Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid the 'Size of a Minivan' Exploded Over California

astroengine writes, quoting Discovery: "The source of loud 'booms' accompanied by a bright object traveling through the skies of Nevada and California on Sunday morning has been confirmed: it was a meteor. A big one. It is thought to have been a small asteroid that slammed into the atmosphere at a speed of 15 kilometers per second (33,500 mph), turning into a fireball, delivering an energy of 3.8 kilotons of TNT as it broke up over California's Sierra Nevada mountains. Bill Cooke, head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office, classified it as a 'big event.' 'I am not saying there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California,' Cooke told Spaceweather.com. 'I am saying that the meteor possessed this amount of energy before it broke apart in the atmosphere. (The map) shows the location of the atmospheric breakup, not impact with the ground.' Interestingly, this event was bigger than asteroid 2008 TC3 that exploded over the skies of Sudan in 2008 after being detected before it hit."

279 comments

  1. Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Always said the damn things were dangerous

    1. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new minivan overlords

    2. Re:Exploding Minivans by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      It wasn't a minivan though... remember this thing was clocked at 33,000 mph. When's the last time you saw a minivan even doing the speed limit?

    3. Re:Exploding Minivans by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Not my fault. The speedo on my van is broken.

    4. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always said the damn things were dangerous

      They were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.

    5. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess I misunderstood the meaning of the "M" in "ICBM".

    6. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, at work I drive a minivan the size of a small asteroid. Thankfully it hasn't exploded yet.

      (But the way the vans at the company are maintained, you never know.)

    7. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IPBV: Interplanetary Ballistic Van

    8. Re:Exploding Minivans by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      Was it, by any chance, a yellow minivan?

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    9. Re:Exploding Minivans by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Maybe it had a turbocharger

    10. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously you haven't seen my wife drive. Speed limit a lower limit, texting, and yelling at the kids. I'm glad Chrysler adds passenger handholds. Blindfolds should be included too.

    11. Re:Exploding Minivans by Splab · · Score: 1

      Well... yesterday...

    12. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember this thing was clocked at 33,000 mph. When's the last time you saw a minivan even doing the speed limit?

      The last time a husband took the babysitter home and the wife figured out what was going on... 33,000mph sounds about right.

    13. Re:Exploding Minivans by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Finally get a flying car and the damn thing explodes.

    14. Re:Exploding Minivans by operagost · · Score: 1

      They didn't say what model of minivan. I'm guessing Astro.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What model?

    16. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this Earth fact sheet, our mean orbital velocity is 29.78km/s (that is 18.50mps—or 66,600mph for non-SI people, or generally people on the other side of The Pond).

      Therefore, I wager that the average minivan parked in a stationary[1] orbital lot is speeding somewhat above 33,000mph relative to Earth.

      [1] OK, I get the fact that the term stationary gets somewhat ambiguous at some point ...

    17. Re:Exploding Minivans by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Toyota, no breaks

    18. Re:Exploding Minivans by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Quite recently. A lot of minivan-driving soccer moms are maniacs on the road (but the upscale SUV-driving soccer moms are worse..)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    19. Re:Exploding Minivans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ba dum dum

    20. Re:Exploding Minivans by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Quite often- but in urban areas of Oregon, the speed limit is only 60.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    21. Re:Exploding Minivans by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      my wife drive. Speed limit a lower limit, texting, and yelling at the kids.

      From your nonchalance at the Darwin Award behaviour, I assume the kids are genetically someone else's problem. Or, you've got the genetic inheritance (that you give a shit about) stowed somewhere else?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. How convenient. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Planetary Resources has their big announce tomorrow. This was just the size they are looking for.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:How convenient. by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are probably going to have to look for a different one.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:How convenient. by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Planetary Resources has their big announce tomorrow. This was just the size they are looking for.

      It seems devastating to their business plan though - why spend billions of dollars going out into space to fetch big rocks when they are coming to us?

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    3. Re:How convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planetary Resources has their big announce tomorrow. This was just the size they are looking for.

      Meh. Their PR dept would rather not have the public reminded of the tremendous kinetic energies that orbital velocity asteroids would have.

      Change the trajectory of that asteroid and I bet it could have ruined some people's day.

    4. Re:How convenient. by Sique · · Score: 1

      The PR dept of PR?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:How convenient. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      The trick isn't to bring an asteroid to the surface of the planet, it's to bring it to orbit. A few tonnes of iron isn't worth a huge amount, a few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune, around $20k a kilo even if the raw material itself is virtually worthless on the surface of the planet.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    6. Re:How convenient. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune"
      no it isn't.
      Few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune that someone can and will use.
      What can we do with a orbiting piece of iron? We have no technology to mine in space, and the cost to use it would be more the sending iron from the earth.

      It would be far better sending it to someplace we plan to go to. Drop a bunch of thm on Mars. Easier to mine and use right there. Or the moon.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:How convenient. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The trick isn't to bring an asteroid to the surface of the planet, it's to bring it to orbit. A few tonnes of iron isn't worth a huge amount, a few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune, around $20k a kilo even if the raw material itself is virtually worthless on the surface of the planet.

      It's only of any extra value in orbit if someone is going to actually use it there. AFAIK we are quite a long way from constructing orbital habitats, factories, or whatever.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:How convenient. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Actually they are looking at doing a carbonaceous asteroid first, hoping to get something that they can process into fuel and maybe air.
      "We have no technology to mine in space"
        The point is to develop new technology for shifting asteroid orbits (which is going to come in really handy one of these days when a big one comes our way) and to develop techniques for mining and processing raw materials in orbit. It's research.

      "It would be far better sending it to someplace we plan to go to. ...the moon"
        Landing (well, gently crashing) asteroids in the moon is also being looked at, but it will require much more investment and time to get going. Initial experiments will be in orbit, most likely lunar orbit.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    9. Re:How convenient. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      In order to get the thing into (most likely lunar) orbit, the velocity has to be as finely controlled as the direction, and the velocity required means it will have around an order of magnitude less energy than a natural asteroid of the same mass. If the velocity is much higher, the thing will just miss the whole earth-moon system by a wide margin if it is pointed in even vaguely the right direction. Even if the direction is also badly out of spec, space is big and the earth is small - the odds of hitting anything are very very low. Even if the lottery-like odds did come up, rocks that size will expend nearly all their energy over 10km up and turn into a cloud of small chunks that will be going at around terminal velocity (at most a few hundred kph) rather than orbital velocity, thus having lost over 99.99% of their energy. And it's almost certain that if it happened, it wouldn't happen over anything more important than ocean or desert.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:How convenient. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

      "few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune"
      no it isn't.

      Yes, it is, if it stays in orbit.

      "Dear Mr. <World_Leader>,

      I have a large chunk of iron orbiting the planet, and it would be a real shame if it were to accidentally drop on your capitol city. How would you like to invest in a little insurance against that?"

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    11. Re:How convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The destination orbit is apparently as yet undefined. Obviously the threat/risks are greater for an asteroid in earth orbit than one in lunar orbit.

