Asteroid Apophis Just Got Bigger

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 13:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

...does this mean we're more likely to die or less likely to die?

Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 13:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Boobs look bigger close up too.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 13:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, the chances we are all going to die are still 100%. The only question is when.
Re:So... by paiute · 2013-01-09 14:27 · Score: 1

it's always about you, isn't it?

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Re:So... by TempestRose · 2013-01-09 14:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Only about 95% of all humans who have ever existed have died. There's still a 5% fighting chance immortality exists. Not only that, but my odds are better than most humans, past and present.
Re:So... by dlingman · 2013-01-09 15:46 · Score: 1

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever.
Riker? I thought I told you not to tamper with the timeline...
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Riker? I thought I told you not to tamper with the timeline...
But I was having so much fun!
Re:So... by dutchwhizzman · 2013-01-09 16:42 · Score: 1

That's what *she* said!

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Re:So... by Turminder+Xuss · 2013-01-09 17:10 · Score: 1

Or die trying ?

--
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
Re:So... by klingers48 · 2013-01-09 17:12 · Score: 1

According to many popular sources, 2 weeks and 6 days ago.
Re:So... by kdemetter · 2013-01-09 17:52 · Score: 1

Well, if you were leading a government, and you know that an asteroid is going to hit the earth, are you going tell everyone that, knowing that it would cause mass hysteria, riots,etc..., long before the asteroid would hit.
Probably not.

--
Slipping shoelaces ?
Re:So... by TempestRose · 2013-01-09 18:03 · Score: 1

Bah, Timeline, Shmimeline. Q promised he'd come back for me when I asked!
Re:So... by TempestRose · 2013-01-09 18:05 · Score: 1

That was absolutely HORRIBLE, and yet I found myself laughing my ass off. Thank you....
Re:So... by RoboJ1M · 2013-01-09 23:21 · Score: 1

Somebody needs to sit down with these scientists and have, "the chat".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U
Re:So... by Russ1642 · 2013-01-10 03:21 · Score: 1

This from the guy who turned down becoming a Q.
Re:So... by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-10 05:03 · Score: 1

The afterlife sure feels like my past physical life. Slashdot is still filled with pointless comments and trolls, patents, copyrights and lawyers still exist and porn still downloads too slowly.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 05:47 · Score: 0

Only about 95% of all humans who have ever existed have died. There's still a 5% fighting chance immortality exists. Not only that, but my odds are better than most humans, past and present.
As our species population growth is on an exponential growth rate, it's more likely the case that 95% of all humans that have ever existed are still alive. if you use the rule of 70 and a growth rate of about 2 (1963 rate as many of those people will still be alive), it means that the human population doubles every 35 years. If we keep the math simple for demonstration's sake:
2 4 8 16 32
What do you notice? The current generations size is greater than the sum of all of the previous generations. So long as there is no recent population bottleneck and growth is positive, the number of people currently alive will always be greater than the number of people to have ever existed.
Re:So... by Immerman · 2013-01-10 06:25 · Score: 2

Yeah, but the exponential growth curve really only started quite recently, they only manifest during the brief window between when you remove/restrict one limiting factor, and when another limiting factor comes into play. And there's *always* another limiting factor, it's just that humans recently managed to overcome a couple of them in a row.
Meanwhile we have a *lot* of ancestors, a few hundred thousand years of human prehistory where the population was fairly stable - call it 10,000 generations * 1 million individuals = 10 billion people, by which estimate only about half of all humans are currently alive. And that just essentially "modern" humans, if your definition includes our hominid ancestors the estimate climbs to 45-110 billion individuals.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 06:30 · Score: 0

Only about 95% of all humans who have ever existed have died. There's still a 5% fighting chance immortality exists. Not only that, but my odds are better than most humans, past and present.
As our species population growth is on an exponential growth rate, it's more likely the case that 95% of all humans that have ever existed are still alive. if you use the rule of 70 and a growth rate of about 2 (1963 rate as many of those people will still be alive), it means that the human population doubles every 35 years. If we keep the math simple for demonstration's sake:
2 4 8 16 32
What do you notice? The current generations size is greater than the sum of all of the previous generations. So long as there is no recent population bottleneck and growth is positive, the number of people currently alive will always be greater than the number of people to have ever existed.
Wow, the two of you are both pretty stupid. By that logic, in the year of our Lord 892, Adam and Eve would have still been in the Garden.
-cuz yer both pseudoscience religo-nuts obviously, spelling intentional)
generations back pop years ago
0 7000000000 0
1 3500000000 35
2 1750000000 70
3 875000000 105
4 437500000 140
5 218750000 175
6 109375000 210
7 54687500 245
8 27343750 280
9 13671875 315
10 6835937.5 350
11 3417968.75 385
12 1708984.375 420
13 854492.1875 455
14 427246.09375 490
15 213623.046875 525
16 106811.5234375 560
17 53405.76171875 595
18 26702.880859375 630
19 13351.4404296875 665
20 6675.7202148438 700
21 3337.8601074219 735
22 1668.9300537109 770
23 834.4650268555 805
24 417.2325134277 840
25 208.6162567139 875
26 104.3081283569 910
27 52.1540641785 945
28 26.0770320892 980
29 13.0385160446 1015
30 6.5192580223 1050
31 3.2596290112 1085
32 1.6298145056 1120
33 0.8149072528 1155
34 0.4074536264 1190
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 07:10 · Score: 0

Only about 95% of all humans who have ever existed have died. There's still a 5% fighting chance immortality exists. Not only that, but my odds are better than most humans, past and present.
Interesting... but wrong, here's a refined table from the grandchild:
"generations
Back" population Year
0 7000000000 2013
1 3500000000 1978
2 1750000000 1943
3 875000000 1908
4 437500000 1873
5 218750000 1838
6 109375000 1803
7 54687500 1768
8 27343750 1733
9 13671875 1698
10 6835938 1663
11 3417969 1628
12 1708984 1593
13 854492 1558
14 427246 1523
15 213623 1488
16 106812 1453
17 53406 1418
18 26703 1383
19 13351 1348
20 6676 1313
21 3338 1278
22 1669 1243
23 834 1208
24 417 1173
25 209 1138
26 104 1103
27 52 1068
28 26 1033
29 13 998
30 7 963
31 3 928
32 2 893
33 1 858
34 0 823
Re:So... by OhSoLaMeow · 2013-01-10 07:12 · Score: 1

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever.
So far, so good.

--
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Re:So... by mcgrew · 2013-01-10 08:06 · Score: 1

Well, we warned you, but NOoooo, you just HAD to do that! Those of us who were good are now all rich, have no DRM, patents, copyrights, lawyers, and trolls don't exist, porn is pointless because all the supermodels want to fuck nerds... Man, I'm glad I didn't follow you!
Gotta love thos Mayans... or in your case, hate 'em.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 15:38 · Score: 0

No, the chances we are all going to die are still 100%. The only question is when.
dumb

And Leon's getting LARGERRRR! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 13:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Someone had to say it.

Re:And Leon's getting LARGERRRR! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 01:19 · Score: 0

I just watched Airplane! yesterday. Hahaha

Size Queen Weekly claims Aphophis 20% bigger by kawabago · 2013-01-09 13:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Astronomers. My asteroid is bigger than your asteriod. Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!.....I guess we'll both need grants for a few years to study the question.

Apophis larger than we thought by egcagrac0 · 2013-01-09 13:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean we need to prepare for a Goa'uld invasion?

