2010 AL30, Asteroid Or Space Junk, To Pay a Close Visit

astroengine writes "A near-Earth object that could be manmade has just been discovered hurtling toward us. On Wednesday (Jan. 13), an object called 2010 AL30 will fly by Earth at a distance of just 130,000 km (80,000 miles). That's only one-third of the way from here to the moon, i.e. very close. It will miss us, and if it did hit us, it wouldn't do any damage anyway, but I managed to pick up on some chatter between planetary scientists and found out that the 'asteroid,' or whatever it is, gives us a new standard: a 10-meter-wide asteroid can be detected two days before it potentially hits Earth. A pretty useful warning if you ask me."

Comments

VGER

[Anonymous Coward]

V*GER is coming home!

Re:VGER

[ThinkWeak]

Oddly enough, the first film seemed like it took two days to watch as well

Two days?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Not much of a sodding warning. Can you stock up & get to high ground/underground in two days?

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much of a sodding warning. Can you stock up & get to high ground/underground in two days?

No, but you don't need to. For a 10m asteroid impact the damage would be localized (a Tunguska or Hiroshima sized event), all you need to do is get out of the way.

More serious impact hazards would come from larger asteroids which are more likely to be discovered as hazards to the Earth farther in advance (or at least one hopes).

Re:Two days?

[jamesh]

Not much of a sodding warning. Can you stock up & get to high ground/underground in two days?

At least you can't say you weren't warned!

Besides, how much warning do you need to put your head between your legs and kiss your bum goodbye?

Re:Two days?

[TubeSteak]

I imagine an object that small can be blown to itty bitty pieces with conventional explosives.
The pieces would make a nice light show while burning up in the atmosphere, but that's about it.

Re:Two days?

[BarMonger]

Why would you need to stock up and get to high ground, for an object this small?
It will most likely be destroyed in the atmosphere upon entry, should it "hit" the Earth.

Re:Two days?

[Krneki]

More then enough to Duck & Cover.

Re:Two days?

[Lord Bitman]

more than enough time to plot where it will hit and be ready with a baseball bat.

Re:Two days?

[Ginger Unicorn]

sounds like a recipe for carnage if the projected impact zone is a highly populated area. hey everyone in new york city - you have two days to clear the city - ready,steady,go!

although that carnage is neither here nor there when the alternative is being obliterated instantly.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

short answer: yes

Re:Two days?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Also, instant obliteration ranks pretty damn high on the list of pleasant exits. Even in areas with fun stuff like sanitation and modern medicine, a great many people should be so lucky.

It's the poor bastards on the edge of the obliteration zone that have something to cry about.

Re:Two days?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There was a turtle by the name of Burt, and Burt the turtle was very alert...

Re:Two days?

[mpe]

No, but you don't need to. For a 10m asteroid impact the damage would be localized (a Tunguska or Hiroshima sized event), all you need to do is get out of the way.

Rather depends what it is made of and how much makes it down to a low altitude. Rather larger space stations have been deorbited without such low level explosions. Nor did the crash of Columbia create any large explosions, even though substantial parts of the vehicle did hit the ground.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

True - however a space station is mostly air surrounded by a thin metal shell. Most asteroids probably aren't hollow objects like a space station. It would be like comparing say a cardboard box and a rock of the same size. The empty box has one hell of a lot less mass.

Re:Two days?

[MrMr]

From driving there I was under the impression that everybody got into and out of New York city on a daily basis anyway.
Why would this be different?

Re:Two days?

[brunokummel]

Not much of a sodding warning. Can you stock up & get to high ground/underground in two days?

...humm you could get high...

Re:Two days?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If it is ice and dust, or ice and scientifically interesting hydrocarbon goo, it probably wouldn't be a big deal. A 10-meter wide nickel-iron lump could be moderately exciting.

Re:Two days?

[morgan_greywolf]

(a Tunguska or Hiroshima sized event)

Do you have any idea what you just said? On the day of the Hiroshima "event," 70,000 people died and another 70,000 people died by the end of 1945, most from radiation poisoning.

Two days' warning: Imagine if one these things hit a major U.S. city. Think of the problems evacuating New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Do you still think 2 days is adequate?

Re:Two days?

[rubycodez]

I was hoping to have some hot young chick let me kiss her bum goodbye

Re:Two days?

