Slashdot Mirror


First Earth Trojan Asteroid Discovered

The Bad Astronomer writes "Astronomers have found the very first Earth Trojan asteroid, a rock that more-or-less shares Earth's orbit around the Sun. Seen in data by NASA's WISE mission, 2010 TK7 is about 300 meters across and leads the Earth by 60 degrees around the Sun. Trojans have been seen for Jupiter, Neptune, and Mars, but this is the first for our planet."

126 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. How does a condom company sponsor an asteroid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It seems like the asteroid would do just find without corporate sponsorship.

  2. Trojans! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the very first Earth Trojan asteroid,

    Curse its sudden but inevitable betrayal.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Trojans! by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      ... the very first Earth Trojan asteroid,

      Curse its sudden but inevitable betrayal.

      Now die!

    2. Re:Trojans! by Rasperin · · Score: 2

      Let's just hope it doesn't break at a very inconvenient time :P

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    3. Re:Trojans! by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      Ribbed for her pleasure TM.

  3. First Earth by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Is First Earth anything like Second Life?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:First Earth by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Here's something you could use, though I doubt you'll get it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:First Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  4. L4 by Stavr0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This one should be called 'Lagrange'

    1. Re:L4 by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rumour spreadin' a-'round in that Texas town
      'bout that rock outside La Grange
      and you know what I'm talkin' about.
      Just let me know if you wanna go
      to that stone out on the range.
      They gotta lotta nice girls ah.

      Have mercy.
      A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw.
      A haw, haw, haw.

      Well, I hear it's fine if you got the time
      and the ten to get yourself in.
      A hmm, hmm.
      And I hear it's tight most ev'ry night,
      but now I might be mistaken.
      hmm, hmm, hmm.

      Ah have mercy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:L4 by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      It must be quite the asteroid to have an entire planet in it's L5 Lagrange point.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:L4 by phrostie · · Score: 1

      we should name it Dusty Hill

    4. Re:L4 by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Yup, I'm with you and Clarke. This is an L4 object, 60 degrees ahead of us.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    5. Re:L4 by mark_elf · · Score: 1

      Is the earth in a tiny Lissajous orbit around it's L5?

  5. Pluto rules by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1, Funny

    Since this trojan shows that the Earth hasn't cleared its orbit, does that mean that Earth is no longer considered a planet?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Pluto rules by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Given its position earth will never clear its orbit, but then I guess Jupiter shouldn't be considered one either as it also has an asteroid trapped in one of its Lagrange points.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Pluto rules by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope, putting small objects into a Lagrange point of stability is one way a planet clears its orbit.

    3. Re:Pluto rules by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      Since this trojan shows that the Earth hasn't cleared its orbit, does that mean that Earth is no longer considered a planet?

      Being in a Lagrange point doesn't mean that the Earth hasn't cleared its orbit. Unless you want to argue that the presence of a moon means the Earth hasn't cleared its orbit. After all, the moon also roughly follows the orbit of the earth around the Sun.

    4. Re:Pluto rules by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I should have corrected my initial post:

      Given its position earth will never clear its orbit, but then I guess Jupiter shouldn't be considered one either as it also has an asteroids trapped at its Lagrange points, as does Neptune and Mars.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Pluto rules by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess that rule doen't apply to trojan points. Otherwise the list of planes would be quite small (4 now, but may quite well setle in 1 - Mercury - or 0 when we get better telescopes).

    6. Re:Pluto rules by idontgno · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the Earth-Moon barycenter follows an orbit around the Sun. It just looks like it's Earth's orbit.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Pluto rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Planets can clear their orbits by placing things in their Lagrange points. Same way teenagers clean their rooms by shoving everything in the closet or under the bed.

    8. Re:Pluto rules by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I learned that trick way before I was a teenager. under the dresser behind shield of shoes was a good place too.