Re:Apophis larger than we thought by erroneus · 2013-01-09 14:02 · Score: 2

There it is... the SG1 reference :)
Lovin' it. As loved as that series was, it really played itself out as completely as possible didn't it? Kinda went way beyond that. Still, I wish they kept Stargate Universe going. That was a series that had my interest.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:02 · Score: 1

Indeed.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Its a ball of replicators that resemble a rock. Call your congressional representitives tell them we're going to need more guns.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Culture20 · 2013-01-09 14:18 · Score: 1

Stargate Universe was a more sci-fi LOST, barely set in the Stargate universe.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by girlintraining · 2013-01-09 14:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean we need to prepare for a Goa'uld invasion?
No. Antarctica is melting at an unprecidented rate. It's only a matter of time before they discover the research station the Ancients left behind.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by viperidaenz · 2013-01-09 14:22 · Score: 1

Same universe, different galaxy
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by cervesaebraciator · 2013-01-09 14:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Shouldn't be too hard. So long as we can fund about three people, only two of whom actually need to be soldiers. If they can convince one of Apophis' guys to join our side, that should be enough to defeat the lot.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:58 · Score: 2, Informative

you know the amateur astronomers that discovered 'Aphophis' were big stargate fans, hence the name. SG1 reference built-in from the start.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by slashmydots · 2013-01-09 14:58 · Score: 1

Also, it will land on a pyramid.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by a_hanso · 2013-01-09 15:08 · Score: 4, Funny

No. It means it's made of Naquadah: http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Naquadah_asteroid
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Wormhole Extreme!!!!!!
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by rsmith-mac · 2013-01-09 15:24 · Score: 2

Aww crap. I don't suppose anyone has a Tel'tak lying around?
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Smallpond · 2013-01-09 15:24 · Score: 2

Indeed.
Thanks, Teal'c.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by denis-The-menace · 2013-01-09 15:35 · Score: 1

especially in the beginning.
1st season sucked until it became OK by the end
then by the middle of the 2nd season it got really good.
Then the ghost/wrestling channel didn't renew it.

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:42 · Score: 1

*galaxies. They traveled between galaxies in season two, and were on their way to a third at the end of the series.
Definitely miss this series. Unfortunately not enough people watched it live. It's a problem a lot of SyFy shows have, even the mighty BSG was almost cancelled.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:44 · Score: 1

Undomesticated equines couldn't keep a SG-1 joke from Slashdot.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by steelfood · 2013-01-09 15:45 · Score: 1

Peter Williams just gained weight.
Nothing to see here. Move along.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by tragedy · 2013-01-09 15:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

The big problem with Stargate: Universe was the plot induced stupidity in the characters. They were clearly trying to emulate the grim, gritty BSG which had plenty of its own plot-induced stupidity. Trouble is, it gets hard to ignore it when the plot-induced stupidity railroads the characters to irredeemable actions. There were plenty of these. Certainly enough that several main characters should have been relieved of all authority and locked up for the whole trip. The one that got to me the most was when there was a character trapped by the legs after a shuttle crash and, at his request, the commander suffocates him to death. I think euthanasia may be appropriate in certain situations, but not when you can put the minds of a couple of expert trauma surgeons into some of the crew and just cut the patients legs off, or waste some explosives to try and remove the debris, or send the ships robot down to the surface to move the debris, or any of a dozen ideas better than just having a few soldiers try to muscle the debris off. When a patient is in extreme chronic pain that can't be stopped and will last for the rest of their life and begs to die, it's time to consider euthensia. When a patient is in transitory pain, no matter how extreme, but has excellent prospects for survival without pain, you simply shouldn't consider their requests since they're not in their right minds. That kind of nonsense, leaving you with no choice but to either pretend big chunks of the show didn't happen or hate some of the main characters, tends to wreck a show.
Sort of reminds of the first and only episode of Star Trek: Enterprise I watched. It was titled "Dear Doctor". In it, the captain and the ships doctor have a cure for an illness that's killing off the population of a planet who they've agreed to help. They decide, based on some crazy nazi-style eugenics destiny argument (with allusions to the not yet established Prime Directive), that the population is destined to die off in favor of another intelligent species that lives on the planet with them. So they withhold the cure as the "ethical" thing to do, but still present them with a partial treatment, then go on their merry way.
Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with fiction with characters that morally flawed. Humans are often morally flawed. The problem is when the fictional treatment also puts these criminally incompetent characters on a pedestal.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Joe_Dragon · 2013-01-09 16:12 · Score: 1

it's at area 51-A
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:47 · Score: 0

I for one welcome our new ancient egyptian god overlords.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:50 · Score: 0

The one that got to me the most was when there was a character trapped by the legs after a shuttle crash and, at his request, the commander suffocates him to death.
I believe they were under a time constraint to get back to the ship (which was soon to automatically depart on its own) which would make your whole premise of what they should have done not applicable.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 18:50 · Score: 0

hahahaha! awesome comment!
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by osu-neko · 2013-01-09 20:25 · Score: 3, Informative

...I think euthanasia may be appropriate in certain situations, but not when you can put the minds of a couple of expert trauma surgeons into some of the crew and just cut the patients legs off, or waste some explosives to try and remove the debris, or send the ships robot down to the surface to move the debris, or any of a dozen ideas better than just having a few soldiers try to muscle the debris off.
None of these options were possible at the time.

When a patient is in extreme chronic pain that can't be stopped and will last for the rest of their life and begs to die, it's time to consider euthensia.
That would be exactly the situation here. The only options were to either euthanize him, or leave him there in pain to die alone. He asked for the former, and got it.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Coisiche · 2013-01-09 21:46 · Score: 2

Stargate fans who knew nothing about nominative determinism. Just sayin'.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 21:51 · Score: 0

So we need to nuke it right now, before it gets any closer so the explosion's still out of range?
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by RedHat+Rocky · 2013-01-10 01:09 · Score: 1

SG:U was just bad for most SG1 fans.
I tried the first season, hated it more and more each episode.
SG1 on the other hand, I am watching again right now! Go team, get Apophis AGAIN!

--
Anything is possible given time and money.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Teancum · 2013-01-10 02:05 · Score: 1

Of course the asteroid was named by a bunch of SG1 fans, so the reference is quite fitting. That he was the Egyptian death god didn't hurt when it came time to convince the IAU that the name was appropriate. What surprises me is that this name wasn't previously taken by a Kuiper Belt object.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by Teancum · 2013-01-10 02:12 · Score: 1

The second season of SG:U got much better, and one of the best episodes was unfortunately the last episode of season two. Still, I can understand why you thought the series sucked as there were some episodes in that first season that caused some serious brain loss.
At least one of the actors found a good gig by playing Rumpelstiltskin on Once Upon A Time. Mr. Gold still seems a bit like Dr. Rush though, and Robert Carlyle is able to portray somebody who makes your skin crawl and want to go out and kill the character.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by tragedy · 2013-01-10 07:39 · Score: 1

Nope. The ship had already jumped once, but they'd ended up back in range (and at that point, Rush could control the jumping of the ship) and had plenty of time. Young hangs around the corpse he just created for a long time after killing him. They never even bring in a surgeon from Earth, even though they have plenty of time to do so and their one medic is apparently completely incompetent even though, with the available technology they could have been sending her to med school on Earth every day for most of the trip. Even under time constraints, putting a tourniquet on a leg and cutting it off doesn't take that long. If there's trouble getting through the bones, they had explosives and guns. Gruesome medicine, but not so gruesome as killing someone who could have survived. For that matter, I just re-read a transcript of the episode, and it turns out they were even able to lift the debris off him, but it was slowing the bleeding. So, they could have applied a tourniquet, lifted it off, then rushed him back to the ship for surgery.
There really isn't any excuse for it. If you take the situation at face value, then it's criminal incompetence. If you don't, then it's bad writing.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by tragedy · 2013-01-10 08:00 · Score: 1

...I think euthanasia may be appropriate in certain situations, but not when you can put the minds of a couple of expert trauma surgeons into some of the crew and just cut the patients legs off, or waste some explosives to try and remove the debris, or send the ships robot down to the surface to move the debris, or any of a dozen ideas better than just having a few soldiers try to muscle the debris off.

None of these options were possible at the time.
All of those options were available at the time. He was killed by Young after they had established a gate connection to the planet, so all the resources of the ship were available including the minds of trauma surgeons on Earth dropped into any body they chose (the stones were fully operational in that episode as one of the characters mentions that she's just made a report to the IOA during these events). Turns out I did forget that they were able to lift the debris, they just stopped because the pressure was holding the wound closed. A tourniquet is not a sophisticated or difficult piece of medical technology. His odds of bleeding to death may have been fairly high if he was extracted, but his odds of dying were 100% with the treatment method they ended up using.