      Just a side point: I think you said "velocity" when you meant "speed" (especially given your reference to direction in a subsequent sentence)

      Velocity: with magnitude and direction!

  3. Nice try, North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your puny rockets will be shot down at every attempt.

    1. Re:Nice try, North Korea! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      In North Korea, rockets shoot themselves down - well at least that seems to be the case so far. Oh, apart from that lovely satelite that is still broadcasting songs praising the Glorious Leader - that one is obviously still there.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Nice try, North Korea! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      North Korea have exactly the rocket they need. The first stage of the rocket they tested can drop a nuke on Seoul. Thats all they want. If they demonstrate a rocket which can drop a nuke on Beijing they will be shut down as quickly as China can cut the money supply, so they won't do that.

  4. minivan by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

    For all the foreigners saying "WTF is a minivan?", it is a large family vehicle, smaller than a mini-bus, like a VW Transporter (Combi) , about 10 hogsheads or 0.00001 Libraries of Congress.

    1. Re:minivan by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Or they could just call it a "large MPV".

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:minivan by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      People carrier to the British.

    3. Re:minivan by EnempE · · Score: 1

      If a mini-bus is smaller than a bus, then a mini van is smaller than a van. How big is a van ?

      Is the order:
      segway, moped, motorbike, motor-trike, smart car, mini, small car, car, family car, SUV, minivan, Bentley, van, mini-bus, bus, truck, one-tonner, 18 wheeler ?

    4. Re:minivan by quenda · · Score: 2

      This is a real mini-van.

    5. Re:minivan by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Funny

      For US residents that have trouble understanding metrics: it was traveling at 3 hours walking per second, considering you wouldn't stop once for fast food for those three hours. In those three hours, the meteor would have circled the earth four times at the speed of entry

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    6. Re:minivan by guises · · Score: 1

      A Ford Econoline (typical van) is 236 cubic feet, but there's an extended version and other models get larger.

      As for your list... sure, whatever.

    7. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For US residents: It was traveling at more hours walking that you do in a week per second.

    8. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm having a hard time seeing the "mini" in minivan anymore. They're all quite large now.

    9. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unicycle, tricycle, segway, bicycle, moped, motorbike, motor-trike, smart car, mini, small car, car, family car, Pickup Truck, SUV, minivan, Bentley, van, mini-bus, limousine, bus, truck, one-tonner, five tonner, 18 wheeler, Truck Double Trailer, Truck Triple Trailer

    10. Re:minivan by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Another way of putting it is it's 2700 kilograms of steel for a soccer mom and one child passenger. You know, for safety.

    11. Re:minivan by azalin · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is this "walking" you are talking about? Clearly you can not mean traveling by foot because not sane person would go that far without using a car. It would be utter nonsense to believe a normal human being could archive such a feat without collapsing.

    12. Re:minivan by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Obviously someone drives to the mailbox.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    13. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no concept how big "Circled the Earth" is? Can you express that in "Width's of America's?"

    14. Re:minivan by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Depends where you are from... in the UAE, a Toyota Hiace is called a minibus but I'd imagine Americans would call it a small van... http://www.transad.ae/en/newsdata/9seater.aspx

      That's the problem with units of measurement based on things which are not common everywhere, like pure water.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    15. Re:minivan by azalin · · Score: 1

      And doing it in "The Minivan From Space" [tm]

    16. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      For all the Americans saying "WTF is an asteroid?", it is a big space rock made by Jebus 6000 years ago. It has as much blow-uppy power as millions of pounds of dynamite (the calorie equivalent of a billion gallons of Extreme HotPocket PizzaHut Lard Thins), and, if it were to hit California, could result in a a postponed airing of Dancing With the Stars. To prevent this, we must pray for an end to the liberal gay marriage agenda targeting our children in the public schools of Obamamerica, and make sure every patriot has a gun to send future asteroids back across the border before their lazy anchor meteorites take our jobs and food stamps. God bless the troops!

      Thankyouverymuch.

    17. Re:minivan by quenda · · Score: 1

      AC, you really should stop watching Fox News. Its obviously not good for your blood pressure.

    18. Re:minivan by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The VW Transporter is firmly in the 'van' or minibus category.
      A minivan is based on a passenger car; examples include the Renault Espace and Chrysler Voyager. They usually weigh less than 2 tons and seat up to 7 people.

    19. Re:minivan by Inda · · Score: 1

      One linked story on here says "this meteor was about the size of a washing machine"

      Now I'm imagining four larger than life Americans squeezing into a van 600x600x900mm in size.

      Or do American have really, really big washing machines?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    20. Re:minivan by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      Extreme HotPocket PizzaHut Lard Thins

      I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    21. Re:minivan by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I love Pizza Hut, but what are "Lard Thins"? MM, I'm gonna have to try those...sounds yum.

    22. Re:minivan by mikael · · Score: 1

      You missed out double-decker bus - that will confuse Londoners if you don't mention this .

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:minivan by box4831 · · Score: 2

      I have no concept how big "Circled the Earth" is? Can you express that in "Width's of America's?"

      I thought they were the same thing? You mean to imply that there are not-America places? I think you may be confused with Mars.

      --
      Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
    24. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      change that to "family car, minivan, SUV". p>Also need to stuff "cross-over vehicle" in there, somewhere. Probably between "car" and "family car", but typically carrying bicycles or kayaks and filled with camping gear instead of kids.

    25. Re:minivan by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Is that a european minivan (VW van) or an american minivan
      (or a japanese minivan for that matter.

      Anyway what matters most with asteroid explosions is the mass, rather than the volume. a typical rock that was the volume of a minivan would be much more massive., whereas a chunk of ice that size would be a similar mass. Of course if it was an iron asteroid it would be even more massive.

    26. Re:minivan by operagost · · Score: 1

      Democrat response:

      I blame Bush. Good night, America.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:minivan by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      I know this is mostly jokes, but isn't that the key difference? Minivans were built on a car chasis and full size vans on a truck chasis? I don't know if that's the case anymore, though.

      I know there's certainly nothing "mini" about my Town & Country as I try to drive and park it around Europe.

    28. Re:minivan by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So where, exactly, is pure water available?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:minivan by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, because once someone is no longer in office, the havoc they and their party wrecked upon the economy is totally no longer there fault.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:minivan by lmcgeoch · · Score: 1

      Or do American have really, really big washing machines?

      We do...they are called Extra Large Capacity Washing Machines.
      http://www.whirlpool.com/Laundry-1/Laundry_Laundry_Washers-3/102110047+4294966820/

    31. Re:minivan by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Minivans typically carry 7 people, vans carry 15, or 2 and cargo. Ford Econoline vs a minivan is like 4 feet difference in length.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:minivan by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I would personally point out that Obama has been in office for 3.5 years and still hasn't fixed any of these problems.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    33. Re:minivan by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Yes, because the US president has full power to do whatever the fuck he wants. Why is it that so many Americans think that the president is some kind of all-powerful dictator? Did you fall asleep during civics class? Or do you think that every president gets handed a do-what-you-want cudgel like Bush did with 9/11?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    34. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, this made me laugh. Thanks.

