd · · Score: 1

      It'd be better off hitting Mt. Rainier. The combined ash and dust should seal off Microsoft's headquarters for some time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:Friday the 13th by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      By the way, it passes by the earth in 2027 on friday the 13th. If it hit's it will hit in the pacific ocean. So California may get wet.


      Well, one thing for sure: if it does, Hot Fudge Sunday lands on a Friday instead of Tuesday.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    16. Re:Friday the 13th by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Volcanic ash, when mixed with crushed limestone, makes some of the best concrete. At least, the Romans thought so. That's what they used. Of course, they're dead now.
    17. Re:Friday the 13th by besalope · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hiroshima wouldn't see a drop of water. It's relatively shielded by the island Shikoku. Tokyo on the other hand might be saved only if Godzilla intervenes.

    18. Re:Friday the 13th by ricree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, perhaps, but 1 Mt St Helens isn't that terrible contained in a relatively small area (of course, with anything of this magnitude small is a very relative term). If something like this were to hit in the pacific, what would the tsunami produced by such an event be like?
      The wikipedia article for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami states that the earthquake released around the equivalent of 1502 Hiroshimas, so we're talking over an order of magnitude difference. That said, a lot of the death toll in 2004 was caused by lack of warning, which certainly won't be an issue in the event of an impact, so I suppose that it will balance out somewhat.

    19. Re:Friday the 13th by F34nor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Joseph Davidovits believes that the Egyptians used fly ash, powdered limestone, natron salt, and water to make "pourable limestone" or Geopolymers that they then used to pour the pyramids at Giza. The main benefit of Geopolymers is that they last longer than Portland Cement and they are a carbon sink not a carbon emitter.

    20. Re:Friday the 13th by Olix · · Score: 1

      Surely the problem is that it is hitting the Ocean, and not an uninteresting part of Syberia?

    21. Re:Friday the 13th by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Havn't you seen Deep Impact. It'll very nearly (but not quite) drown Washington DC, leaving the top of the capital building humourously sticking out of the water.

    22. Re:Friday the 13th by GBC · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am still not following. Could you please tell me how many Libraries of Congress blowing up that equals?

    23. Re:Friday the 13th by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      You're more likely to shatter it... I'm not sure I like the idea of 26,000 individual hiroshimas hitting earth any more than I like one big one..

    24. Re:Friday the 13th by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      That said, a lot of the death toll in 2004 was caused by lack of warning, which certainly won't be an issue in the event of an impact, so I suppose that it will balance out somewhat. Yes but if we find out in advance that a place like India or Saudi Arabia is going to be hit then there will be hell to pay.
    25. Re:Friday the 13th by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yes we have plenty of nukes. But rockets that can propel something out of Earth's orbit are in very short supply. This finding suggests to me that by placing small masses in the path of this object on each close approach we would have quite a bit of control over its trajectory.
    26. Re:Friday the 13th by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tokyo on the other hand might be saved only if Godzilla intervenes. Thank God. I thought there was going to be no hope at all.
    27. Re:Friday the 13th by jbourj · · Score: 1

      > 26,000 Hirshimas (sic.)

      So a little less than 1 Mt St Helens then.

      I hope you're joking. Mt St Helens was 24 megatons, while Hiroshima was 13 kilotons; 26,000 Hiroshima bombs would be 338 megatons, or 14 times Mt St Helens.
    28. Re:Friday the 13th by Missing_dc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not so, Sir. They EVOLVED into Italians.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    29. Re:Friday the 13th by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'd rather glow a delightful lime color prior to death. That'd be pretty awesome. Might even get some super powers. Can't say THAT about the asteroid, unless it's a RADIOACTIVE asteroid.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:Friday the 13th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The style of explosion is rather different, and I suspect the Mt. St. Helens "Hiroshima" comparison is exaggerated by several orders of magnitude (e.g., Krakatoa -- a much bigger eruption -- is estimated at 13000x Hiroshima, so something is seriously wrong somewhere).

      Anyway, in the case of Mt. St. Helens it was a "lateral blast" -- that is, most of the pyroclastic explosion was directed laterally. This was especially bad for conditions on the ground, but made the amount of material expelled into the atmosphere somewhat less than if it had been vertical. On the scale of volcanic eruptions Mt. St. Helens is a piddly little thing. For example, the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 in the Phillipines was much bigger.

      In the case of an asteroid impact of this scale the explosion occurs at the end of a shaft of rarified atmosphere produced by the passage of the asteroid. This means the explosion products will shoot back up the path of the asteroid and be much more widely dispersed world-wide. There is also the high chance of a mega-tsunami, which also spreads out the effect.

      Apophis is supposed to be ~350m in dimensions. Any way you consider the question the effects would be a whole lot worse than Mt. St. Helens. The effect would definitely be on a global scale.

      A more comparable volcanic eruption is Krakatoa which erupted in 1883 and generated a tsunami and climatic effects world-wide -- except that Krakatoa was ~200 megatons equivalent, whereas estimates for Apophis' impact are ~880 megatons, so the explosion is still bigger -- closer to the scale of Mount Tambora (1815). We're talking about an explosion on a scale that would be on par with the biggest ever observed. Even away from the direct impact effects we are talking about widespread/global crop failures as a result of atmospheric dust and cooling. The 1815 "Year Without A Summer" from the Tambora eruption is probably a decent comparison.

      It would be a bad day for everybody. On the plus side, it might slow global warming for a few years :-)

    31. Re:Friday the 13th by the_arrow · · Score: 1

      Yes we have plenty of nukes. But rockets that can propel something out of Earth's orbit are in very short supply.
      Then why not do as in the book The Hammer of God by the late Arthur C. Clarke, and intercept it far out? I'm sure that quite a lot of nations could pony up some money for a project like this.
      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    32. Re:Friday the 13th by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Well ... 1 Mt St Helens up, 1 Mt St Helens down, they cancel each other so that gives 0 Mt St Helens!

    33. Re:Friday the 13th by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

      Havn't you seen Deep Impact. It'll very nearly (but not quite) drown Washington DC, leaving the top of the capital building humourously sticking out of the water. Well, I guess we'll need to add that as a "Goof" on IMDB when the asteroid hits the Pacific... Silly Filmmakers.....
      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    34. Re:Friday the 13th by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

      Thank God that we didn't make it through a disaster story without a Godzilla Reference.... Now, if only someone would mention Chuck Norris snap kicking the asteroid into a new orbit, thus saving the earth, all will be as it should be....

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    35. Re:Friday the 13th by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      I am still not following. Could you please tell me how many Libraries of Congress blowing up that equals?

      No, but I can tell you that the asteroid would be treated as terrorist. Next, we will send out a space fleet to hunt down those terror inducing asteroids and we will win this war on terror. ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    36. Re:Friday the 13th by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      On a long enough time line, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero.

      Tyler Durden.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    37. Re:Friday the 13th by JackCroww · · Score: 1

      Close, but not quite.

      Hot Fudge Sundae lands on a Fridae instead of a Tuesdae.

      I guess we all need to start filling a culvert somewhere with books in plastic bags.

      And build a levee around a nuclear power plant.

      --
      "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
    38. Re:Friday the 13th by icebrain · · Score: 1

      No, this flyby is on Friday, April 13, 2029. It won't hit then. The subsequent encounters (and possible orbital resonance) are the concerns.

      Today's grammar lesson: "hit's" shouldn't have an apostrophe (one of these --> ' ). Except in special circumstances, it should only be used for posessives (except "its") or contractions (isn't, won't, etc.).

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    39. Re:Friday the 13th by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the scale of volcanic eruptions Mt. St. Helens is a piddly little thing. For example, the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 in the Phillipines was much bigger.

      Oh come on, get with the program. Mt. St. Helens was in America so it was obviously the most important. What are you, a freaking communist?

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    40. Re:Friday the 13th by wanerious · · Score: 1

      Our effect on the asteroid is still probably smaller than the error bars in the projected orbit. Which means that we could be as likely to push it *into* a collisional path as *out* of one.

    41. Re:Friday the 13th by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can one of you Brainiacs convert this into a figure that the rest of us ordinary folks can understand like "Libraries of Congress" please? Is that too much to ask?

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    42. Re:Friday the 13th by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Informative
      according to a translation in an post below, they're actually talking 98,000x Hiroshima bomb. I'll crackout my handy crackulator and 98,000 x 16 = 1,568,000, or 1,568 megatons (mT), or, 1.5 gigaton (gT).

      That's gotta hurt...

      The other thing to remember is, even with your calculation at 415 mT, it's 415mT in ONE PLACE - you're not going to want to be ANYWHERE near that. If it hits an ocean, it will vapourise a massive amount of water and create a truly stunning tsunami. You could drop 26,000 hiroshima bombs all at once all over the planet, and removing the issue of radiation, the sheer force of the weapons would be incredible, but not as powerful as putting them all in one place the size of a large shopping mall.

      Now, if you "blow the asteroid up" you still don't get away from massive problems, as you still have 200 billion tons of gravel coming down the pike, all in one concentrated area, which would still make for a significant amount of heat and destruction. It' like an atom smasher - the sun dumps an enormous amount of energy on the earth every second, but it is diffuse over an area. Put it all in an area the size of a shopping mall, and you just took blew the city to bits.

      So, even something 8x bigger than the Tsar bomb, exploded in the right place, could have massive effects, esp. in water. And if the translation is correct, we're actually looking at something an order or two of magnitude larger...

      cheers!

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    43. Re:Friday the 13th by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      The Russians didn't detonate it in the ocean causing huge tidal waves.

    44. Re:Friday the 13th by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      If they'd set the Tsar Bomba off under the ocean and created a tsunami, instead of an airblast which made a loud noise and broke some windows, it might have had a more devastating effect.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    45. Re:Friday the 13th by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 1

      If it hit's it will hit in the pacific ocean. So California may get wet. Oh... so it's not all bad news.
    46. Re:Friday the 13th by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      In this case, "evolved" is a relative term...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    47. Re:Friday the 13th by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris couldn't snap-kick the asteroid into a new orbit; that's just silly.

      Now on the other hand, roundhouse-kicking...

      --
      "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
    48. Re:Friday the 13th by mog007 · · Score: 1

      If I may comment about your statement with regard to blowing up the asteroid before it hits Earth. Not only would the damage be spread over a larger area, but it would also cause a lot more of the asteroid to disappear due to friction from re-entry. One giant mass of rock entering the atmosphere won't lose much material from re-entry, but a bunch of smaller pieces would have more surface area, less mass, and thus are more likely to burn away. I read someplace that we're getting pounded by meteorites the size of cars on a regular basis, but they burn up before they hit anywhere. If we could turn this asteroid into a bunch of cars, we'll have nothing to worry about.

    49. Re:Friday the 13th by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This asteroid would do 1d4 wombats of damage to each of the 130 million items in the Library of Congress. However, because of their binding (creating a rigid spine area), each of the 29 million books would take an additional 1d4 wombats of damage. So we can call the total damage as 159x10^6d4 wombats of damage to the Library of Congress.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    50. Re:Friday the 13th by Poltras · · Score: 1

      How many joules per Library of Congress are we talking here?

    51. Re:Friday the 13th by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Hitting the ocean or on land doesn't matter. A lot, (OK a freaking huge amount) of material is going to be thrown into the atmosphere. This will block most of the sunlight (if not all) for years. If this hits, this will be an extinction event.

