Slashdot Mirror


NASA Downgrades Asteroid-Earth Collision Risk

coondoggie writes "NASA scientists have recalculated the path of a large asteroid known as Apophis and now say it has only a very slim chance of banging into Earth.. The Apophis asteroid is approximately the size of two-and-a-half football fields, and updated computational techniques and newly available data indicate the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036 for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million, NASA stated."

244 comments

  1. four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't four in a million the same as one in 250,000 ?

    1. Re:four in a million? by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it's the same as two in 500,000. Sheesh.

    2. Re:four in a million? by wjsteele · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah... by the time it get's back to earth, the gravitational pull on it will break it into at least 4 pieces, each with a one in a million chance of impacting terra ferma.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    3. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would think... perhaps metric million? This is NASA after all. :D

    4. Re:four in a million? by RetroGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yes, but "million" sounds more impressive.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    5. Re:four in a million? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      It's 4 in a million, and not 5 or 6. You don't get that resolution with 1 in 250000. Maybe they're just too lazy to divide by four, but precision might have been a consideration.

    6. Re:four in a million? by Spad · · Score: 2, Funny

      So it's 1-in-250,000 instead of 1-in-200,000 or 1-in-166,666ish?

    7. Re:four in a million? by migla · · Score: 1

      Isn't four in a million the same as one in 250,000 ?

      In this, statistical case, yes.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    8. Re:four in a million? by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      What's the source on this number?

      Yes it matters!

      Like, for instance if C3PO said it, then it would matter alot!

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    9. Re:four in a million? by migla · · Score: 1

      ...because of the million times we might have been hit, we only got hit four times i.e. one in 250k. (In other words: "I shouldn't have said statistical. I Should have gone to sleep."

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    10. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is the American measurement system. It's more like throwing two-six's chance in the Library of Congress.

    11. Re:four in a million? by dvice_null · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to NASA, it is 1 in 135,000 and diameter is 0.270 km
      http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html

      The image on TFA gives the impression that it is way larger than 20km and the summary claims that is is 200 yard = 0.182 km. And the text claims that it is four-in-a million aka 1 in 250.000.

    12. Re:four in a million? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but four-in-a-million is only five syllables, and thus much more useful.

      Four in a million

      NASA says we might survive

      with hyperbole

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    13. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.

      Sorry for the off-topic troll, but I really can't resist your signature. I'll answer your self-satisfied, pedantic quibble with one of my own.

      Programmers, unless they are creating new languages, do not produce syntax, they obey syntax. Setting this point aside, maybe you meant, "I am paid to produce things which are syntactically correct, not things which are grammatically correct." Of course, you actually are paid to produce things that are grammatically correct.

      Perhaps you meant, "I am paid to write in the highly precise, fascinating languages of computers and not the boring, ambiguous English language that my incompetent high school teachers made me hate." That might be true, but it probably isn't. Most programming jobs require quite a bit of written English, and the more grammatically correct it is, the better. Admittedly, this is usually less important than producing working code.

      Another possible reading: "I never quite understood English grammar, even though I felt like I should. I compensate by basing my fragile self image on excessive pride in my other skills and wearing a chip on my shoulder so people will be afraid to call me on it."

    14. Re:four in a million? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it drops to one in a million, a Mr Pratchett might say we won't survive...

      Except for Rincewind and the Luggage.

      --
    15. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Having Col Carter around makes it 1 in a billion anyway.

    16. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So actually none of it makes sense. If it was to cross the same path a million times it could hit us 4 times?

      The deviation in distance would seem to be more approriate.

      Maybe It's a million library of congresses divided by 4 football fields further away would make more sense.

    17. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your totally wrong. If it broke into four pieces each with a 1 in a million chance then the probability that one of them hit ( = 1 - probability that none of them hit) would actually be around 3,999,994 in 1,000,000,000,000 not 4,000,000 in 1,000,000,000,000.

      Chance of 1 asteroid missing: 0.999999
      Chance of all 4 missing = [Chance of 1 asteroid missing] ^ 4 = 0.999996000005999996000001
      Chance of 1 hitting = 1- [Chance of all 4 missing] = 0.000003999994000003999999 = 3,999,994 in 1,000,000,000,000 4,000,000 in 1,000,000,000,000.

      I'm all for rounding, but come on, at least leave on 17 digits!

    18. Re:four in a million? by masmullin · · Score: 1

      maybe there are 4 asteroids... we aren't being told of the other 3.

    19. Re:four in a million? by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Actually, you used the cumulative chance of hitting the heart over the existence of the asteroid, rather than the impact probability for 2036, as stated (at least !) in the summary. Actually, they got it wrong too, since it's 4.3e-06, they took it at 4 chance in a million, while it's around 2.326 in a million.

    20. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were able to calculate with resolution of millions, I wonder why they expressed 1/45000 instead of 22 and 2/9ths in a million.

    21. Re:four in a million? by zblack_eagle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I RTA, saw the image of an asteroid that was apparently about 60km long, with the text "The Apophis asteroid is approximately the size of two-and-a-half football fields" and I suddenly had a whole lot more respect for US football.

      (I saw the title of the article after)

    22. Re:four in a million? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      I prefer to express it even simpler as "about the same odds of an alien overlord named Apophis attacking Earth."

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    23. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your totally wrong.

      His totally wrong what?

    24. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your totally wrong.

      I stopped reading right there.

    25. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Chill out - the guy probably writes in Perl. Syntax, grammar, language, it's all the same bullshit in that universe.

    26. Re:four in a million? by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      Chance of all 4 missing = [Chance of 1 asteroid missing] ^ 4 = 0.999996000005999996000001

      You're playing pretty fast and loose there with probabilities.

      P(A intersect B) = P(A) * P(B) IFF P(A) and P(B) are independent.

      Since the fragments all came from the same original asteroid, they would obviously have similar trajectories and the probabilities of impact would clearly not be independent.

    27. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 'one in a quarter-million'?

    28. Re:four in a million? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      That whooshing sound you hear... it ain't an near-miss asteroid, I'm afraid.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    29. Re:four in a million? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Fucking amazing comment, AC, whoever you may be. My hat is off to you!

    30. Re:four in a million? by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      aww, look, we have a baby veebee pwogwamma in our midst... how cute!

    31. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, depending on what you are programming, you COULD be producing syntax. Computer coding syntax is only around because we had to create guidelines for our code. While creating applications which require some sort of user input or further coding (i.e. an assembler, forms, etc.) we would be both, producing and obeying syntax. I apologize for my troll as well.

    32. Re:four in a million? by Madsy · · Score: 1

      Yes, and more safe (less certain) for those who can't do simple arithmetic ;-)

    33. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally believe that, while my spelling is lacking (which I blame almost entirely on my over-reliance on spell check since childhood), my general English skill level is not half bad. I am a software developer. I pride myself on my ability to "obey syntax" and it bothers me when others (who can't obey said syntax in any meaningful way) criticize those who can. Write me a cross-platform numerical simulator that's accurate to x number of decimal places, and then I might not consider your comment to be made in ignorance and lacking in taste.

