Slashdot Mirror


Unknown 7m Asteroid Almost Impacted Earth

xp65 writes "A previously undiscovered asteroid came within 14,000 km of Earth — just over one Earth diameter, 1/30 the lunar distance — on Friday, and astronomers noticed it only 15 hours before closest approach. On Nov. 6 at around 16:30 EST, a 7-meter asteroid, now called 2009 VA, came only about 2 Earth radii from impacting our planet. This is the third-closest known non-impacting Earth approach on record for a cataloged asteroid. The asteroid was discovered by the Catalina Sky Survey and was quickly identified by the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge MA as an object that would soon pass very close to the Earth. JPL's Near-Earth Object Program Office also computed an orbit solution for this object, and determined that it was not headed for an impact." The article notes, "On average, objects the size of 2009 VA pass this close about twice per year and impact Earth about once every 5 years."

289 comments

  1. How Much Damage? by WeekendKruzr · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't say what level of damage would have resulted from an impact. Anybody want to weigh in?

    1. Re:How Much Damage? by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 1

      Less than or Equal to the worst impacts of the last 20 years. AKA Not Much

    2. Re:How Much Damage? by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anybody want to weigh in?

      You expect nerds and geeks to give their actual weight online?!

    3. Re:How Much Damage? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article doesn't say what level of damage would have resulted from an impact. Anybody want to weigh in?

      I remember my old science book said that the one responsible for Meteor Crater was the size of a box car but that's kind of imprecise. It's a question of mass and velocity. The looser, rock-ice bodies tend to explode in the air. We've had a couple historically that were big enough to be mistaken for nuclear tests but they exploded high in the air over remote stretches of ocean.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:How Much Damage? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since it claims objects that size impact Earth about once every 5 years, the damage would be the same that we see every time one of these impacts. If you can't think of the last time that happened or you can't think of a damage report about that, then that should be your answer.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:How Much Damage? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From Wikipedia:

      An impact by an object in this size range [around 10m] would correspond to an impact energy roughly comparable to the Hiroshima bomb, if the object had hit the Earth's surface.

      If it hit near the center of a large city it could really suck; however, most of the earth's surface is covered by water, desert, mountains, or rural areas, and thus most asteroid impacts of this size do not cause massive loss of life.

    6. Re:How Much Damage? by dvice_null · · Score: 5, Informative

      It would most likely bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 8980 meters. Minor local damage might occur if a larger fragment happens to hit a house.

      http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=0.001&diam=7&pdens=&pdens_select=8000&vel=17&theta=45&tdens=2500&tdens_select=0

    7. Re:How Much Damage? by The_AV8R · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TFA says 7 meters - which is still 30% smaller than what you quote. 30% off a hiroshima bomb is a lot. Not to mention that the composition of the object has quite an effect as well. I'm going to let a source that carries a little more weight to, well, weigh in on it.

      --
      What? I can't assume Occam's Razor was a slick fold-up scooter?
    8. Re:How Much Damage? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      a 7 meter object has less than a third of the mass of a 10 meter object. And some of that mass would be lost to ablation on atmospheric entry. Depending on a number of factors the damage would likely be somewhere between a very large conventional bomb and no damage at all.

    9. Re:How Much Damage? by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      Well my scouter says its pretty weak, but sometimes it can be over 9000

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    10. Re:How Much Damage? by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can use this site to get an estimate.

    11. Re:How Much Damage? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 4, Informative

      And I forgot to consider that this was an object of 10 meters or so when it impacted Earth and was thus likely far bigger before entering the atmosphere. An object that was 10 meters before entering the atmosphere would, depending on composition and angle of descent, likely burn away completely before reaching ground. But there might be a midair explosion or fireball sufficient to ignite highly flammable structures.

    12. Re:How Much Damage? by T+Murphy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The energy would correspond to the mass rather than the radius; assuming constant density we can use volume so 7^3/10^3=0.343 or 34% of the energy of the 10m asteroid. I don't know my meteor impact science, but I wouldn't be surprised if the higher surface/volume ratio means proportionally more of it burns up in the atmosphere to reduce the impact energy even further.

      Regardless, a post farther down links to an impact calculator that claims it bursts in mid-air and results in no significant impact, so this speculation is moot (I am assuming the calculator is well-written).

    13. Re:How Much Damage? by RealErmine · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure if it had been on course to hit Earth, it would have burned up in the atmosphere and whatever's left would be no bigger than a chihuahua's head.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    14. Re:How Much Damage? by oldhack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And you can boost the local tourism economy by claiming that the fragment looks like Mary or something. Worked before, I think.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    15. Re:How Much Damage? by geeper · · Score: 3, Funny

      AKA Not Much
      Unless it lands on your house!

      --
      Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
    16. Re:How Much Damage? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1

      Minor local damage??? It's a 400 kiloton equivalent airburst energy...

      It will do 1 PSI overpressure (broken windows, etc) about 13 kilometers away from ground center point of explosion.

      Right under the explosion, it will do about 2.5 PSI overpressure, and collapse relatively weak residential structures.

      That energy level is going to kill people, if it's over inhabited areas. Not a lot of people - many or most directly under it would survive that overpressure level - but it will collapse things, and of a few things collapse people will die from the collapses.

      Relevant calculations for blast overpressure:
      http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html Sect 5.6.2 Blast Damage and Injury

    17. Re:How Much Damage? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Would it penetrate through to basement depth? If not most people here wouldn't notice till the next meal didn't show up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:How Much Damage? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say what level of damage would have resulted from an impact.

      Depends. Is there a modifier for a sneak attack?

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    19. Re:How Much Damage? by backbyter · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Apparently there's *much* more stuff to know before guestimating.

      http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

    20. Re:How Much Damage? by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Depends. Is there a modifier for a sneak attack?

      yeah, +3 HOLY SHIT A FUCKING METEOR!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    21. Re:How Much Damage? by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a nitpick, that's actually 40 kiloton equivalent (0.40 x 10^-1 megatons = 0.04 megatons = 40 kilotons). You don't get a 400 kiloton airburst until you go up to 15m diameter

    22. Re:How Much Damage? by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the official name is a "Basement Level Event"

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    23. Re:How Much Damage? by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Informative

      40 Kiloton, 40. Not 400.

    24. Re:How Much Damage? by Random5 · · Score: 1

      At least it's not a Meteor Swarm

    25. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if it's possible for such size object to totally destroy the Earth... lets say it was moving at close to the speed of light (or lets say 1/10th the speed of light), would it hit the earth hard enough to destroy it (or would it go through it and exit the other side?).

    26. Re:How Much Damage? by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      What about tsunamis?

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    27. Re:How Much Damage? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keeping in mind, of course, that most of the Earth is unpopulated -- in all likelihood the asteroid will strike an ocean (unless a very unlucky ship is hit, nobody would notice this) or a desert/forest (again, someone would have to be very unlucky for this to be noticed). Some of the land impacts may never be discovered -- by the time anyone passes near the impact site, natural forces would probably have erased the crater.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    28. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That probably refers to the size of the chunk that actually impacted, not the original size of the asteroid.

    29. Re:How Much Damage? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      a 7-meter asteroid...came only about 2 Earth radii from impacting our planet.

      It would have sounded a lot scarier if they said "...about 1 earth diamater..." instead.

    30. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      170 lbs. Sorry don't have it in kilograms

      --
      We are the Borg...
    31. Re:How Much Damage? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      That is, unless your name is either Bambi or Nemo...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    32. Re:How Much Damage? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Or 0.0000853 AU.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    33. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wiki article is also a little misleading. Something the size of a grain of sand going the speed of light would have little impact. If a 10 meter asteroid was going relative to the surface 5mph it would have little effect. If it was say going near the speed of light it would probably be quite destructive.

      It would also matter how much atmosphere it had to go thru. If you had a very oblique angle it would have a chance to burn off more of the material and slow down and hit other things in the atmosphere.

      Also something going from sub zero to gas it might just shatter due to temp changes. But that would depend on the composition of the asteroid and luck.

      Size, speed, angle of attack, and luck matter. Not just one of them.

    34. Re:How Much Damage? by Tellarin · · Score: 1

      ... whatever's left would be no bigger than a chihuahua's head.

      So you're saying it would be as annoying? Guess Earth would survive...

    35. Re:How Much Damage? by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Informative

      What about tsunamis?

      Well, other posters have established (well, speculated) that the impact energy would be significantly less than the Hiroshima bomb... there's a link elsewhere in this thread which discusses that a meteorite with a diameter of 10m on impact (meaning significantly larger than 10m when it entered the atmosphere) would have about the explosive force of the Hiroshima bomb.... The number that people are throwing around seems to be around 30-35% of the impact energy, if it hit the ground with a diameter of 7m. I'm going to have to rely on other peoples' calculations, but it does seem to be supported by others.

