Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid Passes Closer To Earth Than the Moon on Nov 8

First time accepted submitter TheNextCorner writes "NASA scientists will be tracking asteroid 2005 YU55 with antennas of the agency's Deep Space Network at Goldstone, Calif., as the space rock safely flies past Earth slightly closer than the moon's orbit on Nov. 8. Scientists are treating the flyby of the 1,300-foot-wide (400-meter) asteroid as a science target of opportunity – allowing instruments on 'spacecraft Earth' to scan it during the close pass. "

169 comments

  1. I have to say... by Lyrata · · Score: 2

    I'm amazed I haven't seen doomsday theories regarding this yet.

    --
    50,000 characters used to live here.
    1. Re:I have to say... by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      *checks time* ummmm i believe u needed to give it one more minute and an anon; who missed yelling first, would say "WERE DOOMED"

      --
      warning pointless sig
    2. Re:I have to say... by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      How much change do I need to have in my pockets again?

    3. Re:I have to say... by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      First Apocalyp.....

    4. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it will collide with some space junk and change course towards earth just in the nick of time, they always do.

    5. Re:I have to say... by mcneely.mike · · Score: 1

      all you need is a towel!

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    6. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And purple triangles and Nike's, so important those Nike's.......

    7. Re:I have to say... by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we would have seen that if Bruce Willis didn't have it covered.

    8. Re:I have to say... by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      The summery is Wrong ! !
      According to TFA . . .
      >> The trajectory of asteroid 2005 YU55 is well understood. At the point of closest approach,
      >> it will be no closer than 201,700 miles (324,600 kilometers)
      >> or 0.85 the distance from the moon to Earth.

      so the asteroid will be just inside the orbit of the moon . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    9. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to get out to more conspiracy sites, some have been on this for months (well at least since comet Elenin went and broke apart on them).

      There have been many different theories....many of them bring in the national emergency alert system test the day after as being planned for communicating the start of martial law....

      Afterall why else would FEMA, FCC and NOAA do a nationwide 'test' of the EAS, they never have before.

    10. Re:I have to say... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      How do you know it won't hit the moon? It ought to be able to break off chunks large enough to destroy civilization as they rain down on the Earth. That should be awesome to watch!

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    11. Re:I have to say... by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      It's not wrong, it's just ambiguous. The summary means "asteroid passes closer to Earth than the Moon is to the Earth", not "asteroid passes closer to the Earth than it will be to the moon".

    12. Re:I have to say... by formfeed · · Score: 2

      Just make sure you have your towel ready.

    13. Re:I have to say... by optimism · · Score: 1

      Ambiguity aside, both of those interpretations might be true.

      TFA includes a nifty animated GIF of the asteroid's path...but only in 2 dimensions. Space is 3-dimensional. You would have to see the 3D trajectory to tell whether the asteroid passes closer to the earth, or to the moon.

    14. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never forget to bring a towel! ... or pot.

    15. Re:I have to say... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed I haven't seen doomsday theories regarding this yet.

      The year, 1994. From out of space, comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon, unleashing cosmic destruction. Man's civilization is cast in ruin.

      Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn. A strange new world rises from the old. A world of savagery, super-science, and sorcery.

      But one man bursts his bonds to fight for justice. With his companions, Ookla the Mok and Princess Ariel, he pits his strength, his courage, and his fabulous Sunsword, against the forces of evil. He is Thundarr, the Barbarian!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    16. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA includes a nifty animated GIF of the asteroid's path...but only in 2 dimensions. Space is 3-dimensional. You would have to see the 3D trajectory to tell whether the asteroid passes closer to the earth, or to the moon.

      2005 YU55 inclination is only 0.51351. The Moons is 5.145. Still, I can't even tell in 2D which it gets closest too.

    17. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOD, I use to love that cartoon as a kid!!!

    18. Re:I have to say... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Two old pennies, one for each eye.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:I have to say... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yea, i was just wondering if it's large or heavy enough to make the worldly waters move ? we can has tsunami ? let's hope not or maybe let's hope its big enough to whack the whole planet at once if it does ... wallstreet crisis solved

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    20. Re:I have to say... by PenguinJeff · · Score: 1

      I thought in situations like this we where to put paper bags over our heads or something?

    21. Re:I have to say... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's not coming straight for us so there's no drilling required... however, there is an armada of alien ships hiding behind it so we'll need Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum to head to their nearest airbase.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    22. Re:I have to say... by tom17 · · Score: 1

      If you like.

    23. Re:I have to say... by craigminah · · Score: 0

      According to M-theory there are 11 dimensions though I can only comprehend 4 and only when not drinking beer.

    24. Re:I have to say... by Ash.D.Giles · · Score: 1

      How do you know it won't hit the moon?

      Using the same basic orbital calculation that let us send a dozen or so space vessels to the moon rather than off into the sun or something. We've become pretty good at telling where the moon will be at any given time. Maybe there are even "Full moon" days written in your calendar. They are when the moon and sun are in roughly opposite directions from us.

    25. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read a bunch based on some guy saying it's going to hit us based on his calculations taking place in a 2D, not 3D Solar system, Warren Buffet buying a lot of stuff recently.