    34. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why this gets modded troll. The AC parent poster admitted he was trolling, and also appears to be an ass.

    35. Re:four in a million? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The image on TFA gives the impression that it is way larger than 20km and the summary claims that is is 200 yard

      Rough yard to meter conversion is easy; a meter is a couple inches longer than a yard, so .27 km (270 meteres) would be roughly (very roughly) 200 yards. I guess the Network World guys' network is down and thay can't access a US to metric converter for a little more accuracy.

      Why submit a space story linked to Network World, anyway? I saw this at New Scientist yesterday, and I'm sure it's on all the science sites. What's next, a story about networks linked to Fox?

      TFS should have given the real news -- that the chance of Apophis hitting the Earth was already very slim, now they're astronomically slim. Slim to the edge of nonexistance. Would you bet on a horse if there were 35,000 horses in the race? Now there are a quarter million horses. That's a lot of horseshit!

    36. Re:four in a million? by Aklyon · · Score: 1

      Your totally wrong.

      His totally wrong what?

      Quindeed.

      --
      I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
    37. Re:four in a million? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      1 in 250,000 is far better than the odds of winning the lottery.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    38. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to NASA, it is 1 in 135,000

      And the text claims that it is four-in-a million aka 1 in 250.000.

      According to the NASA website you gave, the cumulative probability of an impact over several near passes in 1 in 135,000; the probability of an impact specifically in 2038 is about 4 in a milliom.

    39. Re:four in a million? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Your odds of buying a winning lottery ticket are roughly equal to the odds of finding a winning lottery ticket laying on the ground.

  2. Re:Apophis by courtjester801 · · Score: 1

    At the very minimum, pay for dinner.

  3. Damn, I've booked my time off already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've booked off a few vacation days before April 13th so I could stock up on emergency supplies, guns+ammo, canned food, etc.
    now I just look stupid.

    1. Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already by eln · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it just means you'll be prepared in plenty of time for when the Y2K38 bug causes civilization to collapse.

    2. Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already by Duhavid · · Score: 0, Troll

      April 13th, is that Hot Fudge Tuesdae?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    3. Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's Hot Fudge Sunday.

    4. Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      Good move. Perhaps this is one solution to the Fermi Paradox: In every advanced civilisation, some smart-ass kid builds a coke-bottle rocket capable of reaching escape velocity, and uses it to nudge some huge asteroid onto a collision course with the planet full of dorks who hate smart kids.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    5. Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already by takev · · Score: 1

      The year 2380?

      The notation of a SI-prefix inside a number is used in electronics as a decimal separator. I guess it should also be a lower case letter 'k' as well.

      I guess the notation was invented because dots tend to fade away on photocopies and a SI unit is less easy to overlook.

    6. Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      Whoever downmodded this needs to read some Niven and Pournelle.

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
  4. Comparing different ratios... by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it really that hard to use the same intial number for 2 ratios? I mean honestly... 1 in 250,000 is much easier to compare to 1 in 45k than 4 in 1million

    --
    a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    1. Re:Comparing different ratios... by erbbysam · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But 1 million is such a large number that it couldn't possibly happen! They should have just used 22 in 1 million to begin with...

    2. Re:Comparing different ratios... by rwv · · Score: 1

      They're writers, not scientists, man! Their mission is to write words to attract internet links to their websites and bring in ad revenue. Performing simple division simplification wouldn't help that mission.

    3. Re:Comparing different ratios... by Aranykai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but can we get this in a real world equivalent. Something like 1200 words out of a library of congress?

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    4. Re:Comparing different ratios... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      But none would get funding for 22 in a million. I mean a million is such a big number, it wouldnt happen. ;)

    5. Re:Comparing different ratios... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      4 in a million sounds more remote a chance that 1 in 250,000....

      seems that the writer wanted to avoid panicking the sheeple....

  5. Re:Apophis by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man, that's a lot of Astro-Glide.

    --
    Loading...
  6. Metric? by eggoeater · · Score: 4, Funny

    >two-and-a-half football fields
    So is that US football fields or are we using the metric system (ie. Soccer fields) ?

    1. Re:Metric? by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's about 0.0000001 times the size of Wales.

    2. Re:Metric? by T+Murphy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doesn't matter. There's legislation being made to redefine a football field to two square inches so this asteroid will then be too small to have to worry about.

    3. Re:Metric? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's about 0.0000001 times the size of Wales.

      That's no help. Humpback Wales or Dr. Who Wales?

    4. Re:Metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have said "american or european?"...

    5. Re:Metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about Canadian Football fields? Does that include end zones?

      Does anyone else see the stupidity of trying to compare the size of a three dimensional object to a two dimensional object?

      I'm assuming they're talking diameter here, but still... is it perfectly round? Is it average diameter or maximum diameter?

    6. Re:Metric? by superdana · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me guess: Indiana.

    7. Re:Metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA = USA

      We can't have them confusing US football fields with the other football field...again

    8. Re:Metric? by andrewa · · Score: 3, Funny

      One very surprised looking sperm whale and a bowl of petunias.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    9. Re:Metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Canada we use the metric system but we don't refer to soccer as football, instead we have our own football fields which in stead of being 100yards long, are ~100meters long. Except that we still label the field using yards, so its 110yards.

    10. Re:Metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who says Pi isn't 3.2!

    11. Re:Metric? by EEGeek · · Score: 1

      Nope, its Canadian football fields -- 150 yards (including endzones) x 65 yards wide. We're all screwed! Damn Canadians!!!!!

    12. Re:Metric? by anotherzeb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh no, not again

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
    13. Re:Metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously 'merican football, otherwise it'd be called a pitch ;)

    14. Re:Metric? by Santzes · · Score: 1

      But how many Libraries of Congress it is?

    15. Re:Metric? by herojig · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's another notation altogether, the photo on the linked article (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/mathilde2_s.jpg) shows an asteroid that is at least 40km across or more. So that must be Giants Stadium that they are measuring. Wtf?

      --
      I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
    16. Re:Metric? by louks · · Score: 1

      It can't be Indiana...our government is so afraid of being different anymore they now only pass legislation that is requested or approved by the federal government. It's why we adopted Daylight Saving despite lack of public support. (The deciding vote came from a border-county representative whose constituency explicitly preferred year-round standard time. He was cajoled into changing his vote because of party politics, rather than respecting his choice to represent the people who elected him.)

      Which is worse; pi=4, or 7am=8am?

    17. Re:Metric? by st0nes · · Score: 1

      two-and-a-half football fields

      That's still tiny compared to the one that allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs, which was about the size of Table Mountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_Mountain/

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    18. Re:Metric? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Aside from the mentioned instance of party politics, do you expect a representative to do that which the electing constituents want, or what the representative believes is in the best interests of the people? If the former, by which fraction does one decide? Is 50%+1 sufficient to support a position, or does it have to be a more significant majority? If the latter, should it be based on the best interests of the people of the electing district, or of the superset of districts (e.g., should a state legislative representative vote in favor of something believed to be good for the state even if it is not the best option for the represented district)?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  7. Four in a million, huh? by RabidMoose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about 1 in 250,000?

