NASA Says Asteroid Will Buzz Earth Closer Than Many Satellites

Call Bruce Willis by starworks5 · 2013-01-30 20:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Chuck norris was too busy saving us from north korea, to also blow up the asteroid heading for earth.

Re:Call Bruce Willis by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 21:41 · Score: 1

Chuck Norris doesn't believe in asteroids, because they are not consistent with young earth creationism. His one weakness!

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Call Bruce Willis by gruntkowski · 2013-01-30 22:09 · Score: 0

Blowing up the asteroid is not necessary. Just let Chuck Norris do pushups: he does not bend his arms but pushes down the earth. Of course the crucial factors here are the pushup geographical coordinates.
Still my favorite CN fact...
Re:Call Bruce Willis by jdfox · 2013-01-30 23:25 · Score: 1

> NASA says an asteroid about half the size of a football field will blow past Earth on Feb 15...
That's no asteroid: Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked half the football field from Falcons Stadium into heliocentric orbit, after they beat the Seahawks in the playoffs.
Re:Call Bruce Willis by rgbatduke · 2013-01-31 03:13 · Score: 1

Not blow up. Deliver a roundhouse kick and shatter it. See long problem 5 here:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1_review.php
I wouldn't be surprised if the asteroid is going to miss Earth because, you know, word gets around. Don't mess with Earth. Chuck Norris is waiting.
rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Re:Call Bruce Willis by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-31 03:21 · Score: 1

Chuck Norris' Earth IS only 7000 years old - there is no weakness.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Call Bruce Willis by JazzLad · 2013-01-31 04:39 · Score: 1

Holy nested tables, Batman!

--
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Re:Call Bruce Willis by bored_engineer · 2013-01-31 07:54 · Score: 1

5773 years, and a little change.
Re:Call Bruce Willis by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 09:28 · Score: 0

Then Chuck Norris lives in a parallel universe.

No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

"... has no chance of striking Earth"

Famous last words.

Re:No chance of striking Earth by beelsebob · 2013-01-30 21:49 · Score: 2

No, they won't be famous at all if they're last.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:05 · Score: 0

Usually the last words isn't repeated by the dead person, but the observers. So it's valid.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:20 · Score: 0

No, if this bitch hits earth, there will be NOT observers.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:39 · Score: 1

NASA's page about this asteroid lists impact energy of 2.5MT - about same level as thermonuclear bombs (and 20 times less than Tsar Bomb).
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 23:22 · Score: 0

have never seen an object so big come so close to our planet
It has no change in hitting the Earth, although size does seem to matter for some planets.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Catmeat · 2013-01-30 23:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

"... has no chance of striking Earth"
Famous last words.
Because the laws of dramatic irony obviously trump the laws of physics.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by CSMoran · 2013-01-31 01:16 · Score: 2

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

--
Every end has half a stick.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by NotQuiteReal · 2013-01-31 02:23 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course, if there were an impact, and it was in the territory of the former Soviet Union, the asteroid STILL would not be said to have struck the Earth, so much as the Earth striking the asteroid.

I'm just saying.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Plekto · 2013-01-31 03:04 · Score: 2

The interesting thing is that even if it was going to hit the Earth, they would still be telling us the exact same thing most likely due to how our Governments view the need to "protect" us for our own good.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by mark_reh · 2013-01-31 03:20 · Score: 1

If you consider the panic and chaos that would ensue from an announcement of an extinction level event, yeah, it is probably better for them to say nothing or lie about it. Seriously, what would people do if there were a credible statement that the world would end on Feb 15th? A lot of people would take it as a license to do anything they please to anyone they choose.
I would prefer to live out my last days peacefully, oblivious of impending doom.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2013-01-31 03:33 · Score: 1

+1 for creativity.
-1 for having to work so hard to set it up.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Sperbels · 2013-01-31 03:42 · Score: 1