    35. Re:minivan by toofast · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laughs... Well done.

    36. Re:minivan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Extreme HotPocket PizzaHut Lard Thins

      I just threw up in my mouth a little.

      No, that's the co-branded dipping sauce.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously someone drives to the mailbox.

      Good gosh man! Why would I do that? With a 3 hour walk to my mail box I send my driver!

    38. Re:minivan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, because so many Americans have to wash extra large capacity clothes. :-D Get a free sample box of fabric softener with every Big Mac.

    39. Re:minivan by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the canedats themselves espouse all these things that they will do. Also, how is it any different when people blame Bush for the Patriot act, and starting the wars, but yet you are speaking as though Obama did not renew the Patriot act, and actually tried to stop the wars.

      As far as the economic crash, you don't think that had anything to do with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

      But it is always fun to blame Bush for everything, after all, it happened during his presidency, it couldn't have had anything to do with anything that happened previously.

      As far as the do-what-you-want cudgel, Obama is still using the same cudgel, with the extrajudicial killing of American citizens by drone strike, so you really can't say he doesn't abuse his powers.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    40. Re:minivan by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Wow, you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, don't you? This isn't about Bush's use of presidential powers, or about whose fault is what. Focus a bit. This is about what a president can do, and where the recent expansion of presidential powers came from. And if you base your assessment of what a president can do on what candidates tell you... god help us all.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    41. Re:minivan by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you read my comment or just the first sentence?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    42. Re:minivan by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that Obama can't be blamed because the president can't do whatever he wants, but instead blame Bush, because he has the powers you previously denied the current president?
      I've never understood this disparity.
      Unless Bush is a magic fairy. In which case I'll agree with you on the hating him part.

  5. The truth! by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Funny

    This stinks of a coporate cover up. They don't want you to know this but it was actually a Toyota Prius with a hybrid nuclear/tachyon engine that accelerated out of control in the year 2052 due to a software glitch and traveled back in time and...well you can pretty much put the rest together.

    1. Re:The truth! by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

      This stinks of a coporate cover up. They don't want you to know this but it was actually a Toyota Prius with a hybrid nuclear/tachyon engine that accelerated out of control in the year 2052 due to a software glitch and traveled back in time and...well you can pretty much put the rest together.

      Those hooning kids. Racing around the sun in their hot rods and not knowing the dangers of travelling through time! Something must be done.

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    2. Re:The truth! by azalin · · Score: 1
      My favorite part clearly is:

      ...well you can pretty much put the rest together.

    3. Re:The truth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toyota! They keep going, and going...

    4. Re:The truth! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Awesome link, but I'll offer this as a response:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_KXgFpguE0

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. How long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Place your bets on how long 'til it hits eBay - scam or not.

    1. Re:How long... by azalin · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Minivan from Space - bid starts at 20 000 $
      Thats right the minivan you heard in the news. A unique, once in a lifetime opportunity to own a piece of history and space.
      Slight signs of usage from entering the earths atmosphere make it even more authentic" This is your chance to buy the Minivan from space[tm]

  7. Can't we detect something that size? by wanzeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NASA tracks space debris the size of a golf ball, why didn't they see this? This is yet another example of how asteroid detection need a higher priority.

    1. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NASA tracks space debris the size of a golf ball, why didn't they see this?

      Because it was not in a low-earth orbit, and space is kind of big.

    2. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by jrbrtsn · · Score: 1

      NASA tracks space debris orbiting the earth. This asteroid was not orbiting the earth.

    3. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why? It's not like we can do anything. Personally, I would not like to know that a meteor is about to slam into the earth and end life as we know it.

    4. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Funny

      who says it wasnt tracked the whole 3 seconds it came into our range and blew up?

    5. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by ElRabbit · · Score: 1

      NASA guys were looking for their golf ball at that time

    6. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How big?

    7. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by user+flynn · · Score: 1

      NASA tracks space debris the size of a golf ball, why didn't they see this?

      Because it was not in a low-earth orbit, and space is kind of big.

      I can't even see space. Pretty sure that means it's small, or maybe it's behind something big.

          Wow.. if space is big, and I give you the benefit of a doubt that it is, that means that whatever it's behind is humongous. You know, since we can't see it and all that. I don't know if you can see where this is going, but yo mama so big, she blockin' out space.

      --
      In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
    8. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Minupla · · Score: 1

      It is now - just a VERY low orbit!

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    10. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Ruie · · Score: 2
      It depends on what you are interested in. For detecting the asteroid a few meters a diameter within a ball that includes the Moon you would need to scan 2e18 one cubic meter positions every seven hours or so. I assumed that it is sufficient to scan a 1-meter deep shell around Earth.

      If you now assume that you need only a nanosecond to tell whether there is an asteroid in a given 1 meter cube or not (which would correspond to spending a few CPU/FPGA cycles on processing) then you need to be able to process 80000 different positions simultaneously.

      This is doable with modern technology, but rather expensive - think military size budget, not NASA size budget.

    11. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Ruie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? It's not like we can do anything. Personally, I would not like to know that a meteor is about to slam into the earth and end life as we know it.

      We can tell people to move..

    12. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      NASA & the rest of the space agencies do actually have some object collision coverage however I think in total and on-mass this covers about 7% of the observable sky so yes we are going to miss this kind of shit a lot. We are much better once the object gets up to the size of a football stadium but wouldn't be able to do much anyway.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    13. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bigger than a bread basket.

    14. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big?

      *bzzt*

      uh, really really?

      (bonus point to whoever gets it without looking it up)

    15. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      It's really a 2-D search problem. Rather than mess around with steradians, which nobody understands anyway, I figured how much area the full moon takes up in the sky, which is about pi*(0.25degree)^2. So using Frink, sphere/(pi(0.25degree)^2) gives 210099.6 and change. Coincidentally the moon is about the same size as the foveal area of a human's vision, so it would take over 210,000 people to look in all directions at once.

      With telescopes, of course, it would be an even bigger problem. Figuring that a decent low-end professional scope is about 20 inches with a theoretical resolution of 0.3 arcseconds, and assuming square pixels, that's nearly 6E12 pixels to cover a full sphere. (In the real world there are lots of complicating factors, but that's the right order of magnitude.) To make it a little more concrete, if the sensors have 5micron pixel pitch, that would be 148.5m^2 of sensors, or in American, the equivalent of a square sensor 40ft on a side.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    16. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Morty · · Score: 1

      Conveniently, NASA's latest budget request quadruples the asteroid detection budget.

      However, this asteroid is too small to have been in scope for NASA's asteroid detection. NASA's asteroid detection is focused on objects 1 kilometer or larger. As others pointed out, the much smaller obejcts that NASA does track are in Earth orbit. Tracking small objects in Earth orbit is both more achievable (they're always relatively close to Earth!) and more important (they pose a ongoing hazard to spacecraft, both manned and robotics.) Small asteroids pose relatively little threat -- they burn up in the atmosphere in a single pass. And they're really hard to detect. So NASA doesn't even try.