    And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size. Besides "football" having two different meanings, one of which has multiple field sizes, what kind of volume are we looking at here?

    1. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Daagar · · Score: 1

      1 in 250,000 is metric. Clearly the summary was converting to imperial units for those of us in the US.

    2. Re:Four in a million, huh? by olsmeister · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, if you RTFA and look at the picture they've conveniently provided, you'll see that it looks like it is somewhere around 60-70 kilometers long.

      Apparently those are some pretty big football fields.

    3. Re:Four in a million, huh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Well, if you RTFA and look at the picture they've conveniently provided, you'll see that it looks like it is somewhere around 60-70 kilometers long.

      Looks bigger than that in the picture.

      Of course, the text also said it was less than two football fields long, not two and a half football fields. Who writes this stuff?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new asteriod overlord.

    5. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one with the round ball is played on a pitch.

    6. Re:Four in a million, huh? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who writes this stuff?

      And what are they drinking/smoking?

      The title and the picture don't match. From Wikipedia:

      "Based upon the observed brightness, Apophis' length was estimated at 450 metres (1,500 ft); a more refined estimate based on spectroscopic observations at NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii by Binzel, Rivkin, Bus, and Tokunaga (2005) is 350 metres (1,100 ft)."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:Four in a million, huh? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size. Besides "football" having two different meanings, one of which has multiple field sizes, what kind of volume are we looking at here?

      They mean American football, but even that is misleading; a football field on TV looks enormously huge, so if you've only seen one on TV you might think this asteroid is bigger than it really is...

    8. Re:Four in a million, huh? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size.

      Agreed. Why can't they use more useful units?
      For example, how many "Library of Congresses" is it?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:Four in a million, huh? by rossdee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I get upset when they compare objects (where the important dimension is mass (weight) and maybe volume,) to something that is clearly a measure of area at best.

      Similarly hail should not be sized by coins.

    10. Re:Four in a million, huh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Hmm. Let's ignore the scale line on the picture. Comparing that picture to other pictures of Apophis, I don't think that's even a picture of Apophis. Apophis is double-lobed, and this basically looks like an egg.

      Actually, come to that, it looks like Phobos. Scale is still off, Phobos isn't 60+ km across either, but that big crater is pretty distinctive.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Four in a million, huh? by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

      I have to presume that we don't know the mass of the thing, since we don't know what it's made up of. I do agree, though, that mass and velocity are really the only two things that matter with an object like this. Squish/splash potential is key.

    12. Re:Four in a million, huh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      Posted too soon, I did. Should have checked the source of the picture first.

      What we have accompanying the article on Apophis is a picture of Asteroid 253 Mathilde. Apparently pulled off the NASA website at random by the author's of TFA.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Four in a million, huh? by gerddie · · Score: 1

      Obviously they were talking about surface area, and the asteroid is shaped like here (start at timecode 1:14)

    14. Re:Four in a million, huh? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      The asteroid in the picture is in fact 253 Mathilde.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    15. Re:Four in a million, huh? by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about 1 in 250,000? And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size.

      You're translating from Jock to Geek. The Jock's understand a million as "a really big number" and 4 as a really small one. 250 is compleltely beyond them, let alone 250 times 1000! Football fields is a much more natural unit to them than a meter. Never mind that they're different sizes - they can all relate to being exhausted running the length of a football field. The concept of a meter just hurts their poor roid ridden brains.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    16. Re:Four in a million, huh? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Football has two meanings, but only one in America. "Football field" only has one meaning however, outside of America a soccer field is called a football pitch.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    17. Re:Four in a million, huh? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Besides "football" having two different meanings

      I know about Gaelic Football, but what is the other one? Surely Aussie rules doesn't count!

    18. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Soccer Fields of The Gods" ?

      Great Kirby !

    19. Re:Four in a million, huh? by anotherzeb · · Score: 1

      How about how many Volkswagens it is?

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
    20. Re:Four in a million, huh? by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      I thought all hail was either "small" or "the size of golf-balls".

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    21. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Perhaps they were talking about "a football" field, where "a football" is a set that incorporates all possible football field sizes and types in the set {a football}, including the empty set, as a sum (not a product, as the empty set would be a football field of effectively zero length, which product would be, however, adequately descriptive of the combined IQ's of those responsible for the production values of That Fine Article).

      Phe, Phi, Pho, Phum, I smell an article pulled out of his bum.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    22. Re:Four in a million, huh? by iamangry · · Score: 1

      Well, given its an American agency, I would submit that the logical answer is that they're referring to NFL football fields. This is also how you can tell its coming from NASA, as they used an area from a popular sport to describe something instead of coming up with a way to explain the volume. Typical...

    23. Re:Four in a million, huh? by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      Occasionally you see a few grow into "baseballs of ice"

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    24. Re:Four in a million, huh? by tonique · · Score: 1

      How many VW Beetles can you fit in an Apophis?

    25. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind that they're different sizes - they can all relate to being exhausted running the length of a football field.

      You have a mistranslation here: jocks don't get exhausted running the lenght of a football field, geeks do.

    26. Re:Four in a million, huh? by gtall · · Score: 1

      It's approximately 1/4 the size of a U.S. Senator's ego. And they think it is the asteroid we should be concerned with...

    27. Re:Four in a million, huh? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, I was reading a book about some aspect of nature and came across an illustration of a man up to his waist in water surrounded by blood, while a massive vicious looking fish, easily twice the mans size, reared over him half out of the water. This was a depiction of Piranha. It wasn't until many years later that I discovered the true size of those fish, and the massive fish in the picture was in fact an inset.

    28. Re:Four in a million, huh? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly, the author's editor.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    29. Re:Four in a million, huh? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      The two types of football are Australian Rules, and that International Rules game we play with Ireland. (Noone metion Rugby.)

  8. Million-to-one chance by wazoo666 · · Score: 1

    It's a million-to-one chance, but it might just work!

    1. Re:Million-to-one chance by Spad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Million-to-one chances crop up 9 times out of 10.

    2. Re:Million-to-one chance by Beat+The+Odds · · Score: 1

      Million-to-one chances crop up 9 times out of 10.

      That's because 93% of all statistics are made up.

  9. Uh oh... by musefrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They better be careful with those odds... that's dangerously close to a one-in-a-million chance, which everyone knows happen ALL THE TIME...!

    1. Re:Uh oh... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      A DiskWorld reference. We should use the powerful wizard, Ricewind, to eliminate the threat. See, I have corks hanging from my hat.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Uh oh... by moon3 · · Score: 1

      By 2036 I will be dead already, along with bunch of other fellow aging Slashdotters, therefore I could not care less.