      The oceans are deep for us. But for a big rock traveling at those speeds, it is like a single piece of paper. The water will be bushed away. Then come back to fill in the hole left by the asteroid hitting the planet. Kind of like a double tsunami. One from the asteroid pushing the water out of the way the a second as the water fills in the hole. Remember two waves of sea water will pass through each other. They do not cancel each other out.

    52. Re:Friday the 13th by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      >> 26,000 Hirshimas

      > So a little less than 1 Mt St Helens then.

      How many Libraries of Congress is that?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    53. Re:Friday the 13th by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The smaller ones would have more surface area though, which means more of it would burn up in the atmosphere. Also, if it hit the ocean a bunch of small strikes would almost certainly be better because a lot of the wave energy could be canceled out by other strikes (some energy will be added together, but it should be less than the total energy of a single massive strike).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    54. Re:Friday the 13th by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Larry and Jerry used the correct spelling of the words in the book. Alas, I don't have a copy handy. I suppose, however, I could just ask them next time I see them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    55. Re:Friday the 13th by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Damn you and you liberal eletist education. I want it in football fields.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    56. Re:Friday the 13th by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You ever go to the mall and drop a quarter in one of those funnel things? You know how it rolls around and around? Now, imagine putting something in front of the quarter...What will happen?

      It'll slow down slightly, and the loss in speed will cause it to zip down the funnel.

      That's what we're dealing with here. If this thing loses enough velocity, our gravity well will suck it in. If we could give it a push as it is on it's way past us, sure, we could get rid of it, but putting things in front of it is always going to be bad for us.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    57. Re:Friday the 13th by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Obviously Apophis is not in Earth orbit, so the funnel analogy is not exact.

      Still, small deflections in space are more measurable than deflections ground side. As narrow as the margin is, we don't want to screw with it if at all possible.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    58. Re:Friday the 13th by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we are calculating in kibi and mibi tons.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    59. Re:Friday the 13th by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      By the way, it passes by the earth in 2027 on friday the 13th. If it hit's it will hit in the pacific ocean. So California may get wet. The energy content is said to be 26,000 Hiroshimas which is not that much but recent calculation suggest is more than enough to darken the earth. Woah woah woah, 26,000 Hiroshimas? This is supposed to be a scientific forum. What's that in libraries of Congress?
    60. Re:Friday the 13th by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      Oh, agreed, but you illustrated my point: take 26,000 Hiroshima nukes and set them off all over the world, and it's not as big a deal as putting them all in one place the size of a large shopping mall.

      Now, if you blast a large asteroid with a nuke, you have 200 billion tons of radioactive gravel landing on the earth. If you do it LONG before it hits the earth, then, yeah, you get a reduced load, and a few weeks or months of a steady rain of crap out of the sky. But if you wait to the last minute (something humans do all the time), you're still fucked, because you now have 100 billion tons of gravel blowing along at 50,000 kmph, landing in roughly one place at one time, and that's a lot of kinetic energy and it will fuck up your day / month / life.

      If we're going to Nuke Apophis, we should nuke it just as it passes the earth, so this way when it comes back to slam us ten years later, it's more of a diffuse cloud of crap, not all of which will hit the atmosphere. It would make for some excellent sunsets for a year or so, and some colder winters, but that's about it.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    61. Re:Friday the 13th by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      St Helens is small, fuzzy, and friendly compared to bigger volcanoes such as the Yellowstone Caldera, which will completely devastate North, and much of South America if it erupts, and make things really bad everyplace else.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    62. Re:Friday the 13th by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Yes the lateral explosion was locally devastating - it was however the 9 hour eruption(mostly upwards) which followed which released the bulk of the energy and spread dust around the globe.

    63. Re:Friday the 13th by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Ok - I guess the source i used was a bit vague in their quantities - they said 1 nuclear bomb per second for 9 hours ... which doesn't tell us what sized nuclear bomb :-)

    64. Re:Friday the 13th by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The other thing to remember is, even with your calculation at 415 mT, it's 415mT in ONE PLACE - you're not going to want to be ANYWHERE near that. If it hits an ocean, it will vapourise a massive amount of water and create a truly stunning tsunami.

      415 MT is around 1.5E18 joules. At a couple thousand joules per gram of water vaporized, that translates to less than one cubic Km of water vaporized. Yah, that's a lot, especially in one place. But it's not in the same league as a Dinosaur Killer or anything. Embarrassing, but not a serious issue, really. Unless it lands in the Gulf of Mexico, in which case New Orleans and Houston are (soggy) toast.

      Course, if may come down on Washington, in which case the Hot Air emitted by Congress will deflect it back into space.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    65. Re:Friday the 13th by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's in solar orbit, so of course it's possible. Probably be easier to do the sci-fi thing and strap a booster on it the next time around if that's what we want to do.

      The big problem right now is that we can't predict what it's going to do with 100% accuracy...Screwing with it at this stage could queer things either way.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    66. Re:Friday the 13th by josquint · · Score: 1

      SO, if the estimated impact is 26,000 hirosima bombs....

      1 LoC is 280 million 200 page volumes
      2 lbs paper average per volume
      13,000 BTU per volume
      3,640,000,000,000 BTU per LoC

      1 hiroshima bomb(15Kton, 1 ton of TNT is 3,968,321 BTUs.) = 59,524,815,000 BTUs

      So 26,000 Hb (59,524,815,000 x 26 ) / LoC (3,640,000,000,000) = 425.17725 LoC

    67. Re:Friday the 13th by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Who began using the concrete to fashion cement overshoes. Who doesn't like italian shoes?

    68. Re:Friday the 13th by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Great. Then my friend with the asteroid-shaped head is gonna get pulled out of line a the airport all the time.

    69. Re:Friday the 13th by PakProtector · · Score: 1
      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    70. Re:Friday the 13th by AJWM · · Score: 1
      Thank you. Context helps

      "Heinlein calls himself an individualist, and remarked, "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." I think he was joking; we both laughed."

      --
      -- Alastair
    71. Re:Friday the 13th by Supergibbs · · Score: 1

      You are missing your ????? step....

      --
      First post! (just in case I am...)
    72. Re:Friday the 13th by F34nor · · Score: 1

      You would need some LOX with your LoC to make it fun, and damn it I don't mean the tasty fish product.

    73. Re:Friday the 13th by jd · · Score: 1
      Yellowstone, I believe, has two magma reserves - near-surface and deep. The near-surface magma is associated with massive lava flows (possibly travelling a few hundred miles from the perimeter) whereas the deep reserves are associated with the really massive, Earth-shaping explosive erruptions where ash would bury New York. If I remember correctly, it's the near-surface magma that is expected to form the next erruption. Mind you, there are two, maybe three, other active supervolcanos known - and plenty of regions where the geology is sufficiently unknown that a supervolcano could be in the area.

      Besides supervolcanos, you have mega tsunamis that could flatten the first 20 to so miles of the entire US eastern seaboard (not to mention much of the rest of the world). There's a maze of major faultlines off the US western seaboard (and some inland) - any of which could obliterate a sizable chunk of the landscape. A sufficiently sudden magnetic pole reversal wouldn't necessarily damage the terrain, but it would seriously impact humanity and cause massive extinctions within species dependent on the magnetic field for navigation. A gigantic solar flare striking Earth could potentially knock modern computer-controlled aircraft out of the sky and fry a good portion of the satellite system, which would not be "catastrophic" but would still be many hundreds, if not thousands, of times more destructive than Mount St. Helens, whether in terms of lives or financial cost.

      As far as the asteroid is concerned, here is the impact calculator. It does not appear to require much of an impact for everything not over the horizon to be incinerated immediately and for earthquakes to be 9 or 10 on the richter scale for many thousands of miles. (In other words, such an asteroid could hit France and the shockwaves alone would destroy much of North America. The ash blotting out the sun for a few decades putting the planet in deep freeze would not kill that many, simply because not many would be left.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    74. Re:Friday the 13th by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Like Yellowstone.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    75. Re:Friday the 13th by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The potential damage is way exaggerated. Apophis is strictly a local damage asteroid. We're not all going to die, even if it does hit.

    76. Re:Friday the 13th by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      That's what we're dealing with here. If this thing loses enough velocity, our gravity well will suck it in. If we could give it a push as it is on it's way past us, sure, we could get rid of it, but putting things in front of it is always going to be bad for us. So we launch a couple hundred thousand Mars Rover style thingies at the front of it, each outfitted with as much explosive power as we can strap on. They land, then drive around to the backside of the thing before setting off their payload. I mean, this is saving Earth we're talking about, right?
  20. Dang by mandolin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope that kid won the science competition he was in!

    "... and for my science project, I proved NASA wrong and made a discovery of potentially epic proportions..."

    Kindof tough to follow that one.

    1. Re:Dang by anonymous_echidna · · Score: 1

      He did. He got the prize for outstanding physics project. (Sonderpreis).

      --
      In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
    2. Re:Dang by AnotherUsername · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, since he used APA citation format instead of MLA, he was disqualified. The kid with the Egg Drop Demonstration won.

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    3. Re:Dang by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but Julie's butterfly project had a much nicer cardboard display.

    4. Re:Dang by tim_darklighter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, he beat out the 15-year-old who got admitted to Pacific Tech for his laser work.

  21. there's no way this is true by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A 1 in 450 chance that this thing will hit an asteroid in the way that makes it MORE likely to hit Earth?

    Hitting anything in space is like hitting a needle in a haystack. Actually, that's vastly understating it.

    There better be an explanation of exactly what it is going to hit and how it will "improve" its trajectory.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:there's no way this is true by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Hitting anything in space is like hitting a needle with another needle from two hundred miles away.

    2. Re:there's no way this is true by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      Yes but hitting 1 of 1000+ items orbiting around a planet with a decent amount of gravity is a different matter once you already know an asteroid is going to be in the general vicinity.
      Still having asteroid scares is a good way to increase space funding too.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    3. Re:there's no way this is true by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      seriously ... BS detector is flashing red on this whole article.

      But it does raise the point that apocalypse cults are best kept away from space tech.

    4. Re:there's no way this is true by enoz · · Score: 5, Funny

      It appears we have a 200 billion tonne asteroid in a possible collision against a satellite weighing between 200KG and several tonnes

      I'd say it's more like the haystack hitting the needle.

    5. Re:there's no way this is true by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      Never say such things as "Needle in a hay stack" or "One in a million" because that just red flags fate and you know it will happen.

    6. Re:there's no way this is true by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      > Hitting anything in space is like hitting a needle in a haystack. Actually, that's vastly understating it.

      I'm pretty sure that slamming a 200 billion tonne rock into a haystack is going to do quite a number on any needles as well.

      Less facetious, the odds of any randomly selected rock hitting any other randomly selected rock is pretty much 1. It happens all the time. Earth has also been hit by randomly selected rocks in the past, and this will happen again in the future. Odds are it won't be in our lifetime.

      Apparently, odds are 450:1?

    7. Re:there's no way this is true by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      No, it's better to stuff them in large rockets and send them far way from us.

    8. Re:there's no way this is true by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me?

      The chances of the moon hitting anything in the asteroid belt is 0.

      You can't just select two rocks and say they'll hit someday.

      And who cares if it were true anyway? This is a discussion not about two random rocks, but two specific rocks in in a specific timeframe.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  22. no worries kid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    you'd have to be 340 years old to get hit by it...

