Slashdot Mirror


What To Do About an Asteroid That Has a 1 In 625 Chance of Hitting Us In 2040?

The Bad Astronomer writes "The asteroid 2011 AG5 is 140 meters across: football-stadium-sized. Its orbit isn't nailed down well enough to say yet, but using what's currently known, there's a 1 in 625 chance it will impact the Earth in 2040. It's behind the Sun until September 2013, and more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds of impact to something close to 0. But does it make sense to wait until then to start investigating a mission to deflect it away our planet? Astronomers are debating this right now, and what they conclude may pave the way for how we deal with an asteroid threat in the future."

412 comments

  1. I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Praying it hits. That would be so awesome!

    1. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by eggstasy · · Score: 2

      Amen brother. Let's get on the A ship and use the Earth as the B.

    2. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Lotana · · Score: 5, Informative

      140 meters diameter doesn't sound like much. Depends on the composition and speed, it will be reduced even further before making it to the ground. I immagine it shouldn't be much worse than a Tunguska event and seeing how majority of the planet is uninhabited, chances are good that no major number of lifes will be lost.

      And if it occurs at a location where we can monitor/record, it will bring awareness that rocks in space do indeed end up on our planet in our lifetimes, thus worthwile to think about. Therefore having this pebble hit us might not be such a bad thing after all.

    3. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      it shouldn't be much worse than a Tunguska event and seeing how majority of the planet is uninhabited, chances are good that no major number of lifes will be lost.

      If it hits the ocean, which is the majority of the planet, you can revise that estimate up a bunch from tidal waves. But I agree that we should give this more attention that "Well, it's after my term is over, so not my problem."

    4. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Spiridios · · Score: 5, Informative

      140 meters diameter doesn't sound like much. Depends on the composition and speed, it will be reduced even further before making it to the ground. I immagine it shouldn't be much worse than a Tunguska event and seeing how majority of the planet is uninhabited, chances are good that no major number of lifes will be lost.

      And if it occurs at a location where we can monitor/record, it will bring awareness that rocks in space do indeed end up on our planet in our lifetimes, thus worthwile to think about. Therefore having this pebble hit us might not be such a bad thing after all.

      Just some numbers for reference:

      This one is 140 meters across.

    5. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      It would be about 100MT of energy if it hit us (and a rock with that much energy being slowed by the atmosphere isn't doing us any favors; that energy is still released and it's not like it has to land on you to kill you).

      If you're willing to take the bet that a 100MT bomb going off at a random point on earth won't be near enough to civilization to matter, feel free. Me, I'd rather fold than play my luck. (Folding in this case means studying the rock to further analyze its trajectory, and developing a mitigation plan to divert it if necessary).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Amen brother. Let's get on the A ship and use the Earth as the B.

      I'll be laughing when you die from dirty telephone handsets.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      I would use it to get a hot chick into bed.
      OMG we are going to die, so... can I hit that?
      Shes like, hell to the no! but then she realizes, hey.. Im going to die, so yeah... you can hit that, but no kissing!
      This scene brought to you by Scrubs.

    8. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Would it really cause a tidal wave? That's a lot of water to displace from such a tiny asteroid.

    9. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I'll be dead by then, so let world fry. With Climate Change, right wing religious nut jobs and the Big Brother state, the world will be ready for a nice cleansing.

    10. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not the size of the asteroid, but its motion to the ocean.

    11. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Abreu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hah! I'll use a hands-free!

      (years later, dies from dirty hands-free earphone)

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    12. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      It's a question of 'will it hit MY country/city/house or not?'. People mostly don't care what happens to others. So you have to reduce the chances of an impact by the percentage of the surface of the Earth they care about.

    13. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Lotana · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, but the remaining variables are the composition and how much actually makes it down to the surface.

      Lets use some numbers in the calculator from the quick Google search:

      http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

      - We are hit with 140 meters perfect sphere of dense stone
      - Speed of projectile is 17 km/s (Calculator states that it is the typical speed for asteroid impace)
      - Entry angle of 45% (Again based on the caluculator stated most likely)
      - Rock lands into 1000 meter depth water. Random figure

      Results:
      1 km away

      20 km away

      100 km away

      Reading the descriptions, it honestly doesn't sound like such a calamity. At 100 km distance it is hardly felt.

    14. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by wisty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um. Not really. http://idisk.mac.com/mpaineau-Public/paine_tsunami_asteroid99.pdf

      The assumption people make is that all the kinetic energy goes into a wave. That's not a given. It can dissipate as heat as the meteor falls through the water, or create incoherent waves. The Indian Ocean tsunami was so bad because the plate "flicked" up, splashing the water. It might be more like punching the water, which would still make a bit of a splash; but it might not make a huge wave.

      That said, I wouldn't be swimming anywhere near it.

    15. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by ff1324 · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure if I yell "CANNONBALL!!!" it makes a big splash.

    16. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by cynyr · · Score: 1

      Even if it does, here in the upper midwest, I'm sure I won't care much...

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    17. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by edxwelch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Huh? It says 72 Megaton explosion. That's bigger than than the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated.

    18. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but those results are for a water impact, not land. Impact on water is vastly different against a land hit, where debris ejection is a certainty regardless of asteroid composition due to this ones size. All of this is conjecture though. If it's a loose aggregate asteroid, it'll detonate in air like tunguska and airblast the land. That's probably the best case if it is land bound. Worst case? I don't really want to consider that.

      Also, there is that 22.1ft amplitude tsunami at the 100km link. Pretty good surf at the beach, if your up for it! Did you even read your links all the way through?

    19. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by janeil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I live that long I'll be 85, and would LOVE to have this be my end-o-life event! Bring it on, random cosmic occurence!

    20. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deny, deny, deny. Just a new conspiracy to bilk the American public and line the pockets of all those scientists.

    21. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      Seconded. The eastern seaboard would benefit greatly from an impact-induced tsunami. Imagine rebuilding NYC, etc. with a layout built around modern public transportation instead of peddler's carts and horse-and-buggies!

    22. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Praying it hits. That would be so awesome!

      On Hollywood. Bye bye MPAA and RIAA.
      Now that would be awesome.

    23. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      And even that had a relatively local effect.

      Humanity won't be in risk from this but if it crashes in a densely populated area like US east coast, central Europe, India or China then the death toll can be considerable. 100 million dead is a possibility.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    24. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I'm sure NASA has already contacted a crack team of deep sea oil drillers as we speak to take care of the problem. You'll have to listen to a horrendously overplayed Aerosmith track for weeks after they save us from armageddon, but you'll get to live.

    25. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Yes, but those results are for a water impact, not land. Impact on water is vastly different against a land hit, where debris ejection is a certainty regardless of asteroid composition due to this ones size.

      I used the water inputs since that is what constitutes majority of the planet's surface, thus most likely outcome. I would also assume that small rock hitting water will produce more casulties than same small rock hitting land, since tsunami will be global rather than local damage impact. These numbers are aiming at the worst results of the most probably case.

      Also, there is that 22.1ft amplitude tsunami at the 100km link. Pretty good surf at the beach, if your up for it! Did you even read your links all the way through?

      Yes, I did see the 7 meter tsunami wave in the results, but that does not sound very significant. Sure standing on the beach will be deadly, but it shouldn't make it that far ashore. 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami were 30 meter waves. 2011 TÅhoku trunami was 40 meters. Compared to these numbers, that is not impressive at all!

    26. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Y2K, we can code our way out of this one :)

      if yr == 2040:
      ___ if strike = True:
      ___ ___ don(crash_helmet)
      ___ ___ duck(True)
      ___ else:
      ___ ___ party(mad_thing)

    27. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The New Scientist had an article about meteor strikes, and they said that the most likely solution is to just get out of the way. We'll have plenty of time to evacuate a city.

    28. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Sod that, I'm going with a hobbit on a motorbike.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry... if you think that's what you need to get a hot chick in bed than you won't get a hot chick in bed... even then :)

    30. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      A 7 meter tsunami is serious business. For comparison, Kamaishi in Japan was hit by waves of less than 7 meters at their maximum, and the city lost some 1200 people. This is despite being the site of the worlds deepest tsunami defence system.

    31. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Humanity won't be in risk from this but if it crashes in a densely populated area like US east coast, central Europe, India or China then the death toll can be considerable. 100 million dead is a possibility.

      No way. That's a third of the US population. Can't think of any place in the world where the population is packed densely enough to cause those kinds of casualties.

      Striking rock, an iron meteorite would create a crater no more than 4km across. At 10 kilometers distance, well built structures would remain standing. You'd get dead people from flying glass and random rocks, but that's about it. At 20km, you should have no casualties at all, except maybe a few hundred dying from the resultant earthquake. Even if it hit Delhi (one of the top 10 densest cities in the world, population 12 million), I wouldn't expect more than 5 million casualties as a maximum, and probably far fewer.

    32. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Plekto · · Score: 1

      note - the 7 meter wave is on the ocean's surface, which can translate to a much larger wave once it hits the shore. Possibly over 50ft in areas with the correct beach conditions. (note how a nearly identical height wave in the ocean off Japan translated to 70-80 ft in certain bays and areas) It's survivable, but it's also a major disaster. http://www.science.org.au/nova/045/045key.htm.

      Note how this site mentions a 400 theoretical meter asteroid and a well over 100meter(!) tsunami. 7 meters is a Japan like event. Some areas hardly felt a thing, others just got obliterated. One area was just the wrong combination and the water finally stopped up in the mountains, creating a whole new lake at over 1000 ft. But, of course, 140 meters is something that could easily be shot at or blown into smaller pieces first.

    33. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? It says 72 Megaton explosion. That's bigger than than the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated.

      Actually, what the article says is:
      "should AG5 slip through (the keyhole), it will hit us 17 years later, in 2040. That collision, though not global in scope, would be catastrophic: equal to about a 100 megaton explosion, twice that of the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.

      To put that into perspective, the main 9.0 quake which hit Japan had a surface energy release of 9.32 Teratons.

      So stop panicking.

    34. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And that 50 megaton device was detonated in the atmosphere way up north in Russia. From the looks of it, it was lethal at 100 km (widespread 3rd degree burns), probably quite a few km beyond that too. Add 50% to the energy, and we we still haven't got anywhere near an existential threat to humanity. You can draw many more 150km-radius circles and find less than a million people living within that circle than you can draw 150km-radius circles and find more than a million people living within that circles. The asteroid hitting us would of course be a disaster and we should put in a good effort to prevent it from hitting us, but if we fail to stop it 99.9% of us would be ok.

    35. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, I can't take that again. Could I choose death instead?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were starting to calm me down until you said 'lifes' instead of 'lives'. And then 'worthwile' instead of 'worthwhile'. We're doomed!

    37. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Assuming you can calculate exactly where it will hit. These things usually have quite a large margin of error. When the calculations are only good to within a few ten thousand kilometers, you might as well just evacuate an entire hemisphere.

    38. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Actually given enough repeated orbit measurements the impact can be predicted with second/meter accuracy. A large object like this is not affected significantly by dust, solar wind, aerodynamic shape etc. and will generally just follow its orbit no matter what.

      It doesn't require much to do these calculations as it's just Kepler dynamics (assuming the asteroid/meteor/comet doesn't move with relativistic speeds). Calculate the exact orbit of both objects and calculate when the two orbits intersects within the diameter of the two bodies. Now calculate the impact ground zero assuming no atmospheric deflection and convert impact time to local time. We did something similar in the equivalent of high-school here, playing with a slightly modified orbit of Halley's Comet (because it was near the Sun at the time) and let that impact the Earth. We ended up with a nighttime north Pacific impact that caused zero damage to anything populated by the way. Would have been awesome to witness... from a safe distance of course...

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    39. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Ironically a significant damage causing meteorite impact in this day age would be good for mankind in terms of bringing about positive change. Once you put aside the threat to millions of lives.

      It would see huge redirection of funds towards space programs again. When you understand that our technological civilization as it is now is largely a result of cold war spending on science and technology, you'll know we probably need a slap in the face from the universe to get back on track and get back in to space.

      Oh and we'll be hit by the one we don't see coming. So a lot of people are going to be very angry that so little funding was directed to watching for such hazards.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    40. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by u38cg · · Score: 2

      I agree there would be few immediate deaths. But I wonder what the impact on US infrastructure would be after a meteorite strike. Katrina managed to send a city into melt-down; it's hard to believe such an event would not lead to outcomes that were at least as bad.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    41. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by gtall · · Score: 1

      So, your kids and grandkids mean nothing to you? How...interesting...