[Muad'Dave]

I don't think he meant that the loss of life would be equivalent to that of the Hiroshima event; rather that the blast intensity would be the same. There's a very large difference between a 15kT explosion at or near ground level vs one high in the atmosphere - witness the difference in loss of life between Hiroshima (15kT) and Tunguska (15MT) - 70k vs 2. Yes, the population density was vastly different, but the Tunguska blast is estimated to have been around 10-15 MT - 1000x the size of the Hiroshima blast.

Re:Two days?

[Yamata no Orochi]

I have a pretty good idea what he just said, and it makes pretty good sense.

70,000 versus 6,000,000,000?

Pretty minor.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

The box contains nothing.

Nothing has more mass than the entire universe

Therefore, the box has more mass than the rock.

Re:Two days?

[JustOK]

or cricket bat, depending on location.

Re:Two days?

[CubicleView]

You could get to both very quickly if you were near enough to ground zero. You, wouldn't need to worry about supplies then either.

Re:Two days?

[PacoCheezdom]

Ah yes, standing on a mountaintop in northern Siberia under the rapidly descending bulk of asteroid McAlmont with a calculating expression and a baseball bat. It will be a good day to die.

Re:Two days?

[IndustrialComplex]

sounds like a recipe for carnage if the projected impact zone is a highly populated area. hey everyone in new york city - you have two days to clear the city - ready,steady,go!

A healthy person can easily walk 20 miles in a day. At a distance of 5 miles from a Hiroshima sized explosion, you would very likely (+99%) survive.

As long as it doesn't hit a nuclear reactor directly, there will be little to no radiation. It would be like a giant TNT bomb, so calculating projected casualties using PSI measurements is possible.

Re:Two days?

[IndustrialComplex]

or cricket bat, depending on location.

Unidentified objects coming from space? A cricket bat might either be insanely insensitive or insanely suicidal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Krikkiters

Re:Two days?

[mcgrew]

Not much of a sodding warning. Can you stock up & get to high ground/underground in two days?

You wouldn't have to, as TFS says it would do no damage if it did strike. The "two days" is important because the larger the object, the faster it can be detected.

Re:Two days?

[jschen]

Others have already pointed out that the objects you compared with are not nearly as massive as an asteroid of comparable size. Furthermore, energy scales with not just mass, but also velocity squared. Asteroids approach at much higher closing speeds than something in low earth orbit that is being nudged back toward the surface. And anything we put into orbit is going to have much more aerodynamic drag per unit mass than a small lump of metal alloy, so it will slow down much more on the way down. Thus the significantly higher damage from an asteroid as compared with something in low earth orbit of the same mass

Re:Two days?

[cichlid]

get to high ground...?

For a really big one, you're only choice will be to get high.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you don't need to. For a 10m asteroid impact the damage would be localized (a Tunguska or Hiroshima sized event), all you need to do is get out of the way.

More serious impact hazards would come from larger asteroids which are more likely to be discovered as hazards to the Earth farther in advance (or at least one hopes).

Seeing the mention of the Tunguska event (also thought to have been caused by an object around 10m) reminds me of this recent NEO documentary by the SGAC (Space Generation Advisory Council): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68yuWYNztM&feature=PlayList&p=DC5F91F6EAD53191&index=0#t=7m15s - this links directly to the Tunguska section but the whole documentary deals with NEO (Near Earth Objects) both their discovery and their mitigation.

Hopefully some of you will find it interesting and maybe even lessen some of the wilder speculations.

Re:Two days?

[operagost]

Don't forget your towel!

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you can rape the fuck out of every cunt you like, and torture every ass you hate to death in those two days. ^^

Re:Two days?

[fulldecent]

>> Two days' warning: Imagine if one these things hit a major U.S. city. Think of the problems evacuating New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Do you still think 2 days is adequate?

Yup.

I'll take the predictions of NASA over the NOAA any day.

Re:Two days?

[Ginger Unicorn]

Is the daily number of commuters the same as the size of the entire population of the city? If so i suppose it wouldn't be that much different. but another factor to weigh in is that commuters aren't fleeing for their lives, and are likely to be much more patient, and not start attacking one another when a traffic jam builds up. As soon as something out of the ordinary and disruptive like that happens i can't help thinking it would rapidly compound and spiral out of control.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

what, your bug out box isn't packed?
Did you not learn the parable of the grasshopper and the ant?
Hopefully this trait is genetic and we will but shut of your ilk in the post collision world.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget exact numbers, but the MTA transports between 1-2million people per day, then there are cars, cabs, buses and trains moving people in/out of Manhattan. In daytime the streets are filled with thousands and thousands cars, at night all the cars are all gone leaving only cabs, and yet at day parking is impossible and at night it's not as hard, so you have to wonder where did all the cars go? (answer: outside Manhattan) So evacuating a city like new york in two days is not only possible, but it would probably cost well under $20/person and need no emergency protocols. Reversing street directions is already done in a lot of places in nyc for example lots of bridges and tunnels reverse traffic in the morning to allow inbound traffic to enter Manhattan more smoothly, and revert to an even balance of in/outbound for the rest of the day

Re:Two days?