      [Posting in part to undo a bad moderation.]

    17. Re:Can't we detect something that size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they were, but didn't want to say anything so they could see if they got a hole on one.

  8. Transformers by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Autobots have arrived!

    1. Re:Transformers by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Which one becomes a minivan? My kid doesn't have that one.

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

      Inquiring minds want to know... where was Bruce Willis when this happened?

    3. Re:Transformers by azalin · · Score: 1

      Bumblebee did put on some weight lately, but don't mention it when he's around.

    4. Re:Transformers by operagost · · Score: 1

      The one that plays soccer and has ADD.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Transformers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Which one becomes a minivan?

      ironhide (G1).
      somewhat appropriate name too, given the circumstances.

    6. Re:Transformers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Inquiring minds want to know... where was Bruce Willis when this happened?

      Last time I saw him, he was in some sort of tube with Milla Jovovich. And if he has any brains, that's exactly where he will stay.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. SI unit by TWX · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think that the Minivan has joined Wales as effectively an SI unit. link

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:SI unit by dominious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally I get it! The size of the asteroid was about one quarter the size of a nanoWales!

    2. Re:SI unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally I get it! The size of the asteroid was about one quarter the size of a nanoWales!

      Not sure if you do, a nanoWales is a two dimensional unit of measurement where as a minivan is three.

    3. Re:SI unit by dylsexia · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the standard for exploding vehicles is the Ford Pinto.

      http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Pinto.htm

    4. Re:SI unit by gv250 · · Score: 1

      I think that the Minivan has joined Wales as effectively an SI unit. link

      I see your mistake. You consulted the "List of Unusual Measurements." You should have consulted the "List of Unusual Measurements That Fall From The Sky." Hmm. Still not there, though.

    5. Re:SI unit by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This was 4 pintos, or two Crown Vics.

    6. Re:SI unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the mVn is an imperial unit. You're thinking of the metric buttload

  10. Too bad by DinDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'I am not saying there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California,' Cooke told Spaceweather.com.

    Love that he has to pre-empt the sound bite stupidity of the press. Too bad t won't work and they'll publish the stupid headline anyway.

    1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'I am ... saying there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California,' Cooke told Spaceweather.com.

      Easy.

    2. Re:Too bad by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easier.

      "... there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California," Cooke told Spaceweather.com.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Too bad by azalin · · Score: 2

      "... there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California," - over a quarter the strength of the Hiroshima atomic bomb - Cooke told Spaceweather.com.
      Or: "There was an explosion of nuclear scale in California" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "... there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California," Cooke told Spaceweather.com. blah ....

    4. Re:Too bad by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think you're actually managing to underestimate the media: it's pretty self-evident that no such explosion has taken place on the ground. Even the dumbest news organizations aren't going to bother reporting on it without some footage of an explosion site.

    5. Re:Too bad by fewnorms · · Score: 1

      I see you have not yet watched Fox News...

      --
      Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    6. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cooke did not want to be quoted as saying that there was a 3.8 kiloton explosion on the ground in California. Commence conspiracy theories...

    7. Re:Too bad by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      aren't going to bother reporting on it without some footage of an explosion site.

      I'm sure that is exactly what they would run with, footage of *an explosion site*. Any explosion site would be good enough, why bother checking when you can just grab something from YouTube.

    8. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't ya hate that?

    9. Re:Too bad by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Even easier.

      OMG! EXPLOSION IN CALIF?!

      ldfjsdkljkldjflkjflkasdjflkasjflkasjfklsdjf
      dflkjdfljkljflkas! kldjflsdkjsdklf! lskdjf
      lkjdfldksjfskldjfkdlfja'sdf!! dklfjkldjfddfd
      ldksfjd. ksdjfh. asjkfjkfjkfdjkfhfjklls!!1!

    10. Re:Too bad by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      With a sidebar to the article: "Will Radioactive Space Bombs Cause Ca. Mutant Zombie Epidemic?"

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    11. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting more for climate alarmists to attribute this incident to global warming.

  11. Melancholia by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

    Anyone who has an interest in things smashing in to the earth (I do, it's some kind of very fascinating thing for me see: Thanatos) I recommend you check out this film, ideally on a screen absoloutely as large as possible.

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

      I liked the movie, but my friends probably could have used some Prozac afterwards.

  12. There goes the hope for Druidia by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    It is easy to confuse a Winnebago for a mini-van.

  13. How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Does the heat generated as it passes through the atmosphere kill off any organisms that might have been traveling along with it as it flew through the galaxy? Having passed through the cosmos for who only knows how long, would a meteorite chunk be radioactive at all?

    1. Re:How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by mattr · · Score: 2

      It is fairly easy to find this out from google.
      Generally, no appreciable levels of radiation are found in meteorites. One meteorite which fell in Japan a few years ago had some measurable radioactivity.
      http://www.meteoritelab.com/meteorites/#13
      http://earth.s.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/ishiwata/labo/neagariUS.html

    2. Re:How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by will_die · · Score: 1

      While organisms are killed off there have been times where metors impacts have led to the illness and death of people and animals in the area. There was a recent example in south america a few years ago.

    3. Re:How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am having a cold.

    4. Re:How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) It won't be hot in the temperature sense. They only interact with the atmosphere for a brief period of time on the surface and rocks are darn good insulators. If you ran up to a small piece as soon as it hit the ground it would be cold.

      2) It's somewhat exotic rock, but it's ultimately the same stuff the Earth is made out of. It's no more radioactive than a regular rock is, although the long-term exposure in space does change some isotopic properties in detectable ways.

    5. Re:How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Citation?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:How lethal is a meteorite fragment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The are in Peru where it hit has high levels of arsenic in the water table. When the meteror landed and created a crater, it penetrated the water table and water was evaporating due to the heat. The vapors created had high levels of arsenic thus making them sick. The illness was not from space.

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

  14. NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    Who else read that as "NASA's Metroid Environment Office"?

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    1. Re:NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office by game+kid · · Score: 1

      That one was shuttered long ago. After all, the last Metroid is in captivity and the galaxy is at peace.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably for the best, rumour has it that Metroids are jerks anyway.

  15. By sheer coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A day later the government of North Korea acknowledged that they had lost track of a test nuclear missile fired around the same time as the asteroid strike.

  16. Too bad the coasts were covered in fog... by milbournosphere · · Score: 2

    Unless you were in the desert, you didn't get to see it. We had a whole party set to go see the meteor shower; it should've been a great night for it, given the new moon. Too bad there were dense fog advisories all night. I've seen some pretty cool pictures from Arizona though.

  17. It could have been a much bigger media event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It hit in daylight over Reno-Tahoe.

    Imagine if it had hit just a bit further west at night with clear weather. That would have resulted in a very bright flash at night and the aforementioned "rumbling and shaking" over the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Now imagine that the orbital dynamics were such that this happened in 1982 instead of 2012. Then you get a bright flash and a rumble over a major metro area during the Cold War.