    3. Re:Uh oh... by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      But what about those loved-ones you leave behind? ... Oh, wait - not applicable.

    4. Re:Uh oh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      lets see... plus 1.... carry the 2.... equals.....uhhhh..... 57....

      oh shit... I will only be old.

      and we will all miss the slashdot 40th anaversery too!!! fuck!

    5. Re:Uh oh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      make that:
      anniversary

      awww damn... I won't be able to post correct myself either!!!

      this world ending stuff just sucks.

    6. Re:Uh oh... by moon3 · · Score: 1

      Extinction event or cancer ? That's easy to choose.

    7. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

    8. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you don't care at all what happens to the Earth and humanity (and all the other species) after you die is just SHOCKING... on second thought, based on your age group, you're the same age as everyone in power now who has fucked the future for the rest of us, so I guess it's par for the course. Good job, jerk.

    9. Re:Uh oh... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Edward A. Murphy Jr - smartest man who ever lived.

      As much as I hate his fucking law, it always becomes obviously true, time and time again.

    10. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, you won't mind if I pull up this lawn chair then, will you?

    11. Re:Uh oh... by chenjeru · · Score: 1

      In China, even if you're one-in-a-million, there are 1338 people just like you.

      --
      Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
    12. Re:Uh oh... by anotherzeb · · Score: 1

      Won't we all be able to take the space elevator in case the sharks with lasers can't deal with it by then?

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
    13. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a proctologist?

    14. Re:Uh oh... by andyh-rayleigh · · Score: 1

      Well a 1 in 14 million chance typically happens twice a week in the UK national lottery.

    15. Re:Uh oh... by Saliegh · · Score: 1

      I understand you're trying to be humorous. But on behalf of the 20 and 30 somethings of today, who already have to deal with your generation's messes. Fuck you.

      --
      1368127 is prime!
    16. Re:Uh oh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      No... we will be using Whale Oil to power out rockets and drinking Slurm on the way up.

      Can we add anymore geek references?

  10. Bad Economy by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even the chance of an apocalypse is being downsized.

  11. Oh god by Kenoli · · Score: 1

    We're all going to die.

    1. Re:Oh god by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is like those COPS shows, where they are following a high speed chase from a helecopter. The announcer is always announcing how they nearly hit the pedestrians, who were on the sidewalk, on the opposite side of the street.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Oh god by KingSkippus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, we are. Eventually. Might as well get it over with, eh?

      Besides, you all are such pessimists. I like to think of it like this. If it hits us, dying will be the one thing that mankind finally comes together and actually achieves, something that everyone, everywhere can be a part of.

  12. Dammit... by arkham6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess that means I'm still going to need to worry about the Y2k38 problem.

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

      That's nothing.

      I've nearly got two women to agree to have sex with me when I told them about the impending doom of our planet.

      Unfortunately, the first one worked as a statistician, and the second one was morbidly obese.

      Damn you science! I'm changing my major to something in the Humanities department!

  13. 40 rods to a hogshead = 1.8 Library of Congresses? by BadMrMojo · · Score: 1

    ... the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million, NASA stated.

    Can we keep our units/ratios consistent?

    ... the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about one-in-250,000, NASA stated.

    When you're regurgitating statistics that are generally considered good news - such as the decreased chance of global catastrophe - doesn't it seem reasonable to make those statistics intelligible?

  14. I'm oddly disappointed. by Commander+Doofus · · Score: 1

    April 13 is my birthday, and there's something ironically awesome about the world being destroyed on one's birthday.

    --
    Want to improve your life? This guy will show you how!
    1. Re:I'm oddly disappointed. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      "what do you want for your birthday jimmy?"

      "I want to stand directly under the doomsday rock mom!"

  15. Check my Numbers... by bradorsomething · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Earth's population is estimated at 6.789 billion. So statistically, this asteroid is going to kill 27,156 people?

    1. Re:Check my Numbers... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, in much the same way that Jame Cameron murdered 49 people. (See point #6)

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:Check my Numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except an object "two football fields" in size is probably not a planet killer even if it does collide to the earth.

      From the Apophis Wikipedia article:

      NASA initially estimated the energy that Apophis would have released if it struck Earth as the equivalent of 1,480 megatons of TNT. A later, more refined NASA estimate was 880 megatons.[2]

  16. Soothsaying by ugen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly 4 in a *million* must be a very very small number, not like 1 in 250000 - which has thousands on the right-hand side, so that can't be good.

    In an attempt to make a new probability "less scary" the authors (or summary writers) also commit a specific error - there is only ONE asteroid so any probability related to it is ALWAYS 1 in something. It can never be 4 in something because there is only once chance of collision.

    1. Re:Soothsaying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you count two passes instead of just one? :P

    2. Re:Soothsaying by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      They're comparing probable paths that the asteroid will take. There could be four paths that will crash into Earth.

      There are infinitely many points where the asteroid could potentially collide with Earth, if you really want to be pedantic.

    3. Re:Soothsaying by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I think they're implying that there are four universes. Perhaps Nasa has decided that for the sake of argument the multiverse is just four.

    4. Re:Soothsaying by pluther · · Score: 1

      No, no that would be a million universes.

      Of which, the asteroid will strike Earth in four of them.

      There is a 1 in 250,000 chance, however, that anyone reading this will be in one of the four.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    5. Re:Soothsaying by Tanman · · Score: 1

      ah-HA! But it's on an orbit!

      BOOYA!

      just kidding. Well, it is on an orbit, but I don't think the orbit will allow it to have more than one chance of hitting us within the given time frame.

  17. Husband?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was all that four-in-a-million talk??

  18. Re:Apophis by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

    Apohpis? Everybody knows it was Anubis who sent the asteroid.

    Just cut the red wire (but they're all yellow!)

    Yep, plan 3 works every time.

  19. They were right... 18% chance by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

    So the change was downgraded to 18% chance that the original value of 0.0022% was right.

  20. How useful is this, really? by NYMeatball · · Score: 1

    So we've gone from a two in 90,000 chance of being whacked upside the head 27 years from now to a one in two hundred-fifty thousand chance.

    Great

    What is the real use in this? When, within reasonable (I'm not a scientist, but lets use an 85% confidence interval) levels of knowing, would we be able to determine that in fact, yes, this thing is or is not going to hit us? It's certainly not now, 27 years prior. Is it a year prior? six months? A month? A day? And, once we reach that date, do we have the resources/funding to have a defense system or contingency plan set up in time? Knowing chances and all is great, but we're not going to build a bruce willis-mobile 27 years in the future.

    The article states that they aren't being given the funding to further fund research centers for adequate testing. Politics aside - is there any funding (and more importantly, scientific viability) for preventative action for any of this, or are we just providing confidence intervals of our ultimate doom?

    1. Re:How useful is this, really? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the real use in this? When, within reasonable (I'm not a scientist, but lets use an 85% confidence interval) levels of knowing, would we be able to determine that in fact, yes, this thing is or is not going to hit us?