      Let's assume 33%, because the math's easy. The Hiroshima bomb exploded with a peak force of about 18kt, according to Wikipedia. 1/3 of that is 6kt. This is an important number... by any account, it's a big explosion. The largest conventional explosive currently in use in the world is the US-built Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) with a blast yield of 13.6 tonnes... we're talking 400 times more explosive force. If it hit a city with that kind of force, it would do extensive damage.

      But let's put this in perspective, and actually answer your question: On May 5, 1954, the US Navy set off Castle Yankee, part of the Operation Castle set of nuclear weapons tests, on the surface of the ocean off Bikini Atoll in Micronesia. The yield of this bomb was 13.5mt, more than 2000x more powerful than this meteorite could possibly be, even assuming that it did not shed any mass at all during entry. Castle Yankee did not cause a tsunami. The likelihood of such a meteorite causing a tsunami is slim to nil.

    36. Re:How Much Damage? by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      An impact by an object in this size range [around 10m] would correspond to an impact energy roughly comparable to the Hiroshima bomb, if the object had hit the Earth's surface.

      Except that it is highly unlikely that any such asteroid would survive sufficiently intact to impact the earth with its full energy.

      A far more likely scenario is that the object would cause an air blast high in the atmosphere and a few small, surviving fragments would pelt the earth here and there. Even a blast equivalent to Little Boy which occurred in the upper atmosphere would be barely noticeable on the ground, thanks to the 1/r^2 effect of a spherical blast, the absorption of energy by the atmosphere, and the increasing density gradient as you get closer to the ground.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    37. Re:How Much Damage? by icebike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real question is would it impact at all.

      How much would burn up after breaking up in the atmosphere.

      If one of these impacts every 5 years, and 65% of the earth's surface is water, you would expect 1 of every 3 or 4 to land on dry land, so in 20 years we should have had some impacts in places they can be found.

      Since no one here can remember the last one, you have to assume the damage has been minimal.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    38. Re:How Much Damage? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      74 kg. Sorry, don't have it in pounds. ;)

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    39. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      170 lbs. Sorry don't have it in kilograms

      Crisis averted

    40. Re:How Much Damage? by either+Bambi+or+Nemo · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's your point???

    41. Re:How Much Damage? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      It's 30 percent less diameter. .7 cubed means 1/3 the mass.

    42. Re:How Much Damage? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      ....no bigger than a chihuahua's head.

      I am interested in your unit and measurement system and would like to adopt it for my country. Could you please calculate the conversion factor from chihuahua heads to Sydharbs and Elephants

    43. Re:How Much Damage? by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it depends on if it is sub-spec'ed or not.

    44. Re:How Much Damage? by jslater25 · · Score: 1

      I pretty sure that the Earth rolled its saving throw and managed to dodge.

    45. Re:How Much Damage? by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to this (I didn't verify any facts) - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_the_Earths_surface_is_inhabited_by_humans

      About 1% of the surface is inhabited. So, an impact should directly affect people about once every 500 years. Maybe it's the next time?

    46. Re:How Much Damage? by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1

      136.29 choenikes

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    47. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

    48. Re:How Much Damage? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not sure what kind of force is required to penetrate through the entire planet, but I assume that the old P=MV comes into play. P is momentum, M is mass, and V is velocity. If you determined the mass of a 7-meter diameter object (you could assume it was made of iron and had a density of about 8000kg/m^3), and if you could determine the force required to penetrate through the earth, then you could calculate the velocity needed for an object with that mass to produce that amount of force. The force required to penetrate the earth would be pretty difficult to calculate, considering that the center is liquid iron and would really melt anything that hung around too long.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    49. Re:How Much Damage? by ArieKremen · · Score: 1

      It would be a safer bet to assume that the object had a diameter of 10m. So to compare impacts you had to use the volumetric ratio, not the linear ratio. This would make the impact of a 7m diameter object 'only' 35% of the 10m object.

      --
      -- Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui
    50. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A grain of sand (say .63mg) traveling 99% of the speed of light has an energy around 5.55 × 10^10 joules, and a ton of TNT makes about 4.184 gigajoules. So, your grain of sand has about the same energy of 13.2 tons of TNT. Little impact indeed.

    51. Re:How Much Damage? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      If it was travelling at .1c it wouldn't be haning around long. But I doubt we would see it coming.
      It would have to come form somewhere outside the solar system - theres nothing around here that could accelerate an object that size to that sort of speed (that we know of)

    52. Re:How Much Damage? by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1

      Fuck the +3... You know what gives me sleepless nights? What if one of 'em took 'doublestrike' as a Celestial Body feat?... How sucky would that be? For Earth's next feat level up, I'd strongly suggest Dodge, and later on Mobility. For that matter, why haven't we gone multiclass Rogue for the evasion?

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    53. Re:How Much Damage? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      In addition to not paying attention to the energy, you also seem to have not paid attention to the fact that the explosion would be at an altitude of 9 kilometers.

    54. Re:How Much Damage? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I had to go to TFA to find out that it's a 7 METER rock, rather than a 7 MILE rock.

      A rock that size would likely have started burning up, then fragmented into several pieces, continued burning and fragmenting. I doubt that very many pieces would have reached the ground. A guy would need to know the asteroids composition to make any sort of a guess. Mostly ice? No damage. Mostly rock? Maybe some limited damage. Solid rock? Probable damage, maybe enough to cause a few hundred casualties if it hit in a city. Metallic? Well - a solid chunk of iron might be something worth worrying about. In a densely populated area, we might be looking at a couple thousand casualties.

      Oh well. I didn't see the speed of the asteroid, in relation to the earth. If it was just barely moving along, less damage. If it was zipping along at a couple thousand mph, then much more damage.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    55. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless a tsunami can occur from any body of water. If this fucker hits Lake Michigan, we might have a tsunami.

    56. Re:How Much Damage? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Maybe it could travel directly between two massive black holes that have the same gravitational pull, where the object travels along the line where the force from each black hole exactly counters the force from the other. Of course, the deceleration as the object moves away would also probably counteract the acceleration it got on the way in.

      Maybe we could just put it in the LHC, surely that can blast a hole through the planet.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    57. Re:How Much Damage? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      google: xlbs in kg. It's easy.

    58. Re:How Much Damage? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't get a saving throw against an attack roll in the standard rules for 3.0 or 3.5. I don't think you get one in 4.0 either but I refuse to check unless I absolutely need to. Now, if Earth had class levels in rogue that were high enough and the asteroid had few or no class levels in rogue then Earth wouldn't get the sneak attack damage. I don't know how you check what class levels an asteroid has. Considering that they can't get XP (since the only way they end up at the end of an encounter is dead) they can probably only get class levels if they started that way or if God is a generous DM who gives a lot of XP for roleplaying. However, I'm not sure that asteroids are very good at roleplaying. They don't talk much and when they do you generally don't hear it because of the vacuum.

    59. Re:How Much Damage? by EXrider · · Score: 1

      IANAP... but I would assume that the odds of an object traveling that fast, hitting the earth, would be very slim. The energy necessary to accelerate it, and the distance it would potentially travel in a short amount of time, odds are that it would likely obliterate itself and some other object before it even entered our solar system.

      --
      grep -iw skynet /etc/services
    60. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 1

      Even if it hit a very unlucky ship, nobody would notice for very long.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    61. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 1

      You've not taken into consideration the fact that most humans aren't sentient enough to notice or care being hit by an asteroid. And even if they did, they have enough plastic surgery, botox and fat tissue that the asteroid would bounce off.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    62. Re:How Much Damage? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1.3E-5 Library of Congresses

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    63. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Asteroid Impact Calculator. Handy thing to have bookmarked, in the event that the astronomers see the next one from far enough off.

      It's impossible to be sure what the density and angle of incidence would have been in this case, as this sort of data isn't usually published. It's also impossible to be sure of composition, as that depends on where the asteroid was from. Thus, any results you DO get from the calculator are either meaningless (too much garbage in) or extreme values only.

      Having said that, such calculators are fun when they find truly massive craters. The crater under the antarctic ice, for example, is so large that the Earth was unlikely to have ever been hit by something that big in the past 4 billion years. Antarctica is very modern, in comparison.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    64. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 1

      Would you really be that upset if an asteroid flattened just about any city you cared to name in the Bible Belt, Middle East, Vichy France, Greece, Serbia, Microsoft HQ, ...

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    65. Re:How Much Damage? by Samah · · Score: 1

      Depends. Is there a modifier for a sneak attack?

      Nope, but we do get an attack of opportunity.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    66. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell no. We're quite happy to give our actual mass however...

    67. Re:How Much Damage? by Convector · · Score: 1

      According to my ancient notes, something like this would have an impact energy of about 10 kilotons, should it make it though the atmosphere. Unless it's an iron meteorite (relatively rare), something that small won't make it through, but will airburst at tens of km altitude. If it should hit, it would be very bad for whatever was right under it, but wouldn't have any global effects. For comparison, Meteor crater and Tunguska were something like 10 Megatons.