When a patient is in extreme chronic pain that can't be stopped and will last for the rest of their life and begs to die, it's time to consider euthensia.
That would be exactly the situation here. The only options were to either euthanize him, or leave him there in pain to die alone. He asked for the former, and got it.
That's nowhere near the situation. I said _chronic_ pain. Acute, temporary and treatable pain is an entirely different animal. When someone is asking for death in a situation like that, the ethical thing to do is to refuse because they're not in their right mind. Deciding if someone's plea for death should be fulfilled is obviously fraught with ethical problems. The first question is whether the problem they have is treatable. In his case, the answer was yes, so immediately euthanasia is probably contraindicated. Two other questions that come into play, however, are quality of life and how long the patient will have to suffer (and consequently how long until they change their mind about wanting to die). For quality of life, he would have been fine. He might have lost one or both legs, but keeping both was still a distinct possibility. Recuperation time measured in months at most. As for the length of time until he changed his mind about wanting to die you can start by asking: "will he want to die next year because of this injury?" The answer is clearly "no". It's the same for next month, next week, next day. It's probably "no" for the very next hour if they got him out of there and into surgery on the ship.
Long story short, the people in charge on the ship were all criminally incompetent. Outright violent psychopaths in some cases as well.
Re:Apophis larger than we thought by RedHat+Rocky · 2013-01-10 09:13 · Score: 1

My biggest cheer for SG:U was when Rush was "gone", literally. Yelled, jumped up and down, etc.
Yeah, later very sad when he came back. Hate that character.

--
Anything is possible given time and money.

SG-1 by madsci1016 · 2013-01-09 13:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

SG-1 Will take care of it no doubt.

Re:SG-1 by boundary · 2013-01-09 14:24 · Score: 2

Meh, this is Jaffa work.
Re:SG-1 by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-10 05:09 · Score: 1

The guys who named it were big fans (true story).

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

2029 approach by olsmeister · 2013-01-09 13:45 · Score: 5, Informative

They're also saying that Apophis will pass within 36,000 km of Earth in 2029. Now that's not missing us by much.

Re:2029 approach by SternisheFan · 2013-01-09 14:03 · Score: 5, Informative

They're also saying that Apophis will pass within 36,000 km of Earth in 2029. Now that's not missing us by much.
And that'll be about the right time for our space-tech to have caught up enough for us to be able to 'lasso' it. If we miss it then, by it's expected return in 2036 we'd better be able to control it. It seems to keep getting a little closer with each return orbit.
From the above link:
" The asteroid will return to Earth's neighbourhood again in 2036, but quite how close it will come then is uncertain, as the 2029 approach is predicted to alter its orbit substantially. Obtaining improved physical parameters for Apophis and its orbit is thus of great importance in being able to make better predictions of its future trajectory." Read more at:
Re:2029 approach by DavidD_CA · 2013-01-09 14:06 · Score: 2

It's okay. We'll totally have flying cars by then.

--
-David
Re:2029 approach by Sowelu · 2013-01-09 14:06 · Score: 4, Informative

For those who are hoping to see it, that distance puts it at two arcseconds wide (if my calculations are decent). This is roughly the same width in the sky as Neptune, or 900 times smaller diameter than our moon on an average day.
Re:2029 approach by InterestingX · 2013-01-09 14:06 · Score: 4, Funny

"Carter, I can see my house from here."
Re:2029 approach by hardie · 2013-01-09 14:09 · Score: 1

How reassuring that they have such accurate estimates of things like orbit and mass.
Re:2029 approach by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-01-09 14:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's a lot easier to calculate orbit than mass, and the latter is pretty much irrelevant to the former--Earth is so much more massive than Apophis can possibly be that the asteroid's mass can be ignored in any orbital calculation. So we'll know if it's going to hit us or not, even if we don't know how big a boom it will make if it does hit.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:2029 approach by rubycodez · 2013-01-09 14:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

indeed, it's not until the 2029 pass whether we'll know if it will hit the earth or not in 2036. the current probabilities are nonsense and mean nothing. The real probability is either 0 or 100%.
Re:2029 approach by dutchwhizzman · 2013-01-09 16:36 · Score: 1

Yeah yeah, sure.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Re:2029 approach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:48 · Score: 0

Since we probably won't be on the Metric system in the U.S. by 2029, I' going to assume that's plenty of room.
Re:2029 approach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:56 · Score: 1

"The real probability"? I suppose then the "real probability" of you buying a winning lottery ticket, or rolling 6 twenty consecutive times, etc, etc, are all 0 or 100% too.
Re:2029 approach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:01 · Score: 0

If they're right about the density being 75% more than they previously expected, this is one heavy asteroid. And, passing that close to Earth in 2029 it shouldn't even need to hit us to cause some serious earthquakes. Things are going to get interesting people.
Re:2029 approach by symbolset · 2013-01-09 17:21 · Score: 1

Quite correct. This is likely the most valuable asteroid in Near Earth Orbit. It's likely to be swarmed by asteroid miner '29'ers in 2029, and in 2036 for nothing of consequence to be left of it.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:2029 approach by able1234au · 2013-01-09 18:39 · Score: 1

haha. you guys... the mass of this is tiny compared to the earth. There won't be earthquakes, serious or not.
Re:2029 approach by delt0r · 2013-01-09 20:43 · Score: 1

It seems to keep getting a little closer with each return orbit.
That is not how orbital mechanics works. In fact close approaches change the orbit rather drastically.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:2029 approach by SternisheFan · 2013-01-09 21:41 · Score: 1

It seems to keep getting a little closer with each return orbit.
That is not how orbital mechanics works. In fact close approaches change the orbit rather drastically.
Yes, it was my 'opinion' when I stated that "it seems to be getting closer" (where's the "Edit Comment" button?). We won't know what the orbit path will be until after it passes us in 2029.
Re:2029 approach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 22:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The real probability"? I suppose then the "real probability" of you buying a winning lottery ticket, or rolling 6 twenty consecutive times, etc, etc, are all 0 or 100% too.
Yes, actually. That's what probability really is.
It is not the event itself which is uncertain, but rather our knowledge of the event. In this type of situation, if we make a GUESS, the probability tells us how likely we are to have guessed correctly.
Think about it like this. Take out a deck of cards, shuffle it, and set it face down. There is a card on the top. If you say the name of a card out loud, you have a 1/52 chance of saying the card which is actually on top. We can consider the actual value of that card to be uncertain from a mathematical point of view, but in reality its value is already fixed- you just don't know the value.
In regards to the lottery ticket, we actually know a little bit more. If you do not purchase a ticket at all, we CAN say with 100% certainty that you do not hold the winning ticket. If you DO purchase a ticket, we cannot say for certain if you have the winning ticket or not, but the reality is that either you have a winning ticket, or you do not.
The problem with your line of thinking is that you are confusing a prediction with an actuality. We use probability to determine future events when we have incomplete knowledge, once our knowledge of ALL factors which influence the event is complete, then it is no longer an unknown and we can say the event either will, or will not, occur. Or put another way, if you have access to all the data you're not predicting, you're simply calculating a result.
Re:2029 approach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 00:33 · Score: 0

If it doesn't hit us in 2029, hopefully we'll use the opportunity to blow it up on the flyby. Or stick a probe on it, or something.
Re:2029 approach by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-01-10 00:58 · Score: 1

And that'll be about the right time for our space-tech to have caught up enough for us to be able to 'lasso' it.
Oh, please; by that time Congress will still be debating about raising the debt ceiling. Maybe the Chinese, but only if they're paid for their effort (read: Taiwan).
Re:2029 approach by fatphil · 2013-01-10 01:26 · Score: 2

> The real probability is either 0 or 100%.

That's not how probability works. The same could be said about *anything* in the future or is currently unknown. So it's basically meaningless.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:2029 approach by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-10 05:10 · Score: 1

And jetpacks!

