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."

50 of 244 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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."

    8. 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.

      --
    9. 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)

    10. Re:four in a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your totally wrong.

      His totally wrong what?

  2. 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 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?
  3. Re:Apophis by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    Loading...
  4. 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: 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?

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

      Let me guess: Indiana.

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

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

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    7. Re:Metric? by anotherzeb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh no, not again

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
  5. 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 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.

    2. 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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"
    5. 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
  6. 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...!

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

    Even the chance of an apocalypse is being downsized.

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

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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 ;)

  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Re:Million-to-one chance by Spad · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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"

  22. 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.)

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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