    1. Re:no worries kid... by iivel · · Score: 1

      How'd you figure? 2036 isn't exactly that far off into the future. [Mind you I didn't RTFA so I don't know if 2036 was the right date]

  23. If it's true... by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 1

    NASA hasn't updated their page on Apophis yet. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html

  24. Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... it will create a ball of iron and iridium 320 metres (1049 feet) wide and weighing 200 billion tonnes ... If this thing weighs 200 billion tonnes, it seems surprising that hitting a satellite is going to divert its course very significantly (unless that satellite is the moon). And:

    NASA and Marquardt agree that ... [it] will crash into the Atlantic ocean Ah, so there's only a 1 in 450 chance of it hitting earth, but we know which ocean it will land in if it does (7 years after it hits the satellite).

    Next week: 13 year old boy discovers new chemical reaction in which a combination of scientifically illiterate PR bunnies and sub-editors produces large quantities of bullshit.

    1. Re:Hang on ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Knowing how Earth moves in space, they simply had to look up which part of our planet would be facing the asteroid when it comes back.

    2. Re:Hang on ... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Next week: 13 year old boy discovers new chemical reaction in which a combination of scientifically illiterate PR bunnies and sub-editors produces large quantities of bullshit.

            This technology has been known since ancient Greece, and is applied routinely by politicians.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Hang on ... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA and Marquardt agree that ... [it] will crash into the Atlantic ocean Ah, so there's only a 1 in 450 chance of it hitting earth, but we know which ocean it will land in if it does (7 years after it hits the satellite).

      Yes, actually, that's the easy part. We know very precisely when and from what direction it will be coming, the question is will it go left, right, or straight down the middle? (Metaphorically speaking... I don't know the details, for all I know we're above and to the left of the center track.)

      Once you know when and what direction, you know which hemisphere. Once you account for projection distortion, that puts the odds as pretty good it lands in an area well less than half of the Earth's surface. Something the size of, say, the Atlantic Ocean.

    4. Re:Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but the asteroid has hit a satellite between now and then, a satellite which has, apparently, increased its chance of hitting earth from 1 in 45000 to 1 in 450, which means that its trajectory has changed fairly significantly. In particular, its orbital period has probably changed, which makes it seem unlikely that we can say anything accurate about an impact time 7 years later. There's only a four hour window to hit the Atlantic.

      Not only that, but the Atlantic only covers one fifth of the earth's surface, which means that even if, despite all the uncertainty, we knew exactly what time it would hit the earth, the Atlantic would cover at most about one half of the target. So I very much doubt that anyone who knows what they are doing would be prepared to "agree" that it will hit the Atlantic.

      So I smell bullshit in the science lab. To be fair, it's possible that a bad translation from the original German article was required as a catalyst.

    5. Re:Hang on ... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The satellite would weigh a few tons. The asteroid weighs 21 million tons. The course change won't be that significant. Which is exactly why it's an interesting case -- if the course change was significant, it would miss us by rather a lot. Remember, small changes get magnified by close interactions with other bodies. So a small change while deep in Earth's gravity well changes the exact location it will be in by rather a lot some time later.

      As for the Atlantic, don't forget projection distortions -- the bits of the planet near the horizon are less likely to get hit, per unit planet surface area, because they get foreshortened from the perspective of the incoming asteroid.

    6. Re:Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 1

      The Atlantic ocean is about 75 degrees across (5 time zones). sin (75/2) = 0.53, so, as a rough estimate, even if we did know the exact time, one couldn't say that it would hit the Atlantic with much better odds than 50%.

      Interestingly, I've been playing around with this applet and it's not predicted to come anywhere near earth in 2036. It comes within 0.0022 AU in 2029, but no closer than about 0.1 AU in 2036 (or 2035 or 2037, for that matter).

      It would seem surprising if a collision with a satellite that's 0.00000005% of the asteroid's mass is going to change that enough for it to hit the earth. The whole article is bullshit.

    7. Re:Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, even with the distortion, it's still no better than about 50% to hit the Atlantic (5 time zones = 75 degrees. sin(75/2) = 0.53).

      As for the small change, the asteroid is actually ~20 billion tonnes, so its about 5E9 times more massive than a satellite. There is info about its orbit in this table correctly. I haven't done the calculations, but my guess is that the ratio of its mazimum possible collision velocity relative to a typical geostationary satellite to its orbital velocity is very small, but lets say 5% (almost certainly a huge over-estimate). That means that the effect of the collision on its orbital velocity is going to be on the order of 1E-11. Now, that's well inside the the errors on the table, so yes, small changes can be amplified, but a change that is significantly smaller than measurement error is not going to change any predictions for where this thing ends up.

    8. Re:Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 1

      eek, bad typos. guess I should check the preview next time ...

    9. Re:Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 1

      Ah, I guess that the point is that close pass in 2029 changes the orbit (or at least introduces lots of error), so the orbital simulation applet is meaningless after that.

    10. Re:Hang on ... by evanbd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The NASA NEO site gives 2.1E10 kg, or 2.1E7 tons -- 21M tons, unless I've screwed up the units somewhere or that site is wrong (both possible :) ).

      The same site gives vImpact for Apophis at 12.59km/s. I haven't looked at the approach trajectory in detail, but geosynchronous orbit is only 3.07 km/s, so the relative velocity is dominated by Apophis (moving at less than 12.59, but more than the 5.87 km/s vInfinity; I'm too lazy to work out the exact number). It's orbital velocity wrt the Sun is about the same as Earth's, or 30 km/s -- so the 5-10 km/s collision velocity is 15-30% of its orbital velocity, roughly.

      It's a small effect, to be sure, but it has a very, very long lever to work with. I'd be reluctant to say he's wrong without actually doing the math myself in far greater detail than either of us has done here.

    11. Re:Hang on ... by albury · · Score: 1

      hehe...i concur

    12. Re:Hang on ... by attonitus · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, my bad on the numbers.

      If this is indeed what he (and NASA) claim to be true then I agree these rough calculations don't discount it.

      However, given the obvious mistakes in the article (next orbit, 200 billion tonnes), I still have little confidence that claims that the story makes bear much relation to what he actually calcuated.

    13. Re:Hang on ... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's clearly typical science journalism. For now, though I'm willing to believe there might be something there. I'd like to see an official NASA report on the story.

      Of course, no one's mentioned that we'll know much more precisely what will happen by 2029 -- not only whether there's a concern at all, but which satellite would be hit. In which case we could, you know, move the satellite. The do have some station-keeping capability, after all. And even the dead ones could be moved by a tug, given a small amount of notice and a really good reason (I think this qualifies).

    14. Re:Hang on ... by mpe · · Score: 1

      It would seem surprising if a collision with a satellite that's 0.00000005% of the asteroid's mass is going to change that enough for it to hit the earth.

      On the next orbit... Mass may be less important than relative velocity, given (mv^2)/2. If it's possible for such a collision to deflect this object to be likely to hit the Earth then I'm sure it's perfectly possible to engineer a collision which will make sure it will come nowhere near.

    15. Re:Hang on ... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Once you know when and what direction, you know which hemisphere. Once you account for projection distortion, that puts the odds as pretty good it lands in an area well less than half of the Earth's surface. Something the size of, say, the Atlantic Ocean.

      The direction it is comming from is going to give you lattitude, for longitude you need the time with accuracy. How do you know it won't have any further collisions or close encounters with anything of similar or greater mass in its 7 year orbit.

    16. Re:Hang on ... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      It sounds a lot like a 1:1000 chance (or greater) of increasing the earth-impact probability from 1:45000 to a maximum of 1:450. I can live with those odds. I also agree that we probably don't know the ephemeris to great enough accuracy, no can we simulate the n-body problem to sufficient accuracy, to determine the effect of a delta-v on the order of hundreds of nm/s. I'm sure the project is a nice bit of work, especially for a 13 year old. I can't imagine doing orbital mechanics in 8th or 9th grade. It was fun when I did it in college, but there are some mathematical concepts in it which I didn't fully grasp back in middle school.

      Sadly, the article is very light on details.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    17. Re:Hang on ... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Frink:

      http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/

      agrees with your calculation of 21 million tons(metric).

      (to input metric tons into frink, use tonne or metricton)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:Hang on ... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      (the above poster mailed me that he forgot to add the following to hist post)

      Get off my lawn!

      --
      AccountKiller
    19. Re:Hang on ... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Ah, so there's only a 1 in 450 chance of it hitting earth, but we know which ocean it will land in if it does (7 years after it hits the satellite).

      It's not so far-fetched if you consider we know the position and velocity of the earth to a VERY high precision, so we know where the earth will be facing, and the direction of the asteroid. We don't know the position and velocity of the asteroid with as high a precision (nor obviously the mass of a satellite that might not even exist yet). So it's more difficult to calculate if the asteroid will hit. Also consider the Atlantic Ocean is very large, so an hour or two of when it would hit wouldn't make much difference.

      (of course, I am not an astro-physicist, but the above seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation of the somewhat strange sounding predictions)

      --
      AccountKiller
    20. Re:Hang on ... by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1

      So why don't we just blow up the satellite? Worst case some company's out a few mil. Problem solved.

    21. Re:Hang on ... by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Because that would be hard, create a lot of problematic debris, and be unlikely to guarantee changing the position of the massive bits enough to be helpful.

      Using its normal station keeping thrusters to move it out of the way, however, would probably be feasible. We should know with plenty of notice whether Apophis will hit anything, and if so what. (If it's a decommissioned satellite, we could send up a tug -- more work, but it shouldn't be too hard given notice.)

    22. Re:Hang on ... by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1

      Psh, now you're just being serious. I say we convine some gullible nation it's a spy satellite and they should shoot it out the sky. Or heck we could position it to jib the rock further away instead of closer.

  25. Obligatory... by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our new German asteroid overlords.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  26. DOUBLE OH-NOES!!! by Plazmid · · Score: 4, Funny

    OH-NOES! Kurzweil predicted that sometime in the 2030s computers will be able to match human brains. Combined with this recent news, this means we have to worry about killer robot overlords AND killer asteroids ending the world! OH-NOES!

  27. I want to see NASA's acknowledgement he is right by MarkLR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This does not sound right. The article states that Apophis has a mass of 200 billion tonnes. How would colliding with a satellite which except for the ISS max out at about 20 tonnes do anything at all to Apophis' orbit? Forget the link to the wire story where is a link to NASA statement that the impact chance is really 1 in 450?

  28. Plan B: GTFO by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    GTFO!

  29. Original article by ulash · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the original article, in German, from the German newspaper. It looks like a professor helped him (Professor Spahn from Potsdam University). Bild is semi-infamous in Europe for sensationalizing stories but at least we know that the boy is real if nothing else...

  30. Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper? by TheMohel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see. We begin with the original source of data, "telescopic observations." Good, but perhaps a bit, shall we say, lacking in nine-digit precision. Then we add the element of a bright schoolboy (always a favorite in the papers) doing something big and being validated (instantly!) by "NASA" (not a person, but apparently the entire agency). Oh, and "NASA" told "ESA", but we still don't have the identity of anyone other than the putative schoolboy.

    So far, doing well.

    Then we hit the big problems. First, we have the scare factor of "40,000" satellites surrounding Earth. Most of which, actually, are in LEO, with a few more in geosynchronous orbit. Which makes the space around the Earth only about 99.999% empty space, rather than a few more nines. As it turns out, space is big.

    But it sounds good to imply that somehow there's this asteroid belt around the earth, and that the "killer" asteroid might hit a satellite.

    Well, WHICH ONE? They have a lot of different masses, they are going in different directions, and we pretty much have to get a specific momentum change in the right direction in order to get just the right perturbation. Hitting a small piece of space junk is one thing, but the variation in weight of those "40,000" satellites is orders of magnitude. And that makes a big difference in orbital perturbation, even if the difference in orbital velocity is small compared to the velocity of the asteroid. We're talking about a subtle effect here.