In this instance, I don't think so. The object is too small to create anything but very localized damage. And if it were a danger to earth, there wouldn't be any way to hide it from people. The governments can hide the truth all they want....lots of other people track asteroids and are happy to gab.
Re: No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 04:20 · Score: 0

what about the chance of gravity causing notable changes?
Assuming that the asteroid won't impact Earth's orbit, won't the Earth's gravity impact the asteroid's trajectory? is this our last chance to encounter it? would it be worthwhile to consider putting any technology onto it (given that the cost of putting it in orbit would likely be less than the cost of gaining the momentum that the asteroid already has)
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Chris+Burke · 2013-01-31 04:52 · Score: 1

Given the extremely low odds of them being wrong and the asteroid hitting the earth in the first place, the odds of it killing the person who uttered those words are astronomically low.
Of course if this was a movie, then that means it'd be a sure bet. I guess this will be a good test of whether the universe obeys the laws of dramatic irony.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 08:58 · Score: 0

Is you analysis a valid form of saying: "In Soviet Russia, Earth strikes YOU"?
Re: No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 10:48 · Score: 0

Current trajectories give that the Earth will change its orbit into a shorter, closer orbit to the Sun. It will have another close approach to Earth in 2046, but that will be ten times further away than this approach.
Slowing the asteroid down into orbit equal to its closest approach would require removing about 4e15 J of energy. Lifting that much mass from Earth and accelerating it to orbit speed at low earth orbit also works out to about 4e15 J. Getting that much mass from Earth to the same distance as the asteroid's closest approach and appropriate orbital velocity approach works out to about 7e15 J. It isn't much of a gain for "any" orbit and a slight gain compared to something near geosynchronous orbit. You could probably make a better gain by just sending up less mass by sending up exactly what you need instead of a big hunk of a specific composition.
Re:No chance of striking Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 02:15 · Score: 0

Indeed it is.

And the best vantage point.. by SwampChicken · 2013-01-30 20:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

..to view such a spectacle would be?

Re:And the best vantage point.. by michelcolman · 2013-01-30 20:37 · Score: 5, Funny

On the actual asteroid.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-01-30 20:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Television or the internet. They'll have great footage made by professional astronomers, along with commentaries from said astronomers. As opposed to you sitting in your garden with a pair of binos, seeing nothing at all and freezing your balls off while your wife screams at you because you're late for dinner.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:59 · Score: 0

The ISS
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 21:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Ehh... I have battery power heated thermal socks I will put over my balls. They will be fine. As for the wife, if she isn't passed out drunk, she will never get her fat ass off the couch long enough to make dinner.
Unfortunately, my binoculars are broken because the neighbor thought I was looking through the window when his wife was getting out of the shower. Of course I wasn't, I was watching the TV in their bedroom in an attempt to get away from my wife.
But hey, I'm still interested in standing in the garden looking at nothing if you want to tell me which direction I should stare at.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by djupdal · 2013-01-30 21:41 · Score: 1

No, it makes me sad that this got +5 insightful.
By all means, see the TV footage /after/ the event, to make sure you learn something. But I don't want to miss actually looking up at the sky.
There is a huge difference to the feeling of actually experiencing something real, versus looking at it at TV.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 21:43 · Score: 0

Up and to the right.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 22:12 · Score: 1

If you've got the equipment, have a look in person, but then if you have the equipment you probably already know that. It'd be a stretch for a novice with binoculars, and naked eye is right out.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:And the best vantage point.. by djupdal · 2013-01-30 22:31 · Score: 1

True, this will require an effort to spot and requires binoculars or telescope.
I just reacted to the idea that a little bit of effort and freezing should result in staying in front of your TV instead.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by plaukas+pyragely · 2013-01-31 01:08 · Score: 2

while your mom screams at you because you're late for dinner
Fixed that for you.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-01-31 04:03 · Score: 2

I just reacted to the idea that a little bit of effort and freezing should result in staying in front of your TV instead.
Buy your pre-manufactured food, watch the TV, pay your taxes. Anything else is DSM-IV coded behavior.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 04:46 · Score: 0

It sounds like you have been in a situation like this before.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Gilmoure · 2013-01-31 04:56 · Score: 2

He married his mom?