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:2029 approach by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-10 05:12 · Score: 1

Carter, I can see my house!.
It's at 3m20s.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:2029 approach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 05:44 · Score: 0

Yeah 50 years ago they said we'd be living on the moon by now.
I think you are overestimating how quickly our technology would advance in 23 years by a large margin. Nobody seriously considers that we'll have some awesome new power source that would allow us to lasso and pull anything close to this asteroid's mass.
Re:2029 approach by SternisheFan · 2013-01-10 06:56 · Score: 1

Yeah 50 years ago they said we'd be living on the moon by now.
I think you are overestimating how quickly our technology would advance in 23 years by a large margin. Nobody seriously considers that we'll have some awesome new power source that would allow us to lasso and pull anything close to this asteroid's mass.
You may be right. Even if this would hit us, it's not a planet destroyer by any stretch of the imagination. I just read that a land hit would equal 30 times the strength of our largest current h-bomb. Ground shaking, I wouldn't want to be in that area, to be sure. Odds would favor an ocean strike anyway. We are becoming more aware of what's beyond our little blue marble, which is great. That knowledge may end up saving the planet sometime down the line. I won't be making any end of the world predictions over this, though. The odds are far too astronomical against it. :-)
Re:2029 approach by Immerman · 2013-01-10 07:50 · Score: 1

We don't have a moon colony because we lack the capability, but because we lack the will. The space program pretty much dried up after the collapse of the USSR put an end to the international pissing contest that was driving it. After that it was restricted to missions with either an economic payoff or considerable scientific value, a moon colony promises neither (at least in the short term).
Now capturing apophis would be a major challenge due to it's large relative velocity, but "lassoing" it to an ion drive to adjust it's orbit is quite doable, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were attempted in 2029 if only as a precautionary exercise, and perhaps to get some massive research equipment piggybacking into the outer system. It's now been confirmed that it will almost certainly miss the critical gravitational "keyhole" in 2029 and thus miss us by a considerable margin in 2036, but comets are difficult to predict accurately as they approach the sun, so there's no guarantees.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:2029 approach by Hognoxious · 2013-01-10 08:56 · Score: 1

We use probability to determine future events when we have incomplete knowledge, once our knowledge of ALL factors which influence the event is complete, then it is no longer an unknown and we can say the event either will, or will not, occur.

Oh shit.
I'll tell Lorenz, you can call Feigenbaum.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:2029 approach by rubycodez · 2013-01-10 09:40 · Score: 1

in this case I was referring to the detailed analysis that will be done in 2029, and based on results either go "OH CRAP!", or "PHEW"
Re:2029 approach by rubycodez · 2013-01-10 09:43 · Score: 1

I was speaking of "real probability" being that which will known in 2029: the 2036 impact will be at that time will be known to be 0 or 100%.
Re:2029 approach by fatphil · 2013-01-11 02:52 · Score: 1

Your so-called "real probability" is not what we real mathematicians call probability.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

Homeowners insurance by AndyKron · 2013-01-09 13:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Will my homeowners insurance cover any damage should this hit, or would it be considered "an act of God"?

Re:Homeowners insurance by Ackmo · 2013-01-09 14:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Hmm. My insurance policy actually says, "act of Goa'uld". I always thought that was a typo.
Re:Homeowners insurance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:15 · Score: 0

Acts of God are generally covered by insurance, it's the acts of humans which are not (at least in mine).

occultation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 13:58 · Score: 1

Given it's named after an evil god, occultation is the appropriate way to measure it. Seriously, though, this is a very valuable tool that amateur astronomers use to make high-resolution measurements of asteroids as they pass in front of, or occult, stars.

Obligatory... by bmo · 2013-01-09 13:59 · Score: 4, Funny

asteroid 99942 Apophis is actually bigger than we thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzZ4i8aWs_s

--
BMO

Re:Obligatory... by mark-t · 2013-01-09 17:02 · Score: 1

I was half expecting a reference to "that's what she said".

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Bruce Willis will succeed by kmahan · 2013-01-09 14:00 · Score: 1

Does that mean the hole has to be deeper than 800' for the nuclear weapon?

--
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.

Re:Bruce Willis will succeed by mjwx · 2013-01-09 15:29 · Score: 1

Yes I know its a joke but... If we really wanted to use nukes on the asteroid wouldn't surface detonations to adjust it's trajectory would be better.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Bruce Willis will succeed by Baloroth · 2013-01-09 15:57 · Score: 1

The idea of drilling a tunnel is to focus the explosion so more energy goes upwards, similar to how guns use a barrel rather than just hitting a bullet at the explosive end pointed in the right direction. At a quick guess, a nuke in a moderately deep hole could have about twice the effect of a surface detonation, but that's assuming 100% of the charge gets directed upwards (some will go into the ground or be wasted by other things).

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Bruce Willis will succeed by mjwx · 2013-01-09 18:03 · Score: 1

The idea of drilling a tunnel is to focus the explosion so more energy goes upwards, similar to how guns use a barrel rather than just hitting a bullet at the explosive end pointed in the right direction. At a quick guess, a nuke in a moderately deep hole could have about twice the effect of a surface detonation, but that's assuming 100% of the charge gets directed upwards (some will go into the ground or be wasted by other things).
But here we're talking about drilling a hole that can be used as a nozzle (to direct the energy) or finding a natural formation that can be used to the same effect. Something like this would be relatively shallow on an object 350 meters wide. I mean compared to trying to use the nuke to break the asteroid into smaller pieces.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Bruce Willis will succeed by Immerman · 2013-01-10 08:11 · Score: 1

The problem with drilling a "barrel hole" in an unstable object though it that there's a chance that the "wasted" energy will be enough to fragment the object into so many pieces we cant hope to stop them, basically converting a rifle slug into shotgun pellets. Now if the original object is small enough that's okay, any fragments that hit us will burn up on entry with minimal damage, for a larger object though we've quite possibly turned a probable near miss into an almost guaranteed hit, and getting hit by a bunch of big pieces could be even more devastating than one huge one (secondary damage is similar, while primary damage obliterates a much wider area).
A surface detonation has the advantage that, even if it does fragment, all the fragments will still be deflected from the original path in the same direction (well, within less than 90* thereof), so as long as we choose the direction carefully we're less likely to make the problem worse. Better still though to drop an ion drive on it and gently push it onto a safer orbit.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by BoRegardless · 2013-01-09 14:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

"In April 2029 the space rock will still make a very close pass with our planet, coming within 22,364 miles"

Being the skeptical engineer, I would say there is also a chance that on its multihundred million mile trip over the next decade and a half all it would take to nudge the orbit a slight amount to make the close pass a hit would be an encounter with another large object that affected its orbit ever so slightly...the wrong way.

That orbital perturbation is random & would simply not be predictable.

Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:55 · Score: 0

Might also want to check the diameter of the Earth. 22,000 miles is fairly close to the circumference of the Earth (~ 24,900 miles), but multiples of the diameter (7918 miles).
Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by girlintraining · 2013-01-09 15:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

That orbital perturbation is random & would simply not be predictable.
Not exactly. It's passing by earth again in another 15 years or so -- and its orbit has to pass through a very small space in order for Earth's gravity to alter it just that tiny smidge so that over the following 15 years, that few thousands of a degree change due to gravitational pull will close that 22,364 mile gap. It has to be spot on -- if the vector is even slightly off, it'll either get slingshot out of the solar system (or into one of the outer planets), or into the Sun.
While you're right that the energy required to move the asteroid into a collision path is low, it has to be the precise amount, and at the precise vector. A random preturbation has a very low chance of being at both the correct energy level, and at the correct vector. And even many such random preturbations still wouldn't alter the orbit enough that if we looked for it on its next approach in a very narrow region of the sky, we couldn't find it. Which means we'll know its coming, and we'll have several years' warning to take action. I just hope they can clone Bruce Willis before then.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by able1234au · 2013-01-09 18:44 · Score: 2

I don't think the earth can give it enough energy to slingshot it out of the solar system. You would need Jupiter to do that.
And despite appearances it is hard for it to go into the Sun. It is in orbit around the Sun so would need to slow down a LOT to fall into the Sun. Look up how complicated it was for the messenger spacecraft to get into Mercury 's orbit. It takes a lot of energy to slow down. It is not simply a matter of pointing yourself at the Sun. There is no atmosphere to slow you down. Not like objects in very low earth orbit.
Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 18:51 · Score: 2, Informative

The orbit of Apophis ranges between 0.7 and 1.1 AU from the sun. In that range, there aren't any large objects it could encounter that we don't already know about. The major uncertainties in its projected orbit are from gravitational perturbations from the outer planets, sunlight pressure, etc., which are fairly well understood: it's quite certain that it won't hit the Earth in 2029.
However, the encounter with the Earth in 2029 will put Apophis in a new orbit, which depends quite sensitively on how closely it passes us. If it passes us at just the right distance (within a window of 800 m), its new orbit would hit the Earth in 2036. That's the plausible threat from Apophis - though, based on current measurements, there's about a 1-in-7,000,000 chance that it'll happen.
Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by fatphil · 2013-01-10 01:58 · Score: 2

Being a skeptical engineer, I wouldn't parrot a misleading figure like "22364 miles". I wouldn't even use a more appropriate figure like "22000 miles", I'd use the original figure, in its original units - "36000 km". Of course, being an engineer, I'd want to attach a standard error to that measurement too, which seems to be about 10-20%.