    1. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was just providing a good plot, like the various 1950s to 1960s b/w scifi films about atomic war and aliens. We really need a proper star wars program to shoot these rocks for fun. Why do we have war games, when they don't do anything but provide a distraction, like they did on 9/11?

    2. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by Ruie · · Score: 1

      It hit in daylight over Reno-Tahoe.

      Imagine if it had hit just a bit further west at night with clear weather. That would have resulted in a very bright flash at night and the aforementioned "rumbling and shaking" over the San Francisco Bay Area.

      Now imagine that the orbital dynamics were such that this happened in 1982 instead of 2012. Then you get a bright flash and a rumble over a major metro area during the Cold War.

      No worries - that meteorites show up on radar (strongly) was well-known since World War 2.

    3. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Now imagine that the orbital dynamics were such that this happened in 1982 instead of 2012. Then you get a bright flash and a rumble over a major metro area during the Cold War.

      And then the various systems designed to detect nuclear attacks remain stubbornly silent... And in the days after, no radioactive materials are detected...
       
      So, it happening in the middle of the Cold War results in pretty much what's happening today, a few hours media sensation. (And much less of a sensation than today, since we weren't quite into the 24/7 news cycle era yet.)

    4. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The story goes that when the US first launched satellite-based nuclear weapons detection systems, they started freaking out over huge explosions occurring all the time over remote ocean areas where nobody lived. Turns out they were just meteorites like this one, which are a lot more common than people realized.

      (Sorry, I can't find a source for this, it's just something I heard at a lecture once.)

    5. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an incident during the first Persian Gulf War in which a rather large meteorite exploded over the Indian Ocean. Something like 20 minutes rotation separated it from possibly causing WWIII.

    6. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by mbone · · Score: 2

      You know, there were fireballs during the cold war. The universe didn't stop just because of our geopolitical situation. I can remember hearing of one blast (a meteor over the ocean near South Africa) that caused discussion as being a possible test of a very small nuke. And, famously, the astrophysical gamma ray bursts were first detected by satellites sent up to detect gamma ray bursts from nuclear explosions. Somehow, we survived all these false alarms.

    7. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by mikael · · Score: 1

      Another was that long range radar systems would detect a large slow moving missile coming up over the horizon. Turned out to be the Moon - the radar signals were strong enough to reach the Moon and bounce back.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it would have at least thrown DEFCON to lvl 3 if only for a moment.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      You're right that meteor fireballs occurred a lot during the cold war and raised alarms without leading to war, but the particular South Africa event you mention might actually have been a nuclear detonation.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident

    10. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by tgd · · Score: 1

      It hit in daylight over Reno-Tahoe.

      Imagine if it had hit just a bit further west at night with clear weather. That would have resulted in a very bright flash at night and the aforementioned "rumbling and shaking" over the San Francisco Bay Area.

      Now imagine that the orbital dynamics were such that this happened in 1982 instead of 2012. Then you get a bright flash and a rumble over a major metro area during the Cold War.

      Nuclear missiles don't travel at 33k km/hr. The people who matter would know the difference.

    11. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I know a guy that was enlisted in the Air Force. His AFSC/MOS was to maintain and monitor a lot of equipment that was used to watch for nuclear detonations. He told me that at the top end of the career ladder for that field was a group of guys that took turns in pairs sitting under a mountain somewhere playing cards or whatever all day and night. Their job was to wait for the monitoring system to spit out a possible detonation, review all of the data and then either chalk it up as a non-nuclear event or an actual nuclear detonation. In the case of a nuclear detonation, which wasn't on a schedule or something, they would call a number to have the congress critters and the president immediately informed regardless of the time of day. And of course as you would expect at some point in the previous couple decades at least one pair had made a bad call over what they should have easily recognized as a meteor, and woke up congress in the middle of the night.

    12. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't have.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:It could have been a much bigger media event by init100 · · Score: 1

      The explosion would be detected by a Defense Support Program satellite, but it would lack the double flash typical of nuclear detonations, so the military would probably not be seriously alarmed. People on the ground in SF on the other hand might have a little scare.

      It could be much more serious if this happened over a less developed country possessing nuclear warheads but not the advanced detection equipment the US has, especially when its forces were on high alert. In June 2002, one such incident were just a few hours from happening. A meteor exploded over the eastern Mediterranean with the force of a small atomic bomb. Had it arrived some three hours later, it would have exploded over the border between India and Pakistan, when those countries had their nuclear forces on high alert. Since those countries probably do not have advanced detection equipment like the DSP mentioned above, they could have believed that the other side had launched a nuclear attack, and launched their own weapons in "retaliation".

  18. Small != Big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...it was a meteor. A big one. It is thought to have been a small asteroid..."

    1. Re:Small != Big by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Most meteors you see are the size of grains of sand. This one was millions of times larger. "Millions of times larger than normal" is "a big one".

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:Small != Big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so... It was a Ford Ranger. A big one. It is thought to have been a small pickup truck.

    3. Re:Small != Big by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Small asteroid, specifically a meteoroid. Big meteor.

      Traditionally, small bodies orbiting the Sun were classified as asteroids, comets or meteoroids, with anything smaller than ten metres across being called a meteoroid. The term "asteroid" is ill-defined.

      A meteor is the visible path of a meteoroid that has entered the Earth's atmosphere.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    4. Re:Small != Big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meteor != Meteoroid/Meteorite
      Meteor/Meteoroid/Meteorite != Micrometeor

      Most "meteors" YOU see that are the size of grains of sand are actually micrometeors/micrometeroids/micrometeorites.

    5. Re:Small != Big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought it was a minivan with California plates???

  19. Lest I abduct you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, stop talking trash about my spaceship.

    1. Re:Lest I abduct you by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      And don't pet my Mog.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  20. mini by schlachter · · Score: 2

    at least it was mini.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:mini by operagost · · Score: 4, Funny

      Imagine if it had been a 1982 3/4 ton GMC conversion van with a desert mural on the side! If the van's a big rock, don't try to knock!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  21. Two things holding up asteroid tracking by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need to start calling asteroids "terrorists" and there needs to be oil found on one. We can waste a trillion dollars fighting a handful of poorly funded religious zealots and yet we struggle to maintain even minimal funding to track objects that can easily take out a city if not most of the life on the planet. I keep hearing how rare they are yet there have been several of these high altitude bursts fairly recently and Tunguska was a little over a hundred years ago. If Tunguska sized blasts happen once in a hundred years aren't we due for one? Also how do we know? We haven't been keeping track of them for a hundred years and even historical evidence is sketchy. The planet would barely notice a city sized blast if there weren't large numbers of people below it. Also it's math not established fact. We can go 200 years with no major strikes then have a dozen in a single year then no more for a thousand years and the statistics may still call them once in a hundred year events. None of us may live to see one yet they can happen at any time. Kind of like a lottery you don't want to win.

    1. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      "Space Terrorists"

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    2. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, user ID 2.6 million and you've already mastered the inane but deranged patter of a Slashdot veteran.