    42. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by gtall · · Score: 1

      "technological civilization as it is now is largely a result of cold war spending on science and technology"? Care to back that up with statistics or are you just talking out of your ass?

    43. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't have. Don't want.

      Your moral sermon isn't particularly wanted, either.

    44. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      I can't read stuff that mixes meters and feet. It requires endless calculations while reading, the end result being that I don't remember any of it afterwards.

    45. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Meteor Crater [wikipedia.org] was possibly around 40 meters across.
      > Tunguska [wikipedia.org] was possibly around 60 meters across.
      > Yucatan Dinosaur Killer [wikipedia.org] was possibly around 10 kilometers across.

      Given sizes are for moment of impact. Meteorites lose some of its mass in atmosphere, so impact mass/diameter will be smaller. It can happen that meteorite 140 meters across will not reach Earth surface at all. It can explode in mid-air.

      I suggest to play a bit with this impact calculator:
      http://www.purdue.edu/impactearth/

    46. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by fnj · · Score: 1

      I'll be 93, sonny. I'll probably have trouble even hearing it.

    47. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Ok, it falls in the Pacific Ocean. Tsunami on all the west coast of N & S America and on Asia.

      The question is, can we deflect it for a lesser cost than the evacuation of all these zones ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    48. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be dead by then, so let world fry. With Climate Change, right wing religious nut jobs and the Big Brother state, the world will be ready for a nice cleansing.

      With your attitude, why don't you do us all a favour and top yourself now?

    49. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sadly all that would happen is yet more power grabs by congress critters (That tidal wave caused lawlessness! We need the "We can do whatever we want act of 2040 NOW!" passed ZOMFG!) followed by some MIC getting some trillion dollar contract to build some giant bling bling with lasers or nukes or something that will turn out to not do a damned thing but give some CEOs more hookers and blow money.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    50. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by trongey · · Score: 1

      So, your kids and grandkids mean nothing to you? How...interesting...

      They won't if he's hit by an asteroid.
      Funny thing about death, it suddenly makes everything unimportant to the dead person.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    51. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Heh. In this case, it works since we're talking about very rough estimates. The simple answer - roughly the same effect as what happened in Japan, minus the earthquake. Given that it's in the 70 megaton+ energy range, that's not too surprising.

    52. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by jackbird · · Score: 1

      ...because dividing/multiplying by 3 is so bad.

    53. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by uncledrax · · Score: 1

      The 'Total Destruction Area' of the Tsar Bomba (@ 59mt) is cited with a 'Total Destruction Area' of r=35km, but the evidence shows that wood and brick villages up to 55km away were destroyed, with major damage to villages much further then that. An asteroid cited to impact at 2x that equivalent shouldn't be understated.

      So while I think 100mill dead, as a direct result of impact, is actually unreasonable, I do not think it would only kill 5mil if it hit Delhi.

      As for the OP.. what do we do about it? Nothing. Wait until the 2017 'course correction', determine if it's needed, and begin designs then, and you should be able to do something about it by 2030 easy.. besides, technology will advance in the next 7-18 years so building something NOW that will just sit and rust and decay for 30 years isn't a good idea anyway.

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    54. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      How old are you going to be in 38 years? Chances are that "hot chick" will find somebody else - your money ain't gonna matter.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    55. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by gewalker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I would start with my superior math skills that realize it is 28 years from 2012 to 2040 -- That is sure to impress her.

    56. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      How old are you going to be in 38 years?

      She'll be older too. And when you're 60, a 25 year old isn't so hot any more, she's a child.

    57. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      whoops :-) point taken. back to 2nd grade for me

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    58. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Assuming you can calculate exactly where it will hit. These things usually have quite a large margin of error. When the calculations are only good to within a few ten thousand kilometers, you might as well just evacuate an entire hemisphere.

      And that's not going to happen, since no-one can muster the needed resources to suddenly move the entire population of one coast to the other. Also, a large margin of error means that it'll be more politically expedient to assume that you're safe.

      Me, I'd be going camping somewhere remote (probably the mountains), with a couple week's supplies and a full tank of gas. If the rock lands on me, I'm screwed regardless of where I am. If it's nearby, I'd rather be in a smaller community with enough resources I can sit out the crazy few days and have a few options on which way to go when the times comes.

    59. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      Interesting fact: "Telephone sanitizer" is actually a euphemism for toilet cleaner. The term came about when indoor plumbing was popularized. Women who couldn't afford servants but still had money would hire out people to come in and clean their toilets. Nobody wanted a truck parked outside of their house that had "WC cleaner" written on it, so one enterprising businessman put "Telephone Sanitizing" on the side of his truck, which implied that these middle class housewives had adopted another new technology: the telephone. Thus, a euphemism was born.

      Source: http://tlb.org/telsan.html

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    60. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most populated city in the world is Seoul, S. Korea. It has a population of 10.5M over an area of 605km^2

      Assuming total fatalities over a 10km radius (completely unrealstic, but i don't want to be optimistic here), that's only an area of 314 km^2.

      You would only hit the half area of seoul, max casualties are only (ugh, I really hate useing the word for such a large number) 5-6M.

    61. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by everett · · Score: 1

      Tsar Bomba was also detonated at some distance above the earth's surface.

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    62. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, the Russians detonated a 75 megaton blast. made a big hole in the atmosphere that filled in rather quickly. From 20 miles out just a bright light and a loud noise.

    63. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Except to most of us, a telephone sanitizer is not an person... It's a sanitizing lotion/spray used with a towel of some kind. True story.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    64. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      This is in another 28 years... There might be a mall or two that'll lose business.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    65. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Please accept my sincere apology for this travesty. Rest assured, several spell checkers have been uninstalled with extreme prejudice as an example to others.

    66. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. I got my numbers wrong. Where I wrote 10 it should be 40, and 20 should be 80. Whoops. A wee bit of a difference there.

      Given the land-area of Delhi, that actually means it would be pretty much entirely annihilated. 10-12 million casualties in the city - dropping off as you get into the outlying areas. 100 million is still a bit much, but 15-20 million wouldn't be inconceivable, if it hits the right place.

      Scary. Thanks for making me recheck my figures.

    67. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the point is, do you think the infrastructure could and would continue to deliver food, water, and shelter to the survivors?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    68. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even *IF* the survivors all die, every soul in Seoul, that's STILL only 10.5M. Everything in my 5-6M number was rounded up, I heavily weighted toward more casualites. From a pure bodycount persepective, I dont think deaths due to exposure, starvation, etc. would significantly increase the number (mostly because I had already inflated it). Certainly It wouldn't even approch the 100M number, there just isn't an area that densely populated anywhere in the world.

    69. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Interesting fact: "Telephone sanitizer" is actually a euphemism for toilet cleaner./quote.

      What I want to know is whether that is the part of the joke I didn't get because I'm too young, or not British?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    70. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Interesting fact: "Telephone sanitizer" is actually a euphemism for toilet cleaner./quote.

      What I want to know is whether that is the part of the joke I didn't get because I'm too young, or not British?

      I learn something new about HHGTTG about every six months.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    71. Re:I will be doing one thing about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The links mention "thermal effect" and talk about a fireball. But nothing about UV radiation. I can't remember the original (it was in one of he popular astronomy magazines, Astronomy or Sky and Telescope), but circa 15 years ago I read an article about being near a meteor hit similar to Meteor Crater in Arizona. Before reading that article I thought it be fun to see something like that. (But only if no one was injured or killed). Oops. The article stated that if you could see it your would be dead. If the collision, air blast or ejecta didn't get you then in a few days you would succumb to a fatal dose of UV radiation.

      Meteor crater was formed by a meteor 50 meters in diameter, according to the source all frequently accurate knowledge, Wikipedia.

      Anyone with more facts that MBM (my bad memory) feel free to correct me. Scolding optional.

      Sign me: all around nice guy, but too lazy, and concerned about being tracked by Google/CIA/NASA/Dysney/Illuminati to register.

  2. Just... by MisterMidi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just threaten to sue it out of existance.

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

      Doesn't it violate the copyright of Armageddon?

    2. Re:Just... by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Yep. Sounds like a job for a DMCA takedown letter addressed to the supreme entity by the film rights holder.

    3. Re:Just... by Nikker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe if we launch all the lawyers and rights holders at it they will just take it apart themselves? Just tell them there is a bunch of DVD's in the middle!

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    4. Re:Just... by zlives · · Score: 2

      this disaster has already been patented please deposit $5-$15 per impact.

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

      Just threaten to sue it out of existance.

      just watch disney (armageddon, via touchstone) do just that if any plan involves landing astronauts on it to blow it up (or any other studio or publisher with a plot that even remotely resembles the chosen plan)

      due to lengthy court battles, the plan is delayed until it is too late and the planet is wiped out.

      mafiaa has proven time and again they'll do anything to get their way.. so what's a little ELE in the grand scheme of things?

    6. Re:Just... by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Careful with that. It might show up at court.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    7. Re:Just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it violate the copyright of Armageddon?

      Send a team of lawyers to the asteriod and sue them to oblivion.
      Job done.

    8. Re:Just... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Physics isn't congress. You can't buy its laws out of existence.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Just... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I can already see God laughing his ass off reading the cease&desist letter.

      God (scrunching letter): "You don't have no jurisdiction up here..."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Just... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's all? Here's 20 bucks, keep the change, now where is that RIAA HQ to dump my asteroid on?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Just... by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Just threaten to sue it out of existance.

      No, fund a lobby group to push for law change. Newton's first law of motion is at fault here.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  3. 2040, you say? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is a 1 in 625 chance that I will be taking a long holiday and be unavailable for comment in 2040...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:2040, you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never happen if it's after December 2012.

  4. Set a reminder for 20 years from now by Firehed · · Score: 2

    It's far too distant to deal with now. Let's re-evaluate the situation when it's a couple years out, and hope Bruce Willis hasn't retired if our odds haven't improved.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    1. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by kat_skan · · Score: 5, Funny

      In 2040 Bruce Willis will be 85. What's he gonna do? Tell the asteroid to get off his lawn?

    2. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by houstonbofh · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by Setsquare · · Score: 2

      In 2040 Bruce Willis will be 85. What's he gonna do? Tell the asteroid to get off his lawn?

      I think he's suppose to blow up the asteroid before it hits us and before the asteroid-people send their Bruce Willis to blow up a 14000km wide rock which is on a collision course with them.

    4. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by axlr8or · · Score: 2

      No No NO, silly. He will be to busy hunting not 1 or 2 or 3 stones. But 4. 4 STONES!

    5. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by DeBaas · · Score: 2

      Chuck Norris will be 100 then. But he then can still piss it back into orbit!

      --
      ---
    6. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by laejoh · · Score: 1

      You don't need Bruce Willis, you need a Sysadmin!

    7. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I hadn't already posted now. You really deserve to be modded up for that one.

    8. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Just put up a picture of Chuck Norris and the words "Protected by" and the asteroid will turn around and run, not stopping until it has left the galaxy...

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    9. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Uh, hello? Bruce Willis died in that movie to save humanity! Have some fucking respect.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Set a reminder for 20 years from now by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I thought you may have been pointing to this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/quotes?qt0501237

  5. I don't see the problem. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it hits, it wipes out the major cause of habitat destruction, global warming and talk radio. If it misses, the sales of tinfoil hats and doomsday billboards will restore the global economy.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:I don't see the problem. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's too small to be a civilization-killer. We're only talking a gigaton-range boom when it impacts.

      Yeah, it would suck to be under it, or even within a couple hundred miles of it, but beyond that, it's mostly just a lightshow and something to keep the bookies busy.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:I don't see the problem. by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

          That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.

          We've identified what we believe to be other rarer objects. Say it was a chunk of something like BPM 37093. I suspect that would be dangerous on reentry. I'm not a geologist, so I won't attempt to guess what would happen to it. Would it shatter, melt, or remain one relatively solid mass the whole way down.

          If so, I don't think it would be an ELE. Tragic? Possibly, depending on where it hit. Catastrophic? probably not. Despite the way things look in population centers, there are vast areas of relatively uninhabited land around the world. If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:I don't see the problem. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Assume for a moment it does strike. Odds are that it will strike the ocean. If it does, I'd like to know what kind of tsunami that would create. The 2004 tsunami has a calculated yield of about 299 megatons. Though I'm not sure if that figure was calculated at the epicenter from the quake, or energy generated upon shore impact. There is a big discrepancy I'm sure with some KE being converted into some other form of energy as it was reaching out coast to coast.

