Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid To Pass Near Earth On Monday

TigerNut writes "Asteroid 2011 MD was discovered on June 22 by LINEAR, and its flight path will take it within 8000 miles (12000 km) of Earth. Orbital predictions indicate that its flight path will be significantly altered by this close approach."

183 comments

  1. Should we worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So as long as the asteroid is less than 8000 miles across, we should be fine?

    1. Re:Should we worry? by alba7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The opening paragraph of the fine article: Asteroid 2011 MD, a chunk of rock estimated to be 25 to 55 feet (8 to 18 m) across, [...]

      --
      Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
    2. Re:Should we worry? by stonedcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm amazed that 25 feet qualifies as an asteroid.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    3. Re:Should we worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barring this thing suddenly changing course and turning out to be a Vogon construction ship, yes, we should be fine. 8000 miles is still rather a close shave on the cosmic scale, though. Unfortunately, this encounter is far from optimal from a ground-based-observational standpoint, though TFA does have some instructions for those who are able and willing to view it.

    4. Re:Should we worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm worried that we didn't discover it until a mere three days ago. Would we really only have five days notice before of an asteroid of this size collided with earth? If it were large enough to cause problems, how much sooner would we know?

    5. Re:Should we worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some definitions call anything below fifty meters a meteoroid.

    6. Re:Should we worry? by alba7 · · Score: 1

      It's a bit large to merely be cosmic lint, isn't it?

      --
      Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
    7. Re:Should we worry? by zill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm even more amazed that we could accurately detect and track an object of this size.

    8. Re:Should we worry? by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thought. 12 km is a close call and it doesn't happen that often, something like this could have been noticed, and announced, much much earlier.

    9. Re:Should we worry? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      "Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is..." "The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination." Lint might actually be a generous descriptor.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:Should we worry? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Not everything in this life can be monitored or prevented. There is very little point in spending huge sums of money scanning for world killers as at this point there isnt much we can do about it anyways.

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:Should we worry? by tqk · · Score: 1

      Would we really only have five days notice before an asteroid of this size collided with earth?

      I remember one a couple of years ago that came from an odd trajectory; pretty much from the Sun's corona. Surprised the crap out of everyone. And yeah, 25-50' across is pretty tiny to be seen by terrestrial telescopes at these distances, and pretty much everything out there moves at fairly high velocity.

      If it were large enough to cause problems, how much sooner would we know?

      If you're within miles of this thing hitting the surface, you'd no longer have any problems. On the other hand, Tunguska is assumed to have exploded some distance above the surface, which might amplify its effects on fleshy things down here (same plan they used with nukes in WWII). However, that one is believed to have been considerably larger than this.

      Add also that these things are made up of varying stuff; collections of dirt & gravel, big solid rocks, or metal, all bearing down at the surface at horrific speeds. The D&G might shatter and burn up, but the others likely not.

      If it was a comet, you might see it sooner, but they generally move at much higher velocity - much bigger kaboom on impact.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Should we worry? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Not everything in this life can be monitored or prevented. There is very little point in spending huge sums of money scanning for world killers as at this point there isnt much we can do about it anyways.

      Well, I could revise my plans for what to do with my life savings. And when to do it.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:Should we worry? by tqk · · Score: 1

      However, that one is believed to have been considerably larger than this.

      Oops, sorry (mis-read the article). Tunguska is believed to be about this size (tens of meters across).

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Should we worry? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      If it had that roughtly that diameter, was made of rock and was inside the orbit of our moon, its proper name should have been Earth. And if it wasnt we will be screwed up, no matter if hits or miss, and not just for the tides, the messing with our orbit around the sun and the messing with the orbits of most of the solar system probably, but because if we didnt noticed it till 3 days ago we shouldnt trust in anything that we know about the universe, if we cant see something so big until is so close.

    15. Re:Should we worry? by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Knowing about the threat would sure help us develop those means, though, right? You may have accidentally seen at least one asteroid movie (I don't blame you if you haven't, though). The response to the threat, and all of the attend technological innovations, always comes about *after* the Earth is facing imminent destruction. Seems unlikely, but in a world where Steve Buscemi can be selected to be on an Earth-saving mission to Space, anything is possible.

      "He's got space dementia!"

    16. Re:Should we worry? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, let's first of all define what "problem" means. Destruction of a town? Tsunamis? Dust across a continent? Nuclear winter and the end of civilization? How big does the impact have to be to be a "problem"?

      Also, due to T=m*v^2/2, it's more a matter of speed than of mass. Does anyone have a reliable source for the speed of various asteroids that clutter our sky?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Should we worry? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      well seeing as we only just detected it 4 days ago it's not exactly like we did "track" it or "detect" it.

    18. Re:Should we worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 km is a close call

      It's 12,000 km - those zeros on the right actually mean something, you know..

    19. Re:Should we worry? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should call it an asteroidoid.

    20. Re:Should we worry? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The good thing is that these small ones only take one hit to destroy.

    21. Re:Should we worry? by dominious · · Score: 1

      well seeing as we only just detected it 4 days ago it's not exactly like we did "track" it or "detect" it.

      Your sentence is false by contradiction :-) Have a nice day!