[GWRedDragon]

Also, instant obliteration ranks pretty damn high on the list of pleasant exits. Even in areas with fun stuff like sanitation and modern medicine, a great many people should be so lucky. It's the poor bastards on the edge of the obliteration zone that have something to cry about.

The situation might suck really bad, but personally I'd rather have the chance to survive. Anyhow, we're not talking about an actual nuclear bomb, where being at the edge of the crater zone is much worse because it means a slow death due to radiation poisoning. With a small asteroid impact, you are probably going to be worried about more mundane things like fire, building collapse, riots, etc.

Re:Two days?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the mothership coming to get all senators and congressmen to take them back home, and oh yeah uhhhh barrack uhhhhhh obama uhhhhhhh (barracks favorite word) last three presidents favorite word

Re:Two days?

[RockDoctor]

witness the difference in loss of life between Hiroshima (15kT) and Tunguska (15MT) - 70k vs 2.

I've not heard of reliable reports that anyone was killed in Tunguska, though it's entirely feasible. It's also entirely feasible, given the areas' population density, that no-one was killed.
Do you have a source for this claim? I don't recall seeing it the last time I looked at the Wikipedia article, and I can't be bothered to trace this rumour further.

Re:Two days?

[Muad'Dave]

I should've attributed those numbers to this article.

Re:Two days?

[RockDoctor]

OK, now I feel guilty. And I've got 10 minutes before lunch.
A lot of the recent research on the Tunguska impact has come out of a university in Italy ... should be the most reliable source. Bologna university. Do they have a summary of "best evidence"? not that I can find.
"Closer to the site, windowpanes shattered, livestock were knocked off their feet and broken bones resulted when people were dashed to the ground."
"Yet, owing to the area's remoteness, only one nomad lost his life."
"Remarkably, there were only two reported human deaths." Oh, sorry, that's your link.

[SIGH] Pick a number, any number you want.

2 days?

[Maskedman]

2 days is good, but what about the object coming from behind the sun?

More work should be able to see what's coming from the 'blind spot'.

Re:2 days?

[flyingfsck]

My guess is that schtuff coming from behind the sun mostly tends to fall either into the sun, or be wildly accelerated away in a hyperbole. So the 'blind spot' is likely a rather 'safe spot'.

Re:2 days?

[Maskedman]

ESA used their Gaia spacecraft back in around 2002 to probe the blind spot behind the sun, so they are taking it seriously.

But NEA's are coming at different speeds/trajectories, all those variables determines where it ends up, having a blind spot behind the sun doesn't help tracking them.

Re:2 days?

[j-b0y]

Unlikely! Gaia will not be launched until 2012.

Re:2 days?

[Maskedman]

Sorry, that's true...but the point is that they ARE doing this to probe the blind spot behind the sun.

Re:2 days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone want to probe the blind spot behind the sun? It would not be blind anyways after 6 months, right?

Re:2 days?

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

Perhaps they are all fans of the Chronicles of Gor by John Norman, and really want to search the blind spot to see if Gor, or counter-earth as it is also known, actually exists...

Re:2 days?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not sure I even want to imagine the congressional hearings(or, rather, the various localized largely parlimentary equivalents) that would result if it were discovered that the ESA's exploration agenda were being driven by a rather silly cabal of sci-fi fetishists...

Re:2 days?

[j-b0y]

As someone else said, there are no blind spots as such, over a long enough period of time.

Gaia will build an astrometric/photometric catalogue of all objects from mag 7ish down to mag 20 + a little bit. This is about 10^9 objects, some of which will be solar system objects. So yes it will see many objects which are could be a problem. It will almost certainly be in contact with the Minor Planet Center.

However there are better telescopes for doing this sort of object detection (LSST etc), although the final astrometry will be better from Gaia if enough observations can be made - this is certainly going to help ephemeris calculation.

Re:2 days?

[Muad'Dave]

...wildly accelerated away in a hyperbole

How apropos - "wildly accelerated" is hyperbole. Oh you mean "hyperbola".

Re:2 days?