    3. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 2

      The future of Big Oil depends on us all getting killed by an asteroid smashing into earth. So they are not going to want to help out with this.

      --
      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
    4. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, it looks like Planetary Resources (a new company backed by several well-known billionaires) is going to formally announce tomorrow their plans to launch 2-5 orbital telescopes in the next 18-24 months. The primary of the telescopes will be to look for near-Earth asteroids to mine, although this will of course also be useful for detecting potentially-dangerous asteroids. They also plan on selling orbital telescopes at a cost of a few million dollars each, which is cheap enough that you could probably get a decent planetary protection effort going on Kickstarter. ;)

      http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11339522-billionaire-backed-asteroid-mining-venture-starts-with-space-telescopes
      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining/

    5. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the rest of the world but Americans are mostly reactionary. Even if there is a high chance something bad will happen no one will care until something bad does happen. Then everyone complains about how something should of been done to prevent it and politations go overboard with an exspensive solution their contributors can profit greatly from while being minamaly effective.

    6. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      If Tunguska sized blasts happen once in a hundred years aren't we due for one?

      Asteroid impact is largely markovian, so no. The odds of another Tunguska were the same the month after as they are today.

    7. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by frith01 · · Score: 1

      I would think orbital mechanics plays a part that eliminates markovian analysis. ( ie, large object breaks up into smaller pieces, which stay largely in the same orbital path, hence the perseid's meteor showers :)
      Haley's comet as a predictable 75 year orbit, why wouldnt there be stuff with 100, 500, 1000, 10000 year orbits that cross our path ?

    8. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Pass. I want a well thought out approach to this problem.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by linear+a · · Score: 1

      Coincidence my ass. Their little experiment with hard-landing an asteroid at their HQ didn't work out. Fortunately for them it didn't reach the surface. NOW they say "just telescopes to look at".

    10. Re:Two things holding up asteroid tracking by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      I would think orbital mechanics plays a part that eliminates markovian analysis. ( ie, large object breaks up into smaller pieces, which stay largely in the same orbital path, hence the perseid's meteor showers :)
      Haley's comet as a predictable 75 year orbit, why wouldnt there be stuff with 100, 500, 1000, 10000 year orbits that cross our path ?

      I accounted for those things with my weasel wording :) It's "largely" markovian, but not entirely as each rock that hits us is one less that can hit us later, and a big lump broken up can hit us each time we pass through its orbit - though it would be unlikely to do so at the one month interval I mentioned.

      Regarding us being "due" for another Tonguska owing to the expected outcome of one Tunguska-sized impact per century, you should agree that the odds of it happening tomorrow don't change even if it last happened 100 years ago. We're not due for it in the sense that a fault can be due for an earthquake. In that sense, likelihood of impact given no other information is certainly markovian.

  22. Random Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since nobody else is really saying much of worth I have a question. I remember there was this German word that basically meant "The pain one feels at the difference between an ideal world and the world we live in", but I can't for the life of me remember wtf it was and my Google fu is failing me. Anybody know?

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

      Weltschmerz? Weltanschauung?

    2. Re:Random Question by azalin · · Score: 1

      That would probably be "Weltschmerz"
      Weltanschauung (as posted by AC) is the way you view the world. More like an ideology, but deeper.

    3. Re:Random Question by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Polenüberfallensmittelverzekering? Strassenbahnhaltestellelieferungswagen?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. And then some Dead Heads crawled out of the van, by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . bongs in hand, and loudly rasped, "Like, wow, man . . . "

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  24. Re:Should have landed right on the tracking telesc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just for dun: Should have landed right on the tracking telescope. So they can see it.

  25. Picture! by MrQuacker · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Picture! by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 0

      At the moment of this posting the link in parent post is SFW, Not Goatse, Not Tubgirl and Not Lemonparty. It is a picture of a meteor, although I haven't got enough info to know whether it's this one. I assume it is.

      It bears the inofficial Neil Seal of Approval.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:Picture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares dude.

    3. Re:Picture! by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Those of us who have been treated at a goatse picture while at work with some colleagues glancing at our monitors care. Those blessed few of us who haven't considered the possibility that even a picture posted on /. could make you want to clean your eyes with boiling bleach should consider it a warning.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  26. Disavow! Disavow! by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    Disavow! Disavow! :o)

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  27. Chatting on a cellphone by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Typical minivan driver, didn't even see a planet that was, well, the size of a planet before it was too late.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Chatting on a cellphone by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Groping under and around the seat for the dropped Doritos bag, probably.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  28. Could I have that in Bay Area units? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Forget hogsheads, how much is that in Priuses? Or Teslas?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Could I have that in Bay Area units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can only be stated in Priuses; Teslas are the SI unit for objects that have been rendered permanently motionless and inert due to an interruption of power flux through that object.

      Don't worry about it—incredibly common mistake.

  29. American minivan, or European minivan? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Was this an American minivan, or a European one? (traces of Monty Python here...).

    I'm sure an American minivan will be twice the size of a European one - and let's not even think about those super cool minivans you see in Tokyo....

    UK minivan: 1.4 to 2 litre engine, room for 6 people, some bags.

    US minivan? I'm guessing probably twice the size, air conditioning, armour plating, drinks coolers, on board home entertainment systems, 4 wheel drive.... ;-)

    1. Re:American minivan, or European minivan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US minivan? I'm guessing probably twice the size, air conditioning, armour plating, drinks coolers, on board home entertainment systems, 4 wheel drive.... ;-)

      With a 5.2 liter V8...

      But it's super-sized so 6 average sized americans can fit in ;) < 150 kilos each >

    2. Re:American minivan, or European minivan? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      A mini van in Europe is an Austin Mini in the form of a van (no longer manufactured). The Mini van had engines between 850cc and 1.2 litre. Room for 2 people and a bunch of tools.

      See http://classiccars.about.com/od/classiccarphotogallery/ig/uniquecarshow/austinminivan.htm

      What the US calls a mini van, in Europe is called an MPV or a people carrier.

  30. Actually, I would by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't remember the name, but there's a Larry Niven story about a similar incident (in this case the sun apparently going nova.) If you knew you had only 12 hours to live, what would you do?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Actually, I would by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

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

      Inconstant Moon. This was also an Outer Limits episode.

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    2. Re:Actually, I would by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If you knew you had only 12 hours to live, what would you do?

      Brew a pot of tea.

      After that, perhaps call and tell people how I really felt about them.

      But perhaps I'd make myself a good heart and liver pie instead.

    3. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Inconstant moon.

      Written in the day before cell phones and worldwide TV. The main character figured it out but most others were unaware. A much different scenario would happen nowadays. Maybe Lucifer's hammer is closer to what would happen.

    4. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconstant Moon is the story. The idea is that the sun went "a little" nova while California was facing away from the sun (night). The only indication that something is wrong is that the moon is very, very bright (reflected light). Good story.

    5. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sodium pentathol. It's a hell of a drug. Ya, that flaming fireball in the sky headed right for us? Ya, pretty fucking cool!