      You know, the usual shit.

  2. WERE DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WERE DOOMED

    1. Re:WERE DOOMED by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      WERE DOOMED

      We were doomed? So we're safe now?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:WERE DOOMED by Lyrata · · Score: 1

      Well then. I guess I spoke too soon.

      --
      50,000 characters used to live here.
    3. Re:WERE DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of doomed, wasn't someone predicting the end of the world on October 25th?

    4. Re:WERE DOOMED by Boigaz · · Score: 2

      NO! YOUR DOOMED

    5. Re:WERE DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and ITS DOOMED TWO!!!

    6. Re:WERE DOOMED by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      haha sadly many people wont get it

    7. Re:WERE DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha sadly many people wont get it

      if there's one thing the internet has taught me it's that no one understands contractions.

    8. Re:WERE DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wear doomed!

    9. Re:WERE DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its an apostrophe joke, right?

    10. Re:WERE DOOMED by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's so hard to understand? Some may be strong, some barely noticeable, but each is preparing your body for the actual onset of labor.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:WERE DOOMED by TheNextCorner · · Score: 2

      Speaking of doomed, wasn't someone predicting the end of the world on October 25th?

      And that "someone" has dissapeared. At the same time, the rapture has been postponed to December 24th 2012.

    12. Re:WERE DOOMED by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Bah! There arent any women on slashdot so weve no need of such arcane knowledge! Begone with you! Well do just fine without knowing how those contraction things are supposed to work!

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  3. That sounds close. by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

    What we should do is send Bruce Willis with a master plan to slow it down, and get ourselves a new satellite.

    --
    Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    1. Re:That sounds close. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I knew someone added the Bruce Willis tagline. There was two asteroid impact movies at that time, the one with Bruce Willis and the other (forgotten?). Kind of like in 1964 there was two movies on nuclear attack by rouge aircraft, Dr. Strangelove and (forgotten?). Movies that were successful didn't try to be serious and dramatic, they delibritely went over-the-top with character actors.

      Those forgotten movies were Deep Impact and Failsafe.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:That sounds close. by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      I remember Deep Impact. Forget about it, man; Robert Duvall can't pull this one off. It's Bruce or we lose the damn thing!

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    3. Re:That sounds close. by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows what happens when an Asteroid gets close to the moon and earth.

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAobPugvsk

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    4. Re:That sounds close. by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      9/10ths of the moons orbit according to this informative video from Jet Propulsion Labs

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
  4. confused by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    Is the distance from the asteroid to the earth going to be less than the distance from the earth to the moon? Is the distance from the asteroid to the moon going to be greater than the distance from the earth to the asteroid?

    1. Re:confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you confused? Assuming you read a bit further than the headline of the story you would see the line:

      "as the space rock safely flies past Earth slightly closer than the moon's orbit"

      Slightly closer than the earth's orbit.

    2. Re:confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the moon will pass slightly closer to the earth than the moon's orbit.

    3. Re:confused by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Wow, if I understand that animation correctly it appears the asteroids orbit is nearly perpendicular to the Earth's orbit around the Sun (at least in the plane shown).

    4. Re:confused by Intropy · · Score: 2

      My, what an eccentric asteroid.

    5. Re:confused by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has an interactive approximation of the orbit (requires Java for the applet).

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    6. Re:confused by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      It was meaning the former "Earth-asteroid distance Earth-Moon distance".

      ie, at the time of closest approach to the Earth, the asteroid is inside the Moon's orbit, is indeed closer to the Earth than it is to the moon, but not 0.5 x (mean Earth-Moon distance).

  5. What a perfect opportunity... by underlord_999 · · Score: 1

    ...to land on a passing asteroid. That is, if we still had a space program able to carry a person to it. Heck, I'd even settle for a quick-launch of an instrument/rover/lander to take some video and transmit it to Earth in near real-time.

    You might even be able to use it as a one-way intra-solar-system ferry if the asteroid was going close to the same direction you wanted the probe to go.

    1. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      The difference in velocity between the asteroid and earth could be enormous. Just because it's coming close doesn't mean it's practical to land on it or orbit it. However we could always smash something into it then analyze the ejecta from earth.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2

      To test attaching a rocket to it to send it on another course. It seems like a low cost way to test some of the anti-asteroid plans.

    3. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Columcille · · Score: 2

      "However we could always smash something into it then analyze the ejecta from earth."

      That's crazy. We would never do something like that.

      --
      I love my sig.
    4. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Let's see, 6 days from now to launch and get it out to nearly the Moon's orbit. Not going to happen. But it would be interesting if we could.

    5. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they knew about 2005 YU55 before today ;) Matching velocity probably makes it more difficult. From the little animation it made me wonder if we'll see one of these things hit the moon before the Earth and how much longer that might be.

    6. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it low cost? We would have had to send something up about 2 years ago (probably more) to take a boost past Venus or something to end up coming back on the right trajectory to match speeds with this thing. Or, did you think delta-v is free and we have inertial dampeners like on Star Trek and can just "whoosh" off in a new direction at a new speed with no inertial effects at all? Although to be fair, it would be fairly cheap to launch something up to just sit in the asteroid's path. It wouldn't last long when the asteroid hit it at ludicrous speed though.