      How's a 99.9996% confidence interval? Not the most obvious way to word it and it doesn't strictly apply, but you could say that in the population of hypothetical asteroid trajectories, 99.9996% of them don't hit earth. More study of its orbit is probably going to increase that number.

      Not sure how saying it's odds of hitting us is 1 in 250,000 is less useful than saying it's definitely not going to hit us (with 85% certainty). :)

      The article states that they aren't being given the funding to further fund research centers for adequate testing. Politics aside - is there any funding (and more importantly, scientific viability) for preventative action for any of this, or are we just providing confidence intervals of our ultimate doom?

      Sadly, no in terms of funding. Even the agencies who could conceivably cobble together something at the last minute aren't getting enough funding. We aren't funding the finding of these object to see if we even need preventative action.

      As far as viability... there are quite a few things that would work quite easily with today's technology. But it would take time to actually construct the solution. And they all take time. Virtually none of them would work with only a year before the impact. Even ignoring the silliness of the Armageddon Solution blowing apart a Texas-sized meteor with a nuke, all it would mean is that two California-sized meteors hit the earth instead. The solutions most likely to work are ones where we slowly push (or pull) it out of the way over the course of years.

      I'm not really worried about an asteroid that we know about, and are tracking, that looks very unlikely to hit the earth. I'm much more worried about all the objects we don't know about, so we have no idea how likely they are to hit us. My biggest concern is that we discover an object that has a high probability of hitting earth in only a year or two.

      More funding for finding and tracking, pls k thx.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:How useful is this, really? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Certainty is a funny word, but basically, the closer it gets the more confident you are in your prediction because small errors grow to large errors over time.

      I would say, without significant funding you'd know for certain in the lead up to the 2029 close approach. During this event, the asteroid will pass within the geostationary satellite belt, and has the potential (1 in 250,000 now) to pass through a 'gravitational keyhole' that corresponds with a return impact trajectory. Note that the likelihood of impact in 2029 is zero (i.e. the 6-sigma boundaries of trajectory estimates are very far from the Earth).

      Unfortunately, if you don't do something about it well before 2029, its unlikely you could do anything short of an Apollo-class-plus (Bruce Willis-class?) mission, in terms of funding, uncertainty, and national effort, to stop it. Put simply, its much easier to push the asteroid a kilometer (out of a keyhole) than it is to push it 3000 kilometers, but you have to do it earlier.

      If you wanted to do very precise tracking to know if (and where) it was going to impact without waiting for the close approaches, you can do some of it with simply more observations with larger telescopes, and more ground-based radio ranging. However, you're going to get much better results (an order of magnitude) if you send a spacecraft out with a proper beacon. Two or three months in 2021 with this kind of tracking would give you 3-sigma (99%) reliability if it is to impact, and ascertain that it was not if it is not going to. A year of this tracking would tell you where exactly it was going to hit, within about 100km.

      Of course, if you're already out there, its not too much more expensive to add the equipment to do a gravity tractor and move it away from a keyhole, since by 2022 it would be very difficult and very expensive to get a mitigation mission put together in time. A combined exploration and mitigation mission is estimated to cost about $350M, and in addition to improving knowledge about the unlikely but potentially imminent threat, would make it much easier to deal with future threats and contribute a lot to our understanding of near Earth asteroids in general. A pure exploration mission might be able to shave off $25M -- the only extra equipment is some Hall thrusters and a longer lifetime. I personally think there is political will for it at relatively low cost (Discovery-class mission), and scientific benefits beyond the mitigation of an admittedly small risk.

      (Full Disclosure: Most of these numbers are pulled from a mission proposal I'm currently working on. The details aren't officially published yet, although they are being presented at a conference next week.)

    3. Re:How useful is this, really? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Any chance of capturing this thing and mining it for things like indium?
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:How useful is this, really? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'd probably have to apply a few km/s Delta-V (at least) to it in order to do that. All estimates show it entering the Earth's sphere of influence at about 5.87 km/s, which would be reasonable for putting it in orbit, if it were in the right place. Unfortunately, as it moves past the earth it gets sped up and moves on a hyperbolic orbit, it speeds up, so theres no real way to do it just by changing its position slightly (which could be done for ~$300M).

      Basically, changing its position slightly in order to prevent an impact requires a very small amount of energy. For a 50 mN thrust for 1 year, 20 years ahead of time (which is enough to move it in 2036 by around 20 Earth radii), moves it about 500 meters and thus does about 25 Joules worth of work*. However, consider changing the velocity of something the size of Apophis (2.1e10 kg) from 5.8 km/s to say 3 km/s -- thats 2.5e17 Joules worth of work. Thats 800 MW over 10 years. I think there are probably better asteroids to capture in this case, and its certainly not an easy task by any definition.

      *forgive me if the numbers are a bit off, but its the correct order of magnitude anyway

    5. Re:How useful is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orbital Capture sounds hard.. how about "just" slam it into the moon and mine it there?
      You might want to decide how you wanted to adjust the moon's orbit - either faster/out for safety or in/slow to making getting there and back faster/cheaper

  21. Probability? by dave562 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The article states that the probability of a collision went from 1 in 45,000 to about 4 in a million. I never made it very far in math, but it seems like 4 in a million is the same as 1 in 250,000. What's the point of saying 1 in 45,000 and then 4 in a million instead of in 1 in 250,000?

    1. Re:Probability? by Karganeth · · Score: 1

      They're equivalent. It doesn't matter.

    2. Re:Probability? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Maybe 4 in a million makes people feel better. I mean, a million is alot bigger than 45000 isn't it!

      Personally I think they just stuffed up converting imperial to metric somewhere.

    3. Re:Probability? by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Exactly! These odds are meaningless.
      For a start, the numbers are so large (chance so small), that people cannot mentally process them.
      Secondly, why is there uncertainty and what does that mean for the outcome?
      Are they uncertain about the mass, the velocity, the chance of an impact with another body first?

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  22. Kree by alain_delon · · Score: 1

    No worries, Daniel, O'Neil, Sam and Tiel'c will take care of it.

    1. Re:Kree by LordRPI · · Score: 1

      Only the real Apophis had better aim and was able to do it in months

  23. is this too early to predict path ? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Given that it is supposed to hit in 2036, isn't it too early to be able make accurate predictions ? I mean, I am sure these predicted probabilities will keep changing as it gets closer ( assuming its headed in our direction right now ). I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc

    1. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc

      If there are any stars out there besides the sun close enough to affect this asteroid... we're pretty much fucked already.

    2. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc.

      Well they're pretty certain that it will deviate due to the variety of forces on it, which is exactly why the result is given as a probability, rather than a "will hit" or "will miss by X miles". It's also why the probability changed with further observation. Conditional probability is basically serving as a stand-in for what we don't know and the fact that we can't solve N-body gravitational problems. The more we know about the asteroid's trajectory, the more we can say about it's potential future paths and the likely hood of it hitting earth. At the end of the day (or the planet), it will either be nudged onto a path that will impact us or it won't, but right now it looks unlikely that it'll happen.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Informative

      All the models are run according the 'standard dynamic model' at JPL which includes gravity from the Sun, planets, large moons and large asteroids. Perturbations caused by objects outside the solar system are negligible compared to non-gravitational effects such as direct solar pressure and the Yarkovsky effect. These effects are impossible to model without knowledge of material composition, mass and structure, which you can't really get without going there.