[Hal_Porter]

After the end of the world predicted by the Mayans? Great.

Re:2 days?

[mcgrew]

What was the name of the planet in Asimov's story? Nemesis? In the Asimov universe, Gaia isn't anywhere near the earth; it's a planet where the whole planet is sentient, including the rocks and grass.

But the new Gaia is ne, I'm old school.

Re:2 days?

[PriceIke]

You're not one of the Knights, are you?

Re:2 days?

[mcgrew]

Apparently so. Damned cheap keyboard (mumble grumble)

Nobody asked you, thanks.

[Rogerborg]

• Scientician: Mr President of Earth, we've picked up an asteroid on a potential collision course with earth!
• Mr President of Earth: Great Scott! Will it hit us?
• Scientician: Yes! Maybe. I mean, probably. We're pretty sure that it might.
• Mr President of Earth: And how much damage will it do?
• Scientician: Ah, a good question. That depends on what it's made of.
• Mr President of Earth: What's it made of?
• Scientician: We're 92% confident that we'll learn that with a 57% probability after it hits us.
• Mr President of Earth: ... 'k. And where will it hit?
• Scientician: Well, if it hits the earth, it's more likely to hit a wet bit. Unless it doesn't. And it'll probably be in the Northern hemisphere, unless it's not.
• Mr President of Earth: So we should...?
• Scientician: Well, gee, sir, that's your decision. I just do the Science.

Re:Nobody asked you, thanks.

[petes_PoV]

And that's about as good as a 3-day weather forecast, too.

Re:Nobody asked you, thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

what a pity it doesn't work like that for the 100 year weather forecast of climate change.

Re:Nobody asked you, thanks.

[stjobe]

Scientician? WTF?

Ah:

"According to The Simpsons, a "scientician" is "a scientist with questionable credentials who publicly supports spurious hypotheses."

Re:Nobody asked you, thanks.

[Rogerborg]

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Nobody asked you, thanks.

[kellyb9]

Mr President of Earth: Great Scott! Will it hit us?

President Doc Brown?

Not an asteroid?

[Rhaban]

Isn't a man-made space objet, like a satellite, much easier to detect than a piece of rock because it's all metally and shiny (except in the case of a secret orbtial space station with climate laser weapons used for the supremacy of an evil overlord ready to conquier the world, but it seems unlikely such a thing would just fall out of its orbit)?

If so, it doesn't really tell us anything about detecting a earth-crushing meteor far before the impact.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[cskau]

...(except in the case of a secret orbtial space station with climate laser weapons used for the supremacy of an evil overlord ready to conquier the world, but it seems unlikely such a thing would just fall out of its orbit)?

Maybe such a station is just the answer to the problem of asteroids? It would be 'Asteroids' in HD-3D ! I think I just got a great idea for a movie..

Re:Not an asteroid?

[kalidasa]

Or, in somewhat more technical terms, the fact that they suspect it's manmade suggests it has a very high albedo, which would make it much easier to find.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[mbone]

Yes. A 2 or 3 meter spacecraft could look like a 10 meter asteroid (and would typically not weigh much even for its size, being probably largely hollow).

Everything that leaves the Earth to go into solar orbit will return to the close vicinity of the Earth's orbit, unless the spacecraft has its orbit further modified. So, for example, the upper stages of spacecraft sent on to elsewhere will typically come back to the vicinity of our orbit. If there is any sort of orbit commensurability, periodically the Earth will also be at that point in its orbit at the same time, and so you will get a close approach.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[IrquiM]

It would be 'Asteroids' in HD-3D !

- on ice!

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Kentari]

You are correct. The size estimate based on the assumption that it is a natural object is 90-190m, depending on the albedo. It is derived of the absolute magnitude (22.453). If it is a man made object, it is a lot smaller that that, probably smaller than 20m and in the size range of the 3rd stage of a Saturn V. A radar was scheduled to ping the object this morning and more information should follow soon...

An impact of a 100m object would be bad on a local scale, but not earth-crushing. Evacuating the affected area in 2 days would be near impossible if it were a densely populated area.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Suki I]

but it seems unlikely such a thing would just fall out of its orbit)?

Don't forget the James Bond possibility!

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Sockatume]

It's not thought to be "space junk" any more: it was thought it might be an old booster segment but apparently based on its path there's no rocket launch that it could've come from.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[mpe]

Isn't a man-made space objet, like a satellite, much easier to detect than a piece of rock because it's all metally and shiny

Natural objects can be made of the likes of iron. Not much oxygen in space to cause this to rust.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[david.given]

It's not thought to be "space junk" any more: it was thought it might be an old booster segment but apparently based on its path there's no rocket launch that it could've come from.