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Chris+Burke · 2013-01-31 05:04 · Score: 1

The neo.jpl.nasa.gov link in the summary says that it will reach a magnitude below 7. So, outside of visible for most people (and especially most locations), but it shouldn't be hard to pick up with binoculars if you can just get it in your field of view. Hopefully there will be some guides to locating it, what constellations it will be going through, etc.
Tracking it with an amateur telescope is probably not going to work too well since it will be moving too quickly. Some amateurs I'm sure will get good views; there are people who photograph the ISS for example which requires even faster tracking than this asteroid will.
I know I'm not going to bother with my scope. But I might try to find it in my bins.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:And the best vantage point.. by cellocgw · 2013-01-31 05:57 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's nice to see things in reality-space, but consider: There was a solar eclipse recently which was not visible from the Eastern USA. I pulled up realtime displays from Hawaii (where they had several filtered cameras showing near UV, Near IR, etc) , Iceland, and other spots. One of the things I found spectacular was the difference in percent occlusion between telescopes at widely separated locations. Try doing *that* in your back yard :-).

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 12:46 · Score: 0

Are you sure that's a broom handle?
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Nothing2Chere · 2013-01-31 13:36 · Score: 1

As for the wife, if she isn't passed out drunk, she will never get her fat ass off the couch long enough to make dinner.
You say that like having the wife passed out on the couch is a bad thing...I'm just sayin'.

n2ch
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Rynd · 2013-01-31 17:16 · Score: 1

This is the best that I have found.
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Chris+Burke · 2013-02-01 04:43 · Score: 1

Thanks! That looks perfect.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:And the best vantage point.. by Chris+Burke · 2013-02-01 04:48 · Score: 1

... except for the part where it reveals that the closest approach will be in the middle of the day in my time zone. T_T
I guess I can *try* to see it when it's farther away (and has less apparent motion so I should still be able to use that chart to find it) but it's going to be tough without going to a dark sky sight...

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Yeah, about that... by waddgodd · 2013-01-30 20:08 · Score: 1

Isn't this the asteroid that they found they were off by an order of magnitude on the size of a month or so back? Yeah, I wonder if they used the old mass or the corrected mass when they estimated the ballistic trajectory, because, you know, that might make a bit of a difference in just how far it'll miss by...

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:22 · Score: 0

No it won't. The body is too small to influence the earth or the moon, and the acceleration on a body does not depend on its mass. Remember the thing about a feather and a bowling ball falling at the same speed in a vacuum?
Re:Yeah, about that... by michelcolman · 2013-01-30 20:36 · Score: 1

Isn't this the asteroid that they found they were off by an order of magnitude on the size of a month or so back?
I love the way you constructed that sentence. I think you're stretching the limits of the English language a bit, but it does appear to be grammatically correct :-)
Then again, it's not my native language so maybe that sentence sounds perfectly normal to native speakers.
Re:Yeah, about that... by pv2b · 2013-01-30 20:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Why would a change in mass change the trajectory? Granted, it was a while since I took physics, but from what I remember:
1. The force of gravity follows F = GMm / (r^2) where M and m are the masses of the two objects in consideration. Here I will use m as the mass of the asteroid and M as the mass of any other object that is not the asteroid.
2. F = ma.
3. From this follows that a = (GMm / (r^2)) / m = GM / (r^2). As we can see, m (the mass of the asteroid)
This means means that the accelleration of an object due to gravity is only affected directly by the other object's mass, not by the object's own mass. However, a more massive object *could* attract other objects with a higher accelleration than expected, thus reducing r, thus over time increasing the accelleration, changing the tracjectory of not only the asteroid but also the other object.
Consider for a moment, however, how insignificant such an effect would be:
First imagine an asteroid the size of a football field. Then imagine the moon. Then imagine the earth. Then imagine the sun. Now imagine the mass of an asteroid even moving the moon more than an imperceptible amount due to gravity, let alone the sun.
Re:Yeah, about that... by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 20:41 · Score: 1