      However, the uncertainty caused by these non-gravitational effects is very small compared with the uncertainty caused by the fact that we just plain don't know quite where it is and how fast its going. In order to know where the asteroid will be in 2036 to within an Earth radius requires us to know where it is now to within about a meter -- the 2029 close approach in particular magnifies uncertainties incredibly (100x).

      These state estimate uncertainties overwhelm any small errors in the dynamic model, and these new and improved probabilities come from refining the current state estimate. So yes, it is still valid to make these kind of predictions. You have to start early (10-20 years) to be able to stop it as well, so its important to keep an early eye on it.

    4. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Given that it is supposed to hit in 2036, isn't it too early to be able make accurate predictions ? I mean, I am sure these predicted probabilities will keep changing as it gets closer ( assuming its headed in our direction right now ). I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc

      Maybe that's why the word 'prediction' was used.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This post is better than mine and should be modded up.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should wait until after 2036, when we can give the probability of it hitting as either being 0 in 1,000,000, or 1 in 1.

    7. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gah! So, just use the bloody GPS, already! ;)

    8. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by icebrain · · Score: 1

      You didn't happen to work on a design team for a spacecraft to investigate the asteroid, did you? Either as a student, or in a professional capacity? Just wondering, since you seem to know quite a bit about this.

      (Designing such a spacecraft was the goal of our senior design class three years ago--learned more than I ever wanted to know about that damn asteroid, especially since my job was to write the N-body integrator engine and figure out how accurately we'd need to know position)

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    9. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      This mission, a combined exploration/gravity-tractor mission, is one of the two main projects I've been doing in graduate school. So I guess its a little bit between the two (student/professional). Its definitely more in-depth than a senior design project, in that I've been working on it for 2-3 years. We're working with NASA Ames and some other groups, and have a strong potential path forward for eventual funding and building... so take it as it is.

      I've been focusing on the tracking/radio-science portion of the problem, and my classwork has focused on dynamics and estimation, so... yeah, this particular article is probably the single thing I know the most about in the world... I wonder if that should worry me.

    10. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this guy?

    11. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Just a lowly graduate student who's been studying this particular problem for about a year.

    12. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Higgs_Bozon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what if the moon is in the seventh house?
      And Jupiter aligns with Mars?
      THEN we are fucked!

      ..
      This sig contains no Pinoqachole.

      --

      -
      Extracting sunbeams from /. Bozons since 1766
    13. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Georgia Tech, by chance? If so, we may have met...

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    14. Re:is this too early to predict path ? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Nope, Texas A&M. Its a good exciting target so I think a lot of schools do it for design projects, our particular project seems to have gotten some real traction though.

      Of course, we'll see what these new numbers mean to us -- fortunately we've been selling our mission concept as a dress-rehearsal and science mission rather than an actual save-the-Earth doomsday avoidance mission.

  24. Symantics at Play by charleste · · Score: 1

    one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million.... um, they mean from 1-in-45k to 1-in-250k, but gosh darn it! They found a way to say "X in a million chance!"

    1. Re:Symantics at Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe the meant to say

        four-in-one-hundred-and-eighty-thousand instead of one-in-45,000

      Just saying... Nasa... you know

  25. That's good to know by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Because Jack O'Neil's getting too old to stop those Goald asteriods.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:That's good to know by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Finally. I was wondering how long it would take someone to make the obvious Stargate reference.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Apophis's name is intended as a Stargate reference, there is basically no creativity involved in making the reference, so nobody bothers to.

    3. Re:That's good to know by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Two L's. :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  26. Current estimates by Viper23 · · Score: 0

    I love how they never take the time to point out that A LOT can happen to that thing's trajectory to change the +/- .00001 % error required for it to smack head on into the earth. Yet they're willing to toss out numbers like 4 in a million.

    We don't know enough about "near earth objects" much less about "near Apophis objects" to make those kinds of predictions that far in advance.

    Guess if it makes the folks back home feel better...

  27. Apophis? by DaFallus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought we killed that asshole at the end of season 3?!

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
  28. Apophis by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    Was NASA hoping for a naquadah-filled explosive asteroid?

  29. Remember the Mars Orbiter by Mistakill · · Score: 2, Informative

    they crashed a $125 million orbiter into Mars because they mixed up metric and imperial units... so im not trusting their math ;)

    1. Re:Remember the Mars Orbiter by Knara · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking, but TECHNICALLY that was the contractor, not JPL/NASA

    2. Re:Remember the Mars Orbiter by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      no that was to take out the Goa'uld base there.

    3. Re:Remember the Mars Orbiter by diablovision · · Score: 1

      They were just adjusting Mars' orbit for the next shot. Now vee have dem vere vee vant dem!!

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    4. Re:Remember the Mars Orbiter by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      But how could they NOT have run a simulation of the run using the real computer+software?

    5. Re:Remember the Mars Orbiter by Knara · · Score: 1

      I assume because they assumed the contractor would build the thing to specifications.

      QC problem, to be sure.

  30. On a positive note... by xednieht · · Score: 4, Funny

    We won't have to file taxes by April 15 in 2036, or possibly ever again. Death 1, Taxes 0.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:On a positive note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be even more worrying when you realize the April 13, 2036 is a Friday.

      Talk about a really bad Friday the Thirteenth!

      If somethings gonna go wrong, like their calculations, wouldn't friday the thirteenth be a most appropriate day? There isn't anyone named Voorhees on this project is there? (A quick check showed the head of the NAVAIR Propulsion and Power Technology Office is a Voorhees.)

  31. One in a million by badass+fish · · Score: 1

    One in a million chances come true 9 out of ten times STOP REFINING!!

  32. NASA is all political now by ATestR · · Score: 1

    available data indicate the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036

    Notice how this is well beyond the next election cycle. That way, when it turns out the odds are really 1:1, the current Incumbents can't be held accountable.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
  33. Thank Goodness... by kushiague · · Score: 1

    it's four in a million, because we all know that one in a million chance events happen nine times out of ten.

  34. Don't worry by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    We've got those laser defenses, with the castles. As long as we keep blasting them we'll earn enough points to keep getting new laser cannons! Or was that for the alien invaders.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  35. April 12, 2036 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million

    What the summary doesn't tell you is that the probability of an Earth encounter on April 12, 2036, for Apophis has increased from four-in-a million to about one-in-45,000.

    1. Re:April 12, 2036 by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

      That's funny. Too bad you posted anonymously and are buried behind about fifty "Why didn't they say 1 in 250,000?!" redundant posts.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
  36. And yet... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    People keep buying lottery tickets.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:And yet... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Some of them even win

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

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

      and Im damn thankful they do!!!