    68. Re:How Much Damage? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      ...now I'm scared. Corellon save us!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    69. Re:How Much Damage? by bitt3n · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Would it penetrate through to basement depth? If not most people here wouldn't notice till the next meal didn't show up.

      that happened to me once. I ordered a pizza from the local Dominoes, but they'd been hit by an asteroid and the building collapsed. So I called the next closest one, but it turned out that every other Dominoes in the country had been sequentially knocked out of commission by that single event. Pretty stupid way to run a business if you ask me.

    70. Re:How Much Damage? by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Since it claims objects that size impact Earth about once every 5 years, the damage would be the same that we see every time one of these impacts. If you can't think of the last time that happened or you can't think of a damage report about that, then that should be your answer.

      great. the last asteroid hit my car, and now I'm going to get the same damage every 5 years? well, at least now I know which day to take out the rental.

    71. Re:How Much Damage? by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Anybody want to weigh in?

      You expect nerds and geeks to give their actual weight online?!

      Knowing Slashdot, nerds and geeks here would be lining up to give their actual weight in Klingon units of mass, or something similar (Mayan, ancient Egyptian...)

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    72. Re:How Much Damage? by Odinlake · · Score: 1

      If 70% of earth is water and 80% of the land-area unpopulated only 6% of the impacts will be noticed (by common people), that's something like one every century. Of course metorites aren't equally likely to strike at any latitude (I guess) but this still seems like a decent enough estimate: one or two in a century. And half a century ago I think it unlikely anyone in the west would have heard about a meteorite impact in an African tribe-village, Siberian labour-camp or even Chinese rice plantation etc.

    73. Re:How Much Damage? by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      No, we would give our mass... Weight is so common-man... Mine: 185 lbm

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    74. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you sure it wasn't a de-basement level event?

    75. Re:How Much Damage? by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Handy thing to have bookmarked

      Sounds like a good thing to ping every so often. If the latency goes up or it stops responding altogether then the chances are that a whole load of people somewhere know something that you don't.

    76. Re:How Much Damage? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      That's it!

      I'm moving my office from the second floor to the basement.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    77. Re:How Much Damage? by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      a 7 meter object has less than a third of the mass of a 10 meter object.

      7 cubed is 343, so slightly more than a third of the mass.(Given equal density and similar shapes)

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    78. Re:How Much Damage? by cmarkn · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that the same impact that killed Tricia Tanaka?

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
    79. Re:How Much Damage? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Funny

      £170. Sorry, I don't have it in USD

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    80. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      They really needed it 250-300 million years ago though. Tweaking the impact velocity to get roughly the right values according to the article, the calculator reveals anyone on the edge of the crater would be vaporized, ripped to shreds from the pressure wave, then pulverized by the earthquake and drowned by a subsequent tsunami.

      Now, THAT is what I call having a bad day.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    81. Re:How Much Damage? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Come one, everyone knows meteor swarm is reflex (half).

    82. Re:How Much Damage? by ndik · · Score: 1

      67kg, but is increasing as they added a McDonalds to the local shopping centre. Sorry it's not in any other metrics, we Aussies only use kilos.

    83. Re:How Much Damage? by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      According to this (I didn't verify any facts) - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_the_Earths_surface_is_inhabited_by_humans

      About 1% of the surface is inhabited. So, an impact should directly affect people about once every 500 years. Maybe it's the next time?

      That 1% is a shit answer. The link you provided states that 90% of the population occupies 3% of the land. That says nothing about how much of the remaining 97% of the land is occupied by the remaining 10% of the population.

      For example, a very large farm would have a population density that would put it square into that nebulous 97%, but I would consider that farm to be part of the human habitat in that it is used to cultivate food to support the 90% of us who live in densely-populated areas.

    84. Re:How Much Damage? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      calculating the odds would make you a mathematician, specifically a statistician, not a physicist... i think.

      of course making this comment makes me a pedant; and for that i am genuinely sorry. ;)

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    85. Re:How Much Damage? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing "most humans" with "most Californians."

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    86. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 1% of the surface is inhabited. So, an impact should directly affect people about once every 500 years. Maybe it's the next time?

      Only if both impacts and people are evenly distributed across the globe. Neither of those are true.

    87. Re:How Much Damage? by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say what level of damage would have resulted from an impact. Anybody want to weigh in?

      The article doesn't say how much, but some following posts provide much more info

      What sort of damage to expect is hard to say. Sufficiently large ones seem to make craters between 7 and 10 times their width. Rocks of a few meters across often break up and do very little damage – like the one which recently came down in Africa. Asteroids of about 30 meters across are supposed to have the potential of being "City Wreckers" – thanks be to Goodness, no proof has been provided

      and

      The atmosphere does a pretty good job of protecting us. A 25-50m asteroid is about where you start getting nuclear attack energy levels deposited on an area of land.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    88. Re:How Much Damage? by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's cool to read impact calculators and such, but ..

      you can bet that when, not if, a planet killer is approaching
      those in the know, will not tell for public safety reasons
      you'll know when you hear the thunder & look up in time to see the fire wall/shock wave approaching
      You'll get just enough time to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye

      Seriously, would you really want to know?

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    89. Re:How Much Damage? by Trutane · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good thing to ping every so often. If the latency goes up or it stops responding altogether then the chances are that a whole load of people somewhere know something that you don't.

      and in that event, I'm sure they will tweet about it (as long as Twitter stays up...)

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
    90. Re:How Much Damage? by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      I would assume standing right on the edge of any geologically significant crater as it is formed would be a bad day regardless of how many times or ways it kills you.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    91. Re:How Much Damage? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      Isn't hitting water worse? I mean if was a big metal asteriod that hits fast? I'm sure I read that the world as a whole (i.e. not the locals who live near where the impact is) would be better off if such a thing hit land. Or did I just hear this in a movie? (You can probably tell that asteroid science isn't my special nerd-field).

    92. Re:How Much Damage? by physburn · · Score: 1
      Its quite lamentable that an asteroid can get this close to the earth without us being able to spot it. 15 hours isn't enough time to get an accurate location on where it would hit, if it would, and not even time to get an evacuation order out to the its target location. We really need a deep space asteroid detection network, that can find these rocks before they hit us.

      ---

      Asteroids Feed @ Feed Distiller

    93. Re:How Much Damage? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      About 2,100,000 grains... Sorry, I'm in a reloading phase right now...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    94. Re:How Much Damage? by stjobe · · Score: 1

      65% of the earth's surface is water

      65%? Did something change lately? I've never seen a figure that low before, it's always been around the 70-75% mark.

      Wikipedia has it at 70.8% water, so I'm curious as to where your 65% figure came from?

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    95. Re:How Much Damage? by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a funny couple of lines in a funny book series I've read a few times:

      "Some factual information for you. Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?"
      "How much?" said Arthur.
      "None at all," said Mr Prosser.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    96. Re:How Much Damage? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Where? Right here ---> (*)

      I pulled it out of, er, ah, thin air. Top of my head. Discounted lakes big enough to see across.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    97. Re:How Much Damage? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      assuming is bad science, we need to test this scientifically

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    98. Re:How Much Damage? by torsmo · · Score: 1

      You can use this site to get an estimate.

      Wow...The Slashdot impact cratered the site.

    99. Re:How Much Damage? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      The crater under the antarctic ice, for example, is so large that the Earth was unlikely to have ever been hit by something that big in the past 4 billion years. Antarctica is very modern, in comparison.

      Except that the crater you mention was not caused by an asteroid, but by Cthulu's arrival on Earth.

    100. Re:How Much Damage? by stjobe · · Score: 1

      That's good to know.

      As an aside, freshwater lakes and rivers cover less than 1% of the Earth (0.017% was a figure I saw).

      But I'm impressed with the quality of information coming from your, er, thin air. Must be handy, that :)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    101. Re:How Much Damage? by lxs · · Score: 1

      I'm not bothered about giving my weight.

      931N here.

    102. Re:How Much Damage? by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      That's your mass. It should be around 746 N on the surface of the earth.

    103. Re:How Much Damage? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to be sure what the density and angle of incidence would have been in this case, as this sort of data isn't usually published

      It is meaningless to say that it would have hit at a certain angle unless it is going to actually hit the earth. An asteroid that misses the the earth would hit at 45 degrees if it were moved to 0.7 radii from the centre, or hit straight-on if it were aimed directly at the centre.

    104. Re:How Much Damage? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Skinny Minny. I apply 1225N to my couch.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    105. Re:How Much Damage? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I'm curious where you think the difference between 65 and 70 makes a difference to the math he was using.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    106. Re:How Much Damage? by stjobe · · Score: 1

      No no, I didn't. I just wondered if I'd missed some oceans drying up or something. You never know...

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    107. Re:How Much Damage? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      £170. Sorry, I don't have it in USD

      Add two zeroes and wait.

      --

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

    108. Re:How Much Damage? by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Since... you know, oceans dry up and become usable land ripe to be hit by meteorites on a daily basis. Just last week, I was reading how the Mediterranean used to be dry... though, I am thinking the Ice Age movie is probably a lousy source for current climate change events.