    9. Re:Pluto rules by TWX · · Score: 2

      Given that the barycenter's center of mass is within Earth itself, I'm happy to call it Earth's orbit for simplicity's sake. Come to think of it, the only planet or dwarf planet whose satellite is massive enough to place the barycenter outside of the planet itself is Pluto.

      I suppose that the astronomy and astrophysics communities could further refine the definition of planet based not only on size, but on the location of mass relative to a satellite...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    10. Re:Pluto rules by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Count on zero. The Solar System is a messy, dirty place.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Pluto rules by Dthief · · Score: 1

      no because its tiny...the other object needs to be comparable in size, like was the case with pluto and the plutoids (of nearly the same size)

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    12. Re:Pluto rules by Dthief · · Score: 1

      like your mom's coochie

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    13. Re:Pluto rules by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No planet has cleared it's orbit 100%, which is okay because that never was the requirement.

      Earth has done the job of clearing its orbit 100,000,000 times better than Pluto has. it doesn't have to be perfect to clearly be in a different class.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Pluto rules by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      That seems problematic, with the variation in satellite size.

    15. Re:Pluto rules by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It's not even necessarily about the size of other objects, but about the total mass of objects.

      Pluto is a tiny fraction of the mass in its orbit.

      Everything else in earth's orbit is a tiny fraction of it (not counting Luna).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Pluto rules by SEE · · Score: 1

      The problem with the barycenter rule is that the Jupiter-Sun barycenter is outside the Sun. Do you delist it as a planet because it doesn't orbit the Sun, but a point outside the Sun?

      What we really need to do is get rid of the idea that planets are going to be a short, enumerable list that elementary school students can memorize, and instead use it to mean any object, wherever it is, that's too small for its gravity to make it fuse but big enough to wind up in a round shape under its own gravity.

    17. Re:Pluto rules by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      The barycenter of the Sun-Jupiter system lies at 1.068 Solar radii from the Sun's center... i.e. outside the Sun itself.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    18. Re:Pluto rules by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I've come to think that Phobos and Deimos should be reclassified as gravitationally trapped debris or something along those lines.
      To qualify as a satellite, using volume percentages would be problematic in the realm of gas and ice giant planets, so maybe something along the lines of spherical shape would be the way to go.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    19. Re:Pluto rules by Dthief · · Score: 1
      quoting from wikipedia (and thus the true gospel):

      "In the end stages of planet formation, a planet will have "cleared the neighbourhood" of its own orbital zone, meaning it has become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. A large body which meets the other criteria for a planet but has not cleared its neighbourhood is classified as a dwarf planet. This includes Pluto, which shares its orbital neighbourhood with Kuiper belt objects such as the plutinos. The IAU's definition does not attach specific numbers or equations to this term, but all the planets have cleared their neighbourhoods to a much greater extent than any dwarf planet, or any candidate for dwarf planet."

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

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    20. Re:Pluto rules by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      could you elaborate, was that the clarity, taste, aroma or bouquet?

    21. Re:Pluto rules by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Don't neglect the "gravitational dominance" aspect, which can be calculated using the Planetary Discriminant (also described on that page), and essentially subsumes the "comparable size" part. If there were other objects of comparable size, then these metrics would necessarily be much smaller.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:Pluto rules by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      The problem is big and massive are two different things, and it depends on the material composition of the object. So we will end up with objects that are in hyrdostatic equilibrium that are smaller in diameter / size than other objects that are not. Take asteroid 4 Vesta for instance, it's larger in diameter than several objects that are in hydrostatic equilibrium, yet it is not itself. Also there are plenty of moons that are in hydrostaic equilibrium, according to your definition these would be planets. I think you at a minimum need to add "and orbit around an object which is massive enough for fusion to occur". Then of course we get into the weird world of brown dwarfs...

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    23. Re:Pluto rules by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I know it's outside the surface of the sun, but the corona is no longer considered part of the sun?