Remember the thing about a feather and a bowling ball falling at the same speed in a vacuum?
I am pretty sure that there were no bowling balls on Apollo 15.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Yeah, about that... by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 20:45 · Score: 1

If the object fragments in the Earth's gravitational field then the resulting objects will definitely have different trajectories. Some parts of the asteroid could finish up in earth orbit.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Yeah, about that... by pv2b · 2013-01-30 20:50 · Score: 1

Is there any evidence that it might? More specifically, does the change in the estimate of the mass of the object suggest this?
Re:Yeah, about that... by waddgodd · 2013-01-30 20:50 · Score: 1

Had we been talking about what the acceleration was, you'd be absolutely right. The problem is CPA is a DISTANCE, properly determined by a solution of the Law of Universal Gravitation, f=Gm1m2/d^2, and some integration to determine the relative minima and maxima of f, and when d < r (earth), we have BIG problems.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:58 · Score: 0

One of the strengths of English is that you can mangle the hell out of it and usually still be understood. Many (most?) other languages aren't as forgiving.
Re:Yeah, about that... by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 20:58 · Score: 1

It could be like Comet_Shoemaker Levy 9 but on a smaller scale. I think the risk is quite small and I don't think any change in the estimated mass is relevant.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:59 · Score: 0

wat
Re:Yeah, about that... by They'reComingToTakeM · 2013-01-30 21:13 · Score: 2

Correct, they used a hammer.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 21:18 · Score: 0

I'm fluent in Polish (my native language) and it also has an incredibly flexible syntax, possibly more so than English. In fact, word ordering is one of the ways to control emphasis in Polish.
Re:Yeah, about that... by waddgodd · 2013-01-30 21:22 · Score: 1

It's not so much of a change in mass, it's a complete screwup in how they figured it, as in they found that pretty much everything they'd assumed about it to that point was wrong, including but not limited to actual distance and mass.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Re:Yeah, about that... by rts008 · 2013-01-30 21:48 · Score: 1

Then again, it's not my native language so maybe that sentence sounds perfectly normal to native speakers.

Hmmm....let me say it this way:
If waddgodd's sentence were a rubber band, I would not perform that level of stretching near my person. The impact when it snapped would be painful.
It is missing proper punctuation, in my opinion, and could be improved with a lot of editing.
Word choice in that sentence was spectacularly terrible.
Trust me, that sentence would have any English teacher in the USA upset.
But, I find myself intrigued by that sentence.
I find myself perplexed when trying to describe all that is wrong with it, yet I feel that I know it is not grammatically correct.
I found myself re-reading that same sentence several times before I could understand what the poster meant. :-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:01 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm fluent in Polish (my native language) and it also has an incredibly flexible syntax, possibly more so than English. In fact, word ordering is one of the ways to control emphasis in Polish.
We know. Thats how we got Polish notation.
Re:Yeah, about that... by rts008 · 2013-01-30 22:15 · Score: 1

is only affected directly by the other object's mass, not by the object's own mass.

I am by no means any type of astrophysicist, but my understanding of gravity (in this context) was that a mutual attraction usually happens.
Maybe that would account for the change in trajectory?
Or am I misinterpreting something here?
I agree that will not change things significantly, but only on a measurable or calculable scale. :-)
BTW, I am not singling you out here, but what volume is a football field (or half of a football field in TFS), or even better, what mass?
I realise you were just going with the flow here, and we all understand that an asteroid the size of half a football field translates (I hope!) into an asteroid approx. 50 yards/meters in diameter. :-)
My rant is with the summary and article, so I apologize.
I was astounded that equating an area measurement with a volume measurement was used, then even more amazed that it passed unchallenged by this crowd.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Yeah, about that... by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 22:48 · Score: 3, Informative

The trouble is that what happened to Shoemaker Levy 9 doesn't scale down: it was ripped apart by the tidal forces of a gas giant, and those forces don't exist for a similar size of body interacting with Earth.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Yeah, about that... by Smauler · 2013-01-31 00:43 · Score: 1