      If I recall, some impacts can be surface based while others an air-burst directly overhead. It all depends on mass, density, and incoming speed.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A question; do you really think that something sufficiently powerful to wipe out humanity isn't going to be the cause of similar amounts of "habitat destruction"?

      (I assume that you believe humans to be an unmitigated valueless blight on the Earth and that, on the whole, Earth without humans is a more desirable state for the universe to be in than Earth with humans but with humans' effects on the ecosystem. I think that's silly, but that's another matter.)

    5. Re:I don't see the problem. by KhabaLox · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.

      But weren't the tsunami's (2004 and Japan's) caused when large (kilometers long) sections of the seabed were suddenly raised up, displacing the seawater? The displacement of a 140 m meteor doesn't seem like it would be as much.

      Further reading:

      The energy released on the Earth's surface only (ME, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was estimated at 1.1×1017 joules,[24] or 26 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1500 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. However, this is but a tiny fraction of the total work done MW (and thus energy) by this quake, 4.0×1022 joules (4.0×1029 ergs),[25] the vast majority underground.

      While the wikipedia page doesn't say how much water was displaced, it does say this:

      the earthquake had made a huge impact on the topography of the seabed. 1,500-metre-high (5,000 ft) thrust ridges created by previous geologic activity along the fault had collapsed, generating landslides several kilometers wide. One such landslide consisted of a single block of rock some 100 m high and 2 km long (300 ft by 1.25 mi). The momentum of the water displaced by tectonic uplift had also dragged massive slabs of rock, each weighing millions of tons, as far as 10 km (6 mi) across the seabed.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:I don't see the problem. by dumuzi · · Score: 1

      According to this impact calculator it would reach the ground in broken pieces and would not create a tidal wave. I am sure the energy released in the atmosphere would make for spectacular local conditions though.

    7. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dangerous on reentry? Was it here before? I love your blithering speculation.

    8. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.

      If it's a nickel-iron meteorite, it might suck to be underneath it, but it would be extraordinarily lucrative to own the mineral rights to wherever it landed.

      As you say, a lot depends on what it's made of.

    9. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a religion killer thou. Just imagine it hit Mecca.

    10. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reentry?

    11. Re:I don't see the problem. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Like I said, depending on *where* it hit. If it hit a few hundred feet into the ocean near Los Angeles or New York, that could be serious. If it hit in the middle of the ocean, well, not so much. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    12. Re:I don't see the problem. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Yup, you got me. Of the tens of thousands of words I type a day, I made a little mistake. Congratulations. Ed McMahon will be by with your prize shortly.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:I don't see the problem. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I still don't know why your post was modded interesting. The Anonymous Coward was right, it was "blithering speculation".

    14. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odds are that it will strike the ocean.

      And they're slightly better odds than Russian Roulette. I'm totally playing that!

    15. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's play.

    16. Re:I don't see the problem. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.

      Nope. Regardless of what it's made of, it's still going to deliver a gigaton punch. All that changes with composition is where and how the punch is delivered - whether it's a shotgun blast or a .45 to the gut.

    17. Re:I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pleasepleaseplease let it take out the Fox network!

    18. Re:I don't see the problem. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If that baby comes down anywhere near the US, it WILL be a civilization killer. Maybe by proxy...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:I don't see the problem. by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.

      But weren't the tsunami's (2004 and Japan's) caused when large (kilometers long) sections of the seabed were suddenly raised up, displacing the seawater? The displacement of a 140 m meteor doesn't seem like it would be as much.

      Further reading:

      The energy released on the Earth's surface only (ME, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was estimated at 1.1×1017 joules,[24] or 26 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1500 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. However, this is but a tiny fraction of the total work done MW (and thus energy) by this quake, 4.0×1022 joules (4.0×1029 ergs),[25] the vast majority underground.

      While the wikipedia page doesn't say how much water was displaced, it does say this:

      the earthquake had made a huge impact on the topography of the seabed. 1,500-metre-high (5,000 ft) thrust ridges created by previous geologic activity along the fault had collapsed, generating landslides several kilometers wide. One such landslide consisted of a single block of rock some 100 m high and 2 km long (300 ft by 1.25 mi). The momentum of the water displaced by tectonic uplift had also dragged massive slabs of rock, each weighing millions of tons, as far as 10 km (6 mi) across the seabed.

      Yes but how much of that available energy at the surface went to create the Tsunami? Would need to know how efficient that process is. Then there's a huge list of factors compounding how destructive the tsunami is for a given amount of energy the seabed can impart to the mass of ocean above it. I wouldn't be surprised if a pretty devastating tsunami could be created with something like the energy of a small nuke. How much of the meteorite's energy is transferred in to a tsunami I couldn't guess at but I have a hunch it might be much more efficient. Especially if the meteorite that size hit above abyssal plain at 5000m depth of ocean - it would probably not punch through to the crust, imparting maximum energy in to the ocean and would produce a series of tsunami waves that would dwarf any undersea earthquake megaton-for-megaton. I think we'd prefer it hit in shallow water if it had to hit the ocean.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    20. Re:I don't see the problem. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Or it could land harmlessly on some island somewhere I suppose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#Canary_Islands

    21. Re:I don't see the problem. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.

      We've identified what we believe to be other rarer objects. Say it was a chunk of something like BPM 37093.

      A diamond as big as the Ritz.

      I imagine that would make quite a mess

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:I don't see the problem. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I seriously think the sight of a 1000 metre high wall of water would drive most people insane.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:I don't see the problem. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Well most people would only see the estimted 50 metre wave, I think the people close enough to see the 1000 metre wave wouldn't have time to go insane. (f**k me though, just thinking about what it would be like to be in a boat a "safe" distance from impact...) Oh and the 1000 metre bit is just an esitimate (on wiki of course) and is based only on the island collapsing into the water, not the island collapsing because of a huge meteorite impact. I would expect the estimate to be revised upwards in this unlikely senario.

    24. Re:I don't see the problem. by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Yes but how much of that available energy at the surface went to create the Tsunami?

      Water doesn't compress. If you displace X cubic meters of water at the seabed, it has to go somewhere (i.e. out and up). I suppose the "impact" of that water displacement is reduced by something along the lines of the inverse square (or cube) law, as the water spreads out as it travels away from the epicenter. That is why the tsunami was much more devastating in Indonesia vs. Sri Lanka. (The direction of the wave/displacement also matters; Bangladesh experienced a much smaller surge because the wave was travelling mostly east-west.)

      I think we'd prefer it hit in shallow water if it had to hit the ocean.

      I don't think so. The shallower the water, the more it's like hitting land. If it hits land, there will be a huge dust cloud which will cause all sorts of problems (e.g. health, change the albedo of the planet, etc.). If it hits in deep water, most airborne matter will be water vapor, which shouldn't be nearly as dangerous. Also, if it were to hit far from shore, any wave caused by displacement would be minimized by the time it reached shore.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  6. brown trouser time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm shitting my pants!

    1. Re:brown trouser time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I'm shitting your pants!

    2. Re:brown trouser time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're shitting my pants!

    3. Re:brown trouser time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, pants shit YOU!!

  7. There is one thing we can do... by OliWarner · · Score: 4, Funny

    We should definitely consider putting Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck and Aerosmith into cryo right now. Without them, we won't have a chance.

    1. Re:There is one thing we can do... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      We should definitely consider putting Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck and Aerosmith into cryo right now. Without them, we won't have a chance.

      Okay, that's the beginnings of a plan anyway - but, in order for it to be effective, won't we need to get the asteroid to somehow make threats against Willis' family?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:There is one thing we can do... by flyneye · · Score: 0

      We should put put the Federal government into cryo and store them in a satellite. They know so damned much about what we all "need" they should be stored for after the collision to come and save us all from our ignorance and post apocalyptic sensations of freedom.
      I predict smooth runnings, till the next election, in that case.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:There is one thing we can do... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Put them in a blender first. The increased surface area should speed the freezing process, making it more likely to be successful.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:There is one thing we can do... by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      I can't remember much, but I feel like Animal Crackers are involved. We should stick some of those in cryo to... just to be sure.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    5. Re:There is one thing we can do... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      We should put put the Federal government into cryo and store them in a satellite. They know so damned much about what we all "need" they should be stored for after the collision to come and save us all from our ignorance and post apocalyptic sensations of freedom.

      But how would we pick them up to bring them back to the Earth? In a post-apocalyptic civilization, we would no access to vehicles capable of reaching orbit and they'd be stuck there...oooooh.

      Ahem, carry on.

    6. Re:There is one thing we can do... by axlr8or · · Score: 1

      Uhm, this plan is seriously flawed, there is always the threat of freezer burn.

    7. Re:There is one thing we can do... by tibit · · Score: 1

      You mean, the freezer will get burned? Hmm, with those people, you're right, we need to put some insulation into the freezer to protect its walls.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:There is one thing we can do... by felipekk · · Score: 1

      We all know that it was the love for Liv Tyler that destroyed that asteroid. We need to save her too.

    9. Re:There is one thing we can do... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      No worse than any "Executive decisions" I've seen in the last century or so.....
      I let it stand as a good idea regardless...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    10. Re:There is one thing we can do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throw in Chuck Norris as a backup plan...

    11. Re:There is one thing we can do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure they leave Ben Affleck behind this time.

  8. Social security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't that around when social security is slated to go bankrupt? I say we deflect the asteroid towards the planet! I'll be 70 around that time.

  9. Life is like a train .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You know life is like a train. It's bearing down on you, and guess what? It's gonna hit you! So you can either start running when it's far off in the distance, or you can pull up a chair, crack open a beer, and just watch it come! "
    - Eric to Kelso in That 70s Show

    1. Re:Life is like a train .... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      "You know life is like a train. It's bearing down on you, and guess what? It's gonna hit you! So you can either start running when it's far off in the distance, or you can pull up a chair, crack open a beer, and just watch it come! "

      But if you're smart, you stop, turn to the side, and walk away from the tracks until you are a safe distance.

    2. Re:Life is like a train .... by chromas · · Score: 1

      Writers who think of that option usually put the characters and track inside a tunnel or onto a long, narrow bridge (but don't let the characters hang off the side or whatever).

    3. Re:Life is like a train .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK Railway tunnels of any significant length which do not have sufficient side-clearance to allow a train to pass a person safely will have refuge holes at intervals.

  10. Well obviously... by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Funny

    Decisions of how to deal with the massive asteroid are best left to the individual.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-vote-to-repeal-obamabacked-bill-that-w,19025/

    1. Re:Well obviously... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Imagine if that asteroid turned out to actually be on an collision course, and various space-capable countries started playing three-way pong with the asteroid to see which ocean they could make it fall into.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Well obviously... by mcavic · · Score: 1

      Thanks - I read half of the article before I realized it was Onion. I looked up at the address bar to see what kind of tabloid was printing this crap. :)

    3. Re:Well obviously... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          You know, I've seen weirder things come out of Washington. If it were real, it wouldn't have made an obscure footnote in the paper. Well, except on Fox News. They'd be carrying the party line to unreasonable extremes.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:Well obviously... by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      Republicans will finally get their "natural" birth control.

    5. Re:Well obviously... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Thanks - I read half of the article before I realized it was Onion. I looked up at the address bar to see what kind of tabloid was printing this crap. :)

      So you were fine with the notion that somehow you had just sort of missed the bit on the news saying that the world was soon to be destroyed by an immense asteroid?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Well obviously... by mcavic · · Score: 1

      TFA itself is about an asteroid that's on its way. Just not imminently. And Obama loves spending money. I think a lot of Onion articles are designed to be somewhat believable until you get about half way through. The absurdity increases as you go.

  11. 18 months won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes it makes sense to wait. Why waste 18 months coming up with solutions to deflect it only to find out it won't strike 27 years from now? If September 2013 rolls around and it looks like it will hit in 2040, 27 years is practically as much time as 28 years to develop a solution.

    1. Re:18 months won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, in the meantime there are many so far unknown asteroids that can wipe us out without enough warning to get anything ready. Until we get off this rock, we're sitting ducks. No "deflection" plan is going to save us from something that appears from behind the sun.

    2. Re:18 months won't matter by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Now that's taking procrastination to a whole new level.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    3. Re:18 months won't matter by mysidia · · Score: 1

      it only to find out it won't strike 27 years from now? If September 2013 rolls around and it looks like it will hit in 2040, 27 years is practically as much time as 28 years to develop a solution.

      It might sound like that, until some time in 2013, when the Asterois is suddenly sighted that has a 70% chance of hitting earth in 2015.

