Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Catch Asteroid In Near-Miss Video

ananyo writes in with a story about an asteroid near miss and a neat video taken by researchers. "It may look like a blurry blob, but researchers using the InfraRed Telescope Facility (IRTF) in Hawaii have posted a video of 2012 KT42 — a small asteroid that zipped past Earth at a distance of just three Earth radii on 29 May — the sixth closest encounter of any known asteroid. The bright asteroid appears fixed, while background stars zip past but in fact the asteroid is zipping along at 17 kilometres per second. 'You get the view of riding along with it,' says planetary scientist Richard Binzel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who led the observations. At its closest, the asteroid was at a distance between the orbit of the space station (about 1 Earth radii) and geosynchronous satellites (about 6 Earth radii)."

120 comments

  1. Space station altitude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Space station altitude is no where near 1 earth radius!!

    1. Re:Space station altitude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ahem... if you're at ground level, your own altitude is 1 earth radius.

    2. Re:Space station altitude.... by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      360km pretty much is when compared to 36,000km.

    3. Re:Space station altitude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, then my altitude is zero as is my distance to the earth.

      Do not confuse altitude with the distance to the center of the earth.

    4. Re:Space station altitude.... by marjancek · · Score: 3, Informative

      360km pretty much is when compared to 36,000km.

      360km (actually more like 400) is pretty little compared with earth's radius of over 6'000 kilometres

    5. Re:Space station altitude.... by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we are in an ECEF coord system?

    6. Re:Space station altitude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Space station altitude is no where near 1 earth radius!!

      But the semi-major axis is almost exactly an Earth radius (just over, if it matters ;D)
      You said altitude, they used the nebulous "distance", which could mean distance from Earth's center just as well as altitude.
      It's ambiguous, not wrong.

    7. Re:Space station altitude.... by kooky45 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's about 1 earth radius from the centre of the Earth.

    8. Re:Space station altitude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had to take a guess, I would say that the original numbers probably suggested that the station orbited at "1 Earth radius", which the poster read as "~1 Earth radius". It's an easy mistake to make when paraphrasing, and mistakes of this nature have likely contributed to more than one satellite crashing into a spacial body at extremely high velocities.

    9. Re:Space station altitude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Less than" sign was gobbled up by the HTML parser. Insert where appropriate, above.

    10. Re:Space station altitude.... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      I think I had you as a professor in a math class.

  2. 23 feet, kinda small asteroid by esldude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I conjured up visions of a small asteroid that might have been a real big event if it collided. I am sure 23 feet in diameter would have made for a heck of a meteorite show. Thread to tremendous death and destruction on earth it isn't however. What is the official lower limit for an asteroid?

    1. Re:23 feet, kinda small asteroid by hey_popey · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems that Ceres (radius=950 km, 590 mi) is still called an asteroid, since it belongs to the Asteroid Belt.

    2. Re:23 feet, kinda small asteroid by hey_popey · · Score: 2

      I realize I might have misunderstood you, but there does not seem to be a lower limit. An asteroid is a kind of meteorite if it resists impact on Earth

  3. 1 Earth radii by TheCreeep · · Score: 5, Informative

    Radius is the single, radii is the plural. When it's only one, we use the singular.
    1 kilometer, 1 liter, 1 metric fuckton. Or as people use across the pond, 1 miles, 1 gallon, 1 imperial fuckton.

    You don't say 1 kilometers, 1 liters and you don't say 1 radii either.
    Hence, it's 1 radius.

    1. Re:1 Earth radii by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

      s/miles/mile

    2. Re:1 Earth radii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      s/miles/mile

      s/miles/:)
      (looks cute)

    3. Re:1 Earth radii by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 2

      Hence it is 1 prius, 2 prii. On the other hand, it is 1 Wii, 2 Wius :-D

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    4. Re:1 Earth radii by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      +1 metric fuckton

    5. Re:1 Earth radii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 Wii plus 1 Wii is a Wiiwii.

    6. Re:1 Earth radii by nomel · · Score: 1

      How do they measure the distance of something like this?