Incoming alien spaceship, perhaps? 130000km is a good distance to approach to; it's safely clear of our geostationary satellite belt, but still close enough for a good look. Plus, our puny earth technology can't actually get that far without about six months' lead time. 10m isn't big by our standards but any spacefaring civilisation is unlikely to be crewing their ships with canned primates anyway so there's no real grounds for comparison.

Alas, there's no way of estimating what sort of drive it's got, and therefore when it would start needing to brake; but we don't even know whether it's going into orbit or not. I mean, we can probably assume that these guys are intelligent, so why would they want to come here? I don't want to be here, and I evolved here...

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely. Plus if this was detected something similar to radar it does tell us something about early detection, but if it was spotted by telescope it tells us nothing. You can spot pretty small things at large distances if you point a big telescope right at it, but you have a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 chance that the rock is right where you're looking.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Waffle Iron]

And the weirdest thing is that on closer observation it seems to be a dark, perfectly rectangular prism.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Thud457]

It's considered rude to show up unannounced and then put yourself in an orbit that would lead to a collision if you were a free-falling body.

e.g.Lying Bastard's arrival at the Ringworld.

Re:Not an asteroid?

[jefu]

And the lengths of the various dimensions are in the ratio of 1x4x9 !

Re:Not an asteroid?

[An anonymous Frank]

If my calculations are correct it will turn out to be a jet engine from a passenger airline plane...

Just ask Frank (the rabbit).

Re:Not an asteroid?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check launch history, there is, infact, two potential launches which could have. A Russian precursor to Vostok failed, final result unknown but if it had bounced off the atmosphere instead of burned up it could have reached such an orbit. The other result being part of Apollo 10, being awfully close to matching the orbit, close enough that it could have been perturbed into it's current orbit.

Doesn't mean anything

[noname444]

The fact that we've detected a 10m wide object once, a couple of days before it hits (or doesn't hit), doesn't mean anything. It might be that we can detect every such object or one in a million.

Re:Doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly: "can be detected" might not be the same as "will be detected". I suspect they are not the same...but would be happy to be told otherwise!

Re:Doesn't mean anything

[khallow]

The fact that we've detected a 10m wide object once, a couple of days before it hits (or doesn't hit), doesn't mean anything. It might be that we can detect every such object or one in a million.

Sure it does. It means we can detect objects 10m wide. And we already have a good idea of the frequency of an asteroid impact of this size (due to power law relationship between asteroid mass and impact frequency). Namely, a 5-10m wide asteroid hits the Earth roughly once every year. Asteroids passing within the Moon's orbital radius of Earth occur probably on the order of a thousand per year (I don't know the relative difference in cross-sectional area, the latter is roughly 2,000 times greater in area, but the Earth is at the bottom of a big gravity well). So at one in a million, this would be an event that happens roughly once every thousand years, plus or minus a large factor. My take is that this observation indicates we're getting significantly better at asteroid detection.

Further, it's worth noting that asteroids in this size category pose no serious threat to Earth. If our systems are sensitive enough to pick up asteroids much smaller than the minimal threat level, that is a good sign that we can pick up asteroids that are a threat to us.

Re:Doesn't mean anything

[IndustrialComplex]

If our systems are sensitive enough to pick up asteroids much smaller than the minimal threat level, that is a good sign that we can pick up asteroids that are a threat to us.

I just hope that 'better than 2 days' with respect to larger objects is exponentially better.

"What, I told you we could do better, I gave you 3 days warning on that rogue planet from the Oort cloud"

Re:Doesn't mean anything

[khallow]

"What, I told you we could do better, I gave you 3 days warning on that rogue planet from the Oort cloud"

Comet Hale-Bopp would be much smaller than a "rogue planet". It was discovered 7.2 AU out in 1995 with closest approach almost two years later.

Re:Doesn't mean anything

[SPickett]

Also, detecting objects depends a great deal on the direction it is coming from. If it's coming from the vicinity of the Sun, it's much harder to see.

Oblig. Futurama reference

[Anonymous Coward]

So should we send another ball of garbage to deflect it?

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference

[jefu]

You mean Bruce Willis? (oblig Armageddon reference).

Constant Velocity

[icantbemiyu]

The two days advance notice should only apply to object's with a velocity/distance the same as this object. Unless the object is farther away but moving faster, where the distance it takes for the object to get from point A to point B is exactly the same amount of time as the AL30.