    4. Re:18 months won't matter by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      There's no reason not to start thinking and talking about it now: at worst we get a head start on planning for the next one. BTW the 2023 pass might be the best time for a deflection effort. There is almost no chance that we could deflect it if we wait until the last few years before impact.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:18 months won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the orbit. There are sweetspots that, if you can catch them, allow you to do something with a small fraction of the resources you need otherwise.

      Also, never let a good crisis go to waste - we'll need this kind of technology eventually anyways, and the more we've done beforehand, the more options we'll have later.

    6. Re:18 months won't matter by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      It takes 1 year to develop a deflection solution but it takes 27 years for the design to get through finance/purchasing and manufacturing once it goes to release.

    7. Re:18 months won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might just be that the launch capability restrictions and tricky orbits mean the solution will have to come to the presidents desk five minutes ago!

  12. What else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What To Do About an Asteroid That Has a 1 In 625 Chance of Hitting Us In 2040?

    Celebrate. Now we only need to keep killing ACTA for the next 28 years.

  13. Beans and bullets by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Oh never mind that won't do anything.

  14. Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by gblackwo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I always liked the plans that involved speeding the asteroid up, or slowing it down just slightly.

    I saw a recent idea that involved painting it white in order to decrease absorptivity.

    1. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Q's plan of changing the gravitational constant of the universe is my favorite. It has lots of potentially interesting side effects.

    2. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I like the drop it on the Moon, or mars, solution.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Q's plan of changing the gravitational constant of the universe is my favorite. It has lots of potentially interesting side effects.

      How to lose weight fast! Guaranteed plan. Eat our specially formulated food (along with a proper diet, exercise, and changing the gravitational constant of the universe) and you will see the pounds come off in no time!

    4. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a bit wary of plans that involve moving the whole thing. I'd rather split the thing in two until the recursion depth is such that the largest piece isn't a big threat. Something 1/16th or perhaps even 1/8th the size is a lot less concern. Of course we want to move all the pieces out of the way; but if we spread it out then we're not banking on getting the calculations exactly perfect over such a long time period.

      The nice thing about splitting it is that you get visible verification that it's not a problem. As soon as the asteroid group is spread out larger than the Earth, only the ones on a direct line can hit us, assuming we screwed up and/or a change in Solar output, another rock, or some other miscalculation (coughNASAmetricEnglish) caused us to make a mistake.

      Also, this is a good excuse to put a big Solar powered laser and some explosives into space so it's an easy sell to the military-industrial complex that will build it. I think lasers would be the best way to cut it up. Would explosives even be necessary, or would high pressure gas released between two pieces be enough to overcome attraction and send them on their way?

    5. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I saw a recent idea that involved painting it white in order to decrease absorptivity.

      The real trick is to make it look like you're having so much fun repainting it that all the other countries demand to be allowed to repaint it as well.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Mick Jagger told everyone to paint it black, and you all ignored him. Ahead of his time.

    7. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I saw a recent idea that involved painting it white in order to decrease absorptivity.

      Better yet, paint Mars up to look like Earth to trick it.

    8. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. What you call an NEO, I call a lunar excavation tool.

    9. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Wizarth · · Score: 1

      Brilliant.

    10. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I heard that the Coca-Cola company has put in a bid to paint is *mostly* red.

    11. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always liked the plans that involved speeding the asteroid up, or slowing it down just slightly.

      I saw a recent idea that involved painting it white in order to decrease absorptivity.

      I say we paint it pink and put an SEP field around it.

    12. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, youre saying we should develop a giant robotic seagull and make it poop white fe... on the asteroid effectively painting it white?

    13. Re:Slow it down or speed it up just slightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the drop it on the Moon, or mars, solution.

      Mars, yes; moon, no thank you. I'll have to check, but some of the debris from a lunar impact might end up in earth orbit, with potentially disastrous consequences to our satellites.

  15. 2040 ... by realitycheckplease · · Score: 1

    I'll be 78 .... everything must end one day.

    1. Re:2040 ... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      I'll be 52, I think I'd like a few years past that... So I vote we sort something out, we'll need it later anyways.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  16. Easy answer by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plan a party. Get wasted, and get laid.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Easy answer by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I do that anyways. How about we be sure the asteroids doesn't impacts so we can continue do do so after it passes? and my kids, and their kids.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Easy answer by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      get laid

      This is about an asteroid that has a 1 in 625 change of hitting earth, not about hell freezing over.

    3. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say party like its 2039, but you kind of beat me to it.

    4. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have sons. I have a daughter. Bring on the asteroid!

  17. Duck. by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Duck. by exploder · · Score: 1

      I suggest possibly covering as well.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  18. Well by koan · · Score: 1

    Given the size you would want to put a tracking and probe package on it and use it as a platform for further exploration and of course track it's ultimate course the next time around.
    If we weren't so hopelessly political and ignorant as a species we might have been prepared to slow it to an Earthly orbit and make use of it as a habitat or some other purpose, as it is just drop the package on it and use it for furthering science.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Well by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      slow it to an Earthly orbit and make use of it as a habitat or some other purpose,

      How about we anchor our space elevator to it? We've got 28 years to adjust it's flight path.

    2. Re:Well by koan · · Score: 1

      Because we don't want it that close to the Earth.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Well by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Chicken.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  19. no just Jack O'Neill by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    or who even is under him

  20. Let's settle the argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wherever it hits, those are the people that God hates most. End of debate.

    1. Re:Let's settle the argument... by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      Wherever it hits, those are the people that God hates most. End of debate.

      I'm picturing a very old Fred Phelps holding up a sign that says "God hates fish!".

    2. Re:Let's settle the argument... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Wherever it hits, those are the people that God hates most. End of debate.

      Send a ship with a nuclear powered ion thruster engine, with 20 years of course corrections, we can determine exactly which city God hates the most.

    3. Re:Let's settle the argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not big enough to hit everywhere.

    4. Re:Let's settle the argument... by Trails · · Score: 1

      It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Nemo!

    5. Re:Let's settle the argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if it misses?

    6. Re:Let's settle the argument... by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

      I'm picturing a very old Fred Phelps holding up a sign that says "God hates fish!".

      Shellfish! (www.godhatesshrimp.com)

    7. Re:Let's settle the argument... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      so the sign should say "God hates small white robots that search for plant life"?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  21. Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy... by ThosLives · · Score: 1, Troll

    Am I the only one that gets terribly frustrated by statements like "the asteroid has a 1 in X chance to hit earth"?

    There's no probability here - the asteroid either will or will not hit. Why can't they say just say this is the measure of uncertainty in the curve fit rather than a "chance to hit"?

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  22. reailty check? by powerspike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's another year before we can get data, it'll be another 27 years before it'll hit if it does. Don't you think it'd be better to wait a year, see what the odds are. If they start coming closer to hitting us in a decade etc, then we should looking into it. At this point in time, it'd be a complete waste of time. Even if we waited 20 years before knowing it's going to hit us, our level of tech will be much greater then, then it is now and it'll basically obsolete any work we do on it before then - making it a waste of time and resources, isn't there better things we can be doing with our science dollars?

    1. Re:reailty check? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. A small deflection now could be immeasurably easier than a larger deflection later. A one millionth of a degree change in direction now could be equivalent to a multi degree change 20 years later. Waiting till the last minute is NOT a good idea with a massive object that will require significant force to deflect.

      Now I'm not arguing we should be wasting time now, just pointing out that time is a variable in this calculation that has a measurable impact of the effectiveness of any deflection.

    2. Re:reailty check? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      How can it be deflected now, when it's on the other side of the sun and currently not even visible?

  23. Anybody know any bookies? by Godot143 · · Score: 2

    I'll take those odds. I bet my life savings we survive.

    1. Re:Anybody know any bookies? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I'll hold the wagers til it's time. Bring your bets.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Anybody know any bookies? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Let's consider that from a purely mathematical perspective, shall we?

      Given that the odds of it missing are currently calculated at 624/625... the maximum payout on winning that bet would be less than 1/6th of one percent of the amount you bet. Although this could still be an appreciable sum you bet a large amount, you're simply far better off putting it in a bank, and getting a far greater return.

      If the chances were more like 5 or 6 percent, then it might be worth investing in. Of course, if the chances were that high, it would be getting taken much more seriously.

    3. Re:Anybody know any bookies? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'll take those odds. I bet my life savings we survive.

      I'll be 73 when the payout date comes, I'd rather have use of my life savings between now and then, instead of 100x as much money when I'm too old and feeble to enjoy it properly.

    4. Re:Anybody know any bookies? by brit74 · · Score: 1

      It depends on how long the bookie is holding onto the money. If the bookie is only holding onto the money for a day, then 1/6th of 1% is actually a good return for a single day. In contrast, if you're earning 10% per year on your money in the stock market, then you're earning about 1/37th of 1% per day.

    5. Re:Anybody know any bookies? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      This event isn't going to happen until 2040.

      After the relatively near pass in 2023, we should have a much better understanding of the asteroid's trajectory, so long before the actual possible event, we are going to have some pretty solid evidence to know what is going to happen.

      Given the time scales involved, I hardly think that a bookie would be comfortable with doing payouts the day after you make a bet when the event hasn't happened yet, and the odds haven't even changed.

  24. Re:Ignore it by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ignore it.

    Look I agree, only 1 in 625?! That hardly seems like a threat at all. Anyway, gotta run, I'm off to by a lottery ticket.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  25. But can anything really be done? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I have not done the calculations but I think deflecting a big asteroid is difficult considering energies required to change its trajectory. Hell, it takes a lot to simply move a spacecraft from one orbital plane to another. I know it's all great in the movies (and references to Bruce Willis) but almost all who have an opinion of asteroid deflection don't seem to be knowledgable of astrodynamics (Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Bate, Mueller, White), http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331078557&sr=8-1

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:But can anything really be done? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Bruce Willis and his pals didn't attempt to deflect the asteroid; they tried to break it up. How feasible would it be to break up a football stadium sized asteroid? Even if the remaining pieces are still going to hit earth, the damage would be considerable less (near zero, if the pieces are small enough).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:But can anything really be done? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "almost all who have an opinion of asteroid deflection don't seem to be knowledgable of astrodynamics"
      well, that true with any field isn't it? that's not the problem. The problem is everyone seems to think their opinion should carry the same weight as the experts. Which is shouldn't.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:But can anything really be done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why starting early is important. Let's say we wait until September of 2013 and have an "oh shit" moment and find it is a likely hit instead of a likely miss. Then we spend 5 years developing a system to slowly accelerate the asteroid (maybe by putting a giant net around it and attaching a solar sail) - very tiny amount of delta-v. We spend another 4 years getting a deployment craft into appropriate orbit to approach the thing and deploy the net and sail. Now we only have 18 years of that small thrust to accelerate the asteroid and cause that likely hit to be a miss. The earlier we can begin deflection, the less the delta-v needs to be.

    4. Re:But can anything really be done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have formal training in orbital mechanics, astrophysics, engineering and worked at NASA writing gn&c software. Good enough?

      Ok, a tiny mass placed in the right placed near the asteroid a few years can either pull or push it from the current trajectory enough over time to miss the Earth. A nuclear propulsion system is perfect for this. I haven't done the calulations, but 10+ yrs is a lot of time and a tiny delta v earlier becomes a much larger change later. We just need to speed it up or slow it down 3000 miles to miss the Earth. That's nothing considering we're working with 100million miles at least.

    5. Re:But can anything really be done? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Given 20 years and one of these, I think we could make it hit the moon, if we tried.

    6. Re:But can anything really be done? by ais523 · · Score: 1

      We easily have the technology for breaking up lumps of rock that big; it's done all the time in a controlled way in mining, and in an uncontrolled way, I'm reasonably sure there are modern-day military weapons powerful enough. The big problem would be getting it to the asteroid (both the technical problems in getting a weapon up into space, and the political problems involved in placing a weapon in space).

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    7. Re:But can anything really be done? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I have formal training in orbital mechanics, astrophysics, engineering and worked at NASA writing gn&c software. Good enough?

      Any books besides the one by Bate, Mueller, White? Any NASA or other websites you can recommend? Regarding 10+ years a lot of time, sounds reasonable by physics but not a lot by politics (a lot can happen in 10 years, a few more costly wars).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  26. It sure will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, if anything Hollywood has taught me is that every second counts. If we have to deflect that asteroid, the big red LED counter will by ticking away and the heroes that will be deflecting will be cursing that they really could have used that extra 18 months! And what will happen is that some poor bastard will have to sacrifice his life in order to save his family and the LED countdown timer will be down to '2' seconds instead of 18 months AND 2 seconds!