It makes anyone who speaks the language cringe because it's difficult to understand, not because it's grammatically incorrect. There are masses of ugly grammatically correct sentences. One of the charms of English is being able to call them out as ugly.
If you try, you can easily make grammatically correct sentences that no one will understand. This is a well known example.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:31 · Score: 0

is only affected directly by the other object's mass, not by the object's own mass.
I am by no means any type of astrophysicist, but my understanding of gravity (in this context) was that a mutual attraction usually happens. Maybe that would account for the change in trajectory?
The trajectory of a body with mass m2 is defined by the net acceleration acting on it. In the case of orbits (a special case of free-falling) the acceleration is due to gravity. Acceleration is force/mass (a=F/m2). The force (mutual gravitational attraction) is proportional to m1*m2, but that m2 is cancelled by the /m2 in the acceleration equation, so the acceleration is dependent on m1 and not on m2.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:39 · Score: 0

Yep. It's so simple and flexible that even American can use it.
Re:Yeah, about that... by 1u3hr · 2013-01-31 02:47 · Score: 1

I wonder if they used the old mass or the corrected mass when they estimated the ballistic trajectory, because, you know, that might make a bit of a difference in just how far it'll miss by...
No, it wouldn't. As Galileo demonstrated for centuries ago.

In Two New Sciences (1634) Galileo discusses the mathematics (first to apply mathematics for physics analysis) of a simple type of motion what we call today uniform acceleration or constant acceleration. Then he proposes that heavy bodies actually fall in just that way and that if it was possible to create a vacuum, any two falling bodies would travel the same distance in the same time. On the basis of this proposal, he predicts about balls rolling down an inclined plane, Finally, he describes some inclined plane experiments corroborating his theory.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-01-31 02:49 · Score: 2

I am a native speaker of English, and I do find the the way that sentence was constructed to be somewhat unusual, and not entirely consistent with English grammar.
It does raise a couple of interesting questions: what, exactly, is the "size of a month"? And are months on near Earth asteroids so greatly different in size than other months?

--
Will
Re:Yeah, about that... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-01-31 03:02 · Score: 1

That link has me buffaloed.
But I think a better example of perfectly fine English that is too slippery to understand comes from Bilbo Baggins' Party speech:
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you, half as well as you deserve.

--
Will
Re:Yeah, about that... by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-31 03:51 · Score: 1

Trust me, that sentence would have any English teacher in the USA upset.
This entire website, 'editors' and all, would have any self respecting English teacher gibbering in corner wondering what went so horribly wrong.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Yeah, about that... by Immerman · 2013-01-31 04:55 · Score: 1

You are correct when considering the trajectories of bodies with similar masses, but when considering masses with more than a few orders of magnitude difference you can generally neglect any deflection of the larger body. And the asteroid asteroid is far to small to noticeably perturb the orbits of the Earth or Moon, even if it were composed of degenerate matter.
Mass of Moon =~ 1/81 Earth - we can see the deflection of Earth's orbit, but the barycenter they mutually orbit is still deep within the Earth
Combined mass of the entire asteroid belt (estimated): 1/25 of the Moon
Mass of 50m sphere of neutron-star surface matter (estimated density ~1,000,000,000 kg/m^3) ~= 1/584,000,000 of the Moon

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Gilmoure · 2013-01-31 04:59 · Score: 1

Except we got it backwards.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Yeah, about that... by Gilmoure · 2013-01-31 05:09 · Score: 1

Funny, I skimmed the sentence and parsed it correctly. It was only until I read the comments on it that I went and actually read through it that I appreciated it's unconventionality.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 06:55 · Score: 0

Doesn't really matter if it fragments or not in this case. The center of mass would still move along the same trajectory, and the impact of any tidal forces could be calculated without the mass.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 06:57 · Score: 0

They don't care what the actual force is, it is a useless intermediate quantity in such calculations, as all you care about is the position, which comes from integrating its various derivatives such as acceleration. The mass of the asteroid divides out and doesn't change the result for gravitational calculations. They don't care how big or small F is, and they definitely don't use that via the gravitation equation to get the closest distance... they just integrate the acceleration as given by the same law without the mass and that gives its position over time, then check if the position goes through Earth or not.
Now, if they were going to estimate the effects of thermal radiation and light on its trajectory, then they would need the mass as those calculations would give a force where it doesn't divide out.
Re:Yeah, about that... by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-31 08:05 · Score: 1