    109. Re:How Much Damage? by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing most Californians with most angelinos

    110. Re:How Much Damage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Seattle's a nice place, so I would hope that any asteroid hitting it would only impact Microsoft HQ directly, and be small enough that the damage is contained there.

      An asteroid flattening populated parts of the middle east wouldn't be something to mourn over though; it'd be a big contribution to world peace.

      What's wrong with France and Greece? And cities in the Bible Belt aren't bad. It's mostly the rural dwellers that give that area its name. Even Serbia isn't that bad any more, now that Milosevic is gone and dead.

    111. Re:How Much Damage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, we don't really need detection capability at all. If we needed it, we would already have it, or at least be working seriously on implementing it. Since we don't have it, and we do have things like bank bailouts and welfare for people who don't want to work and wars in foreign countries that are no threat to us, those things are obviously more important to society than looking for dangerous asteroids.

    112. Re:How Much Damage? by speederaser · · Score: 1

      Legs on or off the couch?

      Hey, it makes a difference!

    113. Re:How Much Damage? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Unless the asteroid is HUGE, hitting water is completely fine.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    114. Re:How Much Damage? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      There's the Dead Sea :)

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    115. Re:How Much Damage? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      the calculator reveals anyone on the edge of the crater would be vaporized [arizona.edu], ripped to shreds from the pressure wave, then pulverized by the earthquake and drowned by a subsequent tsunami

      I don't think the drowning is anything to worry about...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    116. Re:How Much Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand anything at all about physics/chemistry? Yet another wannabe IT playing at being a scientist

    117. Re:How Much Damage? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, he meant google: 170lbs in kg.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    118. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's meaningless. Take the known position and velocity of the asteroid, and the position and velocity of the Earth at the time of discovery.

      Now, there are only two meaningful scenarios - the asteroid reached the same point at a slightly different time (resulting in an impact) OR the asteroid had a slightly different displacement but essentially the same vector (resulting in an impact).

      It is NOT meaningful to give the asteroid a significantly different vector, unless you can prove it passed close to one of the gas giants and underwent a gravitational slingshot. This is because if it were on a totally different path for no obvious reason, it wouldn't be the same asteroid. Duh.

      On the other hand, if this rock has been orbiting the sun for any length of time, the difference in mass and/or velocity required to have put it onto an almost identical track that did intersect the Earth would be insignificant. Well below anything we could meaningfully consider.

      Ideally what you'd do is look at the time window and displacement range that would have resulted in a collision, then using the known mechanics of planetary movement, "rewind" the system as far as you can and still maintain a reasonably low margin of error. Then do the same using the actual observed values.

      Anything in that range that would result in the asteroid colliding with something else before the Earth OR slingshotting off in another direction altogether OR not tracking back to (close enough) the right origin can be ignored.

      Any possibility not discarded will give you a possible angle for a strike. It could have happened that way and, as far as our ability to distinguish events is concerned, what actually happened cannot be usefully distinguished. (There may well have been fragments from it that DID strike the Earth, so to call it a miss is not a given.)

      This is important, why? Because it tells us a lot about how well we can predict where an asteroid will be. The more possibilities that are computationally indistinguishable, the less useful it is to claim to be able to make such a prediction.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    119. Re:How Much Damage? by jd · · Score: 1

      The French keep the best of their wine to themselves. Greece wouldn't be bad, but they keep whining about wanting their marbles back. Serbia's not a bad place, per se, but their architecture is UGLY! These are all clearly crimes against geekdom.

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

    Nice of them to let us know the next day.

    --
    I can say [REDACTED] anytime I want!
    1. Re:Sheep by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Easy there, Superman. I know you're hard up for publicity these days, but we didn't really need you to stop this one.

  3. OH NOES!!! by Gotung · · Score: 1

    Way to sensationalize an asteroid that isn't much bigger then a womprat. If it had hit the Earth, very few people (if any) would have even noticed.

    1. Re:OH NOES!!! by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This seems like a nonsensical conclusion -- larger objects are easier to detect, both by virtue of being larger and, since they are a potential threat, are more worthy of attention and effort.

    2. Re:OH NOES!!! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Objects, large and small, can only be detected by looking for them. We haven't been doing much of that.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:OH NOES!!! by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We track 90% of the near-earth objects that have a possibility of causing global catastrophe. While there's certainly room for improvement, we've actually been doing quite a lot of looking.

      To give a sense of scale, global-catastrophic asteroids are 1 km in diameter; this one was 7 m.

    4. Re:OH NOES!!! by mrdoogee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Womprat = 2m

      Asteroid = 7m

      If by not much bigger you mean nearly triple the size... then yes. It's not much bigger.

      this has been you Star Wars nitpick of the day. Thank you.

    5. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had hit the Earth, very few people (if any) would have even noticed.

      Damn! This story got me all worked up.

    6. Re:OH NOES!!! by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      To quote Billy Bob Thornton in the movie Armageddon:

      Well, our object collision budget's a million dollars. That allows us to track about 3% of the sky, and beg'n your pardon sir, but it's a big-ass sky

    7. Re:OH NOES!!! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      If we know we're tracking 90% of NEOs, why not the other 10%? Isn't it more likely that number was just made up to give a false sense of security? I remember back in the 90s after the Shoemaker-Levy collision there was a brief increase in funding to NEO tracking; IIRC it didn't last past the end of the decade. And considering the state of this page, I don't have a lot of confidence in their efforts.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    8. Re:OH NOES!!! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Womprat = 2m

      Actually, if you want to nitpick, we don't know how big womprats are, but we know they're bigger than 2m (just "not much bigger"), so "womprat = 2m" is inaccurate. "womprat > 2m".

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:OH NOES!!! by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more likely that number was just made up to give a false sense of security?

      Knowing NASA, no. Is there some component of your argument that isn't just baseless speculation?

      This site is better, by the way: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/

    10. Re:OH NOES!!! by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

      Although, to be fair, even if we did spot one, it's not like we can jump out of the way or anything.

      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    11. Re:OH NOES!!! by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This does not indicate a question of looking in the right direction. Seeing something that small is basically impossible until its right on top of us even if you're looking straight at it, which is fortunate since its not a big concern. Compare a 7 meter asteroid with a 300 meter asteroid such as 99942 Apophis:

      Since surface projection is proportional to the radius squared, Apophis is likely to be 100,000 times brighter, or around 12.5 stellar magnitudes. During the 2029 close approach, when Apophis will be within the geostationary belt, it will be magnitude 3.3, meaning that a 7-meter asteroid would be around magnitude 16. This is below the limiting magnitude of most telescopes being used in these searches, so only the very large (1+ meter) would be able to find it even when that close.

      Also, there are a number of individuals doing this in addition to the official NASA work. This was processed through the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, to which it is quite easy to submit information on new asteroids. With automated amateur equipment (the well-funded 60 year old amateur, not the $200 14 year old amateur) its quite easy to set up a system to automatically observe a region of sky and detect asteroids. If you have a series of plates indicating an asteroid, they can be submitted to the MPC through automated software and its all logged. You may not be satisfied, but its certainly not nothing, even if the NASA effort itself is underfunded.

    12. Re:OH NOES!!! by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we know we're tracking 90% of NEOs, why not the other 10%?

      Because we don't actually know we're tracking 90% of NEOs. We estimate that we're tracking 90% of them. We can't actually know we're tracking them, because we simply haven't discovered them all. (comparatively) tiny objects in a slow orbit that may cross our own orbit at some point in the future, but that are so dark that they're black, and so cold they're hard to tell from the ambient radiation on the infrared and other bands? The unfortunate reality is that we just can't see some of what's out there, either because we haven't looked in the right part of space with the right equipment, or because the right equipment doesn't exist.

      We figure we're probably tracking about 90%, based on our estimates of the mass of the solar system and how much of what we're actually tracking. We could be tracking 100% of the stuff that actually poses a threat. We could be tracking 50% of it. But the best guess we actually have is that we're somewhere around 90% at the moment, and that the number will go up over time. But we still might never see the one that wipes us out.

      Perhaps a better question is: if we can detect the one that's about to hit us, are we likely to be able to do anything about it?

    13. Re:OH NOES!!! by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      "Much" is a relative term. When your point of comparison is a space station the size of a small moon, 10m isn't "much" bigger than 2m.

      Fear the rodents of unusual size... :P (assuming a womprat is a rodent...)

    14. Re:OH NOES!!! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If we know we're tracking 90% of NEOs, why not the other 10%? Isn't it more likely that number was just made up to give a false sense of security?

      OMG, CONSPIRAZY!!!1!1!!ELEVEN!!

      You don't get your search-for-planet-smashers budget increased by underestimating the number of objects out there - if NASA were going to start pulling figures out of their collective asses, they'd overestimate. Luckily, though, we have this thing called "science" which means that such estimates are generally derived using the best available data, and the results are published so that others can review the methodology and confirm or challenge the results. The estimates which NASA uses are well known, and I've yet to see any astronomers raise an objection to them.

    15. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should have taken Evasion at last level up?

    16. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps a better question is: if we can detect the one that's about to hit us, are we likely to be able to do anything about it?