    1. Re:It sure will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe if he hadn't wasted the time building that counter...

    2. Re:It sure will! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      But if video games have taught me anything, it's that the timer doesn't start until you actually begin the last mission. We could wait a year or a decade or a century, that LED countdown timer won't start until we actually land a team on the asteroid. In which case, I propose we simply never launch a team.

    3. Re:It sure will! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      So in astrodynamics, the only way to win is...not to play?

      Interesting...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    4. Re:It sure will! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If Hollywood has taught ME anything, it's that damned near anything that comes from Hollywood is incredibly stupid. Seems like every movie and TV show I see takes a little more effort to ignore the impossibilities they portray.

  27. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never know, SG1 might use the Tel'tak to make a short hyper jump to the other side of Earth to safely prevent it from hitting us.

    I wonder what the probability of that happening is...

  28. Attach a solar sail by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And let the solar wind push it out. You only need to alter its orbit by 5 minutes in the next 22 years to miss completely.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Attach a solar sail by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Correction, 28 years.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Attach a solar sail by Shandon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the math is wrong, or a solar storm changes the track or ... and you alter the path to make it hit dead center instead of a grazing shot. That's the problem with orbital mechanics - stuff changes over the years and depending on other gravitational interactions, what you thought was a deflection was a centering action. W00t.

      But you *know* there's a rock out there with Humanity's name on it. This one. Another one. Doesn't really matter. If we can't get off this planet in serious numbers before it hits, the universe goes on without us.

    3. Re:Attach a solar sail by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Solar sails use radiation pressure, not solar wind.

    4. Re:Attach a solar sail by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well then use a real sail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail

      Sample calculations in the article provide 70n of thrust at 1AU, over 28 years would result in a displacement of 6 822 402 370 meters. The earth is 12 756 000 meters in diameter. This means that it would miss by 534 earth-diameters. Depending on which direction it is we're either really safe or more screwed. Note I did not take into account orbital mechanics, and only did a linear calculation. I think the odds would be even in better favor if we got the sail on it and it orbited closer to the sun where the magnetic pressure is higher.

      Given that magsails are 1/10000th the power of a solar sail, I still think the sail idea has it licked.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    5. Re:Attach a solar sail by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      But you *know* there's a rock out there with Humanity's name on it. This one. Another one. Doesn't really matter. If we can't get off this planet in serious numbers before it hits, the universe goes on without us.

      Better start working on the obituary then. With a flat-out, spare no expense, wreck the planetary economy effort - in about three or four centuries we might be able to get enough people and sufficient industrial infrastructure off planet to be independently survivable.

    6. Re:Attach a solar sail by sahonen · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that a significant portion of the human race can't even agree about providing a national infrastructure for healing sick people without placing them into massive personal debt, I have absolutely no faith that our civilization will ever be able to agree to the kind of coordinated worldwide effort that would be required to colonize space. The human race *will* go extinct, and personally, I'm not even sure that that's a such a bad thing.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    7. Re:Attach a solar sail by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I guess the idea behind magsails is that a magnetic field, unlike a sail, doesn't have to be carried and then painfully deployed, thus the only thing limiting its size is the power available. But in case of an asteroid, there are no such concerns, because there are plans of "painting" the asteroid with reflective dust, using the rock itself as a sail.

    8. Re:Attach a solar sail by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      If we can't get off this planet in serious numbers before it hits, the universe goes on without us.

      That is the most objective statement I've ever seen on Slashdot. Not "we'll all die, and that's that", but a far greater perspective where our loss is immeasurably tiny.

  29. Strange probability observation... by RJBeery · · Score: 1

    "The asteroid 2011 AG5 is 140 meters across: football-stadium-sized. Its orbit isn't nailed down well enough to say yet, but using what's currently known, there's a 1 in 625 chance it will impact the Earth in 2040. It's behind the Sun until September 2013, and more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds of impact to something close to 0. "

    Let me guess...the odds of that happening are approximately 624/625?

  30. I had a dream about this last night by petman · · Score: 2

    Whoa! I had a dream about something like this last night. In my dream, a meteor/asteroid hit the water and caused a flood and I thought I was going to die. However, I survived and the water receded. Due to the flood, all electrical/electronic stuff basically died and people basically had to survive without technology.

    1. Re:I had a dream about this last night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists have proven that dreams are the least interesting thing you can possibly talk about.

    2. Re:I had a dream about this last night by petman · · Score: 1

      At least one moderator disagrees with you.

  31. BET A MILLION... BILLION DOLLARS THAT IT WON'T !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abd if it does, well, who cares !!

  32. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

    The bookies have a different opinion, i think there is already an open bet with very good odds at bwin.

  33. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Construct a sentence that would be appropriate.

  34. Relax Everyone by xstonedogx · · Score: 3, Funny

    I got this.

    *shakes fist at sky*

    1. Re:Relax Everyone by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I can fix it. I just need everyone to send me $1 to fund my solution. Operators standing by.

    2. Re:Relax Everyone by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Step 1: 501(c)(3). Step 2:Time for some sweet, sweet grants. Step 3: STEP 2 WAS PROFIT, DON'T BE GREEDY.

  35. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one that gets terribly frustrated by statements like "the asteroid has a 1 in X chance to hit earth"?

    Do statements like "The coin has a 1 in 2 chance of coming up heads" also bother you?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  36. Build a ship for the best and brightest! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3, Funny

    Build a spaceship and put in all the telephone sanitisers, hairdressers, advertising account executives, MPAA executives, RIAA executives, and politicians and send them into space.

    1. Re:Build a ship for the best and brightest! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Build a spaceship and put in all the telephone sanitisers, hairdressers, advertising account executives, MPAA executives, RIAA executives, and politicians and send them into space.

      They did that once already... All the middlemen crash-landed here.

    2. Re:Build a ship for the best and brightest! by c · · Score: 1

      I'm struck by this horrible, terrifying thought of them finding an inhabitable planet and building their ideal civilization.

      Maybe we can put the economists on the ship, too. That'll definitely doom them.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Build a ship for the best and brightest! by axlr8or · · Score: 1

      Relax. At first it seems like a tangible nightmare. But all you have to remember is..; They have no real practical skills to produce. So in the end, lacking sustenance, they will turn on one another and eat each other until they are all gone. Now doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Happy dreams!!!

    4. Re:Build a ship for the best and brightest! by c · · Score: 2

      > So in the end, lacking sustenance, they will turn on one another and
      > eat each other until they are all gone.

      I know that's the most likely scenario... I just want to be sure. I mean, there's always the slim chance they'd discover a derelict starship left behind by an ancient civilization and somehow manage to thrive. It would be truly horrible if other intelligent life in the galaxy first discovered humanity by being subpoena'd by our outcast lawyers.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  37. Re:Idiots! by moozey · · Score: 2

    The Mayans didn't factor in the leap year, so by their calculations the world should have ended months ago.

  38. Who knows? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Who knows?

    Maybe that big knock at 2040 will wake me up and I then can crawl out of my (future) coffin

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  39. Statistics failure by subreality · · Score: 1

    "more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds" ... Either: you are speculating, and future observations MAY reduce the odds; or you have some data that isn't in the current calculation, and the odds won't probably be reduced in the future, they ARE reduced NOW.

    1. Re:Statistics failure by exploder · · Score: 1

      Uh...no.

      There is an event (passing through the "keyhole") that, if it happens in 2023, will pretty much guarantee that the asteroid hits (and conversely). In other words, at this moment in 2023, the uncertainty will be greatly reduced. Either the odds will go way up or way down. Based on what we know now, there's a 624/625 chance that the odds go down.

      In other words, "more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds" is precisely correct, and nobody has failed but you.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    2. Re:Statistics failure by Glacial+Wanderer · · Score: 1

      Their wording is correct. With more data there is approximation 624 in 625 odds that the likelihood of impact will be reduced. I actually really liked his wording because it didn't try to sensationalize the problem by making it sound like we will find out if there is an impact 2013, which would push many people to think the problem is more of a 50/50 odds. The general media leverage this flaw in human thinking frequently.

  40. Only one thing TO do. . . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . .run it for President !! Sweet Meteor of Death in 2040 !! After all, it couldn't be WORSE than a politician. . . . .

    1. Re:Only one thing TO do. . . . by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Not so fast! Let's see the birth certificate!

  41. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "the asteroid either will or will not hit"

    It's like saying the chance to roll a 1 on a d6 is 50/50 it will or it won't; which is fail.

    And the uncertainty are in the asteroids orbit. The more you remove those, the better you can define the probability.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. just dump some white paint on it by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

    At this point just over 25 years out, if the odds go up next year, then just send a spacecraft to splatter a few gallons of white paint on it and let the solar wind reflection push it an extra fraction of a percent and move it however many thousands/millions of miles in the next quarter century.

    1. Re:just dump some white paint on it by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd think painting it blue would be the best bet...if it hits Earth, it'll just bounce off!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  43. Re:Idiots! by sconeu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Mayan calendar was more accurate... 365.2420 days, vs. Gregorians 365.2425, when the actual value was 365.2422.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  44. I know. by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    Let's make a commission to study the possibilities and then claim there's no consensus.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  45. Why wait? by l00sr · · Score: 1

    Is there any reason why NASA can't start working out a 'asteroid impact playbook' right now instead of scrambling to make one when the big one does come, even if it's not this one? I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.

    1. Re:Why wait? by zlives · · Score: 1

      the job has been outsourced to commercial contractors. i.e. Hollywood.

    2. Re:Why wait? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Who's to say that they aren't. It's not like you or I work for NASA. Beyond that, there are an awful lot of people working there on different projects.

          There is one problem with trying to make a catch-all plan. It's impractical. Planning for an object coming in on the orbital path of the Earth may be practical. Last time I checked, space is 3 dimensional. Look North at night (or South for those in the Southern hemisphere), there's stuff up there too. :) Intersecting with an object a year, or years away that wouldn't have a good escape vector from an equatorial orbit would be difficult to impossible with our current technology.

          So, the idea of a catch-all asteroid playbook would be nice. It would be nicer if it wouldn't take dozens of launches to get the materials and fuel up there to do it. In 20 or 30 years, we'll hopefully have advanced, if our space travel advancements haven't crawled to a halt. Right now, we're pretty close to that.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Why wait? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.

      Besides the direct benefit of 120 tech spin-offs, I'd say fixing the Hubble Telescope and keeping it up to date provided us with tremendous scientific benefit.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    4. Re:Why wait? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Is there any reason why NASA can't start working out a 'asteroid impact playbook' right now instead of scrambling to make one when the big one does come, even if it's not this one? I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.

      Oh, you mean like this one?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  46. Re:Ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    flagging you for inappropriate use of probability

  47. Wrong Question by billybob_jcv · · Score: 2

    The right question is: Who launched it at us?

    1. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bugs of course

    2. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Klandathu?

    3. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bugs of course, and it will hit Argentina.

    4. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the tinfoil hat gnome on top of your head.

    5. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anubis launched it.

  48. What does football stadium sized entail? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    As a non-astronomer, can somebody explain to me roughly what we're talking about with a 140m asteroid?

    I'm assuming (I could be way off) that a 1m "beach ball" asteroid probably just breaks up and burns in the atmosphere, with little appreciable hitting the ground/ocean.

    How about a "car" sized asteroid? Does it burn up? Possibly take out a house? City Block?

    How big do asteroids have to be before they could take out a whole city? How about to create a Tsunami (since they are most likely hitting ocean anyhow). How big to impact yearly weather patterns and destroy crops?

    I know the Chicxulub one is supposed to have been 10km, so that's "extinct most species" territory -- What does 140m mean in comparison?

    1. Re:What does football stadium sized entail? by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Depends on where it hits. One that big into the Indian Ocean could replicate Noah's Flood, which is probably what happened THEN.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

    2. Re:What does football stadium sized entail? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Depends on where it hits. One that big into the Indian Ocean could replicate Noah's Flood, which is probably what happened THEN.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

      Sure. An inundation of the entire world for forty days and forty nights is no problem, all you need is a big enough impact. I take it this Holocene Impact Working Group has a religious agenda?

      They don't actually come out and say it (as far as I can tell), but they have a very specific time estimate (2800-3000 BCE) with no actual dating procedures performed, and they admit that their hypothesis flies in the face of most relevant research ("The scientific community, I wouldn't expect 99.9 per cent of it to agree with us"). What's more, their research is generally clutching at straws and is easily repudiated by experts in the relevant fields. All this makes it reek of religious revisionism of science, itself disguised as science.

      Why can't religious nutjobs just leave science alone?