    22. Re:Should we worry? by arisvega · · Score: 1

      An asteroid is a somewhat historical term. A meteoroid is a sand- to boulder-sized particle of debris in the Solar System. The visible path of a meteoroid that enters Earth's (or another body's) atmosphere is called a meteor, or colloquially a shooting star or falling star. If a meteoroid reaches the ground and survives impact, then it is called a meteorite.

      Interestingly enough, no designation exists for an asteroid that reaches the ground and survives impact.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    23. Re:Should we worry? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The problem with the definition of an asteroid is that telescopic surveys are not becoming good enough that smaller objects previously not studied are now being spotted, plotted, and designated by the IAU and the Minor Planet Center. The number of asteroids receiving a catalog number has exploded in recent years, to the point that very few are even being named any more. The current number of objects identified is now more than a half million.

      It will be interesting to see when that catalog may be "closed" to a new object that don't meet some sort of size criteria, or what will start happening when more objects of man-made origin get mixed into the database. There are several abandoned vehicles (their power cells/solar panels no longer work and are therefore "dead") and stuff like the Apollo 8 3rd Stage engine (which went into solar orbit) that are "out there" and a few "asteroids" that may be some of this space junk. The Saturn V 3rd stage was identified because of the Titanium-Oxide paint on the outsize... something not normally found on "natural" bodies. Human interaction with especially the smaller asteroids is going to really start making a mess of these catalogs too.

    24. Re:Should we worry? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes, but it only rates sending Bruce Willis alone, equipped with a pistol drill and a Party Popper(tm)

    25. Re:Should we worry? by eriqk · · Score: 1

      There is very little point in spending huge sums of money scanning for world killers as at this point there isnt much we can do about it anyways.

      Calling something that's 8 to 18 meters across a "world killer" is rather generous, though.

    26. Re:Should we worry? by innerweb · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, but ELE (Extinction Level Event) might fit.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    27. Re:Should we worry? by stonedcat · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that would just be called a rock or if it was larger, a bolder.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    28. Re:Should we worry? by black+soap · · Score: 1

      We might not be able to destroy it, but deflecting something even slightly, with far enough warning, might be all it takes to make the difference between "watching it pass" and "counting down to impact."

      Why does everyone assume we have to destroy the thing or we've failed?

  2. Where is he when you need him? by QA · · Score: 0

    John McAllister

  3. I hope it takes out the comast HITS satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it takes out the comast HITS satellites

  4. Rapture time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all going to die - repent!

  5. Anyone else see 3 asteroids in the photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two more up and right of the one being discussed.

  6. Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sooner or later one of these things are going to hit us.

    1. Re:Sure thing by carlzum · · Score: 3, Informative

      An asteroid eventually hitting the earth is a sure thing, but hitting "us" is far from a sure thing. The asteroid most likely to hit earth in our lifetime has a 99.918% chance of missing.

    2. Re:Sure thing by dthirteen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...of the asteroids that we know about...

    3. Re:Sure thing by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      i could do with a reset button...

    4. Re:Sure thing by equex · · Score: 1

      The fact that it was discovered so late is unnerving.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    5. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't panic. I read that somewhere.

    6. Re:Sure thing by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      As long as we've got our towels, we're fine :) But we should probably scarf down some peanuts; we'll need the salt.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  7. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by alba7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quoting the fine article: "But there's no chance that the asteroid will hit Earth on this approach, and almost no risk at its next close approach, in 2022. If the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere — a fine spectacle, but harmless."

    --
    Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
  8. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Seumas · · Score: 2

    Right, because a golf ball that is about 1/150th the size of a human is exactly like hitting something (say, the Earth) with something that is 1/50,000,000th the size of it. The earth getting hit with a 25 foot object at fast speed is probably less like getting hit in the nuts with a golf ball and more like getting hit in the upper arm by a spec of sand.

  9. Darn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great quote for this article - It's always darkest just before the lights go out. -- Alex Clark

  10. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    How about a 50 foot soap bubble?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uhh, the damage to earth itself would be minimal. But have you forgotten that people live on the earth, however? I sure wouldn't want an object like that falling on my car, or my home, or into my pool, or onto my dog, or even onto myself. It would cause some pretty bad damage.

    1. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      I sure wouldn't want an object like that falling on my car, or my home, or into my pool, or onto my dog, or even onto myself.

      and especially not your testicles.

    2. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, it is so small that it wouldn't even hit the earth, so the entire analogy is goofy.

      If the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere — a fine spectacle, but harmless.

      An asteroid would have to be thousands of feet to create a nuclear winter. I'm sure it could be reasonably smaller and still destroy all life on Earth. The one that may have wiped out the dinosaurs was apparently about 42,000 feet. Whatever it was that hit Tunguska is suspected to have been a couple hundred feet. The asteroids expected to pass near earth this century We have one about 1,000 feet coming in 2029 that (if it hit) would be 65,000 times more powerful than the nuke dropped on Hiroshima.

      Worrying about something so small as this is just silly and, frankly, anything that won't wipe out an entire city is fairly insignificant, as far as I'm concerned. I'm thinking about the real threats out there that we couldn't give a shit about, because our society is more concerned with having a pothole filled than a disaster averted (or they're all too busy eagerly hoping for Armageddon, so their goofy prophecies can be "fulfilled").