    24. Re:Pluto rules by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      Contrary to overwhelming corroborating opinion, the sun, while not super massive, is not an "average star" - being more massive than about 80% of others. Look it up in a star catalog (instead of google)

    25. Re:Pluto rules by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      1.068

      As numbers go that one is right up there with the angle subtended by the Moon and the Sun from the Earth. The apparent orbital resonance between Mercury and Earth is a great joke too.

    26. Re:Pluto rules by Dthief · · Score: 1

      mostly taste

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    27. Re:Pluto rules by jc42 · · Score: 1

      No, I think you meant: Jupiter shouldn't be considered one either as it also has thousands of asteroids trapped at its Lagrange points.

      The numbers are quite a lot smaller for Neptune and Mars, though. And the total mass of Jupiter's Trojan asteroids is quite a bit less than Jupiter's mass.

      The real exception continues to be our Earth, which shares its orbit with a dwarf planet with mass only about 1/80 of Earth's mass.

      The real problem here is a technical term ("planet") whose definition includes features both intrinsic and extrinsic to the object it describes. Such definitions are always pitfalls when put up against the chaos of the actual universe.

      Using a single term for a class of objects that includes both Mercury and Jupiter should also be considered a sign that the term is useless, and at least two new terms are what is really needed. Probably three, actually. But it doesn't look like we're going to get that solution any time soon.

      My favorite explanation is that the fuss over "planet" was a joke perpetrated by some astronomers with a twisted sense of humor. They're still laughing at the fuss it produced.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    28. Re:Pluto rules by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Arguably the Moon (aka "Luna"... which is just another way to say"Moon" in another language) is a dwarf planet, together with Io, Ganymede, Callisto, as well as Ceres and Pluto and a few other outer Solar System object in the Kuiper Belt. The whole orbit clearing thing is pure BS and eventually will have to be dismissed as a horrible idea.

      If anything, I think Titan ought to be "promoted" to be considered a terrestrial-type planet together with Earth, Venus, and Mars as having a "thin" (less than 1% of the planetary mass) but substantive atmosphere. That it happens to orbit a very brown dwarf proto-star is irrelevant, or perhaps even proof of the idea.

      Really, the whole thing with trying to define planets based on anything but their directly observable physical characteristics is to me pure BS. As planetary systems are discovered around other stars (and some already are starting to be visible with modern telescopes), the variety and magnitude of what might be considered a planets is going to be more diverse than could be thought of with such a heliocentric definition. The very notion that the only thing to be considered a planet must orbit the Sun (as the dominant mass of the orbital system) is already absurd. For that notion alone the IAU ought to take up the whole definition again but this time really consider the long term ramifications for other star systems in that definition too.... or perhaps they aren't called "planets" when they orbit a star other than our Sun?

      I'm not too hung up on calling Pluto a "dwarf planet", as I think the definition really is quite appropriate. The issue is what else might fit that definition too. Perhaps even Charon ought to be considered a "dwarf planet" as well? The trick is if Pluto has a substantive atmosphere or if it is more airless like the Moon or the Galilean Moons of Jupiter. Hopefully the New Horizon spacecraft will put that question to rest for once and all, and perhaps show us a bit more in terms of what this astronomical object might be able to display when viewed up close.

    29. Re:Pluto rules by SEE · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's part of the current IAU definition that a planet must no merely orbit a star, it must orbit the Sun itself.

    30. Re:Pluto rules by SEE · · Score: 1

      So we will end up with objects that are in hyrdostatic equilibrium that are smaller in diameter / size than other objects that are not.

      The former are massive enough to be planets, the latter are not.

      I think you at a minimum need to add "and orbit around an object which is massive enough for fusion to occur"

      Nope. The path of the orbit of Luna around the Sun is a fully convex shape. So clearly Luna is still a planet under that rule . . . unless you start adding a whole bunch of additional qualifications regarding dominating the orbit or barycenters. And you have the problem of bodies in interstellar space too small to fuse (sub-brown dwarfs, rogue planets) but which don't orbit any stars, except in the sense they orbit the galactic center of mass.

      The only rule that avoids dozens of special clauses is to stick with mass. Luna, Ceres, Io, Pluto, Charon? Planets one and all.