    And let's not figure in things like elastic collisions, off-center collisions, pieces flying off, or anything else. Nope, it's gonna happen perfectly, just like that seven-ball four-cushion bank shot we all can hit again and again.

    Heck, they even called the pocket. Right into the Atlantic, after an orbit measuring in the decades. Now I will grant that the orbit is pretty well known, but again, that little "satellite assist" must be just precise as heck.

    A nice touch gives us the "destroy both coasts and darken the world indefinitely." While it's good to be so certain, couldn't they be more specific about the method of destruction? Seeing as how they apparently know everything else, and all.

    And finally, we have the 450:1 odds. Not 500:1, and certainly not 1000:1, but exactly 450. Cool. About as believable as my old homework excuses, but infinitely cooler. Can you say "significant figures"? I knew you could.

    I think it's what you get when you let AFP (my source of news of the world for sure) loose in spring.

  31. Hang on a minute by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    Wait a minute, how will an asteroid create create a ball of iron and iridium 320 metres (1049 feet) wide and weighing 200 billion tonnes?

    1. Re:Hang on a minute by Plazmid · · Score: 1

      An asteroid can't create a ball of iron and iridium, can it?

  32. In related news by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congress announced today that there's a 1 in 450 chance you will be eligible for social security at retirement.

    There's an alanis morriset kind of irony here. If we were just moneys in trees and had not put up the sattelites we would not have magnified our risk a 100 fold.

    Given that sort of cosmic irony, I predict it has to hit Hubble.

    And speaking of hubble they should have known it had a faulty mirror when they say the stencil on it that said "asteroids in mirror are closer than they appear".

    Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:In related news by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1

      If we were just moneys in trees
      Do you work in the sub-prime department of a US bank by any chance?
    2. Re:In related news by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      There's an alanis morriset kind of irony here.

      You mean non-irony?

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

  33. In other news... by kpainter · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA has plan to deal with killer satellite by 2054.

  34. Exactly right by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Perhaps you were really gunning for a funny.

    Once you're below a certain threshold, a few more zeros really does not change anything. Very unlikely vs extremely unlikely is hardly relevant. Increasing my chances of being hit by an asteroid by 500 times still does not put it on the radar. Increasing my chance of a car crash by 50% is much more important.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Exactly right by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Uh, your chance of perishing in a car crash are not so high as 1/450. 2 tenths of the people on earth are not run over by cars

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Exactly right by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      oops make that 2/10ths of a percent

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Nonlinear optimization by LandruBek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe it's in the genes...

    --
    $META_SIG_JOKE
    1. Re:Nonlinear optimization by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1

      I doubt the boy is related to Donald Marquardt, who was American.

      Marquardt is actually a rather frequent German last name.

      Also, while I certainly don't want to hinder this boy's fifteen minutes of fame: Of course it has sensationalist value for a school boy to find this, but it only goes to show that just about everyone who spent more than five minutes on this problem should have realised that satellites need to be taken into account. I find it less impressive that a school boy did so, and much more depressive that NASA didn't get this themselves. And those are the people we pay to do this job...

  37. Google translation of German source by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here's the (semi hilarious) machine translation.

    I forgot the World Downfall chosen! ... AND NASA HAS SAID, I HAVE QUITE

    BY MICHAEL SAUERBIER

    Potsdam - He is the greatest threat our planet: On Sunday, 13 April 2036, the asteroid crosses "Apophis" the orbit.
    Nevertheless, the probability that we killer lumps from the All true, is 0.2 percent! This is a student from Potsdam calculated.

    And doing so, Nico Marquardt (13) the research of NASA corrected! For his disturbing discovery was the small physics genius now for the youth researchers Prize.
    "The asteroid has left me no rest," says the SiebtklÃssler from Potsdamer Humboldt Gymnasium. "On the Internet, I had high bets on the impact of Apophis was discovered. But NASA is the impact likely only 1 to 45000. I wanted to know how it really is. "
    With the telescope of the Astrophysical Institute Potsdam Nico was allowed to observe asteroids train.
    The student: "Then I said Spahn professor at the University of Potsdam, as the attractions of the sun, moon and earth the way of Apophis influence." Astrophysicists had a suitable formula.
    Nico: "With Professor Landgraf, ESA's satellite control center, I train then recalculated."
    Frightening picture: "The harvest probability is 1 to 450," said a young astronomer. For comparison: For a lottery-six (without super number), it is at 1 in 14 million.

    Nico: "When would the impact force of 98000 Hiroshima bombs freely. Stürben million people, dust would darken the sky, a super-tsunami swamped parts of the earth. "
    But: "I hope that Apophis nearly vorbeischrammt to us ..."

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Google translation of German source by Plazmid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Definitely not peer reviewed.

    2. Re:Google translation of German source by thodi · · Score: 5, Informative

      No need to translate it to make it hilarious:
      a) The source "newspaper" is Germany's biggest tabloid - with as much knowledge on astrophysics as a kindergarten kid
      b) No 13 year old German kid says "stuerben"

    3. Re:Google translation of German source by FoolsGold · · Score: 1

      Once people become aware of impending doom, you'll have people crying out "Do not want".

    4. Re:Google translation of German source by Sique · · Score: 1

      ad b) no 13 year old German kid calculates impact probabilities for asteroids either.

      If Nico Marquardt is the one single German kid who does those calculations, he might even be able to use the German conjunctive correctly.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Google translation of German source by thodi · · Score: 1

      ad b) no 13 year old German kid calculates impact probabilities for asteroids either.

      If Nico Marquardt is the one single German kid who does those calculations, he might even be able to use the German conjunctive correctly. True. The ladies must love that kid!

    6. Re:Google translation of German source by boombasticman · · Score: 1

      I really hope, that your american NSA won't use google translation for their investigations. They might think they have found a top terrorist, when they had just read the calculations from a boy.

      No wonder, that they see threats behind every bush.

    7. Re:Google translation of German source by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I thought it was bush seeing threats behind every NSA.

    8. Re:Google translation of German source by Britz · · Score: 1

      I checked it also and found that Bild (bigges tabloid) indeed reported on it first. But another, more respectable newspaper di their own story on it:
      http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/Astronomie;art1117,2512033

      The things weighs in at 200 billion tons, a speed of about 50.000 kilometers per hour and is 320 meter in diameter.

    9. Re:Google translation of German source by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Yep... the general populace derides the space program as a waste of money, preferring its funding to go to "education" or "helping the poor." Nevermind that NASA's budget is just a drop in the bucket compared to those...

      But as soon as something (like an asteroid about to hit earth) comes along, they will be the first ones whining "but why didn't "they" do something about it?" My response will be "I told you so."

      "Think of the children" indeed...

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    10. Re:Google translation of German source by autophile · · Score: 1

      This is a student from Potsdam calculated.

      I used to be amazed at Babelfish and Google Translate. But with all the smart brains at Google, you'd think that they would know that in German, the verb at the end of the sentence comes, while in English the verb does not. Are these people serious about machine translation, or are they just fooling around?

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    11. Re:Google translation of German source by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      The things weighs in at 200 billion tons, a speed of about 50.000 kilometers per hour and is 320 meter in diameter. On the bright side, at 320 meters that puts it at roughly 1/5th of a mile in diameter (yeah, I'm American, I converted that metric unit into Customary. Sue me ;)). The rock that wiped out the dinosaurs was roughly 6 miles in diameter, and even it didn't destroy all life on the planet. So give that this thing is 1/30th that size, while I'm sure it could cause damage and death on a scale that we've never seen, I'm sure that the human race itself would survive the impact.
      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:Google translation of German source by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Yep... the general populace derides the space program as a waste of money, preferring its funding to go to "education" or "helping the poor." Nevermind that NASA's budget is just a drop in the bucket compared to those...

      But as soon as something (like an asteroid about to hit earth) comes along, they will be the first ones whining "but why didn't "they" do something about it?" My response will be "I told you so."

      "Think of the children" indeed... You may have told them, but they didn't understand because education funding was cut in order to finance The War (tm).

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    13. Re:Google translation of German source by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      All those satisfied German verbs are probably due to the healthy "sexual deviance" the Germans enjoy (extreme bondage, unbalanced group play, etc) while the English (or American) verbs are left rode hard and put up wet. Sounds like someone should study foreign conjugation.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    14. Re:Google translation of German source by dreamsofcaffeine · · Score: 1

      a) In fact, it is Germany's biggest pile of idiocy, lies and bullshit. We even have a watchblog for it.

      b) Actually, some do, as that mood is, in some federal states, taught in the 7th grade, if one happens to be on a Gymnasium. (High School for you Americans.) But personally I think that's just an addition by BILD. German pupils, even if they are on a Gymnasium, aren't too keen to learn more moods or tenses. Normally they'd just say "wuerden sterben", as both the actual form of the Konjunktiv II (used for possibilities) and the "wuerde" + infinitive are valid.

    15. Re:Google translation of German source by thodi · · Score: 1

      a) In fact, it is Germany's biggest pile of idiocy, lies and bullshit. Klar, mir fiel nur auf die schnelle keine schoene Uebersetzung fuer "Blut- und Spermablatt" ein :-)
  38. wrong wrong WRONG by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here's a little detail to add to it. None of the satellites we'll be using in 2029 when it passes are in space right now cuz the recommended lifespan of satellites is like 8-12 years or something. Oh and if it hits a satellite, it can be deflected ANY direction depending on where it gets hit. Anyone ever played pool before? That alone puts it to about on in a trillion. And then we don't know if that new path will cause it to collide with another object in the solar system during its huge orbit which would deflect it nowhere near us. We could just barely put together some remotely accurate numbers if we knew the speed and direction of every object and know every particle and force in our solar system plus a map of all the gravitional forces caused by them the entire time. Nasa and the german kid are kidding themselves if they think that either of their guesses is accurate.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:wrong wrong WRONG by kasparov · · Score: 1

      Oh and if it hits a satellite, it can be deflected ANY direction depending on where it gets hit. Well, not quite. It can't be deflected in the direction it is traveling and it will lose some energy. Losing a tiny bit of momentum over a 7 year trip could make quite a bit of difference, I would think. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe the argument--I don't read German and orbital mechanics isn't my field so I need more information to reach a reasonable conclusion--I'm just saying that if in fact the reason that it was not likely to hit was that it was moving a little too fast, then it may just be possible that slowing it down a tiny bit could dramatically increase the probability of it colliding with the Earth. Eh, who knows.
      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    2. Re:wrong wrong WRONG by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      I thought if it lost energy, it would get sucked closer to the sun when it's nearest to it which would make it swing wider on the way back around it. But I dunno. Anyway, if a satellite hits it head on on the side furthest away from Earth, the "top" I guess, it would lose it energy and deflect it towards Earth slightly for the next time around. If it hits it on the bottom, it will give it upward force away from Earth for the next time around. If it hits more than one satellite, it may lose enough energy to totally miss Earth next time.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    3. Re:wrong wrong WRONG by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      None of the satellites we'll be using in 2029 when it passes are in space right now cuz the recommended lifespan of satellites is like 8-12 years or something.


      While what you say is technically correct, it misses the point that all of the current geosynchronous satellites that are in use today will still be in parking orbits in 2029. They don't re-enter geosync birds, they just (try to) boost them into a higher, non-useful parking orbit. As far as the asteroid is concerned, however, they're just as juicy a target, operating or not.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  39. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by GalacticLordXenu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    May I add that NASA, at least currently, doesn't even mention this? http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/ Where do they get this info, if this isn't anywhere on NASA?