But yes, gravitational systems can behave stochastically. However, there are no objects heavy enough to tug on Apophis enough to perterb its orbit enough before 2029. Our slingshot on it could have an wide range of possible outcomes, of course.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by Psyborgue · 2013-01-10 03:12 · Score: 1

i'm not an astrophysicist so I really have no clue about any of this, but wouldn't a large orbit big enough to be affected by earth's orbit also actually affect earth's orbit, even ever so slightly?
Re:1 Earth Diameter Close Pass by Chris+Burke · 2013-01-10 11:31 · Score: 1

Earth's orbit is technically affected by every other object in the solar system (and cosmos), but the affect of Apophis on earth is so vanishingly small that you would never be able to measure it.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

IMPORTANT QUESTION... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:43 · Score: 1

Now, I know that you've all seen the film Armageddon, with Bruce Willis - the problem there was even *trying* to splatter that asteroid with our entire nuclear arsenal was a "bad move", because it was HEADING OUR WAY/RIGHT AT US...

Ok - fine: I can understand that, since busting off pieces flying towards you would still have 'shrapnel' (that had enough kinetic energy to keep coming and hit you still, albeit in many more smaller fragments).

Now, from what I understand (& I've noted this particular asteroid here many times before during other 'scares' dealing in them, regarding the 2029 pass & 2036 potential collision especially): THIS THING IS PASSING BY US THIS ROUND, and, so close, IT IS BENEATH GEO-CENTRIC SATELLITE ORBITS!

That "all said & aside":

* PER MY SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE: "THE QUESTION":

Why the HELL don't they blow it up as it goes away from us?

This would avoid the problem per the film noted above, AND, it's NOT ALL THAT DAMN BIG TO BEGIN WITH, and the fragments (if any would be left IF we "did it right" meaning really knock the tar outta it & incinerate it IF possible, totally, leaving only dust!)

I mean, after all - We've got enough nukes in arsenals to rip the atmosphere clean off the planet for Pete's sake - do something "destructively constructive" with 'em instead, & polish this bastard asteroid off, once & for all!

APK

P.S.=> The ONLY 'problem' just *might* be creating tinier asteroids, but they would NOT BE HEADING IN OUR DIRECTION (@ least not right off) but they wouldn't be as damn large either!

Thoughts?

Thanks for your answers...

... apk

Re:IMPORTANT QUESTION... apk by Smallpond · 2013-01-09 15:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Once it's going away, how would we catch it? It'll be going 25 km/sec relative to us.
Re:IMPORTANT QUESTION... apk by tragedy · 2013-01-09 16:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Simulations of nuclear weapons vs. asteroids typically show that the nukes mostly just heat the asteroid up. In space, there's no atmosphere to superheat into an airburst, so a nuclear explosion consists of the vaporised remains of the bomb and the delivery vehicle and a lot of radiation. At the speeds involved, there's only about a 50 millisecond window to even detonate a nuke near enough to an asteroid that's approaching us for it to have any effect. Even if the timing is just right, a maximum of 50% of the energy of the nuke is going to hit the asteroid, and it's really going to be more like 10%. As has been mentioned, we pretty much have to hit the asteroid on approach, because it's going to be a lot harder to catch up to while it's moving away. If we do manage to blow it up, then we go from one large body travelling in a fairly predictable path to a number of objects of varying size travelling on less predictable paths, so if it's not going to hit us, we're better off not blowing it into pieces that might hit us. Also, we might have a lot of nuclear warheads, but we don't have anywhere near as many rockets capable of getting the payload to the asteroid. Nuking it might be cathartic, but there are a lot of problems with the idea.
Re:IMPORTANT QUESTION... apk by able1234au · 2013-01-09 18:48 · Score: 0

I'd be more worried about launching a nuclear weapon in orbit above us. More risk of that going wrong than the asteroid causing problems.
And who gets to fire at it? China perhaps? or do we get to flip a few coins? Just don't let it be North Korea.
Re:IMPORTANT QUESTION... apk by osu-neko · 2013-01-09 21:04 · Score: 2

The only reason to blow up the asteroid while it's heading away would be if it were coming back. But if it's coming back, blowing it up "as it goes away from us" is really just blowing it up on the way in, just further ahead of time. It's still a bad idea for exactly the same reasons, you're just executing the breakup so the shrapnel with a total mass identical to the original asteroid shotgun-blasts into the planet on the next pass rather than on this pass. If you're trying to make it not head in our direction, it's actually a lot easier to do that if you don't break it up.
I imagine in your head you're picturing some kind of massive explosion that sends the mass of the asteroid flying in all directions, rather than just cracks the rock up into smaller asteroids in the same orbit. That would work, if we had something powerful enough to do that. A nuclear bomb wouldn't, however. Might as well suggest we use a stick of dynamite. At the time it was invented, in the popular imagination you could do anything with it, but really, it's just dynamite. Nowadays, since nuclear bombs are the most powerful explosive devices ever invented, again in the popular imagination you can do anything with them. But really, no. An asteroid large enough to really worry about is too large to be much affected by a nuclear bomb.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Wait a minute by slashmydots · 2013-01-09 14:57 · Score: 0

So we used our super advanced technology to know precisely where this asteroid will be in like 2042 or whatever but we were off by almost half its mass (or volume)? Anyone see a little disconnect there? Especially since other solar system bodies' gravitational fields will affect it differently if it weighs double what we thought. I knew it was a load of alarmist, headline-grabbing BS.

Re:Wait a minute by Daetrin · 2013-01-09 15:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Well first of all, they successfully predicted it would be here now, so they must have done something right.

The issue is that mass is irrelevant when you're measuring how something is affected by gravity. This was the point of the (possibly apocryphal) experiments of Galileo. The force of the gravity on the object is proportional to the mass of the object, but the force needed to move the object is also proportional to its mass, so it all cancels out. Apophis will continue to follow the same path, no matter what its mass is.

Now technically speaking the weight of the object does affect the rate at which other things fall towards it. (If you drop a 2kg weight the earth "falls" upwards twice as fast as if you drop a 1kg weight, but the difference is obviously too small to be measured.) So if Apophis encounters an object close to or smaller than its own mass it will make a difference. However i'm pretty sure they aren't able to predict encounters with objects that small, so if it does happen it will be a totally unexpected event with an unknown affect on its orbit anyways.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Wait a minute by VortexCortex · 2013-01-09 15:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

So we used our super advanced technology to know precisely where this asteroid will be in like 2042 or whatever but we were off by almost half its mass (or volume)? Anyone see a little disconnect there? Especially since other solar system bodies' gravitational fields will affect it differently if it weighs double what we thought. I knew it was a load of alarmist, headline-grabbing BS.
So, re-read what you said and think about that. You'll come to the conclusion that you should be quite alarmed because we don't know what might hit us when. We also didn't know about Eris, a proto-planet more massive than Pluto until 2005. That means we're pretty damn blind, and that stuff we can see we can't see very well and thus can't make very precise predictions about them.
If anything, to me that means we should be pretty concerned about this situation and seek to rectify it ASAP. We need to swap the NASA and armed force's budgets. Get some space infrastructure in place to protect us from other asteroids: Get a few big rocks of our own orbiting to use as slingshots or gravity tugs, etc; Much better telescopes, esp. wide field systems; Self sustaining colonies off-world so all our eggs aren't in one basket. We can squabble about Oil after we're sure we're not going to be extinct.
The dinosaurs regarded chicken little as an Alarmist when she saw a meteor shower and said the sky was falling. Turns out she was right, only the dinosaurs in the flight program survived.
Re:Wait a minute by arth1 · 2013-01-09 17:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