  6. That's no Asteroid by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    It's a KE weapon to be used by some nation.

    I'm sorry, you lost part of your city to an asteroid?! Damn, what are the odds of that happening. Nature sure does suck doesn't it.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:That's no Asteroid by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Stephen Baxter's Titan has an asteroid being used as a KE weapon.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:That's no Asteroid by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Neil Asher's 'Prador Moon' has an entire moon being used as a KE weapon...

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    3. Re:That's no Asteroid by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      E E 'Doc' Smith 'Lensman' series has pairs of PLANETS being used as a KE weapon

      So now someone cite a scifi example of a solar system or galaxy used as a weapon?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:That's no Asteroid by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      So now someone cite a scifi example of a solar system or galaxy used as a weapon?

      E E 'Doc' Smith 'Lensman' series featured two galaxies colliding. Not sure if it was by design.

  7. Main concept missing from summary by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    The asteroid orbits one of the two Lagrangian points of stability of the Earth-Sun system

    1. Re:Main concept missing from summary by tommy2tone · · Score: 1

      The asteroid orbits one of the two Lagrangian points of stability of the Earth-Sun system

      There are 5 Lagrange points. One on the other side of the sun, one on the other side of us, 1 ahead of earth in orbit, one behind earth in orbit, and one in between us and the sun.

    2. Re:Main concept missing from summary by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      If there are only 5 then why did it take so long to find this rock? Is it becaue the sun is between us an it? If so then there could be some real intersting stuff at that lagrange point.

    3. Re:Main concept missing from summary by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Ahh read the article. The rock isn't at the lagrange point but rather orbits the lagrange point.

    4. Re:Main concept missing from summary by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      But three of the Lagrange points are only stable in a plane perpendicular to the orbits of the two bodies making the point, they are not points of stable equilibrium for any displacement

    5. Re:Main concept missing from summary by tommy2tone · · Score: 2

      If there are only 5 then why did it take so long to find this rock? Is it becaue the sun is between us an it? If so then there could be some real intersting stuff at that lagrange point.

      because the rock is 300 meters wide... space is a lot larger than that. Also the sun makes it difficult to see from the ground

    6. Re:Main concept missing from summary by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Sun would help because it would be illuminating the asteroid. It would be a permanently lit crescent in the morning sky.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Main concept missing from summary by Dthief · · Score: 2

      yes, and only 2 are STABLE minima, the other 3 are unstable maxima

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    8. Re:Main concept missing from summary by camperdave · · Score: 2

      L1, L2, and L3 are all unstable (which is why I never understood the push to put a refuelling depot at Earth-Moon L2). Only L4 and L5 are stable.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Main concept missing from summary by camperdave · · Score: 1

      But L4 and L5 are completely stable. No need for stationkeeping thrusters at all.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Main concept missing from summary by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      L2 is much closer to Earth than L4 or L5 is.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    11. Re:Main concept missing from summary by tommy2tone · · Score: 1

      yes but the sun would also give a glair on any ground-based telescopes...

    12. Re:Main concept missing from summary by camperdave · · Score: 1

      yes but the sun would also give a glair on any ground-based telescopes...

      Where would the Sun get egg whites?

      If you mean glare, you'd be wrong. Astronomical darkness ends about an hour and a quarter before sunrise. This asteroid, because of its orbit, will rise precisely four hours before the sun. So you've got over 2.5 hours of dark in which it would be visible.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Main concept missing from summary by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      L1, L2, and L3 are all unstable (which is why I never understood the push to put a refuelling depot at Earth-Moon L2). Only L4 and L5 are stable.

      When you pull off the freeway for refuelling, you want to do it at the top of a hill, not the bottom: it wastes less energy (and reaction mass in our case). Yes, you have to stationkeep at the hilltop, but that's cheap in comparison. Question for the orbital mechanics in the house: what potential energy difference takes a kg from L5 up to L2 anyhow? "Inquiring minds want to know".