      Oh, I'm sure we will -- we'll pray, and perhaps form a commission. And then we'll more than likely die out.

    17. Re:OH NOES!!! by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      To give a sense of scale, global-catastrophic asteroids are 1 km in diameter; this one was 7 m.

      So this could destroy 0.7% of all life on Earth? World War II was more dangerous.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    18. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And considering the state of this page, I don't have a lot of confidence in their efforts.

      Geocities called... they want their website back!

    19. Re:OH NOES!!! by chgros · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apophis is likely to be 100,000 times brighter
      (300 / 7)^2 = about 1,800, which is not very close to 100,000

    20. Re:OH NOES!!! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      yeah that's kinda what I was getting at, but better articulated

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    21. Re:OH NOES!!! by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. I accidentally typed in (300*300/7*7) instead of (.../(7*7)). Mea culpa.

      At any rate, its around 10 stellar magnitude off, which means it would be around magnitude 14 on a very near approach. This is just barely visibile in a 16" telescope, so its still very hard to see.

    22. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just dodged a bullet, and you're basically saying "so what, it would only have been a flesh wound anyway".

      Dodging would require moving out of the way, wouldn't it? This story is "Rock in space misses earth".

    23. Re:OH NOES!!! by apoc.famine · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a comparison for the non-astronomers:
       
      In college, we had a pretty sweet 0.8m diameter scope. The limiting resolution of that was about 12 magnitude. Magnitude goes up as powers of ten. So 16th magnitude would be 10^4 times dimmer than what we could see with that scope. Even a 1m scope would have issues with that. You'd need fantastic conditions and very, very good mechanics to be able to take exposures long enough to reliably capture 16 magnitude.
       
      Take into account that we can only reliably detect asteroids based on lateral movement against the constant stars in the background, and you have situations like this where the asteroid is nearly undetectable. Keep in mind that the only light is from the sun, and the asteroid is likely as reflective as pavement. Then that reflected light radiates out spherically, and the intensity fades out as one over the square of the distance between the asteroid and the telescope.
       
      There are plenty of asteroids we'll never be able to reliably detect and track. As long as we do so with the ones over 20m, we should be ok. We'll definitely see most of those in time to wring our hands and turn to prayer, for lack of any better way to deal with them.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    24. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty amazing that it was discovered. Does this mean that regardless of how big something is, we'll pretty much see it half a day before it gets here? Not that we'd hear about things that were missed, of course...

    25. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually what he articulated is retarded. You know you've found 90% of them when each time you find one there's a 90% chance it's already on your list.

      Think of a bag with n marbles. You don't know the value of n, but you're allowed to pick one marble at random, mark it, and put it back. Repeat. When after a while most of what you pick is marked, you know you've found more than half of them.

      That's the gist of how it's done. In reality because of varying orbits some 1 km asteroids are harder to discover than others, so you bucket the asteroids you found by the type of orbit they have, and estimate the % found for each bucket individually. Then combine the results to get the overall percentage.

      No "estimates of the mass of the solar system" are needed.

    26. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day you're gonna die. You can't predict when it'll happen unless you make it happen. Deal with it. You think there needs to be some sort of government agency or doomsday weapon for taking on every possible cataclysm so that life will be stress free and all flowers, peaches, and cream? You're friggin nuts. Have you been reading the front pages of newspapers lately? Get with it!

    27. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 7m is more than triple 2m, not nearly triple.

      You're welcome.

    28. Re:OH NOES!!! by mlush · · Score: 1

      As a comparison for the non-astronomers: In college, we had a pretty sweet 0.8m diameter scope. The limiting resolution of that was about 12 magnitude. Magnitude goes up as powers of ten.

      Just a minor nit magnitude goes up in units of ~2.5.

    29. Re:OH NOES!!! by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps a better question is: if we can detect the one that's about to hit us, are we likely to be able to do anything about it?

      no

    30. Re:OH NOES!!! by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Man, if that isn't a clue that I need to think about astronomy more than once every decade. That's about the most elementary bit of failure a former astronomer could manage, I think. Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    31. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Womprat = 2m

      Asteroid = 7m

      If by not much bigger you mean nearly triple the size... then yes. It's not much bigger.

      this has been you Star Wars nitpick of the day. Thank you.

      UH nearly triple the size? you mean over triple right?
      2x3=6

    32. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the *point* is that we didn't know about it until 15 hours before its closest approach.

      The obvious implication being that there could easily be many more out there, possibly much bigger, and possibly on a collision course with earth.

      We just dodged a bullet, and you're basically saying "so what, it would only have been a flesh wound anyway".

      We had this same discussion a few months ago, and it seems like most people on Slashdot think this is no big deal. I hope they are right, because we sure don't seem to be doing much about it.

      So by your logic, because I didn't notice the gnat that nearly hit my eye, I will also not notice the giant freaking beetle the size of my head?

      Yes, there was a "discussion" I guess, if you call a bunch of "no-yes-no-yes" banter a discussion. I will agree that we certainly do need to do a lot more to enhance our early warning system. But in terms of general survivability for the planet there's not much point in worrying about stuff that's really too small to hurt us.
      As for the argument that "oh noes, it could have hits the spaced stationz" that may be a somewhat valid point, but if you're going to walk through a hail of bullets you're better off working on good armor as opposed to something that allows you to see them coming at you... even IF you could possibly dodge them.

    33. Re:OH NOES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't seem to be doing much about it? I'm helping on a large project involving many universities and research labs to address just this very problem. Considerable resources have been devoted to this problem! (http://www.lsst.org/lsst)

    34. Re:OH NOES!!! by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      Yes. That was what I meant....

      *note to self, stop confusing orders of magnitude with multiplication.

      2*3=6

      2^3=8

  4. Close only counts by nhytefall · · Score: 1

    In horseshoes, hand grenades, and apparently, astronomy.

    --
    0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
    1. Re:Close only counts by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget tactical nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (partially depending on wind speed and direction), really big conventional ordnance however delivered, and of course darts and dancing!

  5. wah! by thhamm · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:wah! by aLEczapKA · · Score: 0

      seems to me, it was just a marketing hack for the upcoming '2012' movie

      --
      -- All Gods were immortal.
      -- S. Lem
  6. I'll take it out by smitty777 · · Score: 1

    I used to target womprats in my T-16 in Beggar's Canyon back home.

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
  7. Sounds like a bad science fiction movie premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a bad slashdot thread.

    sigh.

    mod away and throttle this IP address !!!

  8. Tracking/Routing number? by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dang! It's the third time they try to ship my package and miss; I've had enough... And so much for the "confidential" packaging!

  9. Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Conchobair · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seven meters just isn't all that big. According to the Earth Impact Effects Program using typical data: No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface. The air blast at this location would not be noticed.

    1. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by vvaduva · · Score: 1

      It would sound much more sinister and dangerous if they start reporting these sizes in feet and inches. :)

    2. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Sunshinerat · · Score: 1

      It would sound much more sinister and dangerous if they start reporting these sizes in feet and inches. :)

      ...and its mass in stone.

      --
      Load New Commander (Y/N)?
    3. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      Not to mention easier to understand for those of us who have not adopted the metric system. The US has been moving to the metric system for nearly fifty years, and I have no reason to believe it will happen in my lifetime. Anyway, to get back on topic, seven meters is pretty big, I think, at about 21 ft. The nice thing is that since most of Earth's surface is water, the likely hood of a water impact is greater than that of a land impact, and since there is a lot of uninhabited land area, even that isn't too bad.

    4. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      naaaah. Let it be in meters. We Amurikans don't do metric, and so we're safe.

    5. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was about to say - missing a 7 meter asteroid passing at that distance is roughly akin to missing a pea in the middle of the highway you're currently doing 60MPH down. In rush hour traffic.

    6. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      Uh... I punched in some numbers and got a figure of 24 kilotons for the air burst. That's ... a Hiroshima bomb, give or take. I have trouble believing that people wouldn't at least hear it, even if it popped, as the estimate says, at 121,000 feet.

    7. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is spelled "American". The least you can do is to properly learn the American Language.

    8. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

      The airburst would unleash about 130 tons on TNT, about 10 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

    9. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      OK, say it's 10 Little Boys. Somebody on the ground is definitely going to notice that. I think the calculator's got some fuzzy math going on, 'cause I've been fiddling with it for a few minutes and I came up with this:

      Distance from Impact: 1.00 km
      Projectile Diameter: 70.00 m (10x the size of our rock)
      Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m3 (dense rock)
      Impact Velocity: 45.00 km/s
      Impact Angle: 45 degrees
      Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
      Target Type: Sedimentary Rock
      ------
      The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 2730 meters = 8960 ft
      The energy of the airburst is 5.14 x 1017 Joules = 1.23 x 10^2 MegaTons.
      ------
      The air blast at this location would not be noticed. (The overpressure is less than 1 Pa)
      ------

      There's no way a hundred-megaton blast at 9000 feet wouldn't be noticed, if you're fraking standing underneath it. Absolutely no way.

