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."

15 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 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."

    3. 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)

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

      Your totally wrong.

      His totally wrong what?

  2. 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) ?

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

    Even the chance of an apocalypse is being downsized.

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

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

  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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"
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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