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    3. Re:What does football stadium sized entail? by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      "Noah's Flood" was "world-wide" only from the perspective of a very narrow slice of the "world", but an asteroid-caused tsunami could easily have inundated the entire world that THEY knew about; from Egypt to, perhaps, Sumeria. In broad general terms, it at least approximately matches the similar Gilgamesh epics, and the Egyptians have their own flood legends. Are you so insanely literal that you cannot see that legends and myths sometimes DO contain a grain of truth at their cores?

    4. Re:What does football stadium sized entail? by doti · · Score: 1

      there's an app for that.

      or a website: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    5. Re:What does football stadium sized entail? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Are you so insanely literal that you cannot see that legends and myths sometimes DO contain a grain of truth at their cores?

      No, where do I say that? There are lots of flood traditions around the world, most of them in areas where people see smaller floods regularly. The Egyptians you mention, for instance, observe yearly flooding of the Nile. I'm not sure why I bother, but: *You* mentioned Noah's Flood (not flood myths in general), and *you* linked to a pseudoscientific (at best) explanation for it in the same post. One does not need impacts to explain where flood myths originate. One does, however, need a pretty dramatic and implausible event to explain the Deluge.

      My gripe is with people who seek to prove that their favourite myth is not a myth by basically trying to invalidate all other research in the fields, in a way attacking and undermining science itself. It's just as bad as any other creationist "science". Note that I infer that it is such from other sources than the group itself. They do not state it directly, but they are widely quoted on creationist websites as a defence of a literal interpretation of the Bible, in addition to everything I mentioned in my earlier post. .

      "Noah's Flood" was "world-wide" only from the perspective of a very narrow slice of the "world"

      Most Biblical literalists don't agree with you, see third paragraph here. Besides, it's a myth.

      Oh, and I got the duration of the mythical Deluge wrong. It apparently lasted for closer to a year, the forty days I mentioned where just somewhat rainy. As if anyone cares :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  49. I'm not worried by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    After all, Putin is back! He'll certainly deal with it - shoot it, wrestle it, somehow force it to submit to his iron will.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I'm not worried by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      After all, Putin is back! He'll certainly deal with it - shoot it, wrestle it, somehow force it to submit to his iron will.

      Putin != Chuck Norris.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:I'm not worried by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris won't have to do *anything*. The asteroid will see him and take a detour.

  50. Re:Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truly, there are is no better source of factual information than Facebook memes.

  51. What If it Hits a Nike Stockpile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Fukushima? Or some country's biowar stash?

    But, no need to go on a spending spree. Most of the tools are already there. See what's already laying around in the attic, the shed, basement ... wherever.

    Anyway, just get the NERVA's DUMBOs and ORION (the elder, Dyson, one) out of mothballs. Unpack, patch. Etc. See what else is laying around "forgotten". A few PLUTOs, perhaps? Pick up the orbiting "star wars" laser and particle beam systems, on the way out. Park next to the asteroid and dump broadsides into it until reaction outgassing changes its orbit. There was a time when the USSR had the theoretical capacity to launch 200 Soyuz in a single year, should it have been called for.

    Staff it with scientists and have it do a "Grand Tour" after diverting the asteroid. Better make the most of it.

    Just a few NERVAS, if found, could send up a small WWII warship, if required :-^

    1. Re:What If it Hits a Nike Stockpile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant "Nuke Stockpile". If it were a Nike Stockpile, the Olympics might have go barefoot. Sorry.

  52. Re:Ignore it by masternerdguy · · Score: 2, Funny

    We drill. We send in the worlds best deep core driller.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  53. An idea whose time has come by GPierce · · Score: 1

    What we need is to construct a collection of arcs to rescue important parts of the population.

    The A Arc would be used to protect the president and a few important government officials. The B Arc would rescue essential civilian leaders and members of the .0001%.. The C Arcs when finally constructed, would rescue the rest of us.

    It can be done.

    --

    When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
    1. Re:An idea whose time has come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is to construct a collection of arcs to rescue important parts of the population.

      The A Arc would be used to protect the president and a few important government officials.

      First you're talking about important parts of the population and then you're talking about government officials. Make up your mind!

      On a more serious note, what do you mean by the president? As far as I know, there's more than one country on this planet. Why are you only going to save one president? Which one?

    2. Re:An idea whose time has come by GPierce · · Score: 1

      The Arc thing was a steal from The Hitchhikers' Guide and was intended to be sort of sarcastic parody. In the original, a planet's sun was supposed to go nova. All of the "really important" people fought for a place on the B Arc and were blasted into space. Then it was discovered that the sun was not going to go nova. Life on that planet was greatly improved for everyone else. The B Arc wandered thru space, and eventually wound up settling a planet later identified as Earth.

      --

      When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
    3. Re:An idea whose time has come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess, I'll just have to hand in my geek card on the way out... :-(
      It's been too long since I read THHGTTG.

      How does this work? Can I get my card back, when I have re-read all 5 parts of the trilogy? Will there be some kind of test first?

      --
      Same AC

  54. Let's be honest about something by PrinceBrightstar · · Score: 1

    Based on what we know about the asteroid, specifically the fact that it's 140m in size, we're not looking at the end of the world here. The impact crater will be about 2-3 km in size and major effects felt up to about 100-200 miles away. This is not an armageddon situation and even at the worst case that it's made of something really dense, it's not going to cause global damage. We won't have a chunk of the planet missing and the axis won't change. Once we know what the deal is we should have more than enough information that even if we miss our target, there will be plenty of time to evacuate whatever town is going to get flattened.

    1. Re:Let's be honest about something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not going to cause global damage. We won't have a chunk of the planet missing and the axis won't change. Once we know what the deal is we should have more than enough information that even if we miss our target, there will be plenty of time to evacuate whatever town is going to get flattened.

      That's a relief! And here I was, wondering if it could hit somewhere between Siberia and Japan. Thus unlocking the methane from the tundra and Russian Arctic Sea nearly all at the same time, in a fiery outgassing. And re-inundate most of Japan, in a super-mega-Tsunami - taking out most of their remaining nuclear installations (and chemical, and biological, and ... ) - and the ripples from the impact causing a series of great quakes again.

      Thanks for clearing that up!

  55. It'll Happen Eventually - Let's Prepare Now! by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Large asteroids - far larger than this one! - have hit the Earth before, and it WILL happen again. Probably not in 2029, or in 2037, and probably not in 2040 - but why wait? Preparing now - or at least, starting to THINK about preparing now - will pay major dividends in the long run.

    With any luck, by 2040 we'll be able to capture it into one of the lunar Trojan points, and that'll save money in the long run from paying to lift mass from the Earth or the Moon to build that habitat.

    1. Re:It'll Happen Eventually - Let's Prepare Now! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      yup, just like a shootout, its the guy shooting at you that you dont see is the one that gets you

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  56. Here's a silly stats question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we currently believe it is 1/625 chance that it will hit the earth, why is it "likely" additional observations will reduce this chance? Doesn't that imply that we secretly believe the _real_ probability distribution shows a lower likelihood and that we believe our current model or observation set is based on biased data?

    1. Re:Here's a silly stats question by exploder · · Score: 1

      No, it's because we know that the uncertainty will go way down in 2023 when it does or does not "pass through the keyhole". If there's a 1 in 625 chance that it passes through the keyhole, then there's a 624 in 625 chance that observations after that will reduce the odds to essentially zero. If it does pass through the keyhole, then the odds go to nearly 1. So the overall distribution hasn't changed, but we'll have a much better idea which part of it we'll be sampling.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  57. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by mysidia · · Score: 2

    There's no probability here - the asteroid either will or will not hit. Why can't they say just say this is the measure of uncertainty in the curve fit rather than a "chance to hit"?

    Actually.... quantum characteristics do effect the motion of objects relatively low in mass (like asteroids) over sufficient time and space.

    But there are other probalistic things that will effect the path of an asteroid as well, such as the motion of other unobserved bodies, actions of humans and other high-entropy phenomena which do not have a deterministic defined outcome; it's an intractible problem, so the outcome is really not a binary thing; there really is a certain probability of a collision.

    How precisely we can know what that probability actually is, is another matter altogether. The fact that 1 in 625 is what has been indicated so far, does not mean 1 in 625 is as precise a number as possible for that probability. Methodological improvements in the future will likely improve the accuracy of the prediction of the probability of a collision

  58. Tsar bomb test was 50 megatons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be interesting to see how this stacks up with the time_t overflow in 2038.

  59. Blow it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't that 2 x 1.2m payload bay in the X-37B contain an asteroid killing nuke? All we have to do is divert it.

  60. play pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 go to moon
    2 blow off a few large chunks of rock
    3 get them in orbit around the moon, fit propulsion as required
    4 use them to smash the asteroid of course

    5 justify funding for that special moon base we have always wanted ;)

  61. JPL's list of future Earth impact risks by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

    Sentry Risk Table

    The following table lists potential future Earth impact events that the JPL Sentry System has detected based on currently available observations. Click on the object designation to go to a page with full details on that object.

    Sentry is a highly automated collision monitoring system that continually scans the most current asteroid catalog for possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years. Whenever a potential impact is detected it will be analyzed and the results immediately published here, except in unusual cases where an IAU Technical Review is underway.

  62. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by mysidia · · Score: 2

    Do statements like "The coin has a 1 in 2 chance of coming up heads" also bother you?

    The coin has a 50% chance of coming up heads, unless a butterfly flaps her wings at the behest of an EMACS programmer with the right shortcut key.

  63. One thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Party like its 2039!

  64. Isn't this the third duplicate of this story ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is new this time?

    Wasn't this story reported yesterday and the day before?

  65. by the time 2040 comes around by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    by then i will be 81 years old if i am still alive so it wont make any difference to me, maybe my children or grandchildren will be concerned about it

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:by the time 2040 comes around by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      by then i will be 81 years old if i am still alive so it wont make any difference to me, maybe my children or grandchildren will be concerned about it

      Does your post imply that you don't care about what happens to your children or grandchildren?

      I appreciate several of the things my grandparents and their generation did for me, specifically: fighting World War II, the TVA electric dam construction projects, and the interstate highway system. Moving this asteroid to a safe orbit (if necessary) is a relatively smaller task by comparison.

    2. Re:by the time 2040 comes around by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      all the men in my family tree have died in the mid sixties, i doubt my life span will be any different, i partied too hard, worked too hard, and eaten & drank too much, i am already showing signs of arthritis and feel old age and pain in my bones already and i am only 53 years old. i really really doubt i make it to 81, sure i want to see my children prosper but what happens to them out in the world is beyond my control

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    3. Re:by the time 2040 comes around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should take care of that social security and medicare unfunded program problem for them...

    4. Re:by the time 2040 comes around by Geeky · · Score: 1

      OT, but I'm increasing thinking that's the way to live.

      I've seen too many relatives deteriorate slowly in care homes to want to live much past my mid 70s. I'm happy to trade the risk of only making mid 60s and missing out on a few good years for the enjoyment of doing all the things that are fun but bad for me *now* - I'd rather that than have those last years sitting in a home in a pool of my own waste.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    5. Re:by the time 2040 comes around by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit.

  66. Don't waste our time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if this asteroid hits, it is not likely to hit a populated area. The money spent on trying to deflect it would likely save more lives on average if spent on medicine, water purification, food distribution, or some such thing.

    The only real reason to try to deflect this asteroid is to practice for a larger one, but techniques that work on small asteroids like this one won't necessarily work on large ones.

    1. Re:Don't waste our time by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Even if this asteroid hits, it is not likely to hit a populated area. The money spent on trying to deflect it would likely save more lives on average if spent on medicine, water purification, food distribution, or some such thing.

      The only real reason to try to deflect this asteroid is to practice for a larger one, but techniques that work on small asteroids like this one won't necessarily work on large ones.

      If the calculated target is the North Atlantic Ocean, it'll be cheaper to deflect it than to reconstruct the Tsunami damaged New England coastal areas.

  67. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by ThosLives · · Score: 1

    Do statements like "The coin has a 1 in 2 chance of coming up heads" also bother you?

    No, because a (proverbial) coin flip is a probabilistic event.

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  68. Roll the dice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get 27 - 79 - 82 - 37 - 10 - 2 (on 6d100)
    plus 7 - 3 - 8 (on 3d8)
    plus 1 (on 1d2)
    for a total of.... 256.
    Oh god! We're doomed!

    PS: Does the captcha read the post to figure out what to ask? It's giving me "randomly". Not good.

  69. Fix #34 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Make it run for GOP nomination. That has a good record at making people go away.