    6. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story you're thinking of is "Inconstant Moon", where two people see the moon brighten drastically at night because of a major solar flare, which will kill them when dawn comes.

      But in the end, what actually happens... oops, spoilers.

    7. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After that, perhaps call and tell people how I really felt about them.

      You're assuming the Telco employees would want to spend the last 12 hours of their life working to keep the network up and running.

    8. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun actually had launched a solar flare, making the moon appear very bright.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconstant_Moon_(The_Outer_Limits)

    9. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconstant Moon, Larry Niven, 1971 (also collected in book of the same name, 1973.)
      This is closer to Niven & Pournelle's novel Lucifer's Hammer, though.

    10. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew you had only 12 hours to live, what would you do?

      Take of the LHC with my mercenary forces and open an interstellar gateway to another planet. Once that was complete I would escape with a number of supermodels.

    11. Re:Actually, I would by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      Troll slashdot. Pretty much like any other day, actually.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    12. Re:Actually, I would by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If you knew you had only 12 hours to live, what would you do?

      Brew a pot of tea.

      After that, perhaps call and tell people how I really felt about them.

      But perhaps I'd make myself a good heart and liver pie instead.

      Is there any limit to British ambition?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re:Actually, I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you knew you had only 12 hours to live, what would you do?

      2 women at the same time

  31. Something missing.....;-) by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Is the order:
    segway, moped, motorbike, motor-trike, smart car, mini, small car, car, family car, SUV, minivan, Bentley, van, mini-bus, bus, truck, one-tonner, 18 wheeler ?

    Hey!!!
    Where does a station wagon fit in there?
    I've got a crap-load of discs to transport...I need the bandwidth, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Something missing.....;-) by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Where does a station wagon fit in there?

      In the 1970s, which was the last time anybody bought one.

    2. Re:Something missing.....;-) by operagost · · Score: 1

      They just jack them up a few inches and call them "crossovers" now-- basically a 21st century AMC Eagle. I think the soccer moms felt guilty about their gas-guzzling SUVs, so they traded them in. But they still need the increased ride height over a sedan, because it's too inconvenient to check the mirrors (and the rear view is already adjusted so they can check their hair and makeup on the way to work).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Something missing.....;-) by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It certainly isn't because they need the room~

      You are a Misogynistic idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Something missing.....;-) by operagost · · Score: 1

      And you were born without a sense of humor. I'm sure there is a government program that can help you.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Something missing.....;-) by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The SUV is today's station wagon. The minivan was the 1990s station wagon.

    6. Re:Something missing.....;-) by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      And you were born without a sense of humor. I'm sure there is a government program that can help you.

      I don't think Medicare currently covers that, but you can bet they're working on it.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    7. Re:Something missing.....;-) by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'm holding off until tractor trailers become fashionable.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  32. I'm more interested by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....in where it landed. Meteorites are valuable, especially if linkable to a historic event.

    In terms of significance, 100,000 tonnes (110,231 tons) of matter falls into Earth's atmosphere every year. This was 70 tonnes. Not a significant fraction of the total mass per year, but still quite respectable. Besides, you probably wouldn't want the yearly quota in one lump sum.

    --
    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'm more interested by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Certainly not in your hot tub. That could totally harsh on your mellow.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    2. Re:I'm more interested by tokul · · Score: 1

      ....in where it landed

      Somewhere near your physics class. It was meteor and not meteorite. Meteors don't land.

    3. Re:I'm more interested by jd · · Score: 1

      I am using Traditional British nomenclature. Meteors and meteorites are defined according to size (meteorites being larger) and not according to whether they land or not. I can't help it if Americans invented their own definitions rather than using the perfectly good ones everyone else uses.

      --
      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)
    4. Re:I'm more interested by tokul · · Score: 1

      I can't help it if Americans invented

      I am not American and my physics classes were in Europe.

  33. Car analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, car analogies are right in the title of the news!

  34. Damn Bugs by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

    Are those Arachnids acting up again? Guess we better invade Klendathu once more before they can lob a bigger rock our way.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  35. I actually saw it in Phoenix here by Netdoctor · · Score: 2

    Was out and about sunday night.

    And I was geek enough to have noted the az/elevation at the time.

    Azmith was 325 to 350 or so, and Elevation was 50 deg down to about 30 degrees.

    It was losing rather large chunks midway through it's burn..very much not like your normal meteorite.

    1. Re:I actually saw it in Phoenix here by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Was out and about sunday night.

      And I was geek enough to have noted the az/elevation at the time.

      Azmith was 325 to 350 or so, and Elevation was 50 deg down to about 30 degrees.

      It was losing rather large chunks midway through it's burn..very much not like your normal meteorite.

      omg, your saw it and didn't record it with one of the million electronic devices that have a camera in it?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:I actually saw it in Phoenix here by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      That's the right direction, but the elevation is too high and the time is wrong. This one came down after sunrise, and would be over the horizon from Phoenix. You probably saw a rather large Lyrid meteor: large ordinary meteors will throw off sparks as they fall.

    3. Re:I actually saw it in Phoenix here by f3rret · · Score: 1

      omg, your saw it and didn't record it with one of the million electronic devices that have a camera in it?

      Well if he did that he would have had proof, seeing as how he obviously didn't see it that would make it hard to lie.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    4. Re:I actually saw it in Phoenix here by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      omg, your saw it and didn't record it with one of the million electronic devices that have a camera in it?

      all of which take a significant amount of time to start recording and have horrible sensitivity at night. If he had managed to record it, it would have been a shaky blurry blob of light and we'd be hearing even more complaints. I would not have bothered to record it either unless I happened to be carrying an EOS with a proper lense, sitting on a tripod already, and configured properly for a night shot.

  36. More or less correct by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    There's one keeps parking just off our road. It is about the size of the minibus used by our Community Transport to move half a dozen disabled people and their wheelchairs.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  37. Not quite by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    It wasn't out of control, it was being driven by a man with big feet who had his foot on the accelerator and thought it was the brake. The speed limiter didn't set in because, as it was going backwards in time, the speed recorded as negative.

    In 2064 the NHSVSA (National Highways and space vehicles safety authority) will still be arguing over what to do about vehicles going backwards in time that are also in reverse, and whether this means that brake lights as well as headlights need to emit tachyons.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  38. Probably pieces on the ground to find by goodmanj · · Score: 2

    A meteor this big probably didn't vaporize: if you live in the area you should be on the lookout for pieces on the ground.

    I hesitate to say this, because it's a large area with a lot of ordinary rocks lying around, so there's going to be a huge number of not-actually-a-meteorite finds. This site http://meteorites.wustl.edu/what_to_do.htm gives the basics on figuring out if you've found a meteorite or not.

    This meteor appears to be bigger than the one that came down over Chicago in 2003: quite a few large pieces were found then. But it's much easier to find meteorites in urban areas.

  39. Thank you Tom Cruise by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing the IMF team in Mumbai was able to abort the detonation of that "meteor".

  40. Re:Going Down In Flames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did your post cross over from an alternate universe where a non-retarded Republican won the primaries?