    10. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The asteroid is quite unlikely to unleash any trinitrotolulene.

    11. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by vvaduva · · Score: 1

      Hehe - that may work the other way around...everyone would be so confused to the extent that we just shrug off the danger and stop stressing out about things that "almost" kill us all on a daily basis.

    12. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      I presume you meant 130 kilo tons, and that would be ca. 6 Hiroshima bombs. 130 tons is not that much...

    13. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, missing a 7 meter asteroid passing at this distance is exactly akin to missing just about anything in the middle of the highway. Even another 7m asteroid.

      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    14. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Not to mention easier to understand for those of us who have not adopted the metric system.

      Some of us, perhaps. Most of the Americans I know have no trouble understanding you if you say 7m, even though we ourselves would say 23 feet instead. Preferring one doesn't mean you don't understand the other. I see no reason at all for the US to adopt the metric system, but I do think all Americans ought to be able to read and understand it. It's a simple matter of literacy, as far as I'm concerned. If I say "the rock is seven meters across" and you don't know what that means, you aren't a competent speaker of the English language. If you do, you are, and all is good. I couldn't care less whether you measure things in feet, meters, or cubits yourself...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    15. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it makes a huge difference what the asteroid is made of. A big snowball will hurt less than a big hunk of iron.

    16. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OP said "typical data", not "oh that number is bigger bigger is better right". You've simulated it with an asteroid slightly more dense than pure iron, traveling at a highly unrealistic velocity. Using less bogus values (courtesy of this), you get much more reasonable results: a 3.7 kT airburst at 36 km in the air.

    17. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, say it's 10 Little Boys. Somebody on the ground is definitely going to notice that.

      Especially if it's near a Catholic church.

    18. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by vlm · · Score: 1

      I have trouble believing that people wouldn't at least hear it, even if it popped, as the estimate says, at 121,000 feet.

      That is 24 miles away, vertically, through "atmosphere" that qualifies as a pretty decent vacuum.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    19. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, we Americans are scared as hell. For all we know, 7 meters could be HUGE!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The airburst would unleash about 130 tons on TNT [arizona.edu], about 10 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

      What and the who now? Little Boy was 13+ KILO tons. That's 1,300 tons. That puts your asteroid impact at one third the blast, meaning you're off by a factor of 100.

    21. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you for the car analogy. Without it, I would have been totally incapable of understanding the situation.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    22. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Er, scratch out "one third" and put in "one tenth". And, admins, add a friggin "edit" function already.

    23. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      Rush hour traffic at 60mph? Sounds like meteors would be the least of your problems.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    24. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Twenty-two feet, eleven inches.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    25. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I tend to travel at about 70mph in rush hour traffic.

      It might not be city-centre traffic, but it's still rush hour traffic and it's still much heavier than the traffic on that road at other times.

    26. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      7 miles seems big enough

    27. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by tygt · · Score: 1

      To be precise, about 1/100th the size of the Hiroshima bomb, which was 13Kilotons (13,000 tons, as opposed to the much smaller air burst from the 7m object).

    28. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1

      While he's studying, I'd recommend a snack of Freedom Fries... Oh, wait, that's not in line with the Atkins Diet.

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    29. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      It would certainly create an audible boom for miles and miles, but it looks like they're talking about the air blast in terms of actual damage, not in terms of people being aware of it. I suspect that something like that would have to be damn close to being able to shatter windows at ~9,500 feet. (the actual location you input is offset by a km, so it's slightly more than just 9k feet away)

    30. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      7 meters isn't big, that's like 28 inches if you set them side-by-side (my volt meter is about 4 inches wide). The post said 7m which is 7MILES! That's HUGE!!!! Now, 14,000 Km, that's 14,000 kilo-miles = 14,000,000 mi... BIG DEAL! It missed us BIG TIME!

    31. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by thethibs · · Score: 1

      The car analogy is appropriate, given that this thing is the size of a minivan.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    32. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, okay, serves me right for not RTFDocumentation... thanks for the clarification.

    33. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many football fields is that?

    34. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm still at a loss... can i get that translated into Libraries of Congress?

    35. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      How about 7 "million nanometre asteroid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one"

    36. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the car analogy. Without it, I would have been totally incapable of understanding the situation.

      It's a pea analogy, not a car analogy. I'm a vegetarian you insensitive clod!
         

    37. Re:Hardly noticeable if it impacted by steeler359 · · Score: 1

      Seven meters just isn't all that big.

      This is correct, however, Slashdot being an American website, I clocked the "7m" and automatically took it to mean "7 miles". After a serious case of the cold sweats, and reading TFS, however, I calmly carried on with my breakfast.

      FWIW, being a Brit, I use metric on paper, but Imperial units in real life.

      --
      There's no place like /~
  10. Uh, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the summary of the article:

    "On average, objects the size of 2009 VA pass this close about twice per year and impact Earth about once every 5 years."

    I don't want the asteroid to land on my house, but it seems that missing an object this size isn't catastrophic.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Maybe they didn't notice it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because 7 meters is really small and pretty much harmless?

  13. This is unimportant by syousef · · Score: 1

    If the threat were 7m asteriods, no one would be monitoring. We'd certainly not be talking about the possibility of mass extinction. Yes some people might die, just as some people die every day. The reason to monitor near earth asteroids is the big ones that can kill off most of the life on our planet in a very short period.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:This is unimportant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by big, we're talking a 7m model being like a grain of rice in comparison to a mountain.

  14. LHC by Chaseshaw · · Score: 1

    I think we should just point the LHC up into the air and deflect the asteroids with it.

    1. Re:LHC by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? That thing can't even stand up to a bird with a bagel.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    2. Re:LHC by Chaseshaw · · Score: 1

      yes. lol.

    3. Re:LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but if it did hit LHC, would everyone suddenly take that "universe is out to get LHC" theory seriously?

    4. Re:LHC by PhxBlue · · Score: 1, Informative

      Are you kidding? That thing can't even stand up to a bird with a bagel.

      It was a baguette, you insensitive clod!

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    5. Re:LHC by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Okay, so we should send up birds with bagels to deflect asteroids...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:LHC by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      At this point I think throwing it at the asteroids might be a more cost-effective solution.

    7. Re:LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean infrenchitive.

    8. Re:LHC by Duradin · · Score: 1

      This was just a backup plan in case the bird failed in its mission to delay the start of the LHC.

      Sure, the universe had to start the backup plan long before birds, let alone the bird, existed...

    9. Re:LHC by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? That thing can't even stand up to a bird with a bagel.

      It was a baguette, you insensitive clod!

      Please see: Did a Time-traveling Bird Sabotage the Large Hadron Collider?

      I liked the first comment:

      Doesn't this concern anyone here? People controlling a multi billion dollar machine think birds from the future are making there machine not work.

  15. The real point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of debris out there that we aren't tracking. It wasn't all that big but there were some even bigger ones lately just not as close. The odds of getting hit by an even bigger one? A 100%. It's really just a matter of time. There really needs to be more effort put into mapping what objects we can. 7 meters isn't worth the trouble due to the lack of it being a major threat. Even once most of objects are mapped there will always be the chance of a rouge but it'll drop the odds of a surprise hit dramatically. If we continue in space a system of space based detection needs to be in place within the next 100 years. Yes the odds are slim of a major strike in the next 1,000 or even million years but it's very possible and we aren't potentially talking about saving lives but all life and at the very least civilization itself. We spend more on a single war than a comprehensive program would cost.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. "Impact" Earth? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0

    Why do they have to turn perfectly good nouns into verbs?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:"Impact" Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:"Impact" Earth? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Because (to quote Calvin): Verbing weirds language.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:"Impact" Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

    4. Re:"Impact" Earth? by mea37 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmmm... well, I realize that checking a dictionary first would've been a lot of work, but here's what m-w has to say about it. Note that the first entry is for the verb "impact".

    5. Re:"Impact" Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question. Think about it the next time you're tempted to refer to "a software install".

    6. Re:"Impact" Earth? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Other words in m-w:

      lite
      homie
      ain't
      irregardless
      lol
      conversate
      phat
      wigger
      gaydar

      My point being that m-w is a descriptive rather than prescriptive dictionary. It's a dictionary for figuring out what a word means in popular (or unpopular) use rather than figuring out whether a word is the *right* word according to scholastic tradition.

      Choose your side, but impact (v) makes my teeth grind in the same way that gift (v) does.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    7. Re:"Impact" Earth? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Care to cite anything that indicates that impact (v) was ever incorrect?