The issue is that mass is irrelevant when you're measuring how something is affected by gravity. This was the point of the (possibly apocryphal) experiments of Galileo. The force of the gravity on the object is proportional to the mass of the object, but the force needed to move the object is also proportional to its mass, so it all cancels out. Apophis will continue to follow the same path, no matter what its mass is.
True, but a higher mass relative to the diameter means that solar winds have a lesser effect. Granted, that effect is small compared to the pull of Earth, Sol, Jupiter and (when close) Luna, but it might still be significant in calculating whether we're going to get hit or not.
Re:Wait a minute by able1234au · 2013-01-09 18:59 · Score: 2

Given we have survived the last umpteen million years we can figure the odds are fairly low. Even for asteroids like this, it is not a planet killer. Of course humans are populating more areas in bigger numbers than we were say, a couple of thousand years ago, so anything hitting has higher odds of doing damage but the human race is fairly safe. No one knew about these until recently so knowing does make you nervous. At least they are making good progress.
And Eris is about the same size as Pluto. We couldn't see if because it was very very far away. We have found a bunch more now too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object#Notable_trans-Neptunian_objects
Not knowing about Eris doesn't mean there is likely to be a big planet on target to hit earth. If Eris was inside the orbit of Nepture it would have been discovered much quicker. Don't read those crazy panic websites without doing some reading of the mainstream sites to put it into perspective.
Re:Wait a minute by DragonWriter · 2013-01-10 05:29 · Score: 1

So we used our super advanced technology to know precisely where this asteroid will be in like 2042 or whatever but we were off by almost half its mass (or volume)? Anyone see a little disconnect there?
Trajectories of an observed object in the solar system are comparatively project from observation, deducing mass can be trickier. So, no, I don't see a disconnect. You don't need to know its mass to know its trajectory (at least, at the level at issue, for an object of its scale given how close it passes to other objects in the solar system and their scale.)

Especially since other solar system bodies' gravitational fields will affect it differently if it weighs double what we thought.

Not much. Sure, it might make a difference to the effect of a very-close-pass to a similar-scale object, but compared to the main objects of interest that effect its orbit -- like the Earth and the Sun -- its mass is so small as to be pretty much irrelevant for most purposes in terms of figuring its trajectory.

Well, obviously... by mschaffer · 2013-01-09 14:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, obviously the asteroid had passed through the trans-fat and high-fructose corn syrup nebulae between photos.

different mirror by mschaffer · 2013-01-09 15:01 · Score: 4, Funny

No, it just means that the astronomers are using the telescope that doesn't have the mirror with the words "objects are closer than they appear" on it.

Re:different mirror by girlintraining · 2013-01-09 15:56 · Score: 3, Funny

No, it just means that the astronomers are using the telescope that doesn't have the mirror with the words "objects are closer than they appear" on it.
Isn't the whole point of a telescope to make exactly that happen? Maybe they're just holding it backwards.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:different mirror by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-10 05:04 · Score: 2

Cut her some slack, she's still in training.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

asteroid end of world movies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:08 · Score: 0

Sounds like they will be making a come back soon.

Is that an Asteroid Apophis by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:33 · Score: 0

Is that an Asteroid Apophis in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?

So... by Type44Q · 2013-01-09 15:37 · Score: 1

...those pills do work!

Meanwhile... by DMJC · 2013-01-09 15:55 · Score: 1

What's actually being done to prepare against an asteroid strike? Or are our government stooges just planning to throw every nuke we have at this thing?

Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:14 · Score: 0

Yeah but they already know that won't work, so they're fleecing the country and digging in somewhere to try and ride it out
Re:Meanwhile... by Westwood0720 · 2013-01-10 02:19 · Score: 1

What's actually being done to prepare against an asteroid strike? Or are our government stooges just planning to throw every nuke we have at this thing?
By the time this thing comes around and has a chance to hit, I'm probably going to be thankful this is going to happen with where the U.S. is heading.

Good point - take a read... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:03 · Score: 0

That's a GREAT question - I am a "mph" kind-of-guy, & haven't performed the conversion from kph->mph, but I take it we just don't have the speed...

* :(

( ***SHIT!!!*** )

APK

P.S.=> We don't have anything that fast I take it, so... What about projecting it's course & setting up a 'barrier' of sorts? It would run into that & we "detonate" to DUST it, literally (atomize the bastard - I am SURE we have enough nukes to do it)...

Yes - I think it'd be a way, Way, WAY SMARTER use of nuke weapons than blowing one another up (or even having the stupid things sitting around 'idle' doing nothing but sucking up taxpayer monies to maintain them)!

Yes, "$ talks" & all that, but WHAT GOOD IS MONEY IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PLANET or LIFE TO SPEND IT ON?

I just can't *believe* they're not pursuing these things to be honest... this thing is LITERALLY potentially "A Planet Killer" (catch my bolds? LOL!)...

... apk

Re:Good point - take a read... apk by digitig · 2013-01-09 22:33 · Score: 1

I am a "mph" kind-of-guy, & haven't performed the conversion from kph->mph
Let me Google that for you.

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:Good point - take a read... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 01:06 · Score: 0

hi i see you have discovered the caps lock key and figured out those fancy Age Tee Emm Ell harddisks. good boy. save our planet please, you sound like the right guy for the job.
Re:Good point - take a read... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 03:15 · Score: 0

You're just a troll, plain & simple. How's that?
Re:Good point - take a read... apk by gtall · 2013-01-10 05:02 · Score: 1

I don't think you understand how explosions actually do their damage. An explosion in which the force is directed can be very powerful. A nuke in space is not a directed explosion, the energy flies out in all directions, most of them failing to be aimed at the asteroid. Also, notice that after the WWII nukes, there were buildings left standing. Admittedly, the ones we have now are bigger, but they don't atomize stuff very well. An a rock that big isn't going to be atomized very easily. Just to make it more complicated, we do not know the rock's composition. That greatly effects what a nuke will do to it.
Given what we do not know, it would be a real pisser if we hit it and caused it to impact the Earth.

IT's all NBC's fault and now comcast that messed u by Joe_Dragon · 2013-01-09 16:09 · Score: 1

IT's all NBC's fault and now comcast that messed up G4 owns them.

They got rid of there good thing they had on fridays and moved the show to mon going head to head with MNF and other big shows.

Thanks for the informative answer... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:25 · Score: 0

I wasn't 'thinking that the true concussion POWER of a nuke is the compression of the atmosphere itself - you're right as rain on that now that you mentioned it...

DAMN!

Yes - these stones in space have us at a massive disadvantage then... we're essentially helpless it seems. I don't *LIKE* that, lol!

* Shit like this? Makes me feel helpless, & yes, scared... when you have NO CONTROL over things, it can be like that (for me @ least).

APK

P.S.=> There's gotta be a way - there are a lot of folks smarter than I am in this area (or just plain smarter overall period)...

I am just HONESTLY SURPRISED more monies don't go into things like preventing disasters like this one vs. having wars for example... this could be a REAL POTENTIAL MORE THAN JUST THREAT in the future is why I state all that! Has me worried is all - perhaps not so much for myself, but for the future of the human race.

Yes, we can be PRETTY FUCKED UP, perhaps more than we actually do "good things", but we're not worth throwing away...

See - I think/feel, honestly, that we're on the verge of GREAT THINGS and NOT TOO FAR OFF (like in the next 50-100 yrs.), & to have gone from caves to what we have now (and more in the future), only to be BLOWN AWAY by some DUMB ROCK in space, pisses me off... what a waste!

Sorry for the "RaGiNg-RaNt" here, but it's what it makes me feel like is all, & why

... apk

Re:Thanks for the informative answer... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:06 · Score: 0

maybe we should just block it in our HOSTS file.

Apophis foretold by Billy Meier by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:28 · Score: 0

While it's trendy to post glib comments about Apophis impacting the Earth, this possibility (which actually is a certainty, unless our scientists come together and cooperate in deflecting it, was first warned about by none other than Billy Meier in 1981. And of course the "revised" size estimate is within a few km of what Meier was told by the Plejaren extraterrestrials, a fact that has the skeptics absolutely incensed.