  40. Hollywood by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 5, Funny

    And now Hollywood can turn the German boy into an American boy, chuck the complex math for a backyard telescope, name the asteriod after the boy, throw in a baby to add drama and get Morgan Freeman to play the President... Oh wait... ...never mind.

  41. That's it... by FoolsGold · · Score: 3, Funny

    We're all gonna die!

    I bet by the time 2036 hits, stats will how it's now without a doubt, the year of Linux on the desktop. But it won't matter cos we'll be dead. Wouldn't that be a kick in the balls.

  42. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by GalacticLordXenu · · Score: 1
  43. Re:I want to see NASA's acknowledgement he is righ by ulash · · Score: 1

    I think you are considering a rather obtuse view of the term "satellite". They seem to mean any object orbiting the Earth; for example the moon.

  44. Re:200 Billion Tons of (mostly) Iron?!? by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    Cool! So we could shape it into an anvil and go out in style, like all the cool civilizations do. Sure, we'll all die, but it will be a funny and cartoonish death.

  45. Re:OMG by Gutboy · · Score: 1

    Actually, any infinite subset of the infinite set of counting numbers has the same size as the set of counting numbers. So just as many worlds will be destroyed as not.

  46. Simple explanation... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    Germans know trajectory.

    Too soon?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  47. Chances by 8ball629 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Chances it hits the Earth after hitting a satellite... 450:1.

    Chances it hits the precise satellite at the precise angle at the precise rotation... 98493250:1 (the same chance Duke Nukem Forever is released this year).

  48. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

    Even if it were an order of magnitude estimate at 500:1, it's still incredibly likely. I wouldn't bank on us surviving past 2036 unless we do something to stop the asteroid. We're at the point techonologically where we could do something about it. And what if you are less than 1/100th the width of a pin off when you shoot a pool cue across the table? How much variation does that introduce into the next 10 seconds of the game?

    Planetary orbits are a deterministic system, and don't fool yourself into thinking that we can crunch a few numbers and immediately determine what will happen. To give you an idea of the complexity of the planetary system, it took Physicists about 400 years to develop a working general solution to the differential equations governing a 3-body planetary system.

    Essentially, the reason that a small satellite drastically increases the odds that the asteroid will hit us on a second path is the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Florida.

    We should take neither the odds, nor the pronouncement of any probability, lightly. Would you rather be wrong about what will happen, and have life on the Earth as we know it end? This asteroid would cause the end of our epoch and the beginning of a new one. Only a fool would suggest we continue on with business as usual.

    --
    SRSLY.
  49. The kid... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    His last name isn't 'Biederman,' is it? Cuz that would just be creepy.

    Still, looks like it's time to get Bruce Willis & Co. in astronaut training.

  50. WoW by Plazmid · · Score: 2, Funny

    C'mon the matrix won't be that bad. It'll probably be just as fun and addicting as World of Warcraft.

  51. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by evanbd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Collisions in space are actually quite predictable. The asteroid is huge and fast, so the entire satellite gets obliterated -- no random debris falling off, because odds are that the satellite is either entirely within the path or entirely outside it. Supersonic (relative to speed of sound in asteroid / satellite, not something irrelevant like Earth's atmosphere) collisions are basically completely inelastic (details more complex, but reasonably well understood).

    Satellites don't vary in mass all that much. The big ones are a few tons to a few tens of tons, once you ignore the ISS. The little ones don't matter, so you ignore them.

    Telescope observations can most definitely produce the many nines of precision needed for this work. It goes something like this: on day one, it's within this error bar. On day two, within that error bar. On day a few thousand, this other error bar. Individually, the error bar is large, but as they spread out, the path through every one of them gets rather precisely defined. Imagine positioning a set of 1 meter wide gates across the US -- sure, you can't measure the position of the bowling ball you rolled through them to better than 1 meter at any one point, but by the time it's gone through *all* of them, you have sub-ppm accuracy on its exact angle. Extend the scale a bit and you get the precision needed.

    Calling the pocket is the easy part: if it hits, then the piece of the Earth pointed in that direction will be the Atlantic. Sure, it might strike a glancing blow and hit at the edge, but thanks to foreshortening the odds are against that.

  52. Just goes to show you... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    ... how little it takes to divert an asteroid if done early enough. If the result in TFA is possible, so's the opposite -- that an asteroid can be knocked off a collision-bound trajectory with something far less than the suggested nuclear bombs and such.

    As for ILuvRamen's comments above ("wrong wrong WRONG")

    > None of the satellites we'll be using in 2029 when it passes are in space right now cuz the recommended lifespan of satellites is like 8-12 years or something.

    That's the functional lifetime, how long it will be working. Anything orbiting 23,000 miles up may not stay in geosynch, but it's going to be way up there for centuries.

    > Oh and if it hits a satellite, it can be deflected ANY direction depending on where it gets hit. Anyone ever played pool before?

    Good analogy. Take a pool ball and roll it across the table. That's the asteroid. Put another one in front of it. Let them collide. No matter where it hits, the asteroid is going to slow down. Even if it's only a tiny bit, it'll slow, and orbit is far more sensitive to changes in speed than any lateral force. If the asteroid was most likely to pass by on the side away from the sun, slowing it would make it more likely.

    > That alone puts it to about on in a trillion. ...
    > Nasa and the german kid are kidding themselves if they think that either of their guesses is accurate.

    The Near Earth Object site has the math on it used to calculate the different probabilities, unlike your baseless assertion. NASA and the German kid both obviously know something about orbital mechanics. Look at the formulae and see if you can tell where they went wrong. My guess is you can't.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  53. What's everyone worried about? by stephencrane · · Score: 1

    An asteroid named Apophis is on a collision course with Earth? Someone needs to update their feeds. SG-1 took care of this already in season 5. Friggin' Goa'uld put their names on everything - "The Art of the Deal" must be in their book club rotation.

  54. Re:Not Math Error by JLF65 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They didn't forget about them. There is almost no chance a satellite will be struck. If you read the original FA, you'd see that a) the asteroid will pass inside the orbit of them, b) it will pass at a 40 degree angle to them, and c) when the satellite does reach the distance the satellites orbit at, it'll be well beyond the region the satellites are in.

    The kid calculated the odds of the asteroid hitting the earth IF the asteroid hit a satellite JUST PERFECTLY. The odds of the asteroid hitting a satellite, much less just right for that to occur, are remote at best. This is just media hype to increase ratings.

  55. Oh sure... by das_magpie · · Score: 1

    More like NASA lied in the first place so they did not have do do anything about it. "Oh yeah 450 to 1 chance, right, um, we'll get right on it...damn kid"

  56. How about THESE odds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I just finished viewing (literally minutes ago!) the History Channel's S01 E03 of "The Universe" that deals with this very asteroid... then I promptly log onto Slashdot and find THIS headline.

    I'm guessing the odds of that happening are even more remote than this thing hitting earth, schoolboy corrections or not!

  57. At least we don't have to worry by The+Bender · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, think on the bright side.
    At least we don't have to worry about fixing the 2038 UNIX 32-bit date bug any more.

  58. Re:200 Billion Tons of (mostly) Iron?!? by Dannkape · · Score: 2, Funny

    Have you taken the laws of anvilology into consideration?

    - Falling anvils never kill, only crush. (Maybe the Flat Earth Society could be right after all...)
    - Anvils will stay in the air until noticed.(But how do we keep people from looking at the sky?)
    - Maybe we better go with a safe, as that could allow us to open it afterwards and release a slightly squeezed (and cubed) planet...

  59. Re:I want to see NASA's acknowledgement he is righ by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Thinking about the problem for a second, I can see how you can make some rough calculations. Generally any GEO, HEO, etc. type orbit will be fairly slow, especially compared to the hyperbolic orbit that the asteroid will be entering at (in the Earth's reference). Thus based on the range of velocities and masses you could predict a range of possible perturbations to the orbit.

    Though I don't have any numbers to back it up right now, a small perturbation in the velocity can propagate forward to be a very large error after 7 years. Thats why we have so much trouble predicting whether or not it will hit us; a 10 meter error in its position or a 1 m/s error in velocity measurements translates into multiple Earth radii over a few years. So combine the small change in velocity from an impact with the gravitational slingshot from the 2029 close approach, and it may be enough to shift the keyhole.

    Of course I think the article is misleading, it may be more like there's a 1/450 chance of some kind of impact that will have an unknown effect on the orbit but may shift it into an impact trajectory, or something like that. At any rate, there are still other unknowns such as the effect of solar wind that can vary the trajectory dramatically too.

    Note of course that I could be completely wrong, although I do plan to attempt some simulations now, since one of my advisors classes is working on a related project.

  60. Darn! by fluffykitty1234 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I just read Duke Nukem Forever is slated to ship in 2037. :(

  61. Those Marquardts are sorta good at math... by Nate75Sanders · · Score: 1
  62. Deflection by celtic_hackr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You, wouldn't have to deflect it much. just a fraction of a fraction of a degree. We're talking about huge distances here. Ever played pool on a pool table with sand? Try making that rebound shot, where you bounce it off three bumpers from one corner and sink it in the fourth corner with a single piece of sand in the the path of travel. Now multiple by a factor of a billion and you begin to get the idea. When Russia launched a probe to the Moon, they were off by less than a degree and missed the Moon by something on the order of a million miles. Don' forget Apophis is going pretty damn fast too. Action - reaction and all that. Whether the satellite is traveling towards or away, etc.

    1. Re:Deflection by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I forgot to add, that if it comes close enough to hit a man-made satellite, the Earth is going to deflect it's path too. Even a near miss with the Moon would deflect it, and cause tidal problems for us because of the wobble of the Moon, until it resettles. Should be lot's of fun ... now where's my surfboard gone to!? Narly, Dude!

  63. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by bolrod · · Score: 1

    Schoolboy that corrected NASA, gets corrected by slashdot user.?

  64. This makes the physicist in me cry by TiberSeptm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd love to see the computer-cluster this kid calculated the 100k+ iterations of the many-bodied system of time-retarded lagrangians required to solve something like this. His parents power bill has to be insane. Considering uncertainties involved in orbital trajectories and timing for asteroids like this, 100k might even be a low number of runs for something like this. The number of satellites in orbit, their varying masses, uncertainty in the current un-colided trajectory, etc. can't possibly create a situation where you have improved odds of impact anyways. There is actually a greater solid angle of impact for collisions that would decrease the likelihood of eventual earth impact than increase it. Maybe these odds are after the most favorable possible satellite impact plus the help of magical space faries?

    1. Re:This makes the physicist in me cry by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      He probably just uses Amazon's EC2. =)

  65. Excellent by tmk · · Score: 1

    If the asteroid hits Earth 2036, we do not have to deal with the end of time as we know it.

  66. And the answer is... by Askmum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If merely randomly hitting a satellite will make it impact earth, than a targeted hit by another satellite will make it not impact earth.
    So if this report is true (which I very much doubt), it in itself provides the answer.

  67. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by nametaken · · Score: 1

    And finally, we have the 450:1 odds. Not 500:1, and certainly not 1000:1, but exactly 450. Cool. About as believable as my old homework excuses, but infinitely cooler. Can you say "significant figures"? I knew you could.

    Someone had to say it...

    They would have had me if they had said 42:1.

    I'm so sorry, I'll go away now.