      I punched in what numbers I could find on this object and if it were to hit the earth, it would be "barely audible" even within one mile (5dB). The object has to be significantly larger to even form a crater of any kind. All you'll end up with are small fragments that hit all over an area. I suck at math, but I suspect that with as little of the Earth that is actual land mass and then the even smaller percentage of that which is populated, the odds of even one fragment hitting a populated area are extremely small. It's not like a 25ft or 50ft object is going to hit and burst into fragments directly over a metro area. (I mean, possible, sure, but extremely unlikely).

      Here, you can punch in numbers on this and other objects hitting earth, yourself: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

      I only really played around with porous and dense objects hitting earth; not a body of water. The couple quick checks I did on it hitting water (depending on depth, of course) show that it would have to hit really close to shore (within a few miles) to have any real impact on the shoreline.

    3. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by Teancum · · Score: 2

      I've seen that impactor estimator before, and it is pretty interesting.

      The sad thing is that those who are alarmist generally haven't been paying attention to the skies anyway. I've seen some spectacular meteor showers including some meteors that I've personally seen that have exploded and produced a shower of sparks that rival or even surpass anything I've seen from a commercial fireworks display (like a 4th of July celebration) and I've even heard a sonic boom before caused by one of these object passing by. You can play with the numbers to see how large of an object that would require (it did scare the crap out of me when I heard the boom) but it did happen where I was an eyewitness. I think that was one of the Leonid storms that I was watching (more than a decade ago), so it was a bit more unusual than an ordinary night.

      Stuff like that happens with some regularity on the Earth, including some object that are even larger from time to time. Most people don't notice because they are blissfully ignorant. Perhaps that is for the better anyway.

    4. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Reading this thread I keep remembering the movie "Idiocracy", and that "ow my balls" show. This does not bode well for the future of nerding.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Anywhere in your neighbourhood would probably be bad enough already. Energy is proportional to the square of the speed, which is an awful lot for an asteroid. The meteor crater in Arizona was created by something 50 meters across. OK, so that's a bit bigger than this one, but have you seen the size of the crater it left, and can you imagine the noise it made when it hit? 8 to 18 meters is plenty to make a huge amount of damage. And if it flies about ten times as fast as the arizona one, which is perfectly possible, it would make the same amount of damage.

    6. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The object has to be significantly larger to even form a crater of any kind. All you'll end up with are small fragments that hit all over an area.

      The asteroid that caused Meteor Crater in Arizona was about 50 meters across, according to Wikipedia. Looked pretty impressive to me. I don't know how fast this newly discovered asteroid is flying, but if it's ten times as fast the energy would be similar.

    7. Re:Cars? Houses? Pets? People? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I punched in what numbers I could find on this object and if it were to hit the earth, it would be "barely audible" even within one mile

      An interesting notion - when I punched the numbers in, the most interesting output was the 68 kT airburst. About four times that of the Nagasaki bomb. At an altitude of 95000 feet.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. 8000 miles = Close shave by jewelie · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's deceptively close, 8000 miles is the diameter of the earth. This thing is only gonna miss us by an earths width!

    1. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty close :) I hope nothing unforeseen happens (like heat from the Sun causing gas to evaporate and the flightpath to deviate slightly - the scenario as described by Niven and Pournelle in one of their books). Would be embarassing.

      Fortunately even if it does hit, it's only 8-18 meters across. According to the asteroid impact effect calculator, that'd be 720 KT of TNT when hitting the ground (assuming standard parameters, 18 meters and an iron asteroid). Tough if it were to hit you, but small chance of that. Calculator is here: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yup. It definitely would cause a flesh wound if it were to strike an individual. You might even get a permanent scar.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the fact that it was only discovered 3 days ago is even scarier. Some movies were made based on brighter assumptions and the public seems to have bought that we will be able to detect them sufficiently well ahead.

    4. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by edalytical · · Score: 0

      No, I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. The asteroid is "expected to pass less than 8,000 miles above Earth's surface" which means that 8,000 feet above Earth's surface is either the center of the of the asteroid's projected path or the outer edge of the asteroids path. In either case the asteroid will pass through an area of space bounded by a circle with a radius of 8,000 miles or 4,000. So, there are either 201,061,930 paths with a radius of a mile that the asteroid can take in which it will miss us or by the conservative estimate 50,265,482 such paths. If you take into account the maximum radius of the asteroid is 55 feet then there are well over 4.8x10^9 paths in which we are missed by the asteroid using the conservative estimate.

      As noted in the article, "if the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere." And if it didn't there are 139,433,845 square miles of ocean it would likely hit.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    5. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, not sure why you used calculations of paths when the problem is actually quite a bit simpler. In order to hit the Earth, the asteroid would have to travel within the circle of the Earth (for purposes of calculating impacts, we can treat the problem two-dimensionally since its already assumed that the asteroid approaches the Earth) within the greater circle of its actual approach. Its approaching to within ~8000 miles, while the Earth is ~6000 miles in radius. So we have a circle with total radius of 14000 miles, or an area of 6.15e+8, while the Earth's circle has an area of 1.13e+8, making the probability (assuming complete randomness) of any given object that approaches this close to Earth about 18%.

      Of course, that ignores the fact that Earth is an attractive body (insert appropriate joke here), making the probability considerably higher. So yes, a moderately close shave, especially considering how big space is.

    6. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Americium · · Score: 2

      So the same as our tactical nukes ~ 750 KT, enough to wipe out Manhattan. Perhaps statistically the chance of hitting a major city is low, but if it does hit a city, it would be tragic and the stats would no longer matter. Even if it was a 1 in a billion chance, I'd be all for spending a trillion dollars trying to nuke it out of existence.