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    14. Re:Main concept missing from summary by tommy2tone · · Score: 1

      Where would the Sun get egg whites? If you mean glare, you'd be wrong.

      Oops! Haha.

      This asteroid, because of its orbit, will rise precisely four hours before the sun. So you've got over 2.5 hours of dark in which it would be visible.

      This depends entirely on where you are in the world. And I restress that the asteroid is only 300 meters wide. It would still be difficult to see.

  8. I like the proposed names by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

    I like the proposed names of Coeus or Crius, the sons of Gaia for those who didn't RTFA, that that author suggests.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  9. Intriguing by dastrike · · Score: 2

    And here I thought that from what I've heard so far that Earth had possibly some dust or at most some gravel at its L4 and L5 points. This discovery of a sizable asteroid there makes the Earth's L4/L5 points much more interesting. Hopefully there is even more to be found!

    --
    while true; do eject; eject -t; done
    1. Re:Intriguing by tommy2tone · · Score: 1

      I am surprised they haven't found this before. They are planning on installing satellites at L4 and L5, you would think they would figure out if there was anything there waiting on us.

    2. Re:Intriguing by Amouth · · Score: 1

      well if you look at it's orbit it is orbiting the L4 in way that is out or our orbit plane.. so while it's stable it's also not exactly just sitting there.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  10. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, the Lagrange points are stable garbage dumps for planets to put "small" things of 9% of its mass or less, the stuff stays there. It's one of the ways a planet clears its orbit.

  11. When did it get there? by Med-trump · · Score: 2

    When did it get there?

    1. Re:When did it get there? by Dthief · · Score: 1

      I bet it is a spy satellite placed by aliens to watch us from afar.....its also a good port to refuel when you want to go on a weekend anal-probing trip with the fam.

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  12. and what's "First Earth" ?! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    If it's a Trojan asteroid, does that mean it's full of space Greeks?!!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:and what's "First Earth" ?! by PlasmaEye · · Score: 2

      What's scarier is that it could be full of space Spartans.

      This is madness!
      THIS. IS. SPAAAAAACE!

    2. Re:and what's "First Earth" ?! by c0lo · · Score: 1

      If it's a Trojan asteroid, does that mean it's full of space Greeks?!!!

      No, it just means that Earth hasn't updated its antivirus (and, possibly, has a nasty habit of visiting promiscuous sites on the Internet).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:and what's "First Earth" ?! by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      If it's space greeks they could be dangerous being all broke and such, could turn them into space pirates

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    4. Re:and what's "First Earth" ?! by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      If it's a Trojan asteroid, does that mean it's full of space Greeks?!!!

      Sigh. Try using your brain occasionally.
      The Trojans were *not* Greeks. The Greeks were their enemies.
      I guess the Brad Pitt movie didn't make that point clearly enough.

    5. Re:and what's "First Earth" ?! by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trolling:

      A Trojan Asteroid would be full of Greeks in the same way that the Trojan Horse was full of Greeks.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    6. Re:and what's "First Earth" ?! by eriqk · · Score: 1

      "The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it's full of Greeks!" --David Bowman

  13. maybe it trails by VolciMaster · · Score: 1, Funny

    how do we know it's "leading by 60 degrees"? Maybe it's trailing by 300!

    1. Re:maybe it trails by digitig · · Score: 1

      We and the sun are orbiting the common center of gravity. It's just that that common center of gravity is well inside the sun.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:maybe it trails by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      In a word? Vectors.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    3. Re:maybe it trails by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      In a word? Vectors.

      Whoosshh..

  14. Re:We know who to blame here by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Nope. It's caused by Global Warming, which is caused by man. Everything that happens, or doesn't happen, is caused by Global Warming.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  15. Run Away!!! by SomewhatRandom · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, now, uh, Launcelot, Galahad and I, wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the asteroid, taking the French, uh, by suprise. Not only by suprise, but totally unarmed! ...*Who* leaps out?