    7. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Teancum · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The issue here is the relative speed of the asteroid. It is very likely that it is moving from much further out in the Solar System, thus it will be moving a bit faster than the Earth/Moon.

      None the less, this distance to the Earth will be plenty to significantly change the orbital characteristics of this asteroid as it goes around the Sun (due to the gravity of the Earth).

      In terms of landing on an asteroid like this, there have been several proposals made to do just that, and there are several other candidate asteroids that will be passing just as close if not even closer over the next decade or so. Some of those missions even have been suggested to be manned missions to the asteroid, which could get quite interesting. One of the mission profiles is to head out to meet the asteroid about a month before it comes close to the Earth, and then do a "sample return" (manned or unmanned) using the Earth's atmosphere as an aerobrake. Obviously you need a much beefier heat shield than for ordinary LEO reentry, but it isn't as bad as it would seem and certainly is the realm of current aeronautical technology to accomplish. The SpaceX Dragon could easily cope with that kind of entry profile, to give an example.

      The issue with this particular one is simply timing and getting something sent up before it passes. This particular asteroid is unlikely to get that kind of treatment mainly because it is a much more recent discovery (discovered in 2005 based on its designation), and it hasn't even received an asteroid number yet. This one might actually get a name... something that is missing for most new asteroid discoveries.

    8. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

      When I say cheap, I mean cheap compared to sending something 1AU as opposed to .00022 AU. It is small, not miles across.

      We can use the transporter, since it would be in transporter range.

      I doubt it would be moving at ludicrous speed, there is a chance it will be moving at ridiculous speed. As long as it does not go to plaid, it would be ok.

      Let everyone who bought their 1watt lasers aim at it and see if that is strong enough to move it.

    9. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, Star Trek did fairly well in its portrayals of asteroids and inertia. While they obviously used the fictional inertial dampers inside the ship to prevent everyone from turning to mush when they changed velocity, there was an episode (old series) where a giant asteroid was headed for some planet with a bunch of Native Americans on it, and in the process of trying to save the day, Kirk got amnesia and the natives thought he was a god. Meanwhile, the Enterprise tried to alter the asteroid's path, even though it was (IIRC) months away from impact, but failed because it had too much inertia and the Enterprise didn't have enough power to make a significant change. Of course, at the end, Kirk regained his memory and they re-activated an alien asteroid deflector that was installed on the planet for just that purpose.

      So, even way back in the late 1960s, the Star Trek writers knew of the dangers of asteroid impacts and why advanced cultures would want to create devices capable of deflecting them far ahead of their impact date. Too bad the rest of us haven't caught on yet.

    10. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      You might even be able to use it as a one-way intra-solar-system ferry if the asteroid was going close to the same direction you wanted the probe to go.

      If you get your probe up to the same velocity as the asteroid (as you would do to land on it) then you don't really need to use it as a ferry do you?

    11. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, maybe it was 2005 when they discovered it. But maybe they didn't know the orbital parameters all that well until recently. I can't imagine it taking less than 2 or 3 years to put something like that together. The Earth is a much bigger target than the Moon.

    12. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you're a fucking idiot. The last thing we'd want to do is maroon a human on that thing.
       
      Luckily, we still have a robust non-passenger space program. If they'd thought ahead, and thought it worthwhile, they could have sent an instrument package to meet the visiting object.
       
      Nice troll, though.

    13. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the same thing, but what if you run a giant bungee cord or net across its path before it arrives? Let the asteroid accelerate you.

    14. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Not even if said person was a politician?

    15. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Launching anything into space isn't cheap as mass costs time and energy. But it is nice to review cheaper and more effective methods. It's been known for some time that many asteroids are made up of smaller rocks and dust. They're held loosely together by gravity alone. Unless it's a chunk of iron ore from a super nova flying through space, it should be trivial to harpoon one of these (large) asteroids and push it with a booster. Just enough to alter its course.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      Or a lawyer?

    17. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Problem: one way missions are not ideal for humans.

    18. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by valugi · · Score: 0

      "However we could always smash something into it then analyze the ejecta from earth."

      smash it into Earth and analyze that ejecta from first row. :)

    19. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it's fast when close to the Earth doesn't mean that we have to intercept it close to the Earth. Just launch a craft into an orbit around the sun which intersects the orbit of the asteroid at its aphelion, where it moves slowest.

    20. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends which human. I can think of quite a few humans where a one-way mission would be ideal (when viewed from my perspective)

    21. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by eyenot · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are plenty of senior citizens or people with low self esteem who wouldn't mind dying on this asteroid, if you could gaurantee they'll be doing some flyby of other stuff worth looking at before they send-off. Plenty of people would gladly be marooned in space just with a space suit and a huge bag of beef jerky and granola and a big tank of water.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    22. Re:What a perfect opportunity... by X10 · · Score: 1

      You might even be able to use it as a one-way intra-solar-system ferry if the asteroid was going close to the same direction you wanted the probe to go.