  68. Can I stop worrying about the year 2038 problem? by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    Great! I can carry on casting time_t to a 32 bit integer now, and put in a comment: // we'll all be dead, so don't worry about it.

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  69. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by TheMohel · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sadly, I actually used your cogent comments to waste a fair bit of time and go look at the original press paper (in German, it's at this link). It's a story of an intrepid science fair paper. Let's hear the Google translation:

    Perhaps the most "exciting moment in human history", as Nico Marquardt promises Completes had chosen on Friday, 13 April 2029 at 22:45 am Central European Time. Then flies from the iron and Iridium existing space-potato, 320 metres in diameter and 200 billion tons, only 32500 kilometres of the earth over.

    There, I hope that gave you a flavor. BTW, there is no mention here either of any named individual in NASA or ESA that is standing behind the numbers quoted.

    The article is breathless about how wonderfully catastrophic this all is, but I do have some questions about the math. For one, are there really 40,000 satellites in geostationary orbit (or geosynchronous orbit)? That's the quoted number - I was under the impression that there were rather fewer. And how on earth do they get a figure of 1:450 that the satellite will hit one of them? And that that hit will guarantee the catastrophic outcome they so desire?

    For another, I'm not getting a picture of a long observational period and multiple telescopes. Only one telescope is mentioned, and the science fair aspect makes it more suspicious. It looks more like a novel hypothesis ("what if it rams a satellite?") combined with some serious guesswork.

    And finally, did anybody else get a little bothered by the description of a 160-meter radius asteroid that weighs 200 billion tons? That gives a density of a little under 12 kilograms per cubic centimeter, which would make it a rather unique and valuable material. As near as I can tell, Wikipedia being your friend and all, they missed by three orders of magnitude. Speaking of correcting the numbers...
  70. Re:I want to see NASA's acknowledgement he is righ by Raineer · · Score: 1

    Hitting the moon would seem to have much more dire consequences, yes? Destabilizing it's orbit would have a *slight* impact on the future of our planet. Very good chance of us not being around in 2036 I would wager.

    All that being said, I am sure they can tell where the moon is and determine whether or not it will be hit. I could judge that from Starry Night Pro, so I'm certain NASA can.

  71. Apophis is an opportunity, not a threat by damburger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We are developing several strategies to deflect the course of asteroids. If these mature over the next few years before our close encounters with Apophis, we may have the chance of bringing into Earth orbit, providing nearby and easily accessible resources for space construction.

    Providing it with enough energy to slow from solar orbit to Earth orbit could be tricky, so I suggest the best way is to deflected in such a way it undergoes aerocapture.

    People always seem concerned about the possibility of the rock just smacking into Earth, and think this is a reason not to pursue such a strategy. Tell me, am I being too Lex Luthor about this?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Apophis is an opportunity, not a threat by damburger · · Score: 1

      I'm actually more interested in the Iron. The price of a metal orbitting the Earth is equal to not only its Earth-bound cost but also the cost of lifting it up there. This puts the value of Apophis through the roof, possibly more value than exists in all the economies on Earth at the present time.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Apophis is an opportunity, not a threat by syousef · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a plan. An awful plan that is. Orbits can decay and miscalculations can occur. If you didn't do it just right you'd actually CREATE the disaster.

      Anyway if you want to use a large orbiting rock for construction material what's wrong with the moon?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Apophis is an opportunity, not a threat by damburger · · Score: 1

      Too far away and too big. Its a question of getting the delta-v as low as possible between the materials you need and your construction site. If the materials are in a rock with little gravity of its own, and both it and the construction site are in LEO the delta-v is miniscule.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Apophis is an opportunity, not a threat by syousef · · Score: 1

      I had no idea you were talking LEO. That's insane. The closer the orbit, the more energy you have to spend keeping them there. Look at how often ISS and Hubble haveto have their orbits boosted. Sure not every day, having such a big thing orbiting so close is inviting destruction. If at some point you lose the capability to boost or a mission fails, you might as well have a sci-fi style mass driver pointed at Earth.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  72. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by evanbd · · Score: 1

    The NASA NEO site gives 21M tons, which is much more plausible.

    The many observations are what was involved in the NASA JPL orbit determination. My impression is he just said "suppose it hits a satellite, what will that do to the orbit?" and then ran those numbers plus the JPL numbers through the simulator.

    I also get the impression the 1/450 number is 1/450 odds of a collision with Earth, *if* it hits a satellite.

    I don't know how many satellites there are in geosync, but I'm pretty sure you're right that it's less than 40,000. That might be about right for total satellites, though -- not that that's all that relevant.

    I too would like to see an official NASA comment on this.

  73. It's an attack! by kegon · · Score: 1

    German scientist discovers asteroid on "collision course", NASA not very helpful.... start building your rocket ship kid, it might be ready in time for us to fight back!

  74. Think positively... by baadger · · Score: 1

    Maybe the rock-dwelling alien bastard driving it won't appreciate our tin-tech peppering his windshield and will take the time to just vaporise us nicely, as to allow their cargo vessel to pass effortlessly through the resulting cloud... It should be quite a sight, I can't wait to see it.

    To claim my 'I told you so' moment, I place odds of this happening something between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 1017.

  75. The Heaviest by foufoux · · Score: 1

    ... it will create a ball of iron and iridium 320 metres (1049 feet) wide and weighing 200 billion tonnes ... Strange... Using basic maths : The Volume of the Ball 320 meters wide is : 4/3*Pi*(D/2)^3
    In this case, we are looking at 4/3*Pi*(320/2)^3,
    So V = 12867963.5 m^3

    So now, let's look at the density : d = W/V
    Basic division gives us : d = 1554,25 g.cm^-3

    According to wikipedia :
    iron density is 6.98 g.cm^-3
    iridium dentisty is 22.42 g.cm^-3

    So, do we discover a new metal ?

    Or do we need a other kid to find the mistake ?
    1. Re:The Heaviest by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As other readers have pointed out, the Asteroid actually weighs 21 Megatonnes, not 200 Gigatonnes.

      Journalists are the only people worse on Maths than both NASA and German school boys.

  76. A bright future by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

    Normally I'd say a 13 year old who can correct NASA on their mistakes has a bright future ahead of him ... but in this case, maybe he doesn't. :(

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
  77. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by Post-O-Matron · · Score: 1

    Exactly my thoughts - sounds like horseshit. So why "NASA confirms"? Simple - the more they scare the public the more funding they'll get to send Bruce Willis to blow up the damn thing.

  78. I guess by sirknz · · Score: 1

    If he is right at least we wont have to worry about that global warming I mean climate change problem some people are fixated on.

  79. That can't be right by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Political pressure tends to be pro impending doom these days.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:That can't be right by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Political pressure tends to be pro impending doom these days.

      Err...yes, I would agree with that sentiment, but I think that's exactly why they wouldn't predict doom.

      Bear with me for a moment (and feel free to rip the argument apart later): if NASA predicted impeding doom from the asteroid then people would panic and NASA would receive tons of funding, but for all the wrong reasons. Instead of attempting to focus on research and possible Mars visits they would be forced to spend tons of time and effort trying to avert an Armageddon that would likely never come. This would most likely set the program years back.

      If they instead ignored the thing until it was certain to collide with the Earth, then they would have several years to find a relatively easy solution, and up until that point they would have twenty years of advances under their belt.

      Maybe this is the lack of sleep combined with hours of work and six cups of coffee talking, but I think that NASA had/has very good reasons for keeping this thing quiet.

    2. Re:That can't be right by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they instead ignored the thing until it was certain to collide with the Earth, then they would have several years to find a relatively easy solution, and up until that point they would have twenty years of advances under their belt.

      Given the track record on space propulsion advances over the last twenty years, I'm not going to put much faith in a game-changing engine appearing in the next twenty.

      If they instead ignored the thing until it was certain to collide with the Earth, then they would have several years to find a relatively easy solution, and up until that point they would have twenty years of advances under their belt.

      The "relatively easy solution" is to go push it as soon as possible. The sooner you push, the less pushing you have to do. With Apophis in particular, you want to get your pushing done before the 2029 flyby, as it will magnify the effect.

      (of course, it turns out the kid was wrong, but the point stands)

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    3. Re:That can't be right by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only if that doom is coming from another country.

    4. Re:That can't be right by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      This sounds familiar.... NASA receiving large amounts of money to achieve an important goal in which time was incredibly important. I think we called it the Space Race. You claim that such a thing could set the space program back, but I think it has the potential to move the program forward. In the circumstances listed above, NASA made a number of advancements while trying to get a man on the moon.

  80. Re:200 Billion Tons of (mostly) Iron?!? by olof_the_viking · · Score: 1

    You are right, but I think we need to shape it into 16 ton weights if we all want to be well and properly destroyed :-) There is enough material to destroy us all one by one and some left over for household pets, and the whales, too!

  81. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Funny

    As it turns out, space is big

    You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  82. That doesn't make any sense. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the odds that any given asteroid will even impact a satellite on a particular pass are astronomical. Not anywhere near 1:450, so how could this possibly be true. I think that they may mean that *if* it impacts a satellite it will have a 1:450 chance of hitting us on it's next pass.

    1. Re:That doesn't make any sense. by Kentari · · Score: 1

      That would make more sense...

      The article claims the boy did calculations using observations of one optical telescope and accounting for the influence of Sun, Earth and Moon. The JPL calculations however take into account 731 optical, 2 radar delay and 5 doppler observations. Without the radar observations NASA was unable to rule out a 2029 impact. Furthermore, JPL takes into account perturbations of: Sun, Earth, Moon, every other planet and for asteroids like Aphophis even other asteroids are taken into account. There is just no way the kid could have gotten a more reliable result.

      The large majority of satellites is in LEO, which is too low or in or near the geostationary belt, which it will not cross. The chances it will hit one of the rare objects in the nearly empty stretch of space it will pass through are probably much lower than 1/45000...

      I doubt NASA said anything else than: "Right, we didn't take into account that it might hit a satellite (because it is very very unlikely that it would)".

  83. Fuzzy math by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Huh, wait a second. The estimates for the Hiroshima bomb is 13-16 kiloton which would make it in the 340-415 megaton range. That's just 8 times the Tsar Bomba of 50 megaton the Soviets tested, and last I checked the world did fine. That number must be way off or the potential damages way exaggerated. Sounds like they need another German schoolboy to help them out here.
    1. Re:Fuzzy math by dintech · · Score: 1

      Herr Lipp, is that you?

  84. Big deal, we'll rule the world by then. by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    (We're China, right?)

  85. No, he didn't win by hweimer · · Score: 3, Informative

    First of all, the competition is "Jugend forscht", which is the largest science competition in Germany. It consists of three stages: first there is a regional competition with winners advancing to the state finals. The winners of the state finals then advance to the federal finals, which is the last round. Roughly speaking, in every round one winner (or winning team) is chosen by a jury in each discipline (mathematics, physics, chemistry, ...).

    It seems that the kid won the regional competition, but failed to advance in the state finals.

    --
    OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
  86. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by zenkonami · · Score: 1

    Essentially, the reason that a small satellite drastically increases the odds that the asteroid will hit us on a second path is the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Florida. And yet that deterministic statement fails to take into account all the other effects individual effects that could take place in such a scenario. Does it matter where the satellite hits the asteroid? How about if the asteroid hits two satellites? Are there other small chunks of rock floating out that could hit the asteroid and cause even further deflection? It's all well and good to talk about it, and even to make some serious inquiry in the event of actual danger, but this whole piece sounds a bit ridiculous (Little Milton, indeed!) "Because NASA/JPL/ESA/(insert organization here) wants to cover up their mistakes is a ridiculous reason to not find a more definitive, peer reviewed analysis of the situation.