      As far as I knew, it was always both a verb and a noun.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:"Impact" Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      impact (v) is in the Oxford Dictionary too, you sniveling autistic crybaby

    9. Re:"Impact" Earth? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      This is the best reference I could find online:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=impact+verb&source=bl&ots=nYuWplC-18&sig=zBL49rmzJPvQ27YAYYe1HjcLyTI&hl=en&ei=K9r5SsGaB5GAMreixNgK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CBsQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=impact%20verb&f=false

      (If the link breaks, the book is Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage)

      In summary:
      While impact as a verb has been around for a long time, it was not until the '80's that it began to be used in business and political contexts as a buzzword substitute for 'affect'. The above reference notes that impact (v) is often used in contexts that are already jargon-heavy, and I think that is what people object to: That a word as empty as 'actionable' or 'synergy' is being used in newspapers, book reports, and conversation. To many of us it just sounds wrong. It falls in the same category as 'irregardless', which despite the protests of millions of anal-retentive etymologists, will likely be a fully fledged OED-certified word within a decade.

      People use grandiloquent language in unnecessary or inappropriate contexts. That is really at the heart of the matter.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    10. Re:"Impact" Earth? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't being used as a substitute for "affect", it was being used as a substitute for "strike". Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the correct use of the verb "impact".

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:"Impact" Earth? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure from your comment here that we disagree on the basic nature of language, and on what is the highest authority on "correct" usage. But setting that aside, I'll play your little game.

      Can you show me a dictionary in which impact is not a verb? I am going to stipulate that the Scrabble dictionary doesn't count, since it serves its purpose by listing at most one part of speech and definition per word.

      While you're pondering that, here's the entry at dictionary.com, which not only includes impact as a verb but lists it as dating back to the late 1700's, in the same time frame as the noun, from the same origin. It notes that there are relatively recent senses of the verb (neither of which is the one used in TFS/A in the first place), but that even they are considered formally correct.

      Frankly, all sources I've found other than your teeth seem unanimous on this one.

    12. Re:"Impact" Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be a cunt or a wanker.

    13. Re:"Impact" Earth? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      To be honest, when I reread the gpp's question it occurred to me that this entire thing might have been a misunderstanding. It is, I concede, purely a matter of taste when deciding to use impact or affect or strike. However, matters of taste are what make slashdot slashdot. I still believe (as I mentioned in another post earlier and elsewhere) that impact usually falls into the same category as actionable, synergy, gifted, etc: words devoid of any added meaning outside their original jargon (and sometimes not even then). Buzzwords. Advertising words.

      In the context of the /. title, the word makes sense. I misread the gpp's intentions and thought he was talking about the word in general usage. Sorry to waste everyone's time being wrong. However, a quick search for impact verb yields 3,530,000 results, most of them regarding this exact topic; I can't help but feel that there is substantial support for my opinion. Despite what the dictionaries say, most of the style and usage guides I consulted said that impact, while often technically correct, is best avoided.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    14. Re:"Impact" Earth? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Impact: (v) To have an impact.

      Sounds like one of those recursive TLAs, like GNU.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  18. You are all missing the *real* point... by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  19. Re:Introduction by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Hey, to be fair, it was kdawson who added the part which basically says "By the way, this was no big deal".

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  20. Slashdot Paranoia by dandart · · Score: 0

    Sometimes, I think scientists want to make us paranoid!

    1. Re:Slashdot Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. That's the government's job...

    2. Re:Slashdot Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't confuse slashdot with science or scientists. slashdot is to science and technology what rush limbaugh is to politics.

      the real article is much less sensationalistic but real science and tech sites worry less about page hits as they do about delivering factual stories instead of hyped fluff.

  21. Re:Introduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, to be fair, the astronomy community regularly covers such events. It seems that it's Slashdot that likes to bring up the perils of NEOs more than anyone else.

  22. Car Analogy? by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

    I think I need a car analogy to fully understand this story.

    --
    Bearded Dragon
    1. Re:Car Analogy? by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Say you're a new galactic overlord driving a car, but you're in space, and you're drunk. You see this big blue planet getting bigger and bigger in your windscreen. At the last possible moment, you hear me yelling to get the hell off my lawn, you suddenly swerve, and miss. But you've ruined Cowboy Neal's tulips, you insensitive clod!

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Car Analogy? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Oh, and PS: This happens twice a year. And about every five years, you don't swerve fast enough.

        (this is the "hauling a trailer" part of the car analogy).

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:Car Analogy? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      An asteroid about the size of a large pickup truck. Does that work?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  23. 8980 meters, eh? by Tsar · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would most likely bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 8980 meters. Minor local damage might occur if a larger fragment happens to hit a house.

    http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=0.001&diam=7&pdens=&pdens_select=8000&vel=17&theta=45&tdens=2500&tdens_select=0

    Thanks for not rounding that off to "nine kilometers" or even "about 10 km" as some less mathematically-inclined contributors would have done. If you've laboriously and precisely calculated that 2009 AV is exactly 7.000 meters in diameter, has a density of 8.000 g/cm3 and will hit the atmosphere at a 45.00 degree angle at exactly 17.00 km/s, why give up that hard-earned precision in your result?

    1. Re:8980 meters, eh? by vlm · · Score: 1

      why give up that hard-earned precision in your result?

      Because he doesn't know your height above sea level, other than its within -500 feet or so, to about 29000 feet or so?

      "The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 8980 meters = 29500 ft"

      Assuming it blew up directly over your head, that would really suck if you just climbed to the top of Mt Everest at 29029 and the final detonation was a mere 471 feet over your head.

      On the other hand, my house at around 900 feet ASL would be about 6 miles away from the final explosion.

      Folks in Denver "mile high city", being about 1/6 closer than my house, would probably have more than 1/6 more damage than my house would get, probably the untrained eye would be able to see the difference.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:8980 meters, eh? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      For the benefit of any new Moderators, sarcastic complaints about significant digits count as "Funny" here at Slashdot.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:8980 meters, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Becasue that was what the math said dipshit. Did you really need to comment on the accuracy of a number? Was it too much for you to understand, a distance in meters? Why does it matter? Having a bad day?

    4. Re:8980 meters, eh? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Thank-you for that diatribe. I enjoyed it greatly.

      In fact, I just posted a much less eloquent rant to someone else in this thread.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:8980 meters, eh? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Because significant digits are important, dipshit.

      "The math" might've said something like "plus or minus 200m" if it had been calculated properly.

      The whole point was that if you're rounding off the numbers to a certain number of significant digits, then only that number of significant digits can result.

      In other words, a tree that is "approximately a foot in diameter" is also approximately 3 feet in circumference, not 3.14159 feet.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  24. No damage, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if it were made of nquadria?

    1. Re:No damage, eh? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Then the periodic table of elements would be completely irrelevant and we would need to re-wright chemistry, physics, and quantum mechanics.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    2. Re:No damage, eh? by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Then the periodic table of elements would be completely irrelevant and we would need to re-wright chemistry, physics, and quantum mechanics.

      Wow, where do YOU work?

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  25. we didn't see it by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    what if we didn't see a 20m asteroid? how about a 100m asteroid? this 7m one makes us think about those possibilities as a completely valid concern

    fear mongering is a big problem in this world. but the antidote to fear mongering is NOT complete imperviousness to fear. that's just as idiotic as fearmongering. what you need is balance between panty twisting hysteria and unresponsive inertia

    fear is a healthy emotion. it keeps you alive. its a valid motivation, when combined with intelligence

    so the proper response to this event is to invest in more monitoring. what is motivating that response? fear. genuine, intelligent, prudent fear

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  26. OMG! Were all gonna Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Oh, wait... 'almost' hit the Earth... Nevermind... Move Along, Nothing To See Here...

  27. Result = no strike by Macka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I shoved some numbers in, making it quite dense with the recommended average velocity for an asteroid, impact angle etc and got the following results:

    Your Inputs:

    Distance from Impact: 1.00 km = 0.62 miles
    Projectile Diameter: 7.00 m = 22.96 ft = 0.00 miles
    Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m3
    Impact Velocity: 17.00 km/s = 10.56 miles/s
    Impact Angle: 45 degrees
    Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
    Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

    Energy:

    Energy before atmospheric entry: 7.79 x 1013 Joules = 0.19 x 10^-1 MegaTons TNT
    The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 5.1 years

    Atmospheric Entry:

    The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 54000 meters = 177000 ft
    The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 34300 meters = 113000 ft
    The residual velocity of the projectile fragments after the burst is 13.7 km/s = 8.49 miles/s
    The energy of the airburst is 2.75 x 1013 Joules = 0.66 x 10^-2 MegaTons.
    No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface.

    Major Global Changes:

    The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
    The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
    The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

  28. Space is getting OLD by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 1

    Pssh. 7 meters? Come on outer space, for all your terrifying voidsomeness you sure aren't flinging much in the way of horror our way. What's this I heard apparently Apophis now isn't even a threat. And the Tunguska incident? Hate to break it to your outer space, but nobody was living int he area you hit. Yeah and you'll probably point out the dinosaurs. Sure sure. Let's see you land a decent hit a little more often then every few million years.
    What's wrong outer space? Having trouble hitting a mote of dust floating in a sunbeam?

    --
    I have nothing compelling to say
    1. Re:Space is getting OLD by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Admit it. When you hit, "Submit", you felt just a tiny bit like it might not be such a good idea to tempt fate. Then you shook your head and got on with your day. But Outer Space does not so easily forget an insult or a dare. . .