    1. Re:Run Away!!! by berashith · · Score: 1

      damnit. i came here just to make this joke.

    2. Re:Run Away!!! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Well, then, go away. I need to se a man about some shrubbery.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    3. Re:Run Away!!! by berashith · · Score: 1

      be sure to bring a herring with you. Never know if you'll need one.

  16. Re:We know who to blame here by peragrin · · Score: 1

    even if it is a glacier which every 5,000-10,000 years builds itself up, and then melts away. repeating the process over and over again, in some form of cycle that is very hard to understand.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  17. Don't slow down by sousoux · · Score: 1

    In fact. Don't speed up either.

  18. VLBI by vlm · · Score: 2

    Who will be the first person to suggest placing VLBI radio telescopes at each lagrange point? Oh I guess it'll be me. A nice heavy asteroid would be convenient for vibration dampening WRT antenna pointing.

    The problem is when/if we ever do planetary colonization, those L points will be in high demand for planetary relay satellites, as no matter where any other planet is in its orbit relative to earth's orbit, at least one earth L point should be in view... so what do we want there, sensitive receivers or big ole transmitters? I'm guessing we'll have some kind of scientific "quiet hours" scheme where the scientists get the first second of every minute, first minute of every hour, and first hour of every day, of radio silence. Or maybe they'll just be screwed?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:VLBI by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      those L points will be in high demand for planetary relay satellites, as no matter where any other planet is in its orbit relative to earth's orbit, at least one earth L point should be in view... so what do we want there, sensitive receivers or big ole transmitters?

      Or we could split them up: One Lagrange point for transmitters, one for receivers?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:VLBI by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      All the *radio* astronomy will be done from the "dark" side of the Moon, which will block the radio noise pollution from the Earth.

    3. Re:VLBI by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Damn! Now I have an intense urge to put a 2m ham repeater at L4.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:VLBI by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Damn! Now I have an intense urge to put a 2m ham repeater at L4.

      Hell, I have an intense urge to park a Winnebago at L4.

  19. Earth downgraded, no longer a planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wasn't clearing it's orbit of other objects one of the conditions of being considered a planet that in part lead to Pluto being downgraded? I strictly mention this because I think the downgrade was silly. They seem to cherry pick conditions with the intent to downgrade Pluto.

  20. Re:Gor. by mlts · · Score: 1

    If this were found at L3, that would sound about right.

  21. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    And if a LOT of stuff accumulates there - you get a new moon. Eventually.

    That's how we got our favorite Luna, probably.

  22. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

    Being that this is in the same orbit around the Sun as Earth and it will stay there, is this a viable location for a human colony?

    First space colony would be the moon, then this asteroid, then Mars?

  23. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by element-o.p. · · Score: 2
    From TFS:

    ...2010 TK7 is about 300 meters across...

    It would be kind of cramped, and I rather suspect the gravitational pull would be negligible for all practical purposes.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  24. no surprise really by v1 · · Score: 1

    First thing that crossed through my mind when I read this, duuh, that's an L4 or L5 isn't it?

    Probably the only reason it took them this long to "discover" it was its small size. After all, they knew exactly where to look.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  25. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2

    It would be kind of cramped, and I rather suspect the gravitational pull would be negligible for all practical purposes.

    Assuming the same average density as Earth, the surface gravity would be about 1/50000 that of Earth. I make it 0.0002 meters/second squared.

    ...laura

  26. Wait, wait, wait by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Tell me.... Does it have oil?????

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    1. Re:Wait, wait, wait by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Tell me.... Does it have oil?????

      Yes, of snake variety. Wanna buy some?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  27. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the explanation. My first thought upon reading this was "wait a second, didn't Pluto lose its status as a planet in part because it had not cleared its orbit?"

    --
    Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  28. Trojan? Trojan? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    THIS IS SLASHDOT!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  29. Get out there... by kronnek · · Score: 1

    ... and find out what it is made of. Get some govt funding going to a private company and mine it. Profit.