    7. Re:1 Earth radii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bump this to the top of the thread! OMG funny! I literally spit coke on my monitor upon reading 1 metric fuckton, and snorted so hard that I spit on my desk again reading 1 imperial fuckton! too funny thanks for the Friday laugh!

  4. Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the asteroid was at a distance between the orbit of the space station (about 1 Earth radii) and geosynchronous satellites (about 6 Earth radii)."

    How dumb do you have to imagine your audience to create non-standard units on every piece of news?

    Also, with give such an imprecise distance as "between 6353km and 38118km"?

    At least speed came in km/s instead of Sheppeis per Tatum grid.

    1. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least speed came in km/s instead of Sheppeis per Tatum grid.

      Speaking of which, how much would 17km/s be in Sheppeis per Tatum grid? Good old "units" doesn't know either of those units.

      $ units 17km/s "Sheppeis per Tatum grid"
      Unknown unit 'Sheppeis'

      In other news...
      "An asteroid travelling at a speed of almost 225 million footballfields/fortnight missed the earth by about 11 thousand nauticalmiles..."

    2. Re:Units and news by MacTO · · Score: 3, Informative

      They use "non-standard units" to give the reader a mental picture of the near miss. It has nothing to do with perceived stupidity.

    3. Re:Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Speaking of which, how much would 17km/s be in Sheppeis per Tatum grid? Good old "units" doesn't know either of those units.

      Sheppey: A measure of distance equal to about 78 of a mile (1.4 km), defined as the closest distance at which sheep remain picturesque.

      Tatum Grid: the lowest regular pulse train that a listener intuitively infers from the timing of perceived musical events.

    4. Re:Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They use "non-standard units" to give the reader a mental picture of the near miss. It has nothing to do with perceived stupidity.

      Ok. I used "stupidity" for "the inability of forming a mental picture for 10000 km".

    5. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well not of the reader anyway.

    6. Re:Units and news by ongelovigehond · · Score: 2

      It is possible to be highly intelligent, yet not have the ability to make a good mental picture for 10000 km, especially if you don't know the size of the earth or the distance of various satellites orbiting it.

    7. Re:Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      It is possible to be highly intelligent, yet not have the ability to make a good mental picture for 10000 km, especially if you don't know the size of the earth or the distance of various satellites orbiting it.

      I don't wish to go into definitions of "intelligence" but you don't really need to know the size of the earth (although it's quite sad) to know what ten thousand kms are.

      Unless you don't know the size of your own country, or region. You would also have to not know the length of the equator, how far you can travel by car in a day, etc.

      We're not talking parsecs here; it's ten fricking thousand kilometers. I think it's a knowledge that can be assumed taking into account the nature of the news.

    8. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just imagine your mom.

    9. Re:Units and news by ongelovigehond · · Score: 2

      Sure, 10000 km is 10000 km, everybody knows that. But to make a mental image, you need to put that in scale with the earth, moon and satellites. Knowing these sizes is just memorization of a bunch of trivia, often a sign of intelligence, but not always. I know a 6 year old kid who scored 135 on his IQ test, but failed the question about which day comes after Thursday.

    10. Re:Units and news by MacTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So do I get to choose a topic that is outside of your domain of knowledge, declare that any reasonable person should know it, then state that anyone who doesn't know it is stupid. Because that is pretty much what you're saying.

      Believe it or not, stuff like the radius of the earth, the length of the equator, or even the size of your own country is called trivia. Most people don't know them because they don't have an immediate bearing on their life. That doesn't make them stupid.

    11. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this. I'd be surprised if 15% of the people ALIVE even knows the actual scale of Earth with respect to their normal lives.

      It is surprisingly small, as are all the oceans wrapped up in to a perfect sphere.
      Still pretty god damn huge, but massively overstated by most people.

    12. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the news story came out of the United States where no one has any feel for the length of a kilometer. Instead kilometers are used to confuse people.

      Not buying it? Ok...
      You are familiar with a wooden popsicle stick aren't you? You have held one and you would be able to tell someone if one was longer or shorter then normal right?
      Without measuring, using a calculator or calculating on a piece of paper... Tell me roughly how many popsicle sticks there are to a kilometer?