      What kind of insurance does your house carry?

      Just askin'.

      -FL

  29. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgranades by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    not with asteroids.

  30. The kind I want to hit Earth by volcanopele · · Score: 1

    A 7-meter wide asteroid isn't very big and would almost certainly explode high up in the atmosphere, causing no damage on the ground, except for random meteorites that reach the ground. For that sized object, I would paint a bull's eye on my roof so I would get to see a nice show.

    --
    The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    1. Re:The kind I want to hit Earth by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, when I first saw the headline I read it as 7 meters (as it actually is) and thought "How is this news?" Then I thought "Well, maybe its 7 miles, if so, how did astronomers miss it until well after it would be too late?" Then I read the article; 7 meters. Ok, I'm not saying its inconsequential, but c'mon... headline news its not. If it hit the atmosphere around here somewhere, that would indeed be cool though.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  31. 7m ?? by afortaleza · · Score: 1

    I didn't know they could resolve a 7m asteroid, that's amazing !

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Re:How Much Damage? Not much! by zerosomething · · Score: 4, Informative

    None. We were hit by one about 10 meters across on October 8th but no one wants to put the story out for some reason. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news165.html

    --
    It all starts at 0
  34. previously unknown entity slams/destroys earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that would be man'kind', as it came to be known?

  35. Re:How Much Damage? Not much! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Good find.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  36. Self-gooooooooaaaaaaal! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

    (If the link breaks, the book is Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage)

    The link is not broken, and here are two snippets that jumped right out at me:

    "But since part of the criticism seems to be based on the erroneous notion that that the verb is derived from the noun based on functional shift, we must first pursue a little "

    and

    "But impact was a verb in English before it was a noun."

    and

    "This is not a case of a verb derived from an earlier noun."

    In summary:
    While impact as a verb has been around for a long time, it was not until the '80's that it began to be used in business and political contexts as a buzzword substitute for 'affect'.

    To the extent that the link supports that view (m-w says you can avoid impact(v) if you like, but does not suggest it's in any way incorrect, and has numerous examples from the 70s), it's talking about the figurative uses of the verb. Whereas the usage in question here is the literal use of the verb, and is 100% irrefutably correct usage since 1601.

    So if that usage "sounds wrong", I think the advice of Meriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is to get over yourself and your incorrect notions.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  37. According to NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA states that
    On average, objects the size of 2009 VA pass this close about twice per year and impact Earth about once every 5 years.

    That doens't make this seem like terrifying news?

  38. Why They Sneak Up by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    I didn't fully appreciate this obvious tidbit until I saw the nifty fictional end of the world done as a news program, "Without Warning".

    Detecting these rocks depends in large part on their lateral motion with respect to the star field -- we see them as moving across the stars. Those that are headed right for us are not moving across the star field. They appear (or would if we detect them) to be stationary or nearly so, and simply growing in size as they approach. The small ones don't become visible at all until very close, so it's not uncommon to detect them after closest approach much less in that very short period when there is visible lateral motion -- as it whizzes by close enough to smell.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Why They Sneak Up by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Correct. We fooled around with this in college at the observatory. We'd take 3 images of the same area of the sky at 3 intervals, say 2 hrs apart. This was on a straight CCD - just pixel values from 0 to 65535, We'd then color all the first one blue, all the second green, and all the third red. We'd overlay them, and everything stationary was whiteish, and anything moving showed up as a series of blue, green, red pixels, all in a line pointing its direction. If we had stray data from stuck pixels or cosmic ray strikes or heat issues, it'd usually show up as one color, as over that time period the orientation of the telescope changed, the temperature changed, etc.
       
      If there's something coming right at us, we're screwed. We'll never see it. However, conservation of angular momentum means that such objects are exceedingly rare. They have to have been perturbed by something else (Jupiter, mostly) to have their orbits changed to something very-non circular. And of course, such a path means it either impacts the sun, gets thrown out of the solar system, or has a massively long orbit. Think comets in that case.
       
      Aside from the lateral motion, the other advantage to spotting them when they are close is that they are brighter. Since space rocks don't glow, the only light we see from them is what's reflected from the sun. How much light does a hunk of rock reflect? Not very much. Now imagine it radiating out in all directions back towards the source. The further away it is, the less light per area impacts your collector. (For comparison, the moon reflects about as much light as pavement does. It's just big and close by, which is why it looks so bright. )

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Why They Sneak Up by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      d00d! Awesome solution to detection. All we had (harumph, get off my lawn!) was blink comparators. Hey, they were good enough for Clyde Tombaugh.

      As for detection by reflection, the albedo (per cent of light reflected) depends on the composition (thus is used with spectrals for classification):

      Type Albedo
      Carbonaceous .03 to .09
      Silicate .1 to .22
      Metallic .1 to .18

      By comparison the moon has an albedo of .12.
      The Earth's is very high due to atmosphere, oceans and clouds: Albedo 0.39 (thank you Professor Vangelis) Not listed but becoming a point of concern is cometary material NEOs. High albedo due to ices so easy to see, but may be infalling from the Kuiper belt so have small lateral motion. 82 are listed among the NEOs. Whereas the harder rocks might shatter upon entry into atmosphere and the parts carry off the kinetic energy, these snowballs might heat and explode almost entirely, causing a pretty hefty air blast. The Tunguska event may have been caused by such a snowball, a fragment of Comet Encke.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  39. NEAR HIT?? Mod down tagging. by black3d · · Score: 1

    Why do some idiots persist in claiming that a near miss is actually a "near hit". Every time there's an article about an asteroid missing earth, or a plane coming close to another plane, some retard argues against a statement in the article saying it was a "near miss" and insists that their superior knowledge points to the obvious fact that it was a "near hit". However, this is completely wrong. There's no real term as a "near hit".

    "Near" in this context defines distance rather than relative causality. A "Near Miss" means "The objects came near to eachother, and missed" as opposed to the clear misinterpretation that it must mean "The objects nearly missed eachother."

    Oh hell.. I'm lazy.. Here you go.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_miss_(safety) The damn phrase is a term. Whatever you may believe it to mean, no matter how you semantically break it down and decide that reporters must be wrong, the phrase DOES actually have a definitive meaning. Go with it.

    --
    "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    1. Re:NEAR HIT?? Mod down tagging. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's a close miss. If the word "near" is used, it makes more sense to say it was a near hit than it does to say a near miss.

      If you say something was a "near disaster", you don't mean a disaster happened close to you. If you say you had a "near death experience", you don't mean somebody died next door. If you say "near collision" or "near hit", you don't mean something collided near you. You mean it barely missed you. Why should "near miss" mean exactly the same thing as "near collision"?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  40. And in other news... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    ...Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck reported the nondescript need to do something involving a drill at or around the exact same time...

  41. If this is so important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is so important and true, how come there's no wikipedia article on 2009 VA?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=2009+VA&sourceid=Mozilla-search

  42. Numbers don't match up by kasperd · · Score: 1

    The summary claims asteroids this size pass this close twice a year, and hit once in five years. That means a lot must have passed this close and not hit. But yet the summary also claims that it has been seen only twice before.

    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  43. Counting Your Chickens by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    Whenever there's one of these asteroid articles I go to JPL's impact risk page and calculate the current cumulative impact risk of all listed NEOs. I do this by taking the tables at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ and copying them into a spreadsheet. Column D is the cumulative impact risk per entry. I take the sum down both tables in that column.

    According to the 10 NOV 2009 list of 259 NEOs, the cumulative impact risk over the next 100 years (plus a few extra years for the couple rocks calculated farther out) is 1.52%, or a 1 in 66 chance, or a 98.48% chance that none of these will hit Earth in the next hundred years.

    None of THESE. This is the list of *known* NEOs. As TFA testifies, sometimes they sneak up on us.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  44. Hot Fudge Sundae by tengu1sd · · Score: 1

    Hot Fudge Sundae has been postponed again. If this had been actual Hot Fudge Sundae the government would have covered it up.

  45. Am I the only one? by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    I know, I know, the answer is probably, "Yes!", but this thing came within 14,000 km of Earth. I know there's more than a few satellites out at that orbital distance. Did any of them get hit? They never seem to mention the catastrophic consequences to global navigation, communication and weather prediction should one of these objects pass just close enough to take out some key orbiting satellites, let alone hit the planet. Yikes! if one of these flying rocks ever takes out a bunch of satellites as it cruises through!

  46. Re:How Much Damage? Not much! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they change the definition from "Harmless" to "Mostly Harmless" yet?

  47. Windows 7 advertising by crispi · · Score: 1

    I know MS has been advertising Windows 7 a lot, but to sponsor a near miss with a 7m asteroid - that takes some doing.

  48. What about them satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although this baby didn't hit Earth, and wouldn't have done much damage if it had, it came close enough to potentially knock satellites in Medium Earth and Geosynchronous Earth orbits out of the sky.

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully NASA's primary function is moving towards Al Gores climate change agenda, other wise we might have better monitoring of stuff that really exists. Like asteroids.