      Otherwise, that shortfall would come out of MY income in the form of higher taxes. So Im plenty happy to let free-will run its course and let people make horrible financial decisions all on their own.

    3. Re:And yet... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Good argument to throw a few pennies NASA's way once in a while, eh?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  37. Future excuses by phorm · · Score: 1

    Forget the "solar flares", maybe next few decade's excuse could be something like:
        "Sorry, but the holosite is unavailable due to a large meteor. No ma'm, it didn't strike earth, our datacenter was on the moon."

  38. Thank God For That! by lobiusmoop · · Score: 0

    By 2036, almost all the oil will be gone, 9 billion people will be struggling to eat as water tables will have dropped to nothing and climate change, deforestation and soil erosion will have turned half the planet into desert; but hey, at least there won't be an asteroid to worry about.

    Anybody worrying about 2036 has their priorities seriously out of whack. Life for the moment.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  39. Will Bruce Willis still be here to save us? by mayko · · Score: 2, Funny

    The real question is, will Bruce Willis still be alive and fit enough for an emergency space mission?

    Born: March 19, 1955. That will put him at 81 years old... We better freeze him now, so we can thaw him out in case of an impending asteroid strike.

  40. One in Four Million...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm. NASA's statistical heroics are questionable. They went from 1-in-45,000 to 4-in-1,000,000 - isn't that the same as 1-in-250,000...?
     
    Won't most people (probably non /.-ers) see that final "one million" and breath a sigh of relief...? I'd call that very close to propaganda and certainly obfuscation.
     
    There's still a chance Apophis will hit us, only it's about 4/5 or 80% less. I am sooooooooo not relieved...

     

  41. 1 in 4 million is still better odds by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1, Informative

    that the lotto.

    1. Re:1 in 4 million is still better odds by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Wow, better odds than winning lotto? But ... but ... someone wins that nearly every single week ... WE'RE DOOMED ... (deep breath) DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    2. Re:1 in 4 million is still better odds by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Only for individuals. Worldwide the odds of the lottery being won are excellent.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  42. The Difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An American Football field with end zones included is the same length as a regulation pitch. The width would be the only significant difference (seeing as the pitch would be wider).

    Of course, this presumes the author intended to include end zones...which I suppose makes sense if you think you are being clever, but makes no sense in terms of actual football since a field is useless without the end zones :P.

  43. Football fields by nicknameaaron · · Score: 1

    Are these Hollywood sized football fields

  44. New Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth getting hit by an asteroid... Chances are 1 in 250,000...

    Someone can still make a movie outta odds like that. Do I hear an Armageddon 2 in the works?

  45. It's kind of weird... by kaffekaine · · Score: 1

    But I feel somehow disappointed.

  46. NASA and risk... by itedo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission

    "Feynman was clearly disturbed by the fact that NASA management not only misunderstood this concept, but in fact inverted it by using a term denoting an extra level of safety to describe a part that was actually defective and unsafe. Feynman continued to investigate the lack of communication between NASA's management and its engineers, and was struck by management's claim that the risk of catastrophic malfunction on the shuttle was 1 in 10^5; i.e., 1 in 100,000. Feynman immediately realized that this claim was risible on its face; as he described, this assessment of risk would entail that NASA could expect to launch a shuttle every day for the next 274 years without an accident."

    Well, it has nothing to do with the topic, but I wouldn't trust a statement "four-in-a million" made by NASA... ;-)
    There is no guarantee for a secure life on this planet. Asteroid impacts are a part of the nature, so everybody should be aware of those risks...

    1. Re:NASA and risk... by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This kind of uncertainty is much easier to derive with fewer question marks than deriving the risk of catastrophic failure in a complex machine.

      Basically what this implies is that taking new measurements, we have an improved estimate of the position of the asteroid at the current time, and the risk of impact is taken by projecting those into the future using well known and tested dynamic estimation methods. Current uncertainty is easily defined as a 6x6 covariance matrix (for the 6 state variables), and this matrix can be determined using a good least-squares estimation method and published measurement numbers.

      In other words I give these numbers a lot more credence than risk numbers on the space shuttle. Theres a lot more science and lot fewer assumptions.

      Also I would be careful comparing practices in the huge human-spaceflight program, centered at JSC and KSC with those of smaller planetery exploration programs from places like JPL and Ames. They have amazingly different cultures and practices -- NASA is in no way a monolithic entity.

  47. first four entries on impact table by jfb2252 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are three objects with higher probability of impact on the list, two of them much larger than Apophis (270 m diameter). Their diameters are 560 m and 780 m.

    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

    Scroll down to "Objects not recently observed"

  48. Still got a chance! by End+Program · · Score: 1

    Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
    Mary: Not good.
    Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
    Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
    [pause]
    Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

  49. No Stargate references? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

    I mean, the people who named the asteroid named it after Apophis in SG-1 because they were huge fans. Besides...by 2036, all we'll have to do is open a hyperspace window and send the asteroid through the planet. Just don't try to put a bomb on it, it will turn out to be made of naqadah and make an explosion equivalent to a supernova if that's tried. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqahdah#Naqahdah

    1. Re:No Stargate references? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Or, we could just mine all the naqadah out of it and use it to power generators. . . something the SGC completely failed to capitalize on. It seems like they are always looking for a source of naqadah, than when Apophis delivers it their doorstep, they just let it fly off into deep space. . .

    2. Re:No Stargate references? by gtall · · Score: 1

      It wasn't Apophis that delivered the asteroid, it was Anubis. By the time Anubis did the naughty deed, Apophis had already met his end when the Replicators took over his ship, sent it towards some planet but the SG team took out it braking system and it became one hell of an meteor. C'mon, everyone knows this...errr...or is it just me. I gotta get out more often...

  50. Wouldn't it be smart.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldn't it be smart to blast it into little pieces now? Before it makes another round and collides with earth next time round?

  51. Wha?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So essentially what they're saying is that I've got more chance of being hit by this asteroid, than of winning the lottery?

    1 in 250,000 isn't that rare....

  52. Two-and-a-half football fields ? by Haxx · · Score: 1

        Two-and-a-half football fields? Does this include the stands and the parking lots? They couldn't give it to us in meters?

    1. Re:Two-and-a-half football fields ? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Two-and-a-half football fields? Does this include the stands and the parking lots?

      No, that'd be two football stadiums. This is just the fields. Plus one bitchin' tailgate party.

      They couldn't give it to us in meters?

      Big numbers fit bad in caveman brain. Big rock fall from sky, kill many mammoth. As many mammoth as fit on headball field. Lot of mammoth. Headball fun. Kick head of enemy caveman around. Mammoth get in way. New dead mammoth good, old dead mammoth bad. Smell bad. Worse than cave.

  53. Wait for it.... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    Wait for it...

    Wait for iiiiit...

    Waaaaiiit foooorrr iiiiit....

    No, missed!