    7. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. It definitely would cause a flesh wound if it were to strike an individual.

      A flesh wound? Your arm's off!

    8. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by edalytical · · Score: 1

      No, that's completely wrong! The article says "there's no chance that the asteroid will hit Earth on this approach," so how can you come up with an 18% probability. Here is where you went wrong: the center of the path of the asteroid is expected to be ~8,000 miles above the surface of Earth at a specific point on the surface, not that the center of the path is expected to have an equal chance of lying on the surface of Earth's 2D projection.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    9. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by unwastaken · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the same as our tactical nukes ~ 750 KT, enough to wipe out Manhattan. Perhaps statistically the chance of hitting a major city is low, but if it does hit a city, it would be tragic and the stats would no longer matter. Even if it was a 1 in a billion chance, I'd be all for spending a trillion dollars trying to nuke it out of existence.

      You work for the TSA, don't you?

    10. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      Half the asteroids can't be detected until after they pass us. You can't easily (especially for small ones) see asteroids coming from the direction of the sun.

    11. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. It definitely would cause a flesh wound...

      I had worse.

    12. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by advance-software · · Score: 1

      Do we have the tech to capture something like this & keep it in orbit ?

      No idea what we'd do next - mine it or something, maybe use it as a platform for ISS successor.

      Is this possible or would the orbit decay & it'd end up falling to earth ?

    13. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by advance-software · · Score: 2

      space elevator anchor ?

    14. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The linked article mentions 11,000 miles at it's closest. This may be after the update (they mention the article has been updated, not the exact changes).

    15. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      TFA says that if this object were to hit Earth, it would likely explode harmlessly in the upper atmosphere.

    16. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the same as our tactical nukes ~ 750 KT, enough to wipe out Manhattan. Perhaps statistically the chance of hitting a major city is low, but if it does hit a city, it would be tragic and the stats would no longer matter. Even if it was a 1 in a billion chance, I'd be all for spending a trillion dollars trying to nuke it out of existence.

      You work for the TSA, don't you?

      And votes Republican.

    17. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by jewelie · · Score: 1

      Just had a look...

      Ah, yes! 11000 miles, measured from the centre of the earth, versus...

      8000 miles measured from the surface of the earth.

      At these distances, the earth's radius is not negligable! HTH.

      Those figures actually don't quite add up, by 1 thousand, presumably due to the rounding up and down to nearest thousand.

    18. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by ko9 · · Score: 1

      Before getting too excited, also keep in mind that this asteroid is fairly small (8 to 18m). It mentions in TFA: "If the asteroid did strike, it would probably explode in the upper atmosphere â" a fine spectacle, but harmless." So yes it almost hit us, but even if it had we would have no real reason to worry.

    19. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by I_Lost_My_Puppy · · Score: 1


      Lucifer's Hammer

      That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the headline.

    20. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

      The 7.1 earthquake that hit my back yard was equivalent to 671kT . Add a few more zeros for the Japan quake. Can you spend a trillion dollars to stop them happening too?

      Pretty please, with cherrys on it?

    21. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Americium · · Score: 1

      Apparently you seem to not understand the different between above ground and underground nuclear tests. Considering nobody knows how to stop earthquakes, but there are many ways to stop asteroids, you comparison is meaningless. I'm sure Japan would have gladly spent a trillion to stop the quake if they could, no?

    22. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be embarrassing at all. Those in the impact zone wouldn't feel a thing and those of us cowering from all the disaster as molten rock rains down across the planet and an "ash winter" sets in will be too busy dying or fighting to survive to give much of a fuck about embarrasment.

    23. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and we're doing a good enough job of fucking the planet up without asteroid help. An asteroid would just put the earth out of her human-induced misery.

    24. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Even if it was a 1 in a billion chance, I'd be all for spending a trillion dollars trying to nuke it out of existence.

      Yet (in Australia at least) our politicians aren't willing to do anything about climate change, because "maybe it won't happen."

    25. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why the US has a big budget deficit?

    26. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "Even if it was a 1 in a billion chance, I'd be all for spending a trillion dollars trying to nuke it out of existence."

      You work for the TSA, don't you?

      Sounds more like the Pentagon than the TSA. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    27. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      math: clearly too hard.

    28. Re:8000 miles = Close shave by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      Better luck next time Arachnids...

  13. anubis did it! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    anubis did it!

    1. Re:anubis did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So glad I'm not the only one who thought of this right away. Now where is the the Daedalus?

    2. Re:anubis did it! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I thought Set is responsible for destruction and chaos in the Egyptian mythol... Oh, Stargate. Never mind me butting in with realit... erh, I mean...

      It feels weird to question ones imagination with your own. How do the bible guys deal with that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:anubis did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anubis did it!

      You know, it was only three words, and you still messed it up. You aren't related to Joe the Dragon by any chance, are you?

  14. How accurate do you think "they" are going to be? by dustbeered · · Score: 0

    How close to 8,000 miles is it really going to be? I realize that I am asking numerous questions, but seriously -- who can accurately verify the distance? What equipment is being used to calculate this whole thing?