      It's definitely a cheap way to travel a long way into space. And in due time, it'll bring you back. Like within a million years or so.

      --
      no, I don't have a sig
  6. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Top 10 Funniest of the year.

  7. WEIRD DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corrected now...

    APK

    1. Re:WEIRD DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      So, speaking of asteroids and moons, would you happen to have any info on hostsfiles or something like that?

    2. Re:WEIRD DOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you fool!! Don't get him started!!!

  8. No deflection? by HaeMaker · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it is too small, but what I do not see in the animation is a new deflection in the orbit with this close fly-by to the earth and moon. What will the new orbit be after the flyby?

    1. Re:No deflection? by Bamfarooni · · Score: 1

      Too small to see.

    2. Re:No deflection? by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

      @too small..

      With the speed of about 12000 km/h and size of 400 meters it would be scary if it landed no matter where (earth/ocean), in comparison the dreaded Apophis asteroid is smaller, only ~300 meters in size.

    3. Re:No deflection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HaeMaker is referring to the deflection being too small, not the asteroid itself.

  9. Blow it up!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before it's too late...

  10. I think I'll rent Melancholia on the 8th by darkjohnson · · Score: 1
    I mean, it will put me in the mood for the big NASA 'oops' event. :)

    Melancholia (new window)

  11. Great base for a space station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That would be great, put it into orbit and use it as a space station/mining facility.. good times

    1. Re:Great base for a space station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, here! It's about time we started doing that. We could probably use the ore to make a larger ship.

    2. Re:Great base for a space station by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is a little bigger than an aircraft carrier (the diameter is about the same as a carrier's length), so I don't know how useful it'd be for a space station, but it would be very interesting to know what its composition is; if it's useful minerals, then it could be extremely valuable. It's really rather pathetic that we haven't had enough foresight to invest in building up our space program so that we have the capability of trapping a small asteroid like this that's so convenient, so that we can mine it for resources. Unlike leveling mountains and digging giant pit mines, you'll never have any environmentalists complaining about off-planet asteroid mining, and the ores in asteroids have potentially much higher yield than those found in the earth's crust.

    3. Re:Great base for a space station by TheNextCorner · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't the cost of building the equipment to capture one of these puppies be much higher than what the materials bring up? I cannot even imagine how you would be able to capture one asteroid traveling a couple thousand M/hr in space.

    4. Re:Great base for a space station by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, you wouldn't try to capture it as it's whizzing by the Earth with a giant delta-V, you'd strap a rocket to it (or something) and slowly change its trajectory so that it eventually became "parked" in a location convenient to the earth, perhaps in a Lagrangian point, with zero delta-V. This would obviously take some time; one of those new ion engines, working over the course of a few years, might do the trick; it wouldn't be an overnight operation.

      Secondly, no, building the equipment would be cheap if you already had manufacturing facilities in space (or someplace low-gravity, like the moon), and already had designs in place and had already built such equipment before. Getting to that point is obviously expensive, but obviously you wouldn't build a whole space program to capture one asteroid and mine it, and then quit. (Well, if you're America, you might....) You'd do this with lots of asteroids, and pretty soon you've easily repaid your investment. It's like building a factory: you don't spend $3 billion to make a semiconductor fab and then just build one chip, you build many millions of them, and eventually pay back your investment.

    5. Re:Great base for a space station by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i think you woiuld be better offcatching it either before it gets to us, or as it does. Than you work on sending it past the sun, slowing it down and shifting its trajectory as it comes back towards earth

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Great base for a space station by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      About the size of an aircraft carrier seems perfect as counterweight to a space elevator.
      To bad we're years to late to get it to the correct orientation and velocity. To "capture" an asteroid you need to nudge it to the right place.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    7. Re:Great base for a space station by Rolgar · · Score: 2

      Catching it as it approaches as you recommend would still be fairly difficult, because in changing the speed to park it in orbit, you will have to change it's speed enough that it probably won't end up near earth.

      If it's slower than earth, you would have to send the tug out, and start picking up speed so earth will catch up to it. If it's faster than us, you will have to slow it down as you describe, but our current engines aren't strong enough to do this in one pass. The ion engine Grishnakh mentions is much more efficient than old chemical rockets, but I think it would take a month to move a probe (or the tug) out to moon orbit. Slowing down an asteroid with ion engines would take years as Grishnakh said.

    8. Re:Great base for a space station by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wonder when it's going to come around again?

    9. Re:Great base for a space station by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      thanks for that, i admit i am behind the times in modern techniques, i didnt realize we have come that far yet.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  12. If they call comets by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    If they call comets that are 9 million miles away near earth objects what in god name do they call this?? lol i beat there heads are gong to explode from excitement :]

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  13. I'll be impressed when ... by linear+a · · Score: 1

    I'll be impressed when ... an asteroid passes closer than the space station to the earth.

    1. Re:I'll be impressed when ... by Grave · · Score: 1

      No you won't. You'll almost certainly be dead.

    2. Re:I'll be impressed when ... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      There have been several known instances of rocks of non-trivial size passing closer to the earth than the geostationary sats, and in some cases inside the GPS sat constellation.