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  54. Dear NASA... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 0
    I'm writing to you in regards to the recent prediction that we won't all die in an orgy of death and raining hellfire in a few years' time.

    I wish to say KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF. I'm trying to run a legitimate, honest business here based on selling doomsday paranoia and terror to stupid people who believe everything they hear and I don't need rock jockeys trying to assure the populace that they'll live to see grandkids. The economy's bad, and I'm finally getting some uptick in sales due to the whole 2012 thing. Doom rocks from God in 2038 sounds enough like Doom Calendar from Mayans in 2012 that I can spin the paranoia. "Well, what if it changes course and gets here early? What if it's just a small breakway part of one we can't see?" I can make a living off of a pockmarked stone in a vacuum and Hollywood physics if you real 'Oooh, I got a DIPLOMA!' physicists don't keep trying to make people mellow out and stop living in fear of every little thing that moves between here and the Oort Cloud.

    I'm expecting this year to be something more like 1998 (666+666+666) than a gem like 2000 (Y2K), but the last thing I need is some pocket protector trying to make it into another slow one like 1962. Seriously, what a dud that was. No predictions, no prophecies, couldn't even get a trendy ethnic Tarot card reader to say anything bad going into '62. Dull, dull year.

  55. Or put another way, approx. 10x your... by Salamanders · · Score: 1

    Or put another way, you are 10 times more likely to get Earth-smacked by this big rock than you are to win the lottery. (I never did get why people play the lottery)

  56. Sure.. by __aamhyo4754 · · Score: 1

    This is just another attempt by "the man" to scare you into giving tax dollars to NASA. Bruce Willis will only be into his _early_ 80's. This whole slippery-slope-asteroid-thing shouldn't be a real concern.

  57. Strange unit of measure by gone_bush · · Score: 1

    The Apophis asteroid is approximately the size of two-and-a-half football fields

    And we mock the ancients for using units of measure like "stadia"!

    --
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less travelled by. (Robert Frost, 1916)
  58. Consistency In Data Barfing by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apophis had been downgraded to 4 chances in a million from 22 chances in a million. This new figure is clearly wrong, because it has 6 chances to impact between 2036 and 2103 (see http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html ). Perhaps this means the actual metric is 6 chances per 1.5 million.

    Also of note in the upgraded data is the second of the 2068 near misses, having a 0.00 Earth radius distance. This is likely a statistical artifact caused by the fact that a near miss is a hit (a miss is a miss or it isn't; something that comes close but doesn't hit is a near hit).

    Since the distance is zero but the impact probability is 1.1e-07, they have almost certainly determined that it will pass by (and/or impact) almost perfectly edge on. Due to its size being equivalent to 2.5 football fields, and a football field being a 2 dimensional rectangle with no thickness, an edge on impact would have little effect, keeping all 510 megatons of impact energy confined within an area of 270 by 0.000... meters, ie. no area at all. Thus, the impact will have absolutely no effect unless you happen to be standing over that 270 by zero meter line when it comes down on you, or worse, up at you after having passed through the Earth (a zero thickness should be able to pass through the planet like a neutrino).

    Hopefully we will also get updated figures on 2007 VK184. It has a 340 in 1 million chance of impact. It gets 4 attempts between 2048 and 2057. Four chances in 9 years gives it 2.25 million years to have its one million attempts, in which time it will only hit Earth 340 times, or once every 2417095.5882352941176470588235294 days. This was calculated with due attention paid to leap years, though it is uncertain at the time of publication whether the frequent legislating of time standards by the US will result in the figure being in standard leap years or daylight savings leap years.

    Just to add a minor point of confusion, in case it has been so far missed: the question has been raised regarding the actual size of these objects, as 'football field' is ambiguous, there being two different kinds of 'football' using different size fields. The answer is that it doesn't matter. NASA has already proven themselves to be above and beyond the need for conversion factors, and so they need not differentiate between metric and non-metric football. In their usual excessively polite manner, Canada has repeatedly not pointed out that they too have 'football' similar to the US kind, but with yet another differently sized field. Their reticence is somewhat practical when one considers that fewer people watch Canadian football than watch curling, and nobody outside Canada watches that.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Consistency In Data Barfing by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      What, no +1 Funny mod yet for this? I may have to reset my subscriber options.

    2. Re:Consistency In Data Barfing by DavMz · · Score: 1

      Their reticence is somewhat practical when one considers that fewer people watch Canadian football than watch curling, and nobody outside Canada watches that.

      I am sorry, but I have to correct. The Japanese female curling team is quite popular in Japan. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that they are passably nice-looking; and the reason I have never seen male curling in Japan is certainly because men can't use brooms.

    3. Re:Consistency In Data Barfing by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      What, no +1 Funny mod yet for this? I may have to reset my subscriber options.

      I was trying to figure out how to react to the first mod point, +1 insightful. Laugh? Cry? Complain about getting a drive-by moderation despite the fact it was positive? Get scared because I must have accidentally happened upon some apocryphal truth regarding asteroids and curling leading to saving the Earth by hiring Harry Stamper's Janitorial Service? The mind boggles, and the voices are complaining abut all that boggling noise.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    4. Re:Consistency In Data Barfing by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      Their reticence is somewhat practical when one considers that fewer people watch Canadian football than watch curling, and nobody outside Canada watches that.

      I am sorry, but I have to correct. The Japanese female curling team is quite popular in Japan. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that they are passably nice-looking; and the reason I have never seen male curling in Japan is certainly because men can't use brooms.

      For my part, I wouldn't watch it because I have no interest in watching men with huge eyes and breasts battle evil monsters/demons/robots using brooms disguised as something socially acceptable for men (with or without huge etceteras) to wield. But that monkey is a hoot.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  59. smacks of a certain BBC weather report... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    ...in which Michael Fish declared that the massive depression booting it across the Atlantic was /not/ a hurricane and was /not/ about to rip the UK a new arse.

    He was wrong.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  60. Asteroid no longer a big of an issue by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    While good news for sure.... science believes this was indirectly caused by universal climate change. Sigh...

    If we don't do something about solar helium production we're all doomed!

  61. Possible damage of a direct impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry if this was posted or asked before. Just a little curious on the following:

    Say if a direct hit managed to happen somehow without the meteor losing mass passing into our atmosphere, and impact somewhere (Land/Sea): What kind of damage would it cause to the nearby area?

    Football field measurements are a bit beyond me, but something that big passing at a huge speed can't be good.

  62. Four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However probable that it won't hit, what if it does?

  63. Re:Slashdot welcomes (grammar) nazis! by albyrne5 · · Score: 1

    Ha! That's probably an old joke but Id never heard it before, nice one.

  64. NASA Statistics by darkvizier · · Score: 1

    Now the real question: Has their statistical methodology improved in the last 20 years? Is NASA any less of a PR whore than it was back then?

    http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html

  65. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this has anything to do with that completely innocent Project Deep Impact that involved crashing a probe directly into said asteroid for "analytical purposes".