  15. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    How much would melt away in reentry? Objects that big have been caught on camera before and thankfully bounced off back into space. I would not want this to hit my house but if only 5 or 6 feet service it would not be a life altering event other than a big pop somewhere or splash. I believe the astroid that killed the dinosars was a quarter mile wide wasn't it? Now that would be devestating.

  16. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

    I appreciate your post. Particularly because it gives me a great idea to finish my screenplay of Caddyshack III: Spaceballs 2.

  17. Re:Camel Jockey Dune Coons Scarier Than Asteroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cool story, bro.

  18. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Getting hit in the upper arm by a spec of sand might not hurt you, a human, but it would be devastating to a colony of microbes living on your arm in that spot.

  19. Could it break up due to tidal forces? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    We know that some of these objects are not very solid, but are loosely bound conglomerates of rubble. Is there any chance that this could brake into fragments due to tidal forces when it passes close to the Earth? Is there any information about it's composition?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Could it break up due to tidal forces? by EdZ · · Score: 1

      It'd be well inside Earth's Roche Limit at it's point of closest approach, but it's likely moving too fast for it to be inside it for long enough to come apart. Without knowing the density and composition of the object, it's hard to say for sure, but I'd bet against it.

    2. Re:Could it break up due to tidal forces? by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is there any chance that this could brake into fragments due to tidal forces when it passes close to the Earth?

      Depends on if it has disc or drum brakes, I suppose.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Could it break up due to tidal forces? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Roche limit is defined for gravitationally bound bodies. It's not too much of a stretch to apply it to bulk properties like yield strength, but at the size you're talking about the forces are orders of magnitude off. I don't think the earth *has* a "roche limit" for solid rocky bodies.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Could it break up due to tidal forces? by EdZ · · Score: 1

      If this object is a solid body. There's a a good chance it's a pile of dirt and rubble just about held together by self-gravitation. It wouldn't take all that much tidal force to pull it apart, or at least shift bits of it around.

  20. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    It appears to be unresolved which impact crater was the one that killed the non-avian dinosaurs (the avian variety are still here: we call them "birds" now). However, the Chicxulub crater in Mexico dating from around that time was caused by a 6-mile wide asteroid:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

    A quarter-mile wide asteroid is nothing to sneeze at, and would probably destroy a city or worse, but isn't nearly as bad as this one which caused a giant cloud to cover the planet. Of course, the devastation of an asteroid depends on other factors besides its size, including its composition, angle of entry, and entry velocity.

  21. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An interesting idea (+1, nice day etc.). I wonder how deep within the flesh they would have to be to survive?

  22. Animations by Spodie! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Animations Here are some nice animations of the path of the asteroid.

  23. We're all gonna die! by watermark · · Score: 1

    The rapture is coming June 27th! I have done the calculations myself and can say with absolute certainty that this is an accurate date.

  24. It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

    This would be a prime opportunity to capture an asteroid and place it into a stable orbit so it can be harvested for raw materials for orbital construction projects, even if only as a proof of concept.

    1. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Even if it was going to pass close enough to be withing range of, say a space shuttle, they couldn't get one launched in time.

      They fact that it was only spotted a few days away is worrying.

    2. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      That's my point. NASA should have already had the capability and a plan to intercept and capture a near Earth asteroid. We should have already had real space stations and moon bases. Hell, by all rights we should have been on Mars decades ago.

      Unfortunately, NASA hasn't done much of anything since we put a man on the moon.

    3. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      We really don't need construction material. What we need is propellant.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      It's a lot cheaper to build something in space with materials you get from space than it is to build it on the ground and launch the whole thing up. Once you're in orbit, fuel for maneuvering is insignificant compared to the fuel it took to launch the object itself.

      Hell, there's water on the moon that can be used for fuel.

    5. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think we should really be in the business of trying to attract asteroids into orbit? Can't see anything that can possibly go wrong?

    6. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      Better the orbit you know than the orbit you don't.

      Especially when you have control over that orbit.

    7. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you intend to use water for fuel?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      Heat it until it becomes a gas.

    9. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      That's not fuel - that's reaction mass. You use fuel (or an external energy source, such as solar) to heat it up.

    10. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      When you can get a diesel generator running on a spacecraft, then we can argue those semantics. Until then, the rest of us will continue working under the assumption that the spacecraft are powered by solar, fission, or batteries and refer to the only consumables needed for locomotion as fuel.

    11. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, why did tomhudson troll the hosts file guy apk for?

    12. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by melikamp · · Score: 1
    13. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And then what? How do you extract more energy from steam than it took to heat the steam?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by Convector · · Score: 1
    15. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Turtles.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    16. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by innerweb · · Score: 1

      NASA has only done what it has been allowed to. The military (via NASA) put us on the moon.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    17. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      Then someone in NASA should have told Bush that the moon is full of oil.

    18. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's a lot cheaper to build something in space with materials you get from space than it is to build it on the ground and launch the whole thing up.

      No, actually it's not. It takes a lot of oxygen, carbon, water, and limestone to make steel. Once it is made, it needs to be alloyed. Once it is ready, it needs to be cast, then machined, then assembled. In short it requires many tons of infrastructure to make a ton of steel. That doesn't give you any of the specialty metals and alloys, plastics, ceramics, and other materials that you need for a spacecraft. You're actually much better off building things on Earth, launching them, and "fuelling" them in orbit.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    19. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      But once you have that infrastructure, the steel is cheap. lern2economyofscale

      I'm not suggesting some one-off thing here. We have to expand into space to survive as a species.