      Just because someone is intimately familiar with the size of something in no way makes it easy or intuitive to convert that to something that is on a massively different scale.

    13. Re:Units and news by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, how much would 17km/s be in Sheppeis per Tatum grid? Good old "units" doesn't know either of those units.

      Sheppey: A measure of distance equal to about 78 of a mile (1.4 km), defined as the closest distance at which sheep remain picturesque.

      Tatum Grid: the lowest regular pulse train that a listener intuitively infers from the timing of perceived musical events.

      Oh, God. What happened with the good old FFF?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    14. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not a slightest clue how big (in units) my country is, neither the one I'm currently residing in, same applies for the region, in fact I found geography to be really boring, so I didn't pay too much attention. Naturally, I have no clue how long the equator is. I also don't own a car, which makes me pretty crappy at estimating how far can I go in it in a day, nor how big that number is.

      On the other hand, I could find all that information within seconds with the help of google. Therefore, I am neutral to the units they used in the video. It took me significantly longer to write this stupid response than to find how big the radius of the earth actually is.

    15. Re:Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Believe it or not, stuff like the radius of the earth, the length of the equator, or even the size of your own country is called trivia. Most people don't know them because they don't have an immediate bearing on their life. That doesn't make them stupid.

      I disagree. Not knowing the radius of the earth to the point of not being able to visualize 10000km, which would essentially mean not knowing whether it's closer to 1000 or to 100000km (as with any better precision than that you already surpass the articles') isn't trivia for me.

      You scare me, btw. I now wonder what other things you consider to be trivial knowledge. The motion of the planets? What are those bright spots on the night sky? How does an engine work? How does a lightbulb work?

    16. Re:Units and news by Platinumrat · · Score: 4, Funny

      In New Zealand, the Sheppey is about 0.5m

    17. Re:Units and news by danhuby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the contrary, Earth radii is a useful unit when explaining how close something came to the earth. It helps to form a mental picture.

      For example, if you state that the moon is 384,400km from the earth, that doesn't really mean much - even if you know the diameter of the earth it's not as easy to form a mental picture as it is if you say that it is 62 Earth radii.

      Personally though I would have thought diameters would be better than radii? I.e. the moon is 31 Earth diameters (or simply 31 'Earths') away. (As a side note I think that is much further than most people would guess it is).

    18. Re:Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Just because someone is intimately familiar with the size of something in no way makes it easy or intuitive to convert that to something that is on a massively different scale.

      "the asteroid was at a distance between the orbit of the space station (about 1 Earth radii) and geosynchronous satellites (about 6 Earth radii)."

      1 to 6.

      That's like not knowing how many times your height is a bus stop.

    19. Re:Units and news by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Actually, when I first saw a scale drawing of the Earth-Moon system, I was shocked to see how close the Moon actually is.

      A fun thing to do is ask people to stretch out their arm, and have them indicate how big the moon is between their thumb and index finger.

    20. Re:Units and news by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 2

      I agree, every now and then newspapers write panic-stories on the lack of "general knowledge" of university students.
      Then one can read: 73% of university students dont know what is celebrated on Easter! Or: 81% of senior high-school students have no idea when the Battle of Waterloo was fought. Thing is, just as you say, that it is trivial for most people (including students).
      The moment that Theology students dont know what Easter is / history students dont know when the Battle of Waterloo was fought / The radius of the earth is unknown to geology students / the length of the equator is not known by geography students... then there might be something to worry about. And even then that is a mild worry. As long as they can accurately find the information, that is good enough for me.
      The rest is pub-quizz knowledge.

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    21. Re:Units and news by Teun · · Score: 2

      I thought this was a very acceptable way of presenting the relative distance of the occurrence.
      Those in the know can easily convert it to real measurements in their favourite units but for the layman the relative distance is probably easier to grasp.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    22. Re:Units and news by duinsel · · Score: 1

      Moreover, ISS orbits with an apogee of 405 km above ground according to Wikipedia, while earths radius has a minimum of 6,357 km according to the same source. Not sure where the asteroid flew, but unless you mean that ISS orbits ~1 earth radius from the center of the earth, 1 earth radius does not equal the the orbit of the ISS.