I looked it up. This object will come just inside the Roche limit for fluid objects, but about twice the roche limit for solid objects. So a breakup is unlikely.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 15:45 · Score: 0

The introduction of a discrepancy in mass is not really about the trajectory, so much as it is about the consequences. Rather than considering the trajectory, consider the kinetic energy of the object (and subsequent impact) if they got the mass wrong.
Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 17:17 · Score: 0

>>I find myself perplexed when trying to describe all that is wrong with it, yet I feel that I know it is not grammatically correct.
He ended a clause with a preposition. (of) Commonly used and understood, but not strictly correct.

Football field unit. by _GNU_ · 2013-01-30 20:08 · Score: 2

Is this unit measured in 2D?

Re:Football field unit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:13 · Score: 0

Clearly it's a very thin asteroid.
Re:Football field unit. by muon-catalyzed · 2013-01-30 20:23 · Score: 1

An American football field? We are safe! A proper Euro pitch? Doomed!
Re:Football field unit. by Pieroxy · 2013-01-30 20:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

A soccer field doesn't have any size defined. It's just "between 90 and 120m" long and "between 45 and 90m" wide. So btw the smallest and biggest field, there is almost a factor of 2.7 in area. That's a bit of a margin!

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Football field unit. by _GNU_ · 2013-01-30 20:38 · Score: 1

Still no height defined, so it would have no volume or mass.
We are quite safe.
Re:Football field unit. by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 20:42 · Score: 1

Worse: its Aussie rules.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Football field unit. by michelcolman · 2013-01-30 20:44 · Score: 1

The article goes on to say it's 50 meters wide. If it was an American football field, they would have used fathoms and/or chains.
Re:Football field unit. by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 20:46 · Score: 1

Maybe its that two dimensional prison thing from the original superman movies. Could be a whole lot of bad guys inside having a Bad Time,

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Football field unit. by DarwinSurvivor · 2013-01-30 20:55 · Score: 1

Nope, it's a Canadian football field, so you're doomed like a moose in a canoe.
Re:Football field unit. by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-01-30 20:58 · Score: 1

The journalists are to be commended for coming up with a analogy that appropriately captures the uncertainty
Nasa says

Diameter - This is an estimate based on the absolute magnitude, usually assuming a uniform spherical body with visual albedo pV = 0.154 (in accordance with the Palermo Scale) but sometimes using actual measured values if these are available. Since the albedo is rarely measured, the diameter estimate should be considered only approximate, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two.
Re:Football field unit. by Pieroxy · 2013-01-30 20:58 · Score: 1

Still no height defined, so it would have no volume or mass.
We are quite safe.
"Still no height defined" implies "no volume of mass defined", it does not imply "no volume or mass".

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Football field unit. by waddgodd · 2013-01-30 21:18 · Score: 1

aussie rules football is oxymoronic ;P

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Re:Football field unit. by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 21:20 · Score: 1

Can't argue with you there.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Football field unit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 21:37 · Score: 0

Are you trying to imply that the game doesnt have rules?
Re:Football field unit. by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 21:44 · Score: 1

So, its diameter is the same as the smallest dimension of an American football field, i.e. it would fit inside one if it was spherical.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Football field unit. by rts008 · 2013-01-30 22:22 · Score: 1

Gah!
It's hogsheads per fathom, or if yer a landlubber, hogsheads per hectare!
And on a serious note, no matter the thickness of a football field, the USA football field will out-mass the football field of anyone else due to the players! ;-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Football field unit. by rts008 · 2013-01-30 22:26 · Score: 1

...so you're doomed like a moose in a canoe.