    20. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Make sure you orient them correctly with acceleration vector. Turtles hate when "down" isn't ventral to them. Especially when you are using them to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

    21. Re:It's too bad NASA doesn't do anything anymore. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose if we were communicating in German, I might be able to respond with a single word, representing "I love being able to convey a complete thought with a single word." And then I would have conveyed this one as well. :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  25. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever done a belly flop into a pool? Now there is this strange thing called an atmosphere, it is made of stuff, and really to an object like that asteroid the atmosphere might as well be solid rock. The most your likely to get of this thing on the surface of the earth, is some super fine space dust.

  26. Local Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Asteroid 2011 MD was estimated to be 25 to 55 feet which is in the "Local Damage" asteroid range whose impacts occur about 1 – 10 times per century.

    BTW, that's "Local Damage" only if you're not local to the damage; else, it's lethal damage.

  27. Asteroid? by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    This object is 10 meters in diameter. "Asteroid 2011 MD, a chunk of rock estimated to be 25 to 55 feet (8 to 18 m) across, is expected to pass less than 8,000 miles above Earth's surface around 1 p.m. EDT (17:00 UT) on Monday, June 27th." -form source.
    The logical demarcation between meteoroid and asteroid http://goo.gl/Ws6xp “adopt 10 m as the dividing line for an object to be considered to be either an asteroid or a meteoroid...natural objectsolidlarger than 100 micro m” -Martin Beech and Duncan Steel, U of W Ontario, On the Definition of the term ‘Meteoroid’
    Obviously, this object doesn't definitely qualify as an asteroid because it's debatable if alien spacecraft are "natural".

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  28. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I wasn't the only one to appreciate the importance of that last bit. You know, the part about it's path being deviated significantly as a result of it's close pass by Earth? What about the next time it comes around?

    1. Re:Um... by ethergear · · Score: 1

      This was my question. At least if it does, we'll know farther in advance!

  29. With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by ChronoFish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to the Discover Article (http://news.discovery.com/space/visualizing-asteroid-2011-md-zip-past-earth-animation-110624.html), this is within the orbit of GPS satellites. While it seems most are not concerned about a collision with Earth, what happens if it takes out a satellite (or two)? Or something worse like colliding with the ISS. I hope there are some observation satellites than can a good view of the approach (and/or pass).

    1. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISS is much lower, so don't worry. If it takes out a satellite, "what happens" is the GPS users experience minimal degradation of service while we move one of our on-orbit spares to fill the gap.

    2. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bigger concern than any immediate impact on our infrastructure would be any secondary collisions from the impact debris and the garbage free floating in low orbit already.

    3. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the average volume of space that the GPS satellites enclose?

      And how big is this rock?

      i have not done the math but I think that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery than this asteroid taking out any satellite... However the chances of a satellite operator de-orbiting a satellite and blaming it on this somewhat higher.

    4. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or something worse like colliding with the ISS

      The ISS is in a ridiculously low orbit ( ~191 miles apogee ) so no risk of that.

      It is in such a poor orbit, requiring constant reboosting, because the Shuttle couldn't reach any higher with payload.

    5. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      The ISS orbit is at about 350 km. If it came that close, chances are high it would collide with the earth as well..

    6. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Cato · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in fact this is closer than all geostationary satellites (communications, TV, etc) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit - which are at 22,000 miles from surface of the Earth, vs. this asteroid's 8,000 miles.

    7. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISS is less than 200 miles up, there's still plenty of room for this asteroid to pass.

    8. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it hits a populated area a lot of populated people won't be around anymore.

    9. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      As someone once said, one-in-a-million occurrences happen every day. But yes, you'd be foolish to assume there's a significant risk. The big issue is the margin of error - if it hits earth there's a reasonable chance it could hit something significant.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    10. Re:With in the orbit of GPS Satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's closest approach is about 40 times further out than the ISS... The ISS orbit is so low it's actually in the outer atmosphere. Few people seem to realize just how low "Low Earth Orbit" is...

  30. This is the metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feel free to write "12 Mm".

  31. Back in 2022? by Braedley · · Score: 1

    How about we wait to calculate the next closest approach until after it's left Earth's gravity well. I know our understanding of spatial dynamics is pretty much complete (between Newton and Kepler, we have almost all the knowledge we need), but we've only known about this thing for, what, 3 days? Also, there's the whole "Orbital predictions indicate that its flight path will be significantly altered by this close approach" thing, which tells me we aren't 100% sure which way this thing will be leaving our neighbourhood. I don't want to be thinking that we won't be seeing this thing until 2022 when it comes a knocking in 2020.

    1. Re:Back in 2022? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we wait to calculate the next closest approach until after it's left Earth's gravity well.

      How about we calculate it now, then calculate it again after it leaves Earth's gravity well? If we compare the results, we might even learn something about our prediction accuracy.

  32. I won't be amused if theres a run on bottled water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dust masks, and flashlight batteries in university towns over the next few days

  33. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    So as long as it doesn't hit Earth's nuts, everything should be all right. Right?

    But seriously. Sure, the energy of the impact depends on mass and speed. And hence also the damage done. And if we were talking about an asteroid of 25 miles across, I'd certainly go and spend my money on some fun before it's all over.