  41. If a tree falls in the forest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If an asteroid explodes and there is no youtube video, did it really happen?

  42. Keep your eyes open. by mbone · · Score: 1

    There have got to be pieces on the ground from this, probably in the desert East of the blast. If you live in the area, I would start by looking on your roof, parking lot, any flat area with no natural rocks.

  43. Now postulate this to the Tunguska event. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    What happened from this story is essentially a tiny version of what happened in 1908 when a fairly large meteor or faint comet fragment entered the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of probably over 32,000 mph and exploded 5-7 kilometers above the ground with the force of the warhead from the Russian R-36M ICBM--around 20 MT. That's why trees were blown down many miles from the center point of the explosion.

  44. I think I saw this from Nassau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure I saw this late Saturday night from vacation in the Bahamas...several hours before it reached California...anybody know the path of this asteroid to confirm what I saw?

  45. Quick calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So for fun, I did some quick calculations. I'm not a physicist, but recalling the relationship between kinetic energy, mass, and velocity...

    K = 3.8 kilotons TNT = 1.59*10^13 J = (1/2)mv^2
    m = 2K/v^2 = 1.41*10^5 kg

    So the mass was about 141,000 kg. According to a random source, the average minivan is about 17m^3 in size, so that would make the density of the object 8.3*10^3 kg/m^3, roughly equal to that of iron. So if my math is correct, this thing was basically the equivalent of a solid piece of iron the size of a minivan.

    1. Re:Quick calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Disregard that. I just RTFA, and the mass was calculated to be HALF of that figure: 70,000 kg. Would someone with a physics background be so kind as to show my error?

    2. Re:Quick calculations by tgd · · Score: 1

      I suspect the 3.8 kilotons of TNT estimate was arrived at by doing that exact math in reverse. So it makes sense that your numbers match.

      They estimated its size, declared it a minivan, guessed its composition (iron), and did the rest of the math.

    3. Re:Quick calculations by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Disregard that. I just RTFA, and the mass was calculated to be HALF of that figure: 70,000 kg. Would someone with a physics background be so kind as to show my error?

      I expect they divided by two, just for the lulz. You know how crazy those physicists are.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Quick calculations by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Maybe the explosion wasn't purely due to K.E. conversion? If there were organics involved, there could also have been a chemical combustion factor as well, once the atmospheric friction had sufficiently raised the temperature..

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    5. Re:Quick calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think so. FTA: "I am saying that the meteor possessed this amount of energy before it broke apart in the atmosphere." So it's not the energy of the explosion, but rather the energy of the object. I'm guessing they inferred the energy from the sound of the explosion, and velocity was estimated to be the upper bound for an object making it to the lower atmosphere, but there is no math showing how mass was calculated so I'm not sure where the difference is coming from.

  46. Climate Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My thought was that is a fair amount of energy. Obviously meteors are promoting global warming. We should be actively pursuing an anti-meteor agenda.

    1. Re:Climate Change by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      just the carbon containing ones add to the global carbon burden, we need to switch to carbon-neutral pure nickel-iron asteroids and it'll all be good

  47. 3 hours walking per second? by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    I am not accustomed to the phrasing.
    Is it like furlongs per fortnight?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  48. Maybe it's just me, but... by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    it was a meteor. A big one

    Hazarding a further guess at the density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter (solid rock), I calculate a size of about 3-4 meters, or about the size of a minivan.

    ...since when has a minivan been considered "big" when we're talking about something from space?

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Maybe it's just me, but... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The average meteor you might see on a clear night is the size of a grain of sand. So by that measure, a minivan is big.

  49. Stupid Aliens by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

    It's always the same - they can travel thousands of light-years through interstellar space, but then they come crashing into our planet and leave a smoking hole. It's really hard for me to be concerned about an invasion by a civilization that never invented the parachute.

    1. Re:Stupid Aliens by Skapare · · Score: 1

      They've figured out how to not need a parachute. They invented the InstaGrav. No self-respecting spaceship should be without one.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Stupid Aliens by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Just because they don't know how to use the technology correctly does not mean that you should not be concerned.

      http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-08-03

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  50. Tunguska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I'm surprised that nobody equated this to Tunguska in 1908.

  51. next time us aliens will..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send a bigger marble at you hollywood types....your not helping your people no more.

  52. Tracking it by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    As I recall, the geologists in California can tell you the trajectory of such things. I remember a story (in Aviation Week maybe) more than a decade ago where they tracked a "wave" traveling around mach X (I don't recall the mach number but between 3 and 6) coming in off the coast and heading out to Nevada. Think conical shock wave from an aircraft. The speculated that it was a new secret plane. Oddly, this event also sounds like it was heading toward Nevada but much louder. So anyway, if they want to see where it went, check with the geologists - they've tracked quieter things.

  53. Re:Going Down In Flames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, so you really will vote for Kerry, err Romney?

    So it is true, Republicans will vote for anyone who picks up the Republican label, even if they were once a Democrat and one of the most liberal governors in the most liberal state.

    You really do not seem to care that every single word that comes out of his mouth is a calculated lie, as long as your team wins.

  54. How high in the atmosphere did it explode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if it hit a plane or something?

  55. Not a Weather Balloon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the Air Force/NASA went with a meteor this time; instead of a weather balloon or "unfortunate training incident".

    Was the meteor on its way to Vandenberg AFB?

  56. Dynamite vs food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It has as much blow-uppy power as millions of pounds of dynamite (the calorie equivalent of a billion gallons of Extreme HotPocket PizzaHut Lard Thins)"

    Your PizzaHut Lard Thins (or almost any food for that matter) will have a higher energy-density than dynamite. For example, white bread contains about 12 MJ/kg while dynamite is only 7.5 MJ/kg.

    Thus you should lower your billion gallons to a million cups if scientific accuracy is what you're after.

  57. link TLDR: Don't waste your (or my) time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a joykill that site is.

    Oh well, lots of other ways to waste my time.

    1. Re:link TLDR: Don't waste your (or my) time. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, sorry. But I'd feel irresponsible if I contributed to a gigantic flood of e-mails to respected meteorite experts, so I picked the most dismissive site I could find. That said, there *are* pieces of meteorite out there somewhere.

  58. As an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an American, I feel that I must ask: Who is Sudan, and is she hot?

  59. Re:Going Down In Flames by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Personally, I don't see any real difference between Romney and Obama. Heck, Romney might end up actually being a little more liberal.

  60. Spacewagon by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    When I (American) went to visit an Irish friend of mine in the mid 90s, they called minivans "Spacewagons" there.

    Just FYI, in case that helps

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  61. Dilbert creator saw this? by lee1 · · Score: 1

    I'm betting this was the meteor that Scott Adams happened to see : http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/gods_matchbox/ (warning: Adams' website has become practically unreadable due to the desperate explosion of intrusive advertising. I read the RSS feed, which carries the full articles.)

  62. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you really think it was??? Hmmm.....Excuses, excuses, excuses.....Oh, well......

  63. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/24/0252246/asteroid-the-size-of-a-minivan-exploded-over-california