Re:On Wednesday (Jan. 13),

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, still two and a half hours to go for Wednesday here... where are you, the Cook Islands? Not the best place to be when a large object splashes into the ocean...

Not this shit again!

[Anonymous Coward]

This science crap is boring. Please post another article about WoW, Star Wars or some comic books shit. Quickly please!

Is that figure really relevant?

[RichiH]

I mean, sure, it's nice to know that they are able to detect such an object, but the key here is probability. Was this pure chance/luck that they found it or are they 99.999% sure that they will detect any such object within the given timeframe?

Re:Is that figure really relevant?

[vlm]

I mean, sure, it's nice to know that they are able to detect such an object, but the key here is probability. Was this pure chance/luck that they found it or are they 99.999% sure that they will detect any such object within the given timeframe?

Another interesting related question, how often do they "look" for objects with that trajectory? Constantly? Every hour? One time?

Re:Is that figure really relevant?

[RichiH]

They can not look for trajectory directly. They detect something and try to find it on the next pictures. Once they have done that, the trajectory is known. Further observations refine the trajectory estimate.

Re:Is that figure really relevant?

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, see the summary says "can be detected." It can be. We've done it. You're thinking "will be detected," which nobody said anything about.

That's your own fault

[dreamchaser]

If you do not always have at least one (preferably at least four) weeks of food and water handy then you're daft anyways. We've grown so complacent and soft. I'm not a survivalist per se but we keep plenty of food stores and several gallons of potable water handy in case of a natural (or even unnatural) disaster.

As for getting to high ground, well you chose where you live :)

Re:That's your own fault

[ceoyoyo]

I have lots of neighbours. They should last for months.

Re:That's your own fault

[turbidostato]

" I'm not a survivalist per se but we keep plenty of food stores and several gallons of potable water handy in case of a natural (or even unnatural) disaster."

You store the food, I'll store the weapons. See what happens when I pay you a visit after the armaggedon.

Re:That's your own fault

[Bios_Hakr]

I guess it depends on where you live, but having food and water stored isn't always useful. In the event of a disaster, you may be required to move quickly. Will you have time to gather supplies?

Water is, by far, the toughest problem. You need about a gallon per day per person. Each gallon is about, what, 8lb? Very hard to move that.

Personally, I think that everyone needs, in this order:

1. Water purification system (either a gallon of bleach or chlorine tablets)
2. Case of MREs (12 packs per case and 1500 calories per pack)
3. Pistol with ammunition
4. Rifle with scope and ammunition
5. Multi tool

Being able to filter and purify water will be much more useful in the long run. Practice mixing bleach and water and get used to the taste. It will smell and taste a bit like bleach, but it won't kill you. Add some drink mix (from the MREs) to help the kids out.

A single MRE will last a single person 2 days. It won't be pleasant, but it can be done.

The pistol is to keep anyone from taking your stuff.

The rifle is to hunt animals. Learn to shoot, dress, and cook a rabbit. Dogs and cats would be dressed in much the same way. Just tell everyone it's a rabbit and they won't have to think about it.

Re:That's your own fault

[dreamchaser]

We weren't on the topic of weapons. Trust me in that we (my wife and I) are both well armed :)

If you have skills or useful gear to bring to the table we might share some food with you though. Otherwise...well 'nuff said.

Re:That's your own fault

[dreamchaser]

I guess it depends on where you live, but having food and water stored isn't always useful. In the event of a disaster, you may be required to move quickly. Will you have time to gather supplies?

That's what a 'go bag' is for. One should always have several days of food and hopefully water in a ready to grab package such as a backpack.

Re:That's your own fault

[SQLGuru]

In terms of small objects that may or may not burn up in the atmosphere, wouldn't somewhat lower ground be better? If you are on the top of Mt. McKinley vs sea level, how much less/more of the object in question would burn up (angle off of vertical would matter, I know).

Re:That's your own fault

[Shakrai]

The pistol is to keep anyone from taking your stuff.

What are you gonna do when they show up with rifles? Pistol doesn't do you much good in a real combat situation. It's only real advantage is that it's small enough to conceal and you don't really have an excuse not to carry one. There's an expression somewhere along the lines of "The pistol is the gun that you use to fight your way back to a real gun." I'm somewhat surprised that you left the shotgun off your list. Hard to get more versatile than a shotgun.