    23. Re:Units and news by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      How many parsecs did it take to zip by the Earth, and how does that compare to the less than 12 Parsecs it took the Millennium Falcon to do the Kessel Run?

    24. Re:Units and news by Teun · · Score: 1

      The author does not have to worry about a percentage of people alive to understand his article, it was written for a very specific audience and they will understand.
      The fact his article leaked to /. and some of our constituency is no longer technically capable is only a curiosity for the amused observer.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    25. Re:Units and news by Muad'Dave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many sites that report on PHAs (Potentially Hazardous Asteroids) use LD, meaning Lunar Distance. That's pretty descriptive to the general public - "Wow that thing flew right between Earth and the Moon!". According to their archive, KT42 missed Earth by 0.05 LD and was #6 on the all-time closest flyby list.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    26. Re:Units and news by AshtangiMan · · Score: 2

      Let's see which day comes after Thursday ... All of them?

    27. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without measuring, using a calculator or calculating on a piece of paper... Tell me roughly how many popsicle sticks there are to a kilometre?

      Well from memory I would say a "popsicle" stick was approximately 10cm long so there would be approximately 10000 of them to a kilometre if laid end-to-end.

    28. Re:Units and news by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      It depends on whether you order them chronologically or alphabetically.

    29. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot plain and simple.

      Numbers like 10.000 km have no meaning for most people. Just like a trillion dollars doesn't make any sense to most people - sure, we know it's a big number, but you are in a domain where most people just can't comprehend the size.

    30. Re:Units and news by rabidMacBigot() · · Score: 1

      I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it.

      A man should keep his little brain attic stocked with all the furniture that he is likely to use, and the rest he can put away in the lumber-room of his library, where he can get it if he wants it.

    31. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man your long.....

    32. Re:Units and news by delt0r · · Score: 1
      The relevant quote is:

      Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

      --Albert Einstein

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    33. Re:Units and news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..unless it's a climbing perch

    34. Re:Units and news by kwerle · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Not knowing the radius of the earth to the point of not being able to visualize 10000km, which would essentially mean not knowing whether it's closer to 1000 or to 100000km (as with any better precision than that you already surpass the articles') isn't trivia for me.

      trivia plural of trivia
      Noun:
      Details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value.

      I'll bite. What practical/important use do you have for that piece of information?

      'cause I don't have any, and I never have. Though, as it turns out, I used to work (in a data/IT support role) on a spacecraft. I guess you could say that I used to work indirectly for NASA.

      So I think you're right - most folks would probably guess that the earth is between 1000-100000km in radius.

      But I still don't know (or care, frankly) if it is more or less than 10Kkm. And stating distances in radii was a nice touch.

      After all, what kind of arbitrary unit is a kilometer when talking about orbital distances?

    35. Re:Units and news by cyberchondriac · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know, let's ask Rebecca Black!

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    36. Re:Units and news by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It surprised me too. I think the analogy I saw was one where you have one person holding a basketball, which respresents Earth, and another, a tennis ball, which represents the moon; the two people have to stand about 25 feet (7.69 meters) apart to scale the distance. I would've thought maybe 10 to 12 feet.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    37. Re:Units and news by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Ok. I used "stupidity" for "the inability of forming a mental picture for 10000 km".

      That isn't a measure of stupidity, it's a measure of anyone who's seen yo mama!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    38. Re:Units and news by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Not knowing the radius of the earth to the point of not being able to visualize 10000km, which would essentially mean not knowing whether it's closer to 1000 or to 100000km (as with any better precision than that you already surpass the articles') isn't trivia for me.

      To summarize: You've watched a lot of scifi, so you can paint a picture in your head you think is right and you call that 'intelligence'.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    39. Re:Units and news by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > You scare me, btw. I now wonder what other things you consider to be trivial knowledge.