  70. I for one welcome our Chinese space overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because, let's get serious here, there's no way the US is going to do jack about this.

  71. Obligatory XKCD by kfm03 · · Score: 1

    Someone had to post it: http://xkcd.com/618/

  72. 2023 is the date to keep in mind by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    2023 is the year that the asteroid will either pass through the "keyhole" and be bent into an orbit that will strike the earth, or it won't and we're safe for the foreseeable future.

    Deflecting the asteroid so that it misses the keyhole (~300km) is much easier than deflecting it so that it misses the earth (~13000km).

    In that timeframe, 18 months can matter.

    Also, the time spent developing solutions is anything but a waste. We never know when we'll discover an asteroid that's on a collision course with earth on a much smaller time frame than 28 years. Eventually we will need this capability. I don't see any effort spent getting ready now as a waste.

    On the other hand I'm not arguing too hard that we need to start working now. Odds are very good that in 2013 we'll look closer and realize that there's 0 chance of it passing through the keyhole.

    Still, we need to take the problem of asteroid impact seriously. It is only a matter of time before it kills us all if we aren't prepared.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:2023 is the date to keep in mind by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Deflecting the asteroid so that it misses the keyhole (~300km) is much easier than deflecting it so that it misses the earth (~13000km).

      Not necessarily. It all depends on when you intercept it. When the asteroid is near the earth changing its path by 300km might actually be rather hard. On the other hand, if the asteroid is in the middle of space changing where it will go is pretty easy.

      When you're inserting a probe into orbit around a planet, you can completely change what orbit it will end up in with a tiny blast of the maneuvering thrusters if you're still months or years away. If you wait until you're in orbit, then you might need something the size of a Saturn V to change the orbit in the same way.

      In any case, waiting a few months before taking action seems prudent - asteroids are popping up all the time and there is no way to know if they are worth pursuing until you collect data. No harm in planning for the ability to intercept asteroids in general, but it seems a bit premature to go after this one in particular.

  73. Experience Counts by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Just ask the dinosaurs how they handled the last......never mind.

  74. First we gotta know by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Does it run Linux?

  75. Re:Ask Africans to save us? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    What's your address? I have a really cool gift for you. Delivery is a bit slow, though, arriving in 2040.

  76. This one worries me more by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Asteroid 2012 DA14

    Size: 60-meters
    Arrives in February 2013
    How close? 27,000 km (16,700 miles)

    That's a little too close for comfort!

    1. Re:This one worries me more by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  77. Re:Idiots! by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Man those guys were smart. Too bad no one living today is that smart. I bet anything they wrote down must be more true than anything modern people write down. Too bad they didn't actually write down when the earth was going to end and it is only stupid modern people who misinterpret those smart Mayan overlords.

  78. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    A coin flip is exactly as probabilistic an event as this possible impact.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  79. Fear is the mind-killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no point in being scared of death, or living in fear of impending death. Some of the most cheerful people I know life with a terminal illness, knowing in a very final way that they're going to die.

    But so is everyone. So they live their lives to the fullest they can while they have time. That doesn't mean they don't hope to survive, and plan on surviving, but they have a wittily sarcastic viewpoint on death itself that tends to remind me of dark British humour.

    Whether the Earth blows up in a gloriously Marvin-satisfying "Earth-shattering kaboom" or I get hit by one of Regina's crazier drivers, I will die.

    If you live your life in fear of all the things that could kill you, you may as well do it to yourself, because you're not living anyhow.

  80. Re:Ignore it by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Close enough and big enough to make some finer measurements.

    Then we can decide whether we need to do anything. Chances are pretty remote that it needs action and we have a few years to decide what.

  81. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by exploder · · Score: 1

    Sadly, no, you aren't.

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  82. Probabillity problems by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1
    There is something wrong with either the OPs or my understanding of probability theory.
    Summary states:

    It's behind the Sun until September 2013, and more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds of impact to something close to 0

    I don't understand how the probability of a hit can be 1 in 625 now, if it is probable that the odds will be reduced to close to 0 in 18 months or so.
    The only way I can reconcile this is if we say that 1/625 is close to zero, but then why the article?

    --
    If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    1. Re:Probabillity problems by spitzak · · Score: 1

      There is 624/625 chance of it being reduced close to 0. There is a 1/625 chance of it being increased close to 1. Therefore "more observations will probably reduce the odds of impact to close to 0" is a perfectly correct statement.

    2. Re:Probabillity problems by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      There is 624/625 chance of it being reduced close to 0. There is a 1/625 chance of it being increased close to 1. Therefore "more observations will probably reduce the odds of impact to close to 0" is a perfectly correct statement.

      That would mean;
      That more observations on any low probability phenomena will reduce the probability towards 0 then.

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    3. Re:Probabillity problems by spitzak · · Score: 1

      No, it means there is a greater chance that more observations will reduce the probability to 0 than they will raise the probability toward 1.

      There is still a 1/625 chance that a future observation will show that the asteroid is *more* likely to hit the earth.

    4. Re:Probabillity problems by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      OK, I don't agree.
      But after noticing your very low number UID. I will bow out gracefully and let age go before beauty.
      Also I don't have time to argue, The almighty has told me I have to go start building my space ark now.

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
  83. Asteroid 2012 DA14 discovered a month ago by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

    90% of Asteroids are "hidden" and we have only started to become more sophisticated and active in trying to detect them. We do not know where these 100 meter asteroid's orbits are in relation to Earth.

    We know that some asteroids which travel such that the Sun obscures them most of the time (rocky ones with no "comet tails"), are EXTREMELY hard to detect.

    Given that we have a Tunguska size (100 meter) impact about once per century, I would give a 1 in 4 chance of an impact or aerial explosion inside of 2040. It is all statistics with a fairly high degree of certainty. Am I an astrophysicist? No, but as an engineer, I read what they write and it is pretty well settled on the information with which to judge chances of an impact of something "sizable",

  84. Wait by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But does it make sense to wait until then to start investigating a mission to deflect it away our planet?

    Well lets see, a potential catastrophe is 28 years away and there is 1/625 odds based on the data we do have that it will happen. We will know evidently with much better certainty what that odds are when its a mere 26-27 years away. Given we are talking about altering the path of a massive object in space, I say wait.

    If we can't solve the problem in 26 years we mostly likely could not solve it in 28. The odds are already quite low, the cost to do anything about it quite high. If the numbers change after we can see and measure it better thats different. If we had to wait until it was much closer to get the better data that would be different. I don't see any advantage in getting a 12-24 month jump on this, given the time scales, and the complexity of solutions to the problem and risk.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Wait by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      We aren't looking to take action Armageddeon-style at the last minute. There are two factors to keep in mind: the likely solutions will involve moving the asteroid over time, so the sooner we get started doing that, the better. Second: we have to get our solution to the asteroid, which is probably easiest when it is close to earth (delta-v might be greater depending on the orbit, but preventing disaster may allow a large budget for rocket fuel). Those 18 months might not be adding to a 26 year window but a coulple of years, depending on the required timing of everything.

  85. One one practical thing you can do: by macraig · · Score: 1

    Get out of momma's basement and GET LAID! Make damned sure your partner (a) has reproductive organs and (b) actually gets pregnant. With any luck your progeny will be a teen genius who invents and builds cheap DIY backyard space transport and shares the plans on Instructables before The Big Day arrives....

  86. Re:Ask Africans to save us? by icebraining · · Score: 1

    African immigrants in the US? Yeah, I actually would ask them:

    African immigrants to the U.S. are among the most educated groups in the United States. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is more than double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans.

  87. Re:Ignore it by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    1 in 625 chance it takes out Congress. And Ellen DeGeneres. And Larry Ellison. So worth it.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  88. Move a smaller one by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, we end up with some in our orbit that are 10 meters. Why not work on moving it into a stable orbit, or out of orbit? We have some nice small asteroids that are ideal to practice on. Lets start using them.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  89. Here's what you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    start by hoping to hell there aren't 624 more of then lined up just like it....

  90. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're both wrong AND pedantic!

    Let's say you have a car that's running on fumes. You calculate that you can drive it to the gas station as long as you aren't stopped for at least 2 full minutes by red lights. There are 6 red lights between your house and the gas station.

    At this point, you can calculate the likelihood of getting your car all the way there (How well the lights are calibrated, how long each red light lasts, etc.). You figure that you have, say, a 1 in 4 chance of making it if you leave at any given time.

    Then some shithead with a rock up his ass tells you "You'll either make it or you won't... You can't calculate probabilities based on all your data! Huhrr huhrr huhrr!!!"

  91. 'From Gremlins 2' by axlr8or · · Score: 1

    "I don't know what their doing on your end of the line but over here their putting their money in canned goods and shotguns."

  92. Why Astronomers? by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

    I "get" why astronomers are best suited to tell us the likelihood that we would be hit.

    I don't "get" why astronomers are best suited to decide what to do in the event it is determined that we would be hit.

    I'm not sure who would be best suited for such a task....

    -CF

    1. Re:Why Astronomers? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      rocket scientists?

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  93. Batting practice by 74Carlton · · Score: 1

    I would suggest attempting to knock it down so that when a serious threat comes along we already have some experience.

  94. What to do? Kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill it with fire!

  95. 2012 II by Dominus+Suus · · Score: 1

    Whatever we do, don't let Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser find out about this, or they'll be making another over-financed, poorly-written, badly-acted, scientifically-laughable movie about it. Oh, phew, Michael Bay already beat them to it.

  96. If movies have taught me anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's that we don't need to worry about things like this, so long as we can convince Bruce Willis to blow himself up.

  97. What do you do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do the Watusi!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5aGwjWIQs

  98. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by ThosLives · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can always turn a deterministic problem into a probabilistic one if enough variables are hidden. But this doesn't mean that the underlying mechanics of the situation are necessarily probabilistic.

    The gasoline example you gave above is inherently probabilistic, because you do expect that, given the same perceived initial conditions many times, the outcomes would vary each time the "experiment" is carried out.

    When it comes to orbital mechanics, the variability comes not in being inherently unsure of what will change, but from a known error based on number and quality of measurements. This is why the probability of collision numbers change over time - they are really confidence numbers, not probability of occurrence numbers. No matter how many times you measure a fair die roll, the probabilities will always come up the same.

    More measurements won't help you with a coin toss, quantum mechanics, or your gasoline example, because it's not possible to gain enough measurements (or in QM's case, there is strong evidence that no such parameters even exist to measure in the first place).

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  99. How about by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Remembering it has a 624/625 chance of NOT hitting us?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:How about by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the chances are it would just go into Earth orbit instead of hitting us.

  100. Use it as the space elevator's counterweight by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    NASA should build it powerful space tug (or really learn a LOT about using nuclear explosions to nudge large objects) and place it into geo-sync orbit.

    Then sell it to that Japanese construction company that wants to build a space elevator by 2050! It'll be right on schedule to be used as raw material or as a counterweight. (Well, hopefully it's a carbonaceous asteroid that can be made into carbon nanotubes/diamond fiber).

  101. Dodgy probability theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the article "there's a 1 in 625 chance it will impact the Earth ... more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds of impact to something close to 0."

    This is a misleading statement, it leads the reader to suppose that the expected probability after the observations are taken is less than 1/625, which is impossible according to the law of iterated expectations. That is, according to Baye's Law, the expected change in a probability when we update with new information, is zero.

    On the other hand, it is technically true - a really accurate observation would reduce the chance to 0 (with probability 624/625) and increase it to 1 (with probability 1/625). So a really accurate observation would "probably" reduce the chance to close to zero (unless it doesn't, and instead increases the probability to close to 1).

  102. Re:Ignore it by janeil · · Score: 1

    Probability is never inappropriate! And, one chance in 625 is not a small chance really, it's a little MORE likely than selecting a black ace twice in a row from a deck of cards. Easily doable!

  103. Forget it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to worry about here.

    QED

  104. Pray to Jezus rapture's really coming this time!?! by leftie · · Score: 1

    This time, it's for real!

  105. Last time you said "housing prices never fall" by leftie · · Score: 1

    That "housing prices always go up" advice worked out just peachy, huh?

  106. I guess you didn't see "Gran Torino" by leftie · · Score: 1

    85 year old Dirty Harry tells some tough kids in his neighborhood to get off his lawn.

  107. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by tibit · · Score: 1

    Well said! +1 Insightful and +1 Informative.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  108. Obligatory joke about Unix time rolling over by kriston · · Score: 1

    The obligatory joke about Unix time rolling over before this happens goes here.