      This one missed us by 1 Earth radius.

      http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca?type=NEO&hmax=all&sort=dist&sdir=ASC&tlim=past&dmax=5LD&max_rows=500&action=Display+Table&show=1

      http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news142.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_asteroids#Asteroids

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:I'll be impressed when ... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There was a rather large meteor when not just passed below the ISS altitude, but even made it briefly into the Earth's atmosphere to make a rather spectacular fireball:

      http://www.coldsplinters.com/2010/08/the-great-daylight-1972-fireball/

      See also:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Daylight_1972_Fireball

      It was visible during the day, and the photo was captured in Canada. It was speculated that this meteor would have done some significant damage, and that we were "lucky" it didn't hit. Some have estimated that this meteor was about 3m in diameter and would have made as much as a 3 kiloton explosion had it landed on the Earth's surface. I suppose that was impressive.

  14. Margin of Error? by rueger · · Score: 1

    (324,600 kilometers) or 0.85 the distance from the moon to Earth

    Maybe I just re-read Lucifer's Hammer too many times, but I'm wondering what the margin of error is on this calculation?

    If they're off by even 20% I can imagine some not good things happening.

    1. Re:Margin of Error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The object is getting very close to us. As such, the margin for error in the calculations is minute at best.
      We are close enough to use conventional satellite radar systems to determine location, direction and speed of movement rather than relying upon observing through a telescope to measure the path to model the trajectory.

    2. Re:Margin of Error? by Lexx+Greatrex · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering what the margin of error is on this calculation?

      http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca?type=NEO&hmax=all&sort=date&sdir=ASC&tlim=recent_future&dmax=5LD&max_rows=0&action=Display+Table&show=1

      The N-sigma for 2005 YU55 is 31,700, which means that the maximum error is 31,700 times smaller than the distance between the Earth and the object at its nearest point or an error so small as to be insignificant.

    3. Re:Margin of Error? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It seems you have a misconsception regarding errors.

      Take a sheet of pape, make a random dot in the left side of it, now make a random dot in the right side of it.

      Draw a small (fingernail big) circle around each dot.

      Now connect the left circles upper edge with the right circles lower edge and vice versa with a straight line. The two lines will cross in between of the circles and will fan out behind the circles.

      The bigger the circles are the bigger the fan out is. The fan out describes the uncertainess of the orbit you just tried to figure. The circle size is your error. If you have more than 2 points ... more than 2 "circles" you can narrow down the orbit pretty accurate.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. something else by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to TFA, the asteroid is mostly black and "aircraft carrier sized". The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:something else by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      "The Final Countdown" just popped into my head. Thanks. :)

    2. Re:something else by gregrah · · Score: 1

      "The Final Countdown" just popped into my head. Thanks. :)

    3. Re:something else by definate · · Score: 1

      We have never put anything that is "aircraft carrier sized" up there. So... you'd be saying that it's an alien spacecraft.

      Just so we're clear.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:something else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      That is, of course, correct.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:something else by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 2

      Your post made me think of Rendezvous with Rama, which was quite unsatisfying.

    6. Re:something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: Get shanghaied by little green men
      2: Get rich entertaining them
      3: Build spacecraft
      4: ????
      5: Fly past Earth

    7. Re:something else by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, the asteroid is mostly black and "aircraft carrier sized". The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.

      from a galaxy far away... my guess it is a Tantive IV, size fits. A bit.

    8. Re:something else by Splab · · Score: 1

      Well duh, I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed if an aircraft sized piece of electronic space going gizmos vent missing.

    9. Re:something else by Saintwolf · · Score: 0

      4: Launch spacecraft?

    10. Re:something else by sempir · · Score: 1

      One wonders if it may just be all the lost airline luggage lost over the years! Could embarrass the shit out of a lot of airlines!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    11. Re:something else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Clarke wrote a very early short story, about a space station worker outside when he wasn't supposed to be (on his way to a sexual encounter in an airlock) when his proximity alarm went off. He got a glimpse of an asteroid flashing by that was as large as an airliner, and saw that it was a very old alien spaceship that had collided with something and was dead in space. The conundrum was, here he had made the most vital discovery of the century and because he was not authorized to be where he was, he couldn't tell anyone.

      I wasn't thinking of Rama. I found that book kinda boring.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:something else by eyenot · · Score: 1

      "The Final Countdown" just popped into my head. Thanks. ):

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    13. Re:something else by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.

      Think horses, not zebras.

      But, I have to admit, my first thought was, "I wonder if the Chinese are going to put a spacecraft on it," so I can't claim to be immune to flights of fancy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:something else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Think horses, not zebras.

      Think horses, but wish for zebras.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    15. Re:something else by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      "The Final Countdown" just popped into my head. Thanks. ):

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    16. Re:something else by cavebison · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, the asteroid is mostly black and "aircraft carrier sized". The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.

      My first thought was it might have weird black controls, labelled in black on a black background, each with a small black light which lights up black to let you know you've done something.

    17. Re:something else by cicuz · · Score: 1

      V'ger?

    18. Re:something else by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Much older.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  16. How about a battleship? by syousef · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, the asteroid is mostly black and "aircraft carrier sized". The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.