  30. Let's turn it into a space habitat by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2
    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  31. There are additional moons to be found by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    I've always suspected that Earth has some additional tiny moons that haven't been discovered yet -- but my professors always pooh-poohed that idea, without really giving a good reason why.

    Now it turns out that an Earth Trojan has gone undetected until now. This strengthens my belief that Earth has some miniature natural satellites awaiting discovery.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:There are additional moons to be found by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Sorry but there are none now, early in the formation of the earth-moon system there would have been debris, but after a billion years would be either ejected or become part of earth or moon.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13836-did-earth-once-have-multiple-moons.html

      Funny that third stage of Apollo 12 was found orbiting as moon.

    2. Re:There are additional moons to be found by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but your article is about objects that might have hung out at the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points. It neither supports nor disproves the idea of some plain old moons currently orbiting Earth, which are simply too small to have been discovered yet.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  32. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

    A significant fraction of the earth's density (~20%) comes from gravitational compression.

    A smaller body with the exact same material composition as Earth would have lower density than the Earth does.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  33. equilateral triangle? by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

    Why is it 50 million miles away? If it's at a Lagrange point, at 60 degrees offset, shouldn't it be 93 million miles away?

    1. Re:equilateral triangle? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      It's *almost* an equilateral triangle, if the earth's mass were totally negligible then it would be perfect e. triangle. Don't forget the earth-sun distance varies too, in elliptical orbit case you get lagrange area rather than point you get with circle.

    2. Re:equilateral triangle? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and meant to conclude with, the object is orbiting the lagrange area and not at it

  34. Re:Cruithne by niktemadur · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I was trying to remember the name of that bad boy. Cruithne!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  35. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by c0lo · · Score: 2

    No, the Lagrange points are stable garbage dumps for planets to put "small" things of 9% of its mass or less, the stuff stays there. It's one of the ways a planet clears its orbit.

    Theoretically you are right. Practically, the orbit of TK7 is actually unstable. Because TK7 executes some Lissajous orbit around L4 and the Moon orbit is eccentric (search for the "the case of the Earth-Moon system" in the linked page).

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  36. Does this mean Earth is no longer a planet? by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    Does this mean Earth is no longer a planet like Pluto?

    Planet requirements:
    1. It needs to be in orbit around the Sun. (Check)
    2. It needs to have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. (Check)
    3. It needs to have “cleared the neighborhood” of its orbit. (Uh oh! Pluto doesn't satisfy this requirement and apparently now Earth doesn't either!)

    Obviously I jest, but I do find it funny.

    1. Re:Does this mean Earth is no longer a planet? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yes, jests are fun. But seriously, it would depend on how many decimal places before you agree to round up to "swept out". I think most people would be willing to round up in this case, but not in Pluto's.

    2. Re:Does this mean Earth is no longer a planet? by syousef · · Score: 1

      That is because the IAU passed an IDIOTIC politically motivated definition defined by a committee of washed out has-been scientists, that made absolutely no sense neither scientifically nor in the lay vernacular.

      By this definition
      - no extra-solar planet is actually a planet, since they don't orbit the Sun (aka Sol, OUR star). Why they couldn't replace "sun" with "parent star" or "primary graviationally bound star" is beyond me.
      - a dwarf planet is not a planet either. (They needed to use another name for what they called dwarf planet...but no lets make it sound like a subclass even though it's not)
      - you need further explanation to say how spherical is spherical
      - you need further explanation things like what "cleared out it's orbit" means

      I HATE the definition. It's just gibberish and does no credit to the science of Astronomy.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  37. Earth must be hung like a Roman god by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    300 meters across?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  38. Re:Isn't this a ticking time bomb? by instagib · · Score: 1

    Which means that if you fart while sitting on the Asteroid you'll reach escape velocity.

  39. It's so big by Bengie · · Score: 1

    The Trojan asteroid now comes with a fire & ice sensation.

  40. It Must Be Said by Lotharus · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Trojan Earth Overlords!