    The possible damage an object can have on impact depends on three things: Speed, mass and volume. Now, 7.5m across (that's 25ft in SI units) isn't even a pebble on the stellar scale. Still, if accelerated to speeds beyond 0.1c and having a mass of 7+ g/cm we'd be facing quite a threat (according to this it seems the average density is closer to 1-3 g/cm, though). Since the pebble is affected by Earth's gravity, enough to change its course, my guess is that the kinetic energy (which, again, depends on mass and velocity) is fairly low. An impact would certainly be noticeable, no doubt about that, and it would also most likely not be pleasant to live right where it comes down. But I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for the big killer of 2012.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Heh I thought you were going to recommend a chiropractic adjustment for a moment there.

    --

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

  35. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    Yes, actually, I do. Do you? To make your golf ball example a little more realistic, cover your groin with about a foot of bubble wrap and repeat your experiment. Can you feel the golf ball now? No? Nor would the earth feel the impact from the asteroid, as it would explode and burn up way, way, way up high in the upper atmosphere. The effects on the earth would be essentially nil.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  36. That's the whole thing... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    Whenever you hear something like this, the headline is always "Asteroid to Pass Within XXX of Earth!!!"

    The first things I want to know are not the distance, but its size and velocity. Because those tell me how hard they better work on knowing the exact distance.

    1. Re:That's the whole thing... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      But if you know how close it's going to pass to Earth, there's no possible way you can know its velocity.... DAMN YOU HEISENBERG!

      For the humor impaired, yes, it's meant as a joke. I am well aware that the Uncertainty Principle (which recently has fallen into disfavor anyway) only applies to subatomic particles. You however are so disconnected from the world around you that very crude and simple humor just rushes right past your head. Please, it's time to put down the calipers, go outside, head to a bar and try very hard to acquire some sort of sexually transmitted disease, even if this costs you money.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:That's the whole thing... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I want a puppy!

    3. Re:That's the whole thing... by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          I'm uncertain that I understand that. Could you compare it to a dual-state cat in a box? :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:That's the whole thing... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The first things I want to know are not the distance, but its size and velocity.

      Velocity is easy. Its 11 km/s plus five or (at the very most) 10 km/s for the speed the asteroid is passing us at. IIRC many of the asteroids which are in resonance with Earth have just a few km/s of velocity when they pass close. If there is going to be an impact then the most important bit of information will be where will it hit?. For anything smaller than Lucifers Hammer, it will suffice to evacuate the impact site for a while.

    5. Re:That's the whole thing... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Velocity is easy. Its 11 km/s plus five or (at the very most) 10 km/s for the speed the asteroid is passing us at. IIRC many of the asteroids which are in resonance with Earth have just a few km/s of velocity when they pass close. If there is going to be an impact then the most important bit of information will be where will it hit?"

      Not necessarily. If it were traveling at relativistic speeds (I didn't say anything about natural), an asteroid the size of a locomotive could mean The Long Goodbye. But of course, if it were traveling at a very significant fraction of the speed of light, there wouldn't be any warning, anyway.

    6. Re:That's the whole thing... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Rephrase: "But of course, if it were traveling at a very substantial fraction of the speed of light, there wouldn't be much warning, anyway."

    7. Re:That's the whole thing... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If it were traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, it would not be something from our Solar System either. That would imply an extra-solar or even extra-galactic origin of object.

      Yeah, that is possible although space is also big, so mind numbingly big that encountering even something like a grain of sand that had an extra-galactic origin is going to be highly unlikely. Not impossible but that would be an incredibly rare event. Most of the objects in the Solar System, and the stuff you have to really worry about, are things that were part of the original dust cloud that formed the Sun and the various planets. Absolutely none of that is going to be traveling at relativistic speeds compared to the Earth.

    8. Re:That's the whole thing... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      Repeat:

      "I didn't say anything about natural..."

  37. Get Zim to move it out of the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zim can use Mars as a bulldozer.

  38. Day Of The Comet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new zombie overlord masters.

  39. Don't worry, the odds are against it. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

    This is why the oximoronic term "astronomically small" has been coined.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Don't worry, the odds are against it. by whiteboy86 · · Score: 1

      >>"astronomically small"

      ..the hurling rock is probably a bit smaller then an average galaxy.

  40. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

        Of course that's what they said.

        Consider this. If they *know* it's going to hit the Earth, and even estimate about where it will hit, there are three choices.

        1) Tell the truth and say "It's going to hit here at this time, with the effective energy of X atomic bombs" (I love that SI unit). People will panic. You wouldn't get any sort or orderly evacuation. Imagine if it were to hit near a metro area in the US. Millions of people would be displaced, even if it's only temporary. Now, what if they were off by a couple hundred miles? Aw shit, sorry guys, we were wrong. You evacuated to the impact site. Doesn't matter much, since you're dead.

        2) STFU and don't say anything. Always a good choice, except amateur astronomers will likely spot it too. Again, when that makes the news, there will be mass panic, and an abundance of bad intelligence on the impact location, strength, etc.

        3) Say "Don't worry, it'll miss us." If that ends up being true, there is no mass panic. No evacuations. No looting, robbing, raping, or pillaging. Life goes on as boring as ever. If it does hit, they can say "Oops, sorry". I'm sure that would be accompanied with a detailed explanation of how they were unable to calculate for some unknown like a freak solar flare or something.