      Oh, come on. If the radius of the earth in flipping kilometers isn't trivial, I'm sure I have no idea what would be. I suppose you also think everyone should memorize fifty digits of e (I only know thirteen digits), what month the Battle of Carchemish took place (I only know the year), the complete list of sound changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (I only know about a third of them), which of the three ideal gas laws is named after which person (Boyle, Charles, and whoever the other one was named after, for when volume is held constant, I forget his name), the full list of Roman emperors (I only know the major ones), the names of all 92 Johnson solids (most days I only remember the Platonic solids and some of the Archimedean ones), the number of verses in each chapter of the Bible, and the full lists of which cast members appear and do not appear in each episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

      Do you have room left in your brain for anything that's, you know, useful?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    40. Re:Units and news by danhuby · · Score: 1

      I blame Hollywood. The moon is often shown in something more like a low earth orbit in sci-fi films (or at least the mass-market ones).

      The famous 'earthrise' photo puts it in perspective.

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

    41. Re:Units and news by Wocko · · Score: 1

      Man your longboats we're going to war?

  5. Don't get your hopes up... by WSOGMM · · Score: 2

    It was only 7 meters across. No impending doom this time folks.

    1. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Still... Impeding-doom asteroids routinely pass between the Earth and the Moon and are detected after the fact.

      I say we should forget about the Moon or about Mars. It is time that Earth sets up a good detection system (maybe an orbital array of Hubble-like telescopes ?) and begins thinking about mitigation plans for the case where a dangerous asteroid is located.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Historically speaking, the chance of being killed by an asteroid is low enough that I'm not going to worry about it.

    3. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's that the dinosaurs said.

    4. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Actually, the dinosaurs were always worried about asteroid impacts. However, my own ancestors, who also lived during that time, never worried, and they survived.

    5. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by aquabat · · Score: 1

      Silly rabbit! Dinosaurs can't talk.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    6. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by gtvr · · Score: 1

      So Bruce Willis can get back to his regular job?

    7. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      No they don't...

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    8. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Any object with a MOID lower than 0.0026 AU is : http://www.brera.mi.astro.it/sormano/sael.html#SAEL

      That is, several a year, and depending on the size, several a month.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      And that is things 250m diameter and smaller. Hardly impending-doom events. So the original statement is still wrong. There are not a whole bunch of doomsday level asteroids not getting detected till closest approach all the time.

      If its big enough to be a doomsday (impending-doom), its big enough to detect early enough.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  6. Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Near miss? Near hit, rather....

    1. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by KreAture · · Score: 2

      Yes, I wish they would stop using the term. Is is not just misleading and stupid, it's wrong too.
      A near miss relates to situations where chance played a role averting a disaster. Since this asteroid has been traveling on it's well-defined path and wil lcontinues to do so, modified ofcource by bodys it passes, it has nothing to do with chance and no ammount of butteryflys flapping their wings could have made it hit earth.
      It was rather:
      - a near hit
      - a narrow escape
      - a close encounter
      - a close call

      Since this was a case of moving objects the correct term is:
      - near collision

    2. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by CompComp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The asteroid missed. It didn't miss by by a large amount- it came near. It was a near miss. It didn't hit, so it wasn't a "near hit" or a "far hit".

    3. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Sigh.
      Near != nearly. Compare to "narrow escape".

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I kind of missing your point here...

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    5. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by slasho81 · · Score: 2
    6. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by dogbert_2001 · · Score: 2

      You don't compare a near miss to a near hit. You compare a near miss to a FAR miss. Near is referring to distance. It is not being used as a synonym for "almost."

    7. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by martas · · Score: 2

      Yes, just like "near-death" means "he died, but almost didn't", right?

    8. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by Zelaron · · Score: 1

      Near miss? Near hit, rather....

      In this context, the word "near" is not being used to mean "almost" but "close in proximity." It would be nice if the use of "near miss" would stop on the grounds that it's ambiguous (rather than necessarily wrong, which it isn't).