My list would look like this:

1. Pistol for concealable self-defense when the long guns can't accompany you. Ideally this will be in a common caliber (.45 ACP or 9x19 are probably your best bets) that's easier to find if your own supplies should run low.
2. 12 gauge pump action shotgun. With the right loads you can hunt just about anything in North America with this weapon. It also does double duty as a short range defensive weapon.
3. Service rifle for self-defense. The AR-15 and civilian variants of the AK-47 both come to mind, as does the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30. The AR and Mini-14 are probably better bets in the US as .223/5.56mm will be easier to come by. If you live in a restrictive state that's afraid of black rifles then a M1 Garand will do in a pinch. You lose some magazine capacity but gain a lot more range and stopping power. The .30-06 Springfield is still the most common high power caliber in North America and will be easier to find supplies for than most other calibers.

I would consider a bolt action rifle an optional addition to the above list. The 12 gauge is a more useful tool. You can hunt anything from varmint to birds to medium game with the shotgun. If I was going to add a bolt action, I'd probably get a centerfire rifle in a common caliber (.30-06 would be my choice) for long range shooting and a rimfire rifle (.22LR) for varmint hunting and cheap training.

Re:That's your own fault

[sznupi]

Cats?! You don't want to save anything that makes you human?!

PS. This one gallon per day per person isn't as bad as it sounds - it's a total water input necessary, including what you get in meals.

A what where now?!

[Provocateur]

Even more alarming is where I heard it first...on frackin Slashdot!

* me nervous

Could be manmade?

[Silpher]

This means we dont know if something that comes out of space could be ours? I mean at that distance? How much stuff have we launched that went there and could come back??

Re:Could be manmade?

[RoboRay]

Basic orbital mechanics is that ANYTHING launched away from the Earth that doesn't achieve solar system escape velocity WILL come back to us eventually, so long as it doesn't hit something else or have it's orbit perturbed by passing too close to another large body.

Re:Could be manmade?

[mmcxii]

I think they were more asking about how much stuff of this size have we really put out that far that we haven't kept track of.

10 meters wide, that's a large size for a man made object. On top of that consider that this object is coming from outside the geosynchronous range. Now, how many man made objects are there that are larger 10 meters wide and outside of geosync? And how the hell did they lose track of them? I think it's a pretty interesting question.

Re:Could be manmade?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will come back into the solar system, it will not necessarily come back to Earth.

Colonel, you better have a look at this radar...

[franiu]

Radar Operator: Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Radar Operator: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant...
Jet Pilot: Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard.
Co-Pilot: Oh my God, it looks like a huge...
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.
Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Ooh, Where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Over there. What sort of bird is that? Wait, it's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's...
Army Sergeant: Privates. We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with...
Baseball Umpire: Two balls.
[looking up from game]
Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous...
Chinese Teacher: Wang. pay attention.
Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying...
Musician: Willie.
Willie: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie: [squints] Well, that looks like a huge...
Colonel: Johnson.
Radar Operator: Yes, sir?
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.

We should get ready for Dr. Evil...

Damn you, Superman!

[adosch]

Thank you Superman for throwing that Hydrogen bomb out into space in 'Superman 2'. We're all potentially doomed by your stupidity and lack of knowledge in the realm of physics and astronomy. I expected more out of a super hero.

Re:Damn you, Superman!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

You know, Superman never exactly demonstrated super-intelligence. I mean, he was a *journalist* for Pete's sake. Do you remember those journalism majors in college? Serious about partying, but not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

It's the giant ball of garbage we launched years

[antifoidulus]

ago. Quick, deploy the smell-o-scope!

Misplaced Confidence

[hyades1]

"It will miss us, and if it did hit us, it wouldn't do any damage anyway, but I managed to pick up on some chatter between planetary scientists and found out that the 'asteroid,' or whatever it is, gives us a new standard: a 10-meter-wide asteroid can be detected two days before it potentially hits Earth. A pretty useful warning if you ask me."

Whether or not something that size, or even a lot larger, would get picked up depends on so many factors that being the least bit confident seems a bit premature. Orbit, speed, albedo, whether or not the right telescope was pointing the right way under the right weather conditions...all these factors (and no doubt a whole bunch of others I didn't think of)...would determine whether or not the thing was spotted. And having noticed it, would there be time to do anything about it?

The author might be right that a new standard has been reached, though I wonder whether luck had more to do with it. Whether that new standard has any practical value is another question entirely.

Re:It's the giant ball of garbage we launched year

[Anonymous Coward]

The subject line is not where your message should begin.