        As someone else pointed out, they said it'll miss by about 12,000 kilometers. That sounds safe until you consider that the distance from the Earth to the Moon averages about 384,000 kilometers. Or how about this, the object is going to pass through Geostationary Orbit (GEO) twice (once coming, once going), and at least into Medium Earth Orbit (MEO). It won't be a danger to the ISS, who sits far below that. There are plenty of satellites floating around in MEO and GEO.

        It's doubtful an object the size of that asteroid would intersect with a satellite, but it is a risk. That could result in extra space debris, or a rather uncoordinated reentry of a satellite or other "parked" space junk.

        So, it's not just going to pass by harmless through empty space. It's going to pass through space where we have a bunch of shit laying around.

        Myself, I'm not worried. It's a small rock that has a small risk of hitting the Earth or something close by. I won't discount the possibility that a fast moving rock may hit us very hard and very fast, but if it does, there isn't much we can do about it anyways. If it does hit us an cause an ELE, I'll work on what to do from there. With any luck, it won't crash through the roof of my office, and onto my desk. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  41. I see 3 Asteroids by Bruha · · Score: 1

    There are 3 asteroids in that picture if you look to the right of the one the arrow points out.

  42. Aliens aiming for my balls!?!?!? by syousef · · Score: 1

    Have you ever had a golfer hit a golf ball into your penis and scrotum? Have you?

    Okay I'm not so worried about a small asteroid that will burn up in the atmosphere, but if you're telling me some goofy alien with a wicked sense of humour is aiming for my nutsack, you have my attention!!!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  43. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    But there's no chance that the asteroid will hit Earth on this approach, and almost no risk at its next close approach, in 2022

    Sounds like it's practicing. I think we should nuke it, just to be sure.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  44. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    have you ever tried orbitting an asteroid? Nuking it just to be sure is going to be HARD!

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  45. Re:APOPHIS is the one to worry about... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like APK escaped Hutchings again.

    BTW, APK, and I I hate to have to tell you this, you have the absolutely most annoying writing style I've ever encountered, bar none. It's a combination of awkward/stilted construction, odd grammar, weird typos and strange emphasis that completely obviates any points you are trying to make, though those are often difficult to extract from within the crazy.

  46. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

    It does not necessarily pass through GEO. GEO is also defined as over the equator specifically, and it is rather unlikely that the asteroid will happen to be above that point when it crosses the proper altitude.

    --
    "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
  47. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Convector · · Score: 1

    Yes. Yes, we have. Orbited an asteroid, that is, not the nuking bit. And we'll do it again next month. Of course, these are much, much bigger hunks of rock.

  48. "ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ".yzarc eht nihtiw morf tcartxe ot tluciffid netfo era esoht hguoht ,ekam ot gniyrt era uoy stniop yna setaivbo yletelpmoc taht sisahpme egnarts dna sopyt driew ,rammarg ddo ,noitcurtsnoc detlits/drawka fo noitanibmoc a s'tI elyts gnitirw gniyonna tsom yletulosba eht evah uoy , siht uoy llet ot evah ot I I nda ,KPA ,WTB .niaga sgnihctuH depacse KPA ekil skooL: - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26, @06:47AM (#36575090)

    "???"

    HEY - Can someone get me a translation please... lol!

    ---

    I don't think the ac troll replier understood the articles showing the APOPHIS asteroid possible on collision course with Earth in the future and that it is much larger than this one coming Monday...

    Plus, I certainly do NOT understand his answer, lol, quoted above...

    (That's because it must be off topic trolling then, based not on the subject @ hand, but rather probably effete "writing style critiques" from someone lacking a PHD in English proving they're an "expert" in that area, and their opinion (not even that, pure trolling) & the like - one of the "last resorts of trolls", lol)!

    APK

    P.S.=> All I know is, that many people would probably disagree with any 'writing style critiques' off-topic & have, per this partial list of my posts being modded up 100++ times or more here, so... OPINIONS VARY & he'd be outnumbered with proof, 100++:1 odds also:

    Roughly 100++ of them & I post as AC (hard to get even +1, as /. hides our posts & we "AC"'s start @ ZERO/0 points, unlike registered "lusers", lol!):

    +5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (5):

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450
    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1872982&cid=34264190
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175774&cid=14610147
    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1806946&cid=33777976
    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102

    ----

    +4 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (4):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161862&cid=13531817
    http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167071&cid=13931198
    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158310&cid=13263898

    ----

    +3 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (5):

    http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974
    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166850&cid=13914137
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175857&cid=14615222
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273931&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20291847
    http://it.slashdot.org/comm

  49. The closest point by wye43 · · Score: 1

    Is somewhere between South America and Antarctica.
    Probably a good place to watch it would be in Atacama desert, but sadly its going to be in plain daylight.

  50. Pluto? Is that you? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Probably still pissed with his demotion and wants a fly-by.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  51. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by black+soap · · Score: 1

    Right. The earth might not care much, but the insignificant organic beings living at the impact site might not enjoy it.

  52. Re:Don't underestimate the energy of small asteroi by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 0

    Do you understand the basic laws of physics? I suspect that you don't, so let me simplify this situation for you.

    go fuck yourself.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  53. Wow, thats close, because.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..if the asteroid comes in the moment the Mount Everest is there, it would be only be 3152 metres (or 1959 miles) away from us.

    Do somebody knows where on earth the asteroid comes by?