You read the (illustrated) information here:

http://theadventuresofbillymeier.com/ABM_1.html ...in six languages, for those who may just be interested in what's coming our way.

Re:Apophis foretold by Billy Meier by Sperbels · 2013-01-09 17:21 · Score: 2

And you can see it debunked here: http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_049.php

He made a vague prediction about a "red meteor" in 1981...mentioned no dates or size. Then in 2008 he spoke of it again, this time specifying dates and size.
Re:Apophis foretold by Billy Meier by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:38 · Score: 0

The revised size of 300m is within a few km of his prediction?
Re:Apophis foretold by Billy Meier by able1234au · 2013-01-09 19:01 · Score: 2

If it is within a few kilometres (=1000m) then he had a lot of wriggle room.

Anybody noticing a trend here? by mark-t · 2013-01-09 17:00 · Score: 1

First people get fatter

Then the kilogram gains weight.

Now Apophis is bigger too.

Any speculations on what's next?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Anybody noticing a trend here? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 19:50 · Score: 0

Your Mom!
Re:Anybody noticing a trend here? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 02:09 · Score: 0

Perhaps this is the first macro-level observable effect of the expansion of the universe?

Mayans by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:23 · Score: 0

Damn Mayans apparently did the math wrong and were off by a few years....

Re:Mayans by ArcadeMan · 2013-01-10 05:13 · Score: 1

The Mayans were right, it's our current calendar that got messed up by the catholic church. We're not really in 2013.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Fucking Ghoulds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 17:56 · Score: 0

Get off my godamn lawn. I'm fucking tired of this shit.

bigger hamburgers? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 18:02 · Score: 0

BIG MACS GOT BIGGER!!!!!

Well the name fits. by CurunirAran · 2013-01-09 20:05 · Score: 1

Apophis was a large evil Egyptian snake demon that opposed order, and wanted to eat the sun.

Not to state the obvious by Grayhand · 2013-01-09 20:15 · Score: 1

If the math is based on the old estimate then the projections for the future flybys will need to be revised. I don't know if they'll be closer or further away but massive is a major factor in how the asteroid will react to close passes with the Earth. 20% is a lot and the path will need revising. It's not a planet killer but it would make a mess of our current civilization depending on the type of impact.

Re:Not to state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 02:21 · Score: 0

If the math is based on the old estimate then the projections for the future flybys will need to be revised. I don't know if they'll be closer or further away but massive is a major factor in how the asteroid will react to close passes with the Earth. 20% is a lot and the path will need revising. It's not a planet killer but it would make a mess of our current civilization depending on the type of impact.
Actually the mass of Apophis is irreverent to it's orbit. One of the quirks of classical mechanics is that the acceleration applied to an object when it interacts gravitationaly with another object is affected only by distance and the mass of the other object.
Since we know its orbit and the mass of Earth, we can calculate the effect its encounter with Earth will have on it's orbit. We only need to know it's mass if we want to attempt a capture or predict what effects Apophis will have on Earth (but given the mass difference short of an actual collision the effects on Earth will be negligible).

Pfft by kiddygrinder · 2013-01-09 20:36 · Score: 4, Funny

You asteroid alarmists are getting ridiculous, there isn't a scientific consensus that asteroids even exist, let alone that they are caused by humans

--
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.

Re:Pfft by aPoorBoy · 2013-01-09 21:03 · Score: 1

Asteroids are a natural phenomenon of the sun-cycles and Bildelberg Club.

It didn't magically get bigger by Neil+Boekend · 2013-01-09 22:48 · Score: 1

It was already that big. The only thing that happened was that it was measured better and turned out to be bigger than we previously thought.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Manly asteroid enhancement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 23:56 · Score: 0

Give the galaxy what they want, with our special guaranteed treatment, you'll get over 100km (that's a lot of inches).
Keep them happy. Ya know!. Call now.

Wrong point of view by gmuslera · 2013-01-10 00:44 · Score: 1

Is not bigger, the rest of the universe got smaller.

So now it will be 35,999.945 km away? eeek! by fantomas · 2013-01-10 00:53 · Score: 1

So now the asteroid is estimated to be 325m not 270m across, it will be coming EVEN CLOSER at 35,999.945 km away? Eeek! run for the hills! we're dooomed Mr. Mainwaring!

Believe-you-me: IF it could be done... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 02:08 · Score: 0

I'd either be @ the forefront of it, or have done it already!

* :)

(I don't understand how or WHY folks would joke or troll on this subject of A Planet Killer (note the bolds?) asteroid like this, but... there you are!)

TO myself? Joking about stuff like this indicates fear (if not ignorance), & trolling ME on it? Even moreso...

After all: YOU could be out producing things of value, ala:

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

---

Instead of being a trolling immature jackass... however then, I'd be expecting TOO MUCH from a "ne'er-do-well" such as yourself!

APK

P.S.=> Why don't you just post using your "registered 'luser'" account when you troll me? Is it because I have ABSOLUTELY BLOWN YOU AWAY on the subject of custom hosts files' MANY benefits to end users on many levels, before & especially vs. competing 'solutions'??

Absolutely!

Yes - I know it, YOU KNOW IT, & anyone reading with 1/2 a brain knows it since it is THAT blatantly obvious...

... apk

Re:Believe-you-me: IF it could be done... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 04:40 · Score: 0

Anyone out there got a greasemonkey script or similar to filter apk comments (and only apk comments) out? Just to save 'scrolling time'?

So much for the exact sciences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 03:03 · Score: 0

But , actually, I really, really, really, NEVER expected the first statement on the size of some object... a "gazillion miles away"...moving at "a thousands of miles an hour"...to be exact. I expect such measurements to be estimates.
Now tie this to the story about 'NASA warp drive' , brings one to the conclusion, that if NASA is driving, you (riding in the warp drive machine), might just miss our target/destination...... "BY JUST A TINY BIT". more or less. "mas o' menos"...
A few inches, feet, yards, meters, kilometers, miles....."what's the diff?" ...

No thanks NASA, I'll stay at home.

NASA translated ... "OOPS!"

I blame by BenSchuarmer · 2013-01-10 04:27 · Score: 1

the Higgs boson

Wibbly wobbly by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 04:52 · Score: 0

timey wimey

Re: Once it's going away, how would we catch it? by vlpronj · 2013-01-10 05:19 · Score: 1

Put the bomb on the asteroid when it is close, and use a timer? Probably need something with a little longer duration than a washing machine timer, but that shouldn't be the most complicated part of the plan.

Do what I do, "ne'er-do-well"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 05:29 · Score: 0

Write it up yourself, or are you TOO WEAK to do so?

Answer = Yes. Absolutely!

LMAO... after all: I can do my own work programming as shown here in my reply to you -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42545069

(Among @ least 33++ others I've done over time online as freewares/sharewares, or even commercially sold products?)

AND?

Obviously, & since you CAN'T do the same, even with a PUNY SCRIPT vs. a full-blown program that is multithreaded & a self-contained executable??

Well, I guess that clearly makes ME, your superior in the art & science of computing then, obviously by 'derivation' & logic!

LMAO!

* :)

(Trolls - you're ALL the same: Huge fails online who aren't even GOOD @ TROLLING - Which only reflects your life OUTSIDE being online as well I strongly wager, as well...)

APK

P.S.=> "NEXT"....

... apk

It was happy to see by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 05:33 · Score: 0

Mother Earth.

Same with inner atmosphere nukes though... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 05:38 · Score: 0

For the atmospheric shockwave - the energy flies out in ALL directions too!

(Though not channeled - I am familiar with that concept, in directed energy of explosives, which is MUCH like you can do with a tunafish can or catfood can, & a wireless connection antenna to focus & concentrate signal in a particular direction, actually strengthening & concentrating it, more-or-less...).

I also know they don't "detonate" it at the ground, but rather, an airburst above the ground target - which maximizes the shockwave I noted above & radiation poisoning does the rest above & beyond that.

* I wrote that last last night & admittedly wasn't "thinking" as well as I should have & said that, but the person I replied to "refreshed me" & set me straight on it, regarding outerspace based nukings -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42542471

(In any event - you must have missed that!)