    9. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > It would be nice if the use of "near miss" would stop on the grounds that it's ambiguous

      It's not ambiguous. In the entire history of the English language the phrase "near miss" has only ever been used with one meaning. The fact that a small handful of misguided pedants think it should mean something different from what it obviously does mean does not make it ambiguous. The pedants are just wrong -- and even they clearly understand what the writer intended to say.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    10. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This just in: Phrases mean different things in different contexts. Learn more in our in-depth report, "Natural languages sure are confusing, aren't they?"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by martas · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean I can't whine about it on a slashdot thread, does it, now?

    12. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You can whine about anything you want no matter how invalid the complaint is, and have demonstrably done so. Why would you think I'm saying otherwise?

      Should, on the other hand...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:Near miss? Near hit, rather.... by KreAture · · Score: 1

      I know it's not, but it is being used to describe an event that is not goverened by fluke chances and moment, but of gravity. It is 100% deterministic and we can calculate it. Compared to turbulant flow of gas/liquid for example, it's simple...
      Then there's the fact that it's called a new miss when a near miss would be a glancing hit semantically speaking.

  7. Downloadable video by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 5, Informative
    I can't view anything in my Flash-free browser. After some searching I found what looks like a downloadable video of the asteroid flyby (56 MB). From the caption:

    The sixth closest asteroid encounter on record, the May 29 near-miss by the object catalogued as "2012 KT42", was tracked by the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii as it whizzed inside the orbital distance of Earth geosynchronous satellites (6.6 Earth radii or an altitude of 22,000 miles).

  8. Near Miss by erktrek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's a phrase that apparently the airlines simply made up: near miss. They say that if 2 planes almost collide, it's a near miss. Bullshit, my friend. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss.
    [WHAM! CRUNCH!]
    "Look, they nearly missed!"
    "Yes, but not quite.”

    George Carlin

    1. Re:Near Miss by danhuby · · Score: 1

      I think it means that is was a miss that was near.

    2. Re:Near Miss by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      All hits are near hits. This cant hit that unless they are near each other. But a miss could be a far miss or a near miss. That is why they called it a near miss to distinguish it from the safe and ignorable far miss.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Near Miss by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      All hits are near hits

      Not if you translate 'near' to mean 'nearly', and when you say "that nearly hit", that definitely implies it didn't hit.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Near miss by arth1 · · Score: 1

      A near miss is just that; a miss that was close to the target. Example: "The shell was a near miss but the helmsman on the bridge was killed by a splinter".

      Yes, that is a near miss, pronounced as two separate words. Which isn't what we're talking about here. That hyphen is important, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.

      A near-hit = anear-hit = nearly a hit
      A near hit = a hit that was near (they bombed the ammo depot next to you)
      A near-miss = anear-miss = nearly a miss
      A near miss = a miss that was near (they bombed the hospital next to you)

  9. companion by valugi · · Score: 0

    seems to have a smaller companion, left down side.

  10. Um ... What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "At its closest, the asteroid was at a distance between the orbit of the space station (about 1 Earth radii) and geosynchronous satellites (about 6 Earth radii)."

    The space station is only 370 km high, that's about 1/5th of the radius of the earth.

    1. Re:Um ... What? by aquabat · · Score: 1

      1/17th the radius of the Earth, actually.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
  11. These numbers are WAY off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Holy crap dude! The space station orbits at about 5% of the earth's radius

    space station altitude = 370 km
    radius of earth = 6384 km

    1. Re:These numbers are WAY off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that would be an orbit of 1.05 Earth radii.

  12. Saw a meteor once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen a meteor once. It was glowing orange, sparks were trailing it. (this happened the summer prior to the persion gulf war)

    No idea where it hit, but it looked to be pretty low when I saw it, so, I'm pretty sure some of it made it to earth... probably not terribly far from where I was standing. Truly fascinating. :-)

    1. Re:Saw a meteor once. by RichMan · · Score: 2

      You should be able to see meteor on any night if you look long enough.

      Around August 12th the annual peak (Perseids) usually yields 1 visible meteor a minute to a keen observer.

      The Leonids (Nov 17) peak every 33 years at 1000 meteors and hour (16 a minute).