    Besides which, I for one have better things to do than hang around contemplating and asteroid that may or may not hit when I'm in my 60s. Or maybe not. I am on Slashdot, after all.

    First they tell me California is doomed by the 2030s, and now they tell me probably the whole world is too...SHEESH.

    I really don't mind if you sit this one out...

    --

    Do You Experiment?
  87. It's in the wording by Xest · · Score: 1

    I think what it comes down to is this, that IF the asteroid were to hit a satellite then on it's next run it'll have a 1 in 450 chance of hitting Earth. NASA no doubt agree with this but also it doesn't necessarily make their original math wrong in that the overall chance of it hitting or not hitting a satellite and then hitting earth is vastly lower.

    That's my take on it, I could be wrong but the kids only right IF the asteroid hits a satellite in the first place. The overall chance of the asteroid hitting earth including the possibility that it does or doesn't first hit a satellite is likely still the original figure. I think his figure is based on the premise that the asteroid definitely hits a satellite.

  88. *** STOP PRESS *** by PinkyDead · · Score: 5, Funny

    This just in: Kindergarten kid corrects 13 year old student's earlier correction of NASA calculation.

    Chance of impact now 1 in 4.

    Toddler's have be banned from using calculators for fear they will doom us all.

    Doom Us All, I tells ya!

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  89. Asteroid may hit earth scenario by Oshkoshjohn · · Score: 1

    Oh shit!

    --
    Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
  90. Correction: Source wrong by Peregr1n · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry to burst the balloon, but apart from the one German article that was picked up by AFP, there's no source for this story. And NASA and the ESA deny ever saying that the schoolboy was right. It seems that the schoolboy's sums were wrong, and NASA's original workings are right. More info: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/esa_german_schoolboy_apophis_denial/ I'd file this under 'web hoax' or 'lazy journalists pick up on anything sensational'

    1. Re:Correction: Source wrong by Torodung · · Score: 1

      LOL. Let me guess. Did he forget how to work his scientific notation when getting his sums wrong, or did he just fail the unit on "percentages?"

      German efficiency, right down to the urban legend story on Slashdot, and the misplaced decimal poi.nt

      I love this place. ;^)

      --
      Toro

    2. Re:Correction: Source wrong by oni · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for posting that. Now I feel like going back through the thread and finding anyone who posted, "har har NASA kant dew math!" or "har har, it's a german kid because we don't teach math in the US!!" and replying with a link to your post and the word "owned"

      People are *incredibly* quick to assume NASA is wrong.

  91. The News is wrong by phoenix_nz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just in case anyone still believes we'll all be killed by an asteroid in 2029 or 2036, here's an article from El Reg, claiming that the boy got it all wrong.
    I guess we'll have to live with the miniscule 1 in 45,000 chance.

    link to article:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/esa_german_schoolboy_apophis_denial/

    1. Re:The News is wrong by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      I guess we'll have to live with the miniscule 1 in 45,000 chance. So let me get this straight:

      1. The chances of me winning the lottery in the US are 1 in approximately 14 million.
      2. The chances of me getting laid are 1 in approximately whatever the chances are Duke Nukem Forever gets released in my lifetime.
      3. The chances of an asteroid getting diverted and wiping out civilization are a mere 1 in 45,000!!

      Thanks for rubbing it in. :'(
  92. NASA - 'All your space belong to US.' by davidpbrown · · Score: 1

    Can't tell me this wasn't deliberate by NASA.. I bet they had a big bet on - You know they redden the sky of Mars to make it look uninhabitable - and don't get me started on the Moon landings. Everyone knows the Moon's made of cheese, can't just land on it.

  93. Ob: Discworld-ref by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Never say such things as "Needle in a hay stack" or "One in a million" because that just red flags fate and you know it will happen. Because everybody knows that "one-in-a-million-chance" events succeeds nine times out of ten.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  94. As usual.. missing information by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 2, Informative

    "In April 2008 it was reported that 13 year-old Nico Marquardt from Potsdam, Germany had recalculated the odds as part of a science competition, and found the risk had been underestimated. Taking into account the possibility of the asteroid colliding with one or more of the estimated 40,000 artificial satellites orbiting the earth, possibly causing a shift in its orbit, increases the probability of a collision with [5] earth on its next fly-by in 2036 to 1 in 450. NASA was reported as confirming these results with the ESA[6], yet they have since apparently denied these claims, and on April 15, 2008 it was reported Nico Marquardt's calculations were incorrect." -- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis/

  95. You damned kids! by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dilbert on the "Millineum generation"

    Now get off my lawn! Damned kids! And take your calculators with you! (grumble mumble where'd I put my lawnmower?)

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  96. Why does a sattellite matter? by UUDIBUUDI · · Score: 1

    The asteriod is probably hitting smaller objects all the time, why should a sattellite be any different? I don't see why hitting stuff near the earth increases our doomsday-odds any more than hitting stuff elsewhere.

  97. come on people....can't we all be frineds by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    This is one of those few times where we as Americans, take over the power from the globe to conduct a full concerted effort in keeping all the satellites orbiting on the left side of the planet when it passes us on the right side in 2029. Seriously, we do not have to worry it hitting anything if the sats. are out of the way...but that would take awhile to do, and we should get started right away!...

  98. Oh no! by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

    We're dooooooooooooooooooo[catches breath]ooooooooooooooomed!

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  99. dumb and dumber by noaheliyasi · · Score: 1

    he wrote "... terrorist sciences ..." not "terrorists"

  100. I for one by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    do NOT welcome our killer asteroid overlord. Prepare the nukes.

  101. Large Hadron Collider by Beliskner · · Score: 1

    What's the point of worrying about asteroids when the Large Hadron Collider will create Mini Black Holes that could destroy Earth this October?

    --
    A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  102. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by GalacticLordXenu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And where on THEIR website is this mentioned...?

  103. 450:1 or 45000:1 still not overly comfortable by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    given the odds of impact and the level of devastation such an event would cause I think it might be worth while starting work on a project that could deflect said meteor. The good news is it doesn't have to be ready for another 10-15 years so we have time to (hopefuly) get it right and develop a Plan B. Is anything being done (serious work?) or are our best minds working on viagra 2.0?

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  104. Strange Star here we come... by bodland · · Score: 1

    And we will turned into pure energy and leave on the next comet...which is really a ship, to visit the giant space goat that eats planets. Hmmm now where is my track suit and Nike's...?

  105. Apparently, NASA was right after all by blakbeard0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "This is within the distance of Earth's geosynchronous satellites. However, because Apophis will pass interior to the positions of these satellites at closest approach, in a plane inclined at 40 degrees to the Earth's equator and passing outside the equatorial geosynchronous zone when crossing the equatorial plane, it does not threaten the satellites in that heavily populated region. " From here.

  106. Not so fast? by AWG · · Score: 1
  107. Original article is Wrong by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1
    Yep, turns out i it's not true. The original article is wrong, and all the /. posters mentioning how the premise is absurd are right. Basically, some tabloid reporter saw the kid's science fair project and decided to run with it, and the rest of the newsmedia picked it up and nobody every checked the facts.

    Here's another link

    The "correction' in his science fair project was to suggest that the maybe asteroid might hit a satellite in geosynchronous orbit as it goes by, and get deflected to the surface of the Earth. That correcton article points out that this is nonsense because when the asteriod crosses the orbital plane of geosynchronous orbit, it's not at geosynchronous distance, but I'll point out that if an asteroid hits a geosynchronous satellite, this will "deflect" it's path to about the same extent that your car will be deflected if it hits a gnat.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Original article is Wrong by Cyvros · · Score: 1
      NASA's released a press statement on this. From it:

      Contrary to recent press reports, NASA offices involved in near-Earth object research were not contacted and have had no correspondence with a young German student, who claims the Apophis impact probability is far higher than the current estimate.

      This student's conclusion reportedly is based on the possibility of a collision with an artificial satellite during the asteroid's close approach in April 2029. However, the asteroid will not pass near the main belt of geosynchronous satellites in 2029, and the chance of a collision with a satellite is exceedingly remote.
  108. Looks like its... by PyroGX2000 · · Score: 1

    Time to break out the 450-sided die.

  109. Doesn't make intuitive sense by mea37 · · Score: 1

    So a satelite impact will definitely cause its next orbit to hit the Earth. Any satelite impact, from any angle? And yet we don't expect that a moderate push would deflect it back off of a collision course?

    Perhaps I need more information, but off hand, I have my doubts about this. I also note it's the kind of claim that can't be practically falsified in the common perception. The odds are either 1:450 or 1:45,000 -- but who is ever going to experience a difference between the two?

  110. Affleck by Freeside1 · · Score: 1

    I propose we launch Ben Affleck into it. The asteroid will be sure to avoid Earth after this, I know I would.

  111. For what it's worth, Wikipedia disagrees: by jockeys · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis from TFWE: "In April 2008 it was widely but incorrectly reported that 13 year-old Nico Marquardt from Potsdam, Germany, had recalculated the odds as part of a science competition, and found the risk had been underestimated. Taking into account the possibility of the asteroid colliding with one or more of the estimated 40,000 artificial satellites orbiting the earth, possibly causing a shift in its orbit, increases the probability of a collision with [5] earth on its next fly-by in 2036 to 1 in 450. NASA was reported as confirming these results with the ESA[6], yet they have since apparently denied these claims, and on April 15, 2008 it was reported Nico Marquardt's calculations were incorrect.[7]"

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
  112. Schoolboy's asteroid-strike sums are wrong by RKBA · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Schoolboy's asteroid-strike sums are wrong

    There's only one problem with the story: the kid's sums are in fact wrong, NASA's are right, and the ESA swear blind they never said any different. An ESA spokesman in Germany told the Reg this morning: "A small boy did do these calculations, but he made a mistake... NASA's figures are correct." It would appear that the intial article in the Potsdamer Neueste Nachrichten, which says that NASA and the ESA endorsed Nico Marquardt's calculations, was incorrect. The story was picked up by German tabloids and the AFP news wire, and is now all over the internet.
  113. I was shocked to read that a 13 year old knew math by Yogi_Stewart_4 · · Score: 1

    But the surprise waned when I realised that he was not in the US.

  114. Uh oh! by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    I've seen enough monster movies to know that it's not a good sign when a little kid has to tell the scientists what's going on.

  115. Perhaps this is not an accurate article? by Lord_Pain · · Score: 1

    I did a little digging to find more info on the Apophis Asteroid here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophis_asteroid

    I'm too lazy to dig further on slashdot to see if anyone else is linking the wikipedia article...
    but I think this is all a case of sloppy journalism.

    --
    -- What's this '-r *' file doing here? -- Oh well, a simple 'rm' should do the trick.
  116. *whoosh* by grahamd0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      o-- -  *whoosh*
        ^ the point

         O
        -|-  <- You
        / \

    1. Re:*whoosh* by FearForWings · · Score: 1

      Well as long as the asteroid passes over my head without hitting me, that all I really care about.

      --
      I don't know about angles, but it's fear that gives men wings. -Max Payne
    2. Re:*whoosh* by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      (Offtopic, so I disabled my karma bonus)

      Seven years of reading /. and I've never seen that ASCII art before? Wow, just wow.....