    How about a balttleship instead?

    http://www.starblazers.com/images/jun09/images/Starlogpages.PDF

    DO NOT. REPEAT DO NOT watch this if you loved it as a child. The poor excuse for what passed as science and science fiction here made me think what a stupid ignorant child I was. Huge nostalgic letdown. By comparison Star Trek Original Series is realistic - that is how far fetched and bad the science is.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:How about a battleship? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      The original version of Star Blazers was a national institution in Japan and is still remembered to this day. They just did an animated movie ( http://anbudom.net/2010/11/03/space-battleship-yamato-revival/ ), and even a live action movie.

      True, it did have bad science (you can't see the Comet Empire from light years away, since the light would take years to get to you), but it was a breakthrough at the time.

    2. Re:How about a battleship? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Yes and an English version is planned. I only watched the English Starblazers as a kid and went back to watch it 20 years later as an adult. As I said in my earlier post, big big mistake. Childhood memories ruined.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  17. Who has an active space program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmmmmmmm
    Seems I just read me something about some country doin' some space stuff

    1. Re:Who has an active space program? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Probably China. Obama sold them NASA for a bag of magic beans that are supposed to allow him to increase the tax rates. However, when he planted them all that grew were massive debt weeds. So, now he's trying to buy another bag of seeds from them.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  18. Ummm by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    Of course if we miscalculated the capture orbit and accidentally dropped the freaking thing on ourselves that would also solve the environmentalist problem. They would be annihilated along with the rest of us. Better still. There would be no environment left for anyone to fret over and fight about.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:Ummm by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous; in such a situation there'd be very little damage. Remember, the whole idea of capturing an asteroid relies on making adjustments to its trajectory far in advance of a fly-by with earth. By the time it's anywhere near the earth, after using ion rockets to change its course, or using some kind of slingshot effect like the other poster mentioned, the asteroid's delta-V with earth would be tiny. An asteroid's impact energy is a product of its mass and velocity (or rather its difference in velocity, or delta-V, since the earth itself is also moving). If the delta-V is small, then its impact energy is similarly small. Likewise, the likelihood of screwing up and having it hit the earth is tiny since, with such a small delta-V by the time it gets near the earth, it would be pretty easy to maneuver into position with rockets if the calculations were a little off.

      Finally, this asteroid isn't much bigger than an aircraft carrier. In terms of asteroids, that's really not very large; there's been lots of asteroids that large that have hit the earth in the past few million years, not doing much damage relatively. The asteroid that caused the Chixulub crater and probably wiped out most of the dinosaurs with the K-T event was at least 10km in diameter, around 30 times the diameter of this little asteroid, which equates to around 27,000 times the volume.

  19. bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so good.thank you.http://www.1stbearing.com

  20. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fat Poofta? Where?

  21. What's up with trajectory? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    You seem to know the subject:

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/541440main_2005_YU55_approach.gif

    Why is it perpendicular to Earth's orbit in that diagram?

    Does not look this way in

    http://www.vorchester.com/vnews/images/2005YU55Orbit.jpg

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:What's up with trajectory? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Both of those diagrams can be correct. Attempting to squish a 3-dimensional reality into two dimensions can lose all sorts of information. As a comparison, try to make a wire frame model of a cube and then rotate that cube around looking at the shadow being cast upon a flat surface. Depending on how it is rotated, the shadow can be a square, a rectangle with a line through the middle at some arbitrary location, a squished hexagon with triangles, or other harder shapes to describe.

      Elliptical orbits with only two points of reference (in the case of the NASA GIF image, the Earth and the Moon) really don't give enough details to understand how that orbit is meeting up with the orbital plane of the Earth and other details which would give you a more clear view of what is going on. The only way to really see this is with some 3-D glasses or a model you could walk around showing this interaction, where I don't think you would necessarily see the "perpendicular" crossing being so obvious.

      This isn't scientists trying to yank your chain here, it is just that celestial navigation through the solar system is quite a bit harder than most people would think, and you have to be thinking more in three dimensions than the two you are used to doing when navigating upon the surface of an irregular spheroid like we typically do here on the Earth.

    2. Re:What's up with trajectory? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I know about the generalities you wrote.

      My impression was that pretty much everything in Solar system is in one plane, with exceptions like newer objects. For example, Earth has inclination of 1.57 to that plane and 2005 YU550 is 0.51351 relative to Earth.

      First picture I assume is a perpendicular look at that plane (otherwise it does not make sense) and second picture is a little slanted (45 degrees). At that assumption I do not see how it is possible to get the first picture.

      This video shows how asteroid will cross the orbit and I do not see how it is perpendicular.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:What's up with trajectory? by almitydave · · Score: 1

      The perpendicular line in the first animation represents the asteroid's position relative to the Earth, as the Earth moves. So, although it's traveling at approximately a 45-degree angle relative to Earth's movement as it passes, it's going enough faster than the Earth that its angular velocity along the direction of Earth's orbit is about the same as the Earth's, so from an Earth perspective it passes perpendicular to our orbit.