Ah, well... It STILL absolutely TRULY "boggles my mind" that we aren't pursuing these killer asteroids more (as they are a REAL & present + future huge potential danger!)

APK

P.S.=> Anyhow/anyways - there ya go!

... apk

"Great minds think alike"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 05:43 · Score: 0

However - waiting on 'naysayers' -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42542319

* :)

(There's GOT to be a way... & there ARE smarter more informed on this particular subject than I am folks out there!)

I go thru it in coding - this is where 'naysayers' & critics ARE TRULY USEFUL... they make you "rethink your algorithm" for conditions you did NOT anticipate!

I welcome them...

APK

P.S.=> Still - see my subject-line above... lol, we think A LOT alike ("necessity being the mother of invention", no?)...

... apk

As would I, however... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 06:27 · Score: 0

The radiation & debris would spook me, but... like in revolutions, when you're the "man with nothing to lose"? You go all out & "for broke"...

As far as WHOEVER would do it or be in charge?? Well, knowing people ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend', especially regarding the Chinese & Sun Tzu)??? I think such a threat would UNIFY all mankind... & yes, do us ALL a huge favor.

APK

P.S.=> Back on track with the risks though - like I said above: At this point? We're almost that "man with nothing to lose"... especially potentially circa 2036 (only 23++ yrs. into the future)...

... apk

Not concussion - INTENSE heat... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 06:39 · Score: 0

"The only reason to blow up the asteroid while it's heading away would be if it were coming back. But if it's coming back, blowing it up "as it goes away from us" is really just blowing it up on the way in, just further ahead of time. It's still a bad idea for exactly the same reasons, you're just executing the breakup so the shrapnel with a total mass identical to the original asteroid shotgun-blasts into the planet on the next pass rather than on this pass. If you're trying to make it not head in our direction, it's actually a lot easier to do that if you don't break it up." - by osu-neko (2604) on Thursday January 10, @04:04AM (#42543679)

Please see my p.s. here, it covers fragmentation shrapnel http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42541663

YOU GUYS HAVE IT ALL WRONG - it's NOT concussion but rather INCINERATION & atomization that I am talking about @ this point:

---

To wit:

"I imagine in your head you're picturing some kind of massive explosion that sends the mass of the asteroid flying in all directions, rather than just cracks the rock up into smaller asteroids in the same orbit. That would work, if we had something powerful enough to do that. A nuclear bomb wouldn't" - by osu-neko (2604) on Thursday January 10, @04:04AM (#42543679)

I was initially, but had a GOOD reply here on the physics (ones I knew of but overlooked posting @ around midnight & tired/not thinking well) -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42542471

I freely admitted error there, but I am used to making corrections (for users in programming or under critique by fellow coders in code reviews... hence, I "altered my algorithm" as follows):

---

1.) Create a barrier field of great width/depth in space, others noted this as well -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42547981 FILLED with H-Bombs (most powerful we have afaik, actually a use of FISSION to create a FUSION explosion of much greater power).

2.) Destroy it NOT WITH CONCUSSION, but as I noted above instead? INTENSE HEAT, ala the discussion I point to above with username tragedy, here -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42542361

(He gave the MOST intense explanation & seems rather familiar with the model of outerspace based nuclear explosions effectiveness vs. such threats... quite a good read in fact!)

---

* In any event - I am here to learn, & hopefully, perhaps even get OTHERS thinking... it's how things get solved, by the collective power of reason!

(Checks & Balances on others ideas, so they can be refined into a potential answer...)

I think HEAT from nukes just *might* do it, especially considering they are no doubt NEAR absolute zero temps & heat would "shock them" into shattering, first, & then melt or completely atomize/pulverize/disintegrate them into gas at the end... as an idea!

Am I wrong? I don't know... "hit me with your best shot", naysayers!

I am ALL for that - it's the why of WHY I posted in the first place, for thoughts & answers!

APK

P.S.=> I said in my intial replies' closing "THOUGHTS?" to all concerned... why? This is NOT an "area of expertise" of mine, freely many times admitted on my part no less... but, I am here to discuss possibles - to learn & hopefully, come up with a viable solution (look @ Einstein as a prime example... a Jewish patent clerk CHANGED THE WORLD, & in my field, I've seen excellent solutions from folks that aren't even coders, believe it or not)...

... apk

Re: Bruce Willis by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 07:10 · Score: 0

It's not just Bruce. You'd have to clone Aerosmith, too.

Can't blow up an asteroid without a kickbutt soundtrack!

Captcha: Triumph!

Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 07:26 · Score: 0

So it turns out that everything we have been told about every asteroid -- how big it is, how close it will come to us, what year we need to worry, etc. is total horse exhaust.
.

Good to know.

Or... by Immerman · 2013-01-10 07:57 · Score: 1

Little do you realize that Apophis actually has a neutronium core and a near miss would sling the Earth out of its orbit. Ironically we should be hoping for a direct hit which, while devastating, would likely punch right through the planet and disrupt the Earths orbit far less, allowing for at least the hope of long-term survival :-P

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

We already know by nauseous · 2013-01-10 09:06 · Score: 0

Usually the closer something gets the bigger it gets. Let's use some common sense.

Apophis will not hit the earth in 2036. by Chris+Burke · 2013-01-10 11:15 · Score: 1

indeed, it's not until the 2029 pass whether we'll know if it will hit the earth or not in 2036. the current probabilities are nonsense and mean nothing.

No, the current probabilities are not nonsense. They mean that, based on the currently understood orbit of Aphophis with the given error bars, it has a certain probability of passing through the "keyhole" and hitting earth on the next pass.

The belief that after 2029 we'll know if it will hit earth or not, either 0% or 100% chance, are based on the assumption that the error bars in measurement will at that time be small enough to definitively state if it will hit or not. Which is true, they will be, but is still based on exactly the same reasoning and math as probabilities calculated today.

That probability, by the way, is 0%. The other piece of news unmentioned in the headline is that in addition to new size observations, new orbital observations have decreased the error bars sufficiently that it can be said with confidence that Apophis will not pass through the keyhole and will not hit the earth in 2036.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:2036: NASA says no collision by SternisheFan · 2013-01-10 11:28 · Score: 1

"PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA scientists at the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., effectively have ruled out the possibility the asteroid Apophis will impact Earth during a close flyby in 2036. The scientists used updated information obtained by NASA-supported telescopes in 2011 and 2012, as well as new data from the time leading up to Apophis' distant Earth flyby yesterday (Jan. 9).

Discovered in 2004, the asteroid, which is the size of three-and-a-half football fields, gathered the immediate attention of space scientists and the media when initial calculations of its orbit indicated a 2.7 percent possibility of an Earth impact during a close flyby in 2029. Data discovered during a search of old astronomical images provided the additional information required to rule out the 2029 impact scenario, but a remote possibility of one in 2036 remained - until yesterday.

"With the new data provided by the Magdalena Ridge [New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology] and the Pan-STARRS [Univ. of Hawaii] optical observatories, along with very recent data provided by the Goldstone Solar System Radar, we have effectively ruled out the possibility of an Earth impact by Apophis in 2036," said Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office at JPL. "The impact odds as they stand now are less than one in a million, which makes us comfortable saying we can effectively rule out an Earth impact in 2036. Our interest in asteroid Apophis will essentially be for its scientific interest for the foreseeable future."

The April 13, 2029, flyby of asteroid Apophis will be one for the record books. On that date, Apophis will become the closest flyby of an asteroid of its size when it comes no closer than 19, 400 miles (31,300 kilometers) above Earth's surface.

"But much sooner, a closer approach by a lesser-known asteroid is going to occur in the middle of next month when a 40-meter-sized asteroid, 2012 DA14, flies safely past Earth's surface at about 17,200 miles," said Yeomans. "With new telescopes coming online, the upgrade of existing telescopes and the continued refinement of our orbital determination process, there's never a dull moment working on near-Earth objects."

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/news/asteroid20130110.html

Asteroid Apophis Trajectory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-11 07:07 · Score: 0

Can we steer it to impact Washington?

Slashdot Mirror

Asteroid Apophis Just Got Bigger

182 comments