      Bravo, btw ;) 15 minutes ago and you would have gotten one of my mod points.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  117. I wonder ... by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

    One thing the article appears to imply that I question is that hitting a satellite will necessarily cause it to hit the earth next time around. I would think it could just as well cause it to miss the earth by more than it would have otherwise.

    --
    Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  118. If a tiny satellite can alter its course... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Why can't we deliberately alter it ourselves to steer it away from Earth?

    --
    No sig today...
  119. I get about 1 in 70 chance. by peter303 · · Score: 1

    33K kilometers is an extraordinary close flyby. People get excited if an asteroid is closer than lunar orbit which is ten times larger.

    My calculation compares the area of disk proscibed by the flyby with that of area of disk of earth. That is 36 times larger. Plus a 50-50 chance of hitting that flyby altitude gives me a bout a 1 in 70 chance.

  120. How old am I by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    All I pictured was the intro to Thundar the Barbarian: Ookla, Arial, we ride! Course they said 1994. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAobPugvsk Oh, and the register said its all crap: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/esa_german_schoolboy_apophis_denial/

    --
    meh
  121. Denial... by DrPoodle · · Score: 1

    Seems like NASA and the ESA are both denying the miscalculation. Methinks some over-eager German tabloids are to blame... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/esa_german_schoolboy_apophis_denial/

  122. Re:Um, was this by any chance an April Fools paper by MGROOP · · Score: 2, Informative

    The force is strong with this one.
    Yes it is all a hoax.

    Nasa Watch has picked up the story. Turns out to be completely made up. Details here: Apophis risk not increased
  123. Not NASA. by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 1

    The imperial to metric problem was not NASA but their Lockheed Martin sub-contractors.

    --
    [ think ]
  124. Hold on a second... by RealErmine · · Score: 1

    Sure, this German kid may have added a new term into the equation, but what happens if the asteroid were to hit TWO Earth satellites on its first fly-by? What if it hits 100? The asteroid could be halted entirely after it clears out a swath of Fox News and Major League Baseball spy satellites. In fact, I look forward to the day when I can look up at the sky and see Earth's new best friend happily cruising across the debris-filled sky. Suck on that, Moon. You cold-hearted bitch.

    --
    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
  125. are you sure? by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    are you sure the kid's name isn't Wesley Crusher?

  126. Other grains... by mulhall · · Score: 1

    So all these calculations assume Apophis has no other impacts, whatsoever, of any kind, of any size, in the seven years it's wandering around lining up with the Atlantic?

    1. Re:Other grains... by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      So all these calculations assume Apophis has no other impacts, whatsoever, of any kind, of any size, in the seven years it's wandering around lining up with the Atlantic?

      Yes. Any impact would change the game. What effect it would have depends on the nature of the collision. Hitting another asteroid could turn the impact into a certainty, or send it falling into the Sun.

      However, the odds of it hitting anything are low. Anything it is likely to hit is going to have an effect too small for us to measure with our instruments.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  127. More than one by dereference · · Score: 1

    Agreed, and further I think a lot of folks here are ignoring the probability that this massive object will hit more than just a single satellite. There are a lot of satellites packed into a rather constrained geosynchronous orbit. Further, even if it doesn't actually hit anything at all, it will certainly cause a number of nearly-missed satellites to have their orbits altered dramatically, perhaps irreversibly. So we'll likely have catastrophic communications failures, at the exact time we'll need to collaborate to determine our collective fate (and, hopefully, generate some mitigation strategies).

    1. Re:More than one by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      I think that in the time between 2027 and 2036 we could have some decent recovery of our satellite communications.

      However, it's all moot. If Apophios knocks out a bunch of satellites in 2027, the collective force of half the world's population jumping and screaming because they didn't get to see the last two minutes of American Idol will cause the earth to shift orbit just enough to not get hit in 2036.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    2. Re:More than one by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and further I think a lot of folks here are ignoring the probability that this massive object will hit more than just a single satellite. There are a lot of satellites packed into a rather constrained geosynchronous orbit. Further, even if it doesn't actually hit anything at all, it will certainly cause a number of nearly-missed satellites to have their orbits altered dramatically, perhaps irreversibly. So we'll likely have catastrophic communications failures, at the exact time we'll need to collaborate to determine our collective fate (and, hopefully, generate some mitigation strategies).

      This would be quite true if it had turned out the story was correct. However, Apophis is not coming in at the right inclination to hit anything in the geosynchronous belt, and will be too far out to hit LEO satellites.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  128. Great news! by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    If that kid is right, we don't need to worry about the unix calendar problem!

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  129. Re: Your .sig by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!

    Your .sig made me really think. Then when that hurt too much, this came to mind:

    And God thought, surely there must be a better editor than this. So He summarized some options:
    A. Intelligently design Richard Stallman so he can write Emacs.
    B. Just start a process of evolution that leads to greedy parasitic organism that like to control and manipulate everything around them. Richard Stallman should naturally evolve in opposition to such an environment.

    Perhaps God didn't want to take direct responsibility for option A, and option B gives better deniable plausibility.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  130. hmm by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

    Vapor(izetheEarth) Ware?

  131. Oblig Team America quote by Ezekiel68 · · Score: 1

    Team America captive: "Hiroshima times 26,000.. why that's... I don't even know what that is." Kim Jong Il: "NO ONE DOES!!!"

    --
    Imagination is more important than knowledge -Einstien
  132. Still a Major Error! by bsharma · · Score: 1

    How does a 320 meter iron (and indium) ball end up with 200 Billion tons of mass? 1.33*3.14*160*160*160*8 tons = 136 Million tons

  133. Oooh, that is wrong... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    How does a 320 meter iron (and indium) ball end up with 200 Billion tons of mass? 1.33*3.14*160*160*160*8 tons = 136 Million tons

    Yah, I think your density of iron might be a bit off but over all, for their estimates to add up, you would have to have the density of iron be around 12,000 tons per cubic meter. Boy, that seems a bit heavy for iron.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Oooh, that is wrong... by bsharma · · Score: 1

      And if all their predictions are based on this erroneous mass, isn't this a case of "Sky is Falling" nonsense?

    2. Re:Oooh, that is wrong... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      And if all their predictions are based on this erroneous mass, isn't this a case of "Sky is Falling" nonsense?

      (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so correct me if I am wrong)...

      It's more the times velocity squared side of things that screws us. Let's say our ball hits the earth at 10km/s. Energy is mv^2, returning joules if mass is in kg and velocity is in meters /sec. So, roughly... we're talking 10^4 x 10^4 x 6x10^9 to get roughly 6x10^18 joules, which is like a thousand or so hiroshima sized atomic bombs or maybe a good sized h-bomb... or, maybe a hundred h-bombs (depending on my math) It's a big boom, for sure.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Oooh, that is wrong... by bsharma · · Score: 1

      Actually that 10km/s is closer to escape velocity in free space. In atmosphere, due to air resistance, that speed is improbable (it would be 36,000 km per hour; about 30 Mach) Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity analysis, if we assume a terminal velocity of 100 meters/s, Kinetic Energy = 0.5*10^11*10^2*10^2 = 10^15 Joules. (for a mass of 100 million tons) Now, if the asteroid disintegrates due to thermal and mechanical stresses, this calculation is kaput!

    4. Re:Oooh, that is wrong... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      In atmosphere, due to air resistance

      I'm assuming that with a sufficiently large asteroid, air resistance would be negligible. For a quick reality check, I think meteor crater in Arizona was made by an apothesis sized asteroid which exploded...and that's a mile wide crater.

      --
      This is my sig.
  134. "Not entirely accurate" by mehtajr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So in Slashdot's world "not entirely accurate" is the same thing as "completely, utterly, bloody false." Good to know.

  135. Nothing to worry about by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    There's nothing to worry about here. Everyone knows that SG-1 will save the Earth from Apophis.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  136. Re:200 Billion Tons of (mostly) Iron?!? by steveo777 · · Score: 1
    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  137. Car crash != car death by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    I bet your chances of a car crash are far greater than 1/450. I've been in at least 5 car crashes, but I'm still alive - I think.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  138. so... by jordan314 · · Score: 1

    ! after all

  139. The end ain't commin? by Sgt_Astro · · Score: 1, Funny

    Whew, guess I can stop stockpiling bullets and beer then.

  140. Obligatory "The Big Lebowski" post- by aqk · · Score: 1

    "This will not stand... you know. This aggression will not stand, man!"

    more? OK-
    (Smashes asteriod with his crowbar)
    "...this is what happens, Nico, when you fuck a stranger in the ass! Are you LISTENING, Nico?
    This is what happens, Nico, when you fuck a stranger in the ass!"

    Whereupon the asteriod breaks into pieces.


  141. story from "Bild" - what do you expect ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The story apparently originates with german newspaper Bild. Bild is very poplar but also notorious for getting even the most basic facts wrong. There is a German blog ( www.bildblog.de ) which highlights out the quite peculiar world view of Bild reporters.
    To name just the latest "highlight" cited in bildblog: "the sun takes 365 days to circle around the earth"

  142. Well, we are all morons by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1

    On reading the updates, especially the rebukes by the German professor who apparently did not tell him he was right, but was quoted as saying so anyway, by NASA experts who say they never heard of this before it hit the press, but were quoted as "agreeing" anyway (and, in fact, they did take Satellites into account), it seems this is once more a case of us morons following a few moronic journalists. Great.

    So, in short: I can't trust what I read in the newspapers, and I can't trust what I read on Slashdot. I'll just go back to my lab and close the door.

  143. Didn't do enough homework... by gevantry · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope. The kid didn't do his homework. While the asteroid may pass around 38,000 km from earth at the closest point, it will pass the equatorial ecliptic at around 51,000 km, too far away to collide with any geosynchronous satellites. Also to be noted: According to NASA, the kid did not contact anyone there to obtain any data. The kid's bright and engaged and had a heck of an idea for a science fair project, but his lesser-educated, sensation-mongering elders jumped the gun and made him look like a fool.

  144. It is really made of Naquada by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    I thought you knew that. . .

  145. Terrorists by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    Could easily deliberately bump, or better yet, attract Apophis into an impact trajectory. Pakistan could do it. China could do it. Iran could do it.

  146. RTFA - 2036 isn't just after half-past eight by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    it's a matter of the satellite slowing it down so that the influence of Earth is greater.
    GMm/d^2, I don't see the velocity term in there.

    it would have to be a damn big collision to offset Earth's pull. One satellite collision could be enough to make a miss a hit. It would need to hit a hell of a lot more satellites to make that hit a miss again on the other side of the planet.
    You (along with a lot of other people) seem to have missed the point of the article - the satellite won't affect it enough to make it hit on this pass, rather that it will change the orbit by a tiny bit to possibly make it hit next time. As could an impact with something out there that we don't even know exists...
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:RTFA - 2036 isn't just after half-past eight by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The loss of velocity changes the vector, the change of vector is locally a closer pass to Earth. That's the direction it would be deflected by any possible satellite impact in its near pass to Earth. It won't be deflected to any other course by a satellite impact within Earth's gravitational influence.

      The point is that the satellite doesn't deflect the asteroid. The Earth deflects it. The satellite just slows it down giving Earth more effect. So there isn't an alternate satellite-asteroid impact equally probable to move it further out of a future impact course. The probabilities are biased toward greater likelihood of impact with Earth in 2036 if it hits a satellite on this pass.

      (I should have just said, "No," and left it at that.)

      It sure would suck if the satellite the asteroid hit was one not in its proper orbit because the method to put in in its proper orbit was patented and its owner couldn't afford the fee to license the patent.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?