Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid Will Make Close Pass To Earth

The Bad Astronomer writes "News is starting to spread about a small 45-meter-wide asteroid called 2012 DA14 that will make a close pass to Earth on February 15, 2013. However, some of these articles are claiming it has 'a good chance' of impacting the Earth. This is simply incorrect; the odds of an impact next year are essentially zero. Farther in the future the odds are unclear; another near pass may occur in 2020, but right now the uncertainties in the asteroid's orbit are too large to know much about that. More observations of DA14 are being made, and we should have better information about future encounters soon."

20 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Want to see more? by NoZart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seeing more and more reports of near passes. Frigging Bugs must be out of target practice and are homing in on us! Get NPH!

    1. Re:Want to see more? by BeerCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Service guarantees citizenship

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    2. Re:Want to see more? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd like to know more.

  2. Of course it won't hit us by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Funny

    The world ends toward the end of this year, duh! Of course the chance of hitting the Earth is 0%, because we won't be here!

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    1. Re:Of course it won't hit us by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you misunderstand the disaster that's coming. When the Mayan calendar ends, all computers that use the Mayan calendar will crash, world-wide. Worse yet, unlike Y2K, where we were able to drag old Cobol programmers out of retirement to fix the problem, experts in Mayan computers are all extinct. So we're all doomed! Except for those of us who don't use Mayan computers. :)

  3. Re:Good riddance by wanzeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not this time, the article says it is expected to pass between us and Geostationary orbit. Even if it does impact intact, the worst the damage could be would be comparable to the Tunguska event.

    Depending on location, it could be very bad, but not an extinction event. You are right though, if it was bigger, we would be screwed. Not even Bruce Willis could save us with one year notice.

    If it does hit, maybe it will convince those with the cash that asteroid defense is a worthwhile expense.

  4. JPL impact risk table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA contains a link to an predicted impact table of DA14 with earth, going some 50 years into the future. The likelihood of each impact is rather small, and the cumulative probability of any impact is computed as 2.2e-04 (about 1 in 5000 - not alarming, but not exactly negligible IMO).

    Here's what I don't understand: the first entry in the chart, corresponding to the next risk event, is in the year 2020. What happened to Feb 2013?

    1. Re:JPL impact risk table by jaa101 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since we can predict the next (2013) close approach very accurately we're very confident it will be a miss. Therefore that approach doesn't rate a mention in the table.

      The trouble comes in that, while we know the 2013 approach distance will be greater than 0km from the surface (>6400km from the centre) there's still some uncertainty. The earth is massive and the close approach will cause a relatively large change in the orbit of DA14. The size of the change is inversely proportional to the square of the approach distance. Thus even a small uncertainty for 2013 results in a large uncertainty for subsequent approaches. Celestial billiards at work.

  5. Re:Wait... 45 METRES?! by regdul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't know if trolling It's about energy – you would need a big pebble to do any damage if you were to throw it by hand, but accelerate it and it does some damage. A bullet is smaller than a pebble

  6. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it does hit, maybe it will convince those with the cash that asteroid defense is a worthwhile expense.

    But it isn't. The chance of anything important being hit is almost nil, while defending from asteroids is extremely expensive. It just isn't cost-effective.

  7. pfffffff..... by butilikethecookie · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's up with all of these close passes? Hey universe! Grow some nuts and actually hit us with one, you pussy!

  8. Cost effective?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it does hit, maybe it will convince those with the cash that asteroid defense is a worthwhile expense.

    But it isn't. The chance of anything important being hit is almost nil, while defending from asteroids is extremely expensive. It just isn't cost-effective.

    Just look at our wars on "Terror" and "Drugs". Do you honestly think cost effectiveness is ever considered?

    Now defending from asteroids won't be politically feasible until we actually get hit by one - when people can actually see it and experience the impact, death and destruction. Some millions of years old crater in a desert is nothing.

  9. Re:Big sky, little rock by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh thank goodness an anonymous coward has determined there's nothing to worry about. Hey everybody! Everything's OK!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trouble is, a single rocket with a single nuke isn't likely enough to fix a civilization-destroying rock.

    Also, given the choice between practically any expenditure and world civilization, of course it's worthwhile. But by the time we get that choice, it's too late to do anything. At the moment, it's something like "building and maintaining a rocket with a nuke" for "1 in a million annual risk to global civilization".-- you can't just say that such a rock is eventually inevitable, because asteroid defense isn't something you buy once and put on the shelf in addition to the upkeep and periodic replacement of weapons, there's the cost of a concerted monitoring program to detect a threat early enough and with an accurate enough orbital solution that the gentle tap of a nuke will eliminate the risk.

    It's not easy to come up with actual numbers, but once you factor in the possibility (IMO likelihood) that civilization may well end long before such an impact, it would not be entirely surprising to find that it's actually economically saner to hope for the best than to make preparations.

    (It's analogous to a civilian in low-crime areas considering the purchasing and wearing Type III body armor -- the cost, discomfort, and hassle of wearing it for a day is certainly less expensive than dying from a rifle shot, but the odds of ever encountering such a situation are so low it's not worthwhile.)

  11. Re:45 meters? by KingofSpades · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What do you think of this ?
    It was made made by a 45 meter impactor.
    Yes, A 45 METER IMPACTOR.

  12. Re:45 meters? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    The asteroid which made Meteor Crater in Arizona is estimated to have been about 50 meters across. About half of it is thought to have burned up before impact.

  13. Re:Good riddance by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The last 6 mile diameter/civilization-destroying-sized thing was 65 million years ago. we won't be human in 65 million years, we could as well be animal or rodent by that time. Clearly we should spend $0 on the problem. As for city-destroying-sized things, odds are any will just land in uninhabited area. If a city does get hit, well, sucks to be them.

  14. Re:Let's get this to scale... by Xocet_00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the Earth is much larger than a bowling pin. I'd say that passing passing within a few Earth radii is of us is a fair definition of a near miss.

  15. Re:45 meters? by jovius · · Score: 3, Funny

    See, meteorites create tourist attractions. The larger the crater the bigger the cash flow. Meteorite impacts are good for the economy.

  16. Re:Good riddance by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Touching/Landing on asteroids is difficult because they have very complicated structures and rotations. The best way to deflect an asteroid is not by nukes or what you suggest, but by spraying it white (solar radiation pressure) or parking a mass (e.g. 1t) with a ion drive next to it.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-deflect-asteroid.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid-impact_avoidance#Collision_avoidance_strategies

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.