  13. At ground level your altitude is zero. by Herve5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    And the space station is some *20 times* closer to Earth than an earth radius. I must say I stopped reading here too.

    --
    Herve S.
  14. No it is not. by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Funny
    In Latin "Prius" is not a noun, and so radius/radii does not apply. Normal rules of English mean the plural of Prius the vehicle is Priuses. (And the plural of octopus is similarly octopuses; it is not a Latin word but the Greek "oktopous", and its Greek plural is oktopodes.)

    As the Latin tag says, "Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius" (those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they send mad thinking about the plural of Prius".

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:No it is not. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      In Latin "Prius" is not a noun, and so radius/radii does not apply. Normal rules of English mean the plural of Prius the vehicle is Priuses. (And the plural of octopus is similarly octopuses; it is not a Latin word but the Greek "oktopous", and its Greek plural is oktopodes.)

      Octopodes is acceptable in English too, but I think most people would go "huh?"

      Virus is another example - it's a collective noun like money or crockery, and the normal plural form is "virus" and not "viruses", unless you intend to count the groups, like in "moneys" and "crockeries".

      I'm more concerned with the "near-miss", which is a verbose way of saying hit.

    2. Re:No it is not. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      If they were feigning faux Greek when inventing the word "Prius", then Greek rules would indeed apply. Fail.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:No it is not. by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Octopodes is acceptable in English too

      Umm, no. English only imports plural forms from the source language when the singular form retains the singular markings from the source language (e.g., "alumni" because the singular form "alumnus" has that very recognizable Latin -us singular ending). The plural would only be "octopodes" if the singular were "octopous" (which would rhyme with "papoose"). The root may come from Greek, but the inflectional ending does not.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    4. Re:No it is not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then a far-miss is a hit too?

      Is a close shave a cut? What about a distant shave?

  15. I would rather NASA would catch a near-miss by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    If we are sending a manned mission to an asteroid, why not put a small unit on these asteroids, with carmera, drill, etc. and let it continue with the asteroid. The other idea would be to catch one and try to manuvuer it. By doing that, we can come up with ideas on how to take on one that will hit us, but also how to mine them.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:I would rather NASA would catch a near-miss by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Yeah, NASA has never thought of this, great ideas!

    2. Re:I would rather NASA would catch a near-miss by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, we can't accelerate a rocket-powered device to that speed that close to Earth. It'd take more time/distance, and actually better technology because the current record holder for the fastest man made object is the New Horizons probe, which left earth orbit at 16 km/s. The asteroid was cruising at 17km/s. For something bigger, well the ISS is at about 7.6 km/s for example. That doesn't mean it can't go faster, it just doesn't need to to stay in orbit but they probably didn't prep it to go faster than it needs to either.

    3. Re:I would rather NASA would catch a near-miss by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Oh and I guess I'll also preemptively post the cliche slashdot comment "but the solar system is cruising through the galaxy at xxx KM/s so it's actually xxx + 16KM/s"

    4. Re:I would rather NASA would catch a near-miss by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      We capture small asteroids every so often which will orbit earth for a month to several years. We can speed up to those speeds, land, control the asteroid, and then either send it on its way, or slow it down to the ISS speed.

      For those that will get nervous, the moon also captures some.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. We have uncountable closer encounters... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    We have them all the time. And they end up getting called meteors. But they were asteroids once too...

  17. /. passes within 0 earth radii of video server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that remains is smoke and dust

  18. near-hit by the near hit by arth1 · · Score: 1

    So then a far-miss is a hit too?

    From my understanding:

    near-hit: = anear hit = nearly hit, i.e. missed
    near hit = a hit that was close

    near-miss = anear miss = nearly missed, i.e. hit
    near miss = a miss that was close

    By applying the same rules:
    far-miss = afar missed
    This doesn't make sense to me. If you mean far miss, you can say so without the hyphen.

  19. Near-Miss? by Spanishvader · · Score: 1

    "Bullshit, my friend. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss. " - George Carlin

  20. Near miss by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    A near miss is just that; a miss that was close to the target. Example: "The shell was a near miss but the helmsman on the bridge was killed by a splinter".

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."