      Try this experiment: take a pen in each hand, and hold your left hand stationary while you drive a vertical line going up with your right hand, from the bottom of the paper to the top. You'll have a dot and a straight line - that will look like the animated image where the Earth doesn't move. Now have someone pull the paper to the right while you do this (or move both hands to the left in unison), and you'll get a horizontal line for your left hand, and a diagonal line for your right, which will represent a small portion of the second image centered around where the asteroid crosses the Earth's orbit.

      Relative orbits are a fascinating subject (for some people). One of my pet projects is a simple gravity simulator, to which I added the ability to render relative orbits, so you can see those weird kidney bean shapes around Lagrange Points. See Earth coorbital asteroid 2002 AA29 and Near-Earth asteroid 3753 Cruithne for some interesting examples.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    4. Re:What's up with trajectory? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >as the Earth moves

      You are right, I forgot about that effect.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  22. Scale by optimism · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a shame that NASA posts a lame size comparison to a warship, instead of educating people with the much larger scale of this event. To wit:

    1) Earth is a basketball

    2) Luna is a baseball, orbiting about 30 feet (9m) away from the basketball

    3) Asteroid 2005YU55 is a red blood cell (about 1/10 the diameter of a human hair), passing about 25 feet away from the basketball

    The truly amazing thing is that we can see surface details on that red blood cell from 25 feet away.

    1. Re:Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that NASA posts a lame size comparison to a warship, instead of educating people with the much larger scale of this event. To wit:

      1) Earth is a basketball

      2) Luna is a baseball, orbiting about 30 feet (9m) away from the basketball

      3) Asteroid 2005YU55 is a red blood cell (about 1/10 the diameter of a human hair), passing about 25 feet away from the basketball

      The truly amazing thing is that we can see surface details on that red blood cell from 25 feet away.

      It would be amazing if we were using the naked eye.

    2. Re:Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helpful animated GIF:

      http://motherboard.tv/2011/11/7/meet-the-giant-asteroid-about-to-pass-between-the-earth-and-moon--2

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

      Everything is relative, the example you suggest is the common example that every grade/high school teacher uses. It does a very poor job of providing a physical representation of the size of the object. It does show scale, and if you are blessed with a fantastic spactial imagination that maybe 0.01% of humanity is blessed with then you are truly gifted. I have seen descriptions of big things all my life but you really have no idea how large objects like this really are until you can stand next to them, like in the example of an aircraft carrie or if it makes you feel better a modern cruise ship. I realize that war is bad, but that is not really relevant to the discussion.

    4. Re:Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely lost me at 25 feet...

    5. Re:Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope it doesn't try to give us a blood trans-fusion.

    6. Re:Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implying the average rube has any concept of scale down to a red blood cell level.

      I'm ok with the aircraft carrier size reference. I know how big an aircraft carrier is. I have no idea how a red blood cell scales against a baseball. I can't see them.

  23. Aliens Are Targeting Our Moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is serious! Aliens are targeting our moon!

    We've got to do something! Congress needs to pass a bill!

  24. The summery is Wrong ! ! by BrightSpark · · Score: 1

    A hot topic indeed :-) After that comment comes a fall. Then a win to slash dot. Finally someone will spring to his defence to complete the circle. This comment donated by a seasoned slashdotter.

  25. Here you go, you off topic troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  26. Is It Ours? by shawnhcorey · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time, a long, long time ago there was the Earth. But the gods didn't like it so they sent a killer planet to destroy it. The planet smacked into the Earth but their aim was off. Instead of destroying the Earth, it just knocked off a large piece of it. "We'll form that piece into a moon and hang it in Earth's sky as a warning," they said. And when they were done, they were satisfied. But there was some material left over from the Moon which they threw away; forever doomed to go around the Sun. Q: Could some of these near-Earth asteroids be left over from the Big Smack?

    --
    Don't stop where the ink does.
  27. Thundarr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the moon splits in half I totally want my own sun sword and some magic.

  28. I stand corrected by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    Thanks so much for the physics lesson. Really. I was wondering how much damage that asteroid would really do. And it would have been more seemly to close my comment with a question to that effect.

    However, as you no doubt have by now already perhaps gleaned, my original comment was meant to be a sort of joke. Therefore, in my own defense, let me explain the comic processes involved.

    A) Irony. There is intrinsic irony in mining an asteroid in order to spare the environment, but, in the process, actually destroying the environment; and, of course, along with it, the environmentalists. Ha ha ha. (As I am a conservationist and a practically-minded environmentalist I find this prospect darkly amusing.) The irony was meant to be advanced by another process; that is,

    B) Hyperbole. From Wikipedia "Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry [and humor]*, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[2] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

    So, no, I did not actually think that this relatively small NEO would lead to Armageddon. But that inaccuracy was a useful hyperbole to promote my ironic joke.

    But I still maintain that even with a small delta-V an aircraft-carrier-sized rock would frag a lot of environmentalists; that is, if its man-made orbit deteriorated unpredictably and it landed on, say, Portland Oregon. (Doing so in defiance of all statistical laws, of course.)