Close encounters

[Muad'Dave]

If you can trust extrapolating the orbit backwards in time (you can't), JPL's orbital tool shows that this object had a 'close encounter' with Venus on Apr 15th, 2006. It also looks suspiciously like an Earth-Mars trajectory launched around Jan 12th, 2007. I was unable to find any corresponding launches, however.

Real Astronomers (TM) have now discounted the object being man-made, but it is interesting to speculate.

Re:Close encounters

[maxume]

So the Nazi rocketry program got further than we ever imagined and Hitler will have his revenge?

How Fast How Furious

[Anonymous Coward]

It all depends on how fast the object is traveling. It is very possible that an object 100m wide could slam into earth before we even know its there if it were traveling fast enough. The universe is a very unpredictable place due to its complexity. So little is known. How do we know an object the size of a planet could not travel at three quarters the speed of light?

All about speed

[Mirkman]

Depends on how fast the object is moving. Who is to say that a 100m wide object could not conceivably travel at 3/4 the speed of light? Even an object the size of Jupiter is small relative to the expansiveness and energy contained within just our own tiny little galaxy. Lets think objectively here. We do not only have to worry about NEO's. Massive waves of gravity fluxuation, unimaginable blasts of radiation, and self assured destruction are all significant threats to life. I have confidence we can track and mitigate NEO's within our own solar system. Anything outside that is wishful thinking at this point in our existence.

Re:All about speed

[IndustrialComplex]

Who is to say that a 100m wide object could not conceivably travel at 3/4 the speed of light?

Lack of any supernovas in our immediate corner of the galaxy. 3/4 the speed of light? I'd be surprised to know of anything that wasn't plasma capable of being accelerated to that velocity.

Re:All about speed

[onepoint]

It's an interesting question, if I could put a rocket on a chunk of metal in space, could I make it move fast enough to hit 3/4 light speed ?

I figured that if the dust does not destroy it, could it go that fast ???

I guess I would start by piloting the rocket towards the sun to get a grav boost, that should help a lot, then after passing the sun, light the fuse

Re:All about speed

[sznupi]

No, that speed is far beyond practical limits of chemical rockets. Also, novel kinds of propulsion generally rarely would have a chance to go beyond 10%, if remaining practical.

And read up about gravity assist more. Suffice to say, you can't obtain via slingshot the energy from the Sun while still being in orbit around it; and if you already aren't, it would be only practical in certain directions relative to the movement of the Sun around the Milky Way.

What would work is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect , but not after passing the Sun (which would count as a grave waste of fuel) but during nearest approach.

JPL Close Earth Approaches

[dsvick]

Here is the JPL site that shows the recent misses and all the upcoming near earth approaches - I like to go here once in a while just to see how close we are to the world ending. This is the first time I've seen anything on the list within one lunar distance - srot of makes you go - wow! http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/

Potentially Man-Made? Wut?

[gimmebeer]

Is it possible that we just shot something 10 meters wide out of Earth orbit and forgot about it?

Re:Potentially Man-Made? Wut?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It was the 70s. We were kind of stoned at the time.

Lucifer's Hammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

so, let me get this straight...Hot Fudge Sundae falls on a Tuesday, right?

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Anonymous Coward]

""According to The Simpsons, a "scientician" is "a scientist with questionable credentials who publicly supports spurious hypotheses.""

Ah, so that's what that Monckton chap who claims to be in the House of Lords ( and isn't ) and a Nobel laureate ( and isn't ) and a climate expert ( and isn't ) actually is!

Man made?

[johnnyR]

"A near-Earth object that could be manmade has just been discovered hurtling toward us"

So what "man made" oject is out that far and is coming home?

Tasty Vegans

[dreamchaser]

I plan on eating the vegans first. Grain fed and all that jazz, not to mention that they are more likely to be pacifists and will thus be unarmed.

2010 AL30, Asteroid Or Space Junk

[Anonymous Coward]

My AL840 printer is a piece of junk that takes up lot of space and sometimes it crash. Yes, it's Han-made!

And he roasted up just fine in his shell.

[crovira]

That was charmingly innocent (and very dumb. :-)

You've never tried to get on the R line at 08:15.

[crovira]

There's no such thing as a patient New Yorker. Not a living one anyway.

Re:Colonel, you better have a look at this radar..

[pgn674]

YouTube - Austin Powers 2 -Penile rocket-

You didn't want to know...

[sznupi]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch/

RSS, e-mail, Twitter, OSX & Yahoo Widget; whatever you prefer.