    --

    Kriston

  109. Re:Idiots! by moozey · · Score: 1

    Pfft, if they're so smart then where the hell are they now?

  110. A better summary by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    The appropriately named submitted writes:

    "The asteroid 2011 AG5 is 140 meters across: Nearly three hundred breadboxes long and able to contain an entire Library of Congress within. Its orbit isn't nailed down well enough to say anything useful yet, but using our completely incomplete data set, we conclude there's a close-to-zero chance it will impact the Earth in 2040. It's behind the Sun until September 2013, and more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds of impact to something closer to 0. (Or perhaps farther away from 0. The chance of the odds of impact being recalculated to something else are close to one-in-one.) But does it make sense to wait until then to start figuring out ways to use this non-event to beg for government funding for our solution-in-search-of-a-problem project? Astronomers are debating how to write alarmist grant proposals for this non-crisis right now, and what they conclude may pave the way for yet another increase in NASA funding that will be quickly cut by the next administration and thereby completely wasted."

  111. Re:Idiots! by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hiding in their space ship.

  112. Laugh by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    I will be nearing retirement, for fucks sake if it hits ... and the first 30 some odd years are any indication, it will be one glorious final joke on me from god

  113. Frank Drebin says by Sanoj · · Score: 1

    "there's a 1 in 625 chance it will impact the Earth in 2040, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that"

    What does this statistic even mean if its "expected to be reduced to 0"?

  114. There's a group of former astronauts trying by geniusj · · Score: 1

    to do something about this. Check out the B612 foundation, or watch Ed Lu's TED talk at TEDxNASA

  115. Stay away from it until we are a lot smarter by iamacat · · Score: 1

    I hate to think where a well-intentioned mission will direct the asteroid in 624/625 cases that it's not already headed there.

  116. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

    It depends on whether you view probability as frequentistic or Bayesian. Your worldview is frequentistic, but a lot of the way we talk about probabilities on makes sense in a Bayesian worldview. Sibling posts have given plenty of examples.

  117. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

    When it comes to orbital mechanics, the variability comes not in being inherently unsure of what will change, but from a known error based on number and quality of measurements. This is why the probability of collision numbers change over time - they are really confidence numbers, not probability of occurrence numbers.

    In the frequentistic worldview, yes. In the Bayesian worldview, they really are probabilities. One of the differences is that the frequentistic worldview is only able to handle probabilities for occurrences that can, at least in principle, be repeated many times. For one-off occurrences, whether they are dice rolls or meteor strikes, they either happen or they don't, so they have probability 1 or 0. The Bayesian worldview is perfectly capable of handling probabilities for one-off occurrences, as it is more focused on what you would expect, given the information at hand. Both are valid worldviews, and both contain valid definitions of "probability", but they do not mix, so if both are used in the same discussion, the discussion goes nowhere, as both parties wonder why the other just don't get it.

  118. Re:Idiots! by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    The Mayan calendar was more accurate... 365.2420 days, vs. Gregorians 365.2425, when the actual value was 365.2422.

    Ugh. Every time I see garbage like this modded insightful, I loose a little more hope for my fellow slashdotters. Goddammit people, when you read something and think "huh, I didn't know that!", your first reaction should be to look it up, NOT to hit the "mod insightful" button!

    Here's a link to a book that talks about where that claim originated, and why it's wrong. Link should take you to the relevant page, but, just in case, it's "Early Astronomy" by Hugh Thurston, page 202/203.

    For those too lazy to read it, here's the tl;dr version: the Mayan calendar is 365 days. It has no leap days or leap years. While there's evidence that the Mayans knew that the solar year was longer than 365 days, their calendar doesn't reflect that knowledge. The original claim was made by a guy who died in 1931, and he got his conclusion by making some silly mathematical mistakes.

  119. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A coin flip is exactly as probabilistic an event as this possible impact.

    Erm, nope. A coin flip is an exact statement about the probability of a random event, the chance of an asteroid impact represents our ignorance of the true state. One is frequentist probability, the other is a Bayesian posterior probability.

  120. Take this ACTA by jupiter126 · · Score: 1

    No worries about IP: 30 years to wait and no more P \o/

  121. Bet a yuan on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-))

  122. Re:Ignore it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I heard there are a few guys who were experts with BP that are still looking for jobs...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  123. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by buglista · · Score: 1
    I think so. A Bayesian interpretation is, the probability of the asteroid hitting earth, given the current observations is 1 in 625. Every time you get new observations, you update p( X | data ). Every time someone says probability of X, you assume it's "given current data".

    (Modding your post as troll is somewhat harsh.)

  124. I get it that the odds are 624 to 1. by mbstone · · Score: 1

    But what's the over/under?

  125. Re:Idiots! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Nothing (at least nothing I know) beats the Iranian calender in accuracy. But then again, it might be a tad bit space consuming to implement a calender with a 2.8 millennia cycle in a computer. Still, an error of one day in 3.8 million years (or 0.022 seconds a year) is quite impressive.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  126. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by amorsen · · Score: 1

    More measurements won't help you with a coin toss

    Of course they will. The effects of quantum mechanics on something as large as a coin are insignificant.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  127. Hopefully ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it hits the US of A(ssholes), then everyone else is fine with it...

  128. Political will to decide how to move it by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    They already know at this point what 1/2 of the earth it could hit. I do not know at the moment but I am sure the calculations have been done. As time goes on and more observations are made, if it is to hit we will narrow it down to perhaps a few hundred miles.

    if it is pointed at Europe or eastern China or many other places we would move it.

    Imagine it is pointed to somewhere in the North Atlantic. If you move it so it misses the earth you are happy. However if your attempt is only partially successful you could shove it into a populated area. Think of moving a laser pointer spot on the globe to the side so it no longer points at the earth. You are not allow to turn it off. I think most places on the planet where it could hit might require making things worse before the object is pushed far enough to miss us entirely,

    The chances of a failure leading to a worse situation are quite slim, but with politics involved....Imagine if a congressman from Florida will attempt to stop any funding which would push that path over his state.

  129. Re:Ignore it by paradigm82 · · Score: 1

    Depends on how what you mean by easily doable.
    It's true that if you draw cards many times from a deck then it is not unlikely you will at some point draw two black aces in a raw. However, if you (and only you) carried out this experiment just once in your lifetime it would indeed be quite unlikely -- but of course, not impossible.
    So then we're back to what probabilities really means to us humans. The odds of a hit of this asteroid may only be 1 in 625. Intuitively, that's a low risk but probably somewhat higher than what our "comfort zone" dictates. But does it really make sense to use probabilities? After all, it either hits or it doesn't. If it does, we have no way to recoup the loss since we will all be gone (I'm now assuming a worst case scenario). So it's not the same as gambling or making bets on the financial markets, since there you do have the possibility of recouping losses on future bets.
    It's the same dilemma faced for people with serious illness where they may be given a prognosis, say 50%. What can they use it for? To them, all that matter is that they are going to be in the right 50%.

  130. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about 9 coin flips in a row, each of them landing on heads? I mean, what are the chances of that happening?!?!?

    There's a video on YouTube showing ten. It only took the best part of a day.

  131. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by u38cg · · Score: 1

    It just depends on what you interpret probability as meaning. Yes, you're right, the problem is deterministic, just unquantifed. Another way of interpreting it: what would you pay as a fair bet to receive $100 if it hits?

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  132. Re:Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid comment. The iranian calendar is based on observation so of course it adjusts itself.

  133. Invest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since there is only a 1/625 chance it's going to hit us I suggest we invest in 1/625th of a way to stop it.

  134. Asteroid mitigation the old fashioned way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why kinetic impact instead of nuclear explosion, to "ootch" the velocity of the thing?
    In fact, it's small enough it'd get blown to smithereens & fly different because of altered ballistic coefficient that effect could be used too?

  135. no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NIMBY

  136. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by ThosLives · · Score: 1

    But isn't the difference you describe between frequentistic (sic) and Bayesian the difference between an event truly governed by probability versus one of confidence in a prediction, respectively?

    Ultimately, I think my original post failed to convey that my frustration is in what I see as confusion between the concepts of probability of an event occurring and confidence bands in a prediction.

    To be specific: you can't have better than 50% confidence in a prediction on a single coin flip because coin flips are random. Asteroid paths are not random, however, so the confidence in a prediction really could reach 100% (maybe not in a mathematical sense, but in a practical do-I-need-to-get-an-escape-plan sense). This is perhaps a better statement of what I meant by "it will hit or it will not."

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  137. Or as Bluto would say... by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

    "My advice to you, is to start drinking heavily"

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  138. It is all about the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I can tell you quoted impact crater size. Please remember that things burn up on re-entry. Consequently a 140 m asteroid will not result in a 140 m 'landing'. In fact a 140 m 'ice' asteroid traveling at 20 km/s, impacting at a 45 degree angle likely wouldn't even leave a crater (has one big air burst though). Now if it is solid iron instead of ice, some will hit the ground, but again, it is likely to break up on re-entry.

    Caveat, no I am not a physicist, but I did run the model available at:

    http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

     

  139. Mine it to pieces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just secure a robotic excavator (or two) to the asteroid and cut it to pieces. Provided that you "throw" the chunks with some slight velocity in regards to the main body, you should end with a harmless and widely dispersed debris cloud in a few years. Problem solved. :)

  140. Begin taking bets by boddhisatva · · Score: 1

    A 10% vig will cover the stockpiling of books and party materials: single malt scotch, caviar, oysters, fireworks. Newt, you bring the naughty girls. Gladiator fighting for the women. Fidel you're bringing cigars, Party runs until world ends. Anyone leaving early concedes their bet. No guns, knives, poison or explosives. Bets paid after the end of world must paid be in gold or diamonds,

  141. Re:Idiots! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I know it became unpopular to follow links, but this one would have told you that there is actually a mathematical model for it, too.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  142. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should read up on Bayesian probabilities. In that framework the statement is mathematically correct.

  143. Asteroid in 2040 by phalcon352 · · Score: 0

    Who gives a shit... I'll be dead by then.

    1. Re:Asteroid in 2040 by RockDoctor · · Score: 0

      Is this your Kool-Aid? Drink up!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  144. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by Dinghy · · Score: 1

    A coin flip is exactly as probabilistic an event as this possible impact.

    Erm, nope. A coin flip is an exact statement about the probability of a random event, the chance of an asteroid impact represents our ignorance of the true state. One is frequentist probability, the other is a Bayesian posterior probability.

    If you could account for and control every variable in a coin flip, such as upward force, spin rate, air temperature, humidity, air drag, landing surface, and the duration of flight, you could predict how a coin would end up because it would be the same every time.

    A coin flip is perceived as random because the number of variables that go in to it is too complex and there values too hard to define in advance.

    I view the "1 in 625 chance" as the odds that there is something out there that will happen to alter the course to cause collision with Earth. Of course, that's also why the article says it's so hard to predict their orbits more than a couple years in advance; there's a ton of stuff we don't know about.

  145. odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and more observations taken then will probably reduce the odds of impact to something close to 0.

    I assume this to mean the odds would be increased to near infinity, otherwise i'd be bothered. Reducing an odds is to deem something more likely, not less. Odds of 1 (decimal odds) is a certainty, or if you use fractional odds, 0/1.

  146. slow it to orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Capture the sucker, and bring it into orbit. Then we can use it for a *real* space station, and waypoint for outbound ships....

                        mark

  147. Easy Answer by Agripa · · Score: 1

    Professor Bernard Quatermass: The will to survive is an odd phenomenon. Roney, if we found out our own world was doomed, say by climatic changes, what would we do about it?
    Dr. Mathew Roney: Nothing, just go on squabbling like usual.

  148. Finally, a use for ACTA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm stunned Hollywood hasn't already sued God for this clear violation of their "Armagedon" IP.

  149. Re:Idiots! by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

    Whoa.... is... is it Mayan photon torpedoes that end the world next December? It all makes sense now.

  150. I'll take that bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take those odds. If it misses, you play me. If it hits, I pay you.

  151. when to do it. by databaseadmin · · Score: 1

    The time to change this thing's movement is 2023. The time to start planning the mission is 2018. You don't need anything all that complicated, an 55 gallon drum full of shiny aluminum paint ought to be enough to fix the problem. Either that, or black paint. It would take a lander and a super-low-velocity sprayer.

  152. Re:Astrometrics ain't like quantum mechanics boy.. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    They bother ME. As there is a possibility, however small, that it lands on it's edge.

  153. I'm disappointed Slashdot by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    I got all the way down to the bottom of the page and no sign of "Capture it and Study it"