    *My italics.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:I stand corrected by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      You need to go back to comedy school. It's only a joke if A: people can "get it" without lengthy explanation, and B: it's actually funny.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  29. A closer call in 1980's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few people observed a comet graze the atmosphere, apparently above the eastern Pacific Ocean, emitting deep green and brilliant orange sheets of light in the mid-1980's, long before anyone was interested in such close encounters. Because no one was interested, and no one cared - not the media, not astronomers, not the Air Force, and not even NASA, it was never reported and documented. The comet was later "discovered" the same year by an amateur astronomer while on it's outbound course from the sun and was identified by the observers as the same object they had seen.

    The comet did not appear to move relative to the observers, which was fortunate - or you probably would never be reading this, and was close enough at that time to be seen with the naked eye and could be seen in great detail with 7x binoculars.

    When NASA, etc., call such encounters as this current one a "close call", some people call "bullshit".

  30. A Coincidence? by AZScotsman · · Score: 1

    Nov 8 - Asteroid passes by...
    Nov 9 1400 hrs PST - U.S. tests the National Emergency Broadcast System for the first time nation-wide. Previously only local activations and system tests were done (any other former broadcasters rememebr the "Red Envelope" prominently posted in the booth?).

    Coincidence? I think not....

  31. asteroid mining by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I did a search for "asteroid mining" at http://www.sti.nasa.gov/ and below are couple documents. I remember seeing in a 1979 STAR abstract journal documents titled "asteriod retrieval" but when I searched for that sti site I saw a lot of non-pertaining listings. Probably a bit too late to capture this month's flyby unless the USAF has a secret spacecraft ready to fly (yeah the old plot used in movies since the 1969 "Marooned").

    Extraterrestrial materials processing and construction
    Online Source: Click to View PDF File [PDF Size: 14.6 MB]
    http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19790021033
    Author: Criswell, D. R.
    Abstract: Applications of available terrestrial skills to the gathering of lunar materials and the processing
    Publication Year: 1978
    Report/Patent Number: NASA-CR-158870, REPT-713-488-5200

    Catastrophic Events and Mass Extinctions: Impacts and Beyond
    Online Source: Click to View PDF File [PDF Size: 21.2 MB]
    http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20010007049
    Abstract: This volume contains extended abstracts that have been accepted for presentation at the conference
    Publication Year: 2000
    Report/Patent Number: LPI-Contrib-1053

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:asteroid mining by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Given that this asteroid masses 50 million tons or so, its too *early* to capture this asteroid. In any case it has a very different orbit, so the velocity required is higher than other targets. In space, physically close is not as important as velocity required.

      Object 2000 UG11 is a better candidate, but even that is too massive (10 million tons). So an early mission will more likely scrape some of the loose material off the surface, put it in a big container, and haul that back. With a high efficiency plasma thruster, you can get back 20-50 times your fuel burned. By separating out some of the oxygen in the rocks, you can use that for future trips, making the mining self-sustaining in fuel. Getting the oxygen out is fairly easy by "pyrolysis". Simply focus sunlight on a closed container, and at a high enough temperature some of the rock oxides decompose to O2. Pump that away, and more will decompose to maintain chemical equilibrium.

    2. Re:asteroid mining by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Suppose you manage to carve a nice big chunk of ore from an asteroid, how do you safely land it on earth ?

  32. YU55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would happen if it hit the MOON? A lot of shrapnel maybe.....

  33. Jesus protection is still working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus will continue protecting his people on earth even if the fully-funded governments sit on the ground at their annual Fall picnic putting down greasy fried chicken thinking absolutely NOTHING could go wrong with their calculations.

  34. Excessionary Notice by iamanatom · · Score: 1

    Outside Context Problem anyone?

    --
    "This is crazy, you realise we could all go to jail for this?" - my manager, somewhere I used to work.
  35. Re:Others here disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are *so* fucking tedious.

  36. U R SO "PWNED" (U FAIL) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2506460&cid=37933028 so all the off topic illogical adhominem attacks in the world, per your dimwitted reply I just replied to, aren't helping you vs. documented facts in the URL link above where you are clearly outnumbered, and yes, by those with some "clout" & know how in the field of computer security (as well as your peers here on this website)...

    APK

  37. Luna = Moon by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Ok, so I'm educating people. Luna is the Latin name for the Moon.

  38. Re:YOUR DOOMED by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    What about my DoomEd? DoomEd was okay, not the best but not the worst. I still think Doom Builder is the best Doom level editor out there. My Doom Builder is better than your DoomEd.

  39. APOPHIS IS THE ONE TO WORRY ABOUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.deepastronomy.com/apophis-asteroid-could-hit-earth.html

    That's assuming we get past the Dec. 21st "blackhole alignment" w/ galactic center (which NOBODY KNOWS wtf THAT will do & "remains to be seen")...

    APK

    P.S.=> Man - the world's CRAZY ENOUGH lately (which scares me the most because it's fitting a LOT of the prophecies from Biblical revelations, The HOPI indians, The Mayan calendar end, Nostradamus, Mother Shipton & more over history), but, having to worry about getting "SMACKED" by a celestial body on top of the financial ruins out there lately, isn't helping...

    ... apk