It could be worse. You could be a moose in a conoe going over/through the Bear Whizz Waterfall, after having bit my sister.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Football field unit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:40 · Score: 0

They're not too sure, but FTA "Although its size is not well determined, this near-Earth asteroid is thought to be about 45 meters in diameter."
Big enough to make a mess of any man-made satellite...
Re:Football field unit. by sumdumass · 2013-01-30 22:47 · Score: 1

The chains are only used to measure first down.
Re:Football field unit. by OolimPhon · 2013-01-30 22:58 · Score: 2

Assume a spherical football field...
Re:Football field unit. by Rogerborg · 2013-01-30 23:54 · Score: 1

Assume a spherical football field...
Hurrah, it's already in a vaccum!

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Football field unit. by CheeseTroll · 2013-01-31 00:58 · Score: 2

But paper beats rock, so we are still doomed. Launch the giant scissors!

--
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Re:Football field unit. by Captain+Hook · 2013-01-31 01:20 · Score: 1

Just don't detonate any nukes in space for a while.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Football field unit. by rwise2112 · 2013-01-31 02:07 · Score: 1

Still no height defined, so it would have no volume or mass.
We are quite safe.
Well, unless it slices the Earth in two, or something!

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Football field unit. by avandesande · 2013-01-31 02:37 · Score: 1

Thank goodness it is not a 'Library of Congress' long....

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Football field unit. by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-31 03:25 · Score: 1

Nothing beats rock - it flies right through paper.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Football field unit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 03:45 · Score: 0

Better yet, send Spock -- with a lizard.
Re:Football field unit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:16 · Score: 0

aussie football + rules = oxymoronic

You do the math.
Re:Football field unit. by Specter · 2013-01-31 05:29 · Score: 1

Well played sir!
Re:Football field unit. by DarwinSurvivor · 2013-01-31 05:33 · Score: 1

...so you're doomed like a moose in a canoe.
It could be worse. You could be a moose in a conoe going over/through the Bear Whizz Waterfall, after having bit my sister.
Yeah, rabies is a bitch!
Re:Football field unit. by Scarletdown · 2013-01-31 08:53 · Score: 1

...so you're doomed like a moose in a canoe.
It could be worse. You could be a moose in a conoe going over/through the Bear Whizz Waterfall, after having bit my sister.
We apologize for rts008. He or she has been sacked...
So then, the doom is actually more like a llama riding on a raft the size of a baseball diamond's infield after having sung the anthem of the Royal Canadian Mounted Yaksmen...

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Football field unit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 11:55 · Score: 0

And the Pedantry Society award of the year goes to...... Pieroxy! and in a surprise victory he also take the Lifetime Wooooosh Achievement award from the national coalition of comedy! [The crowd goes wild!]
Re:Football field unit. by rts008 · 2013-02-01 21:57 · Score: 1

HaHaHaHa!ROFL!
Well done Scarletdown!
I actually giggled...:-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

Re:Football field unit - Turtles all the way down by flyingfsck · 2013-01-30 20:27 · Score: 1

Yup, it is obviously a very flat asteroid. Maybe it escaped from the Terry Pratchett disc world series. Just wait till the giant turtle floats past - that will be much bigger news.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by Chrisq · 2013-01-30 20:44 · Score: 1

Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? I mean I don't know if they can calculate timing accurately enough to predict if it will yet. If it did I would imagine the display would be pretty spectacular!

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-30 20:48 · Score: 1

I could imagine it stirring up some existing orbital debris. Turning big chunks into small chunks and changing their trejectories.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by Coisiche · 2013-01-30 21:05 · Score: 2

I can't authoritatively state, but I suspect that the satellite distribution is more concentrated at the LEO end of the scale and much rarer at geo-stationary orbit distance. And I bet the asteroid pass is much higher than LEO.
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 21:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference, and it contains about 400 satellites at present. Assuming they're each 50m wide (which is probably an exaggeration) then the satellites, in total, cover 20km of that circumference. So if we were to assume that all the satellites are in the same plane, and that the asteroid was definitely going to come in through that plane, then the chances of the asteroid meeting one of those satellites is 0.008%.
A back of the envelope calculation suggests you have the same odds of spinning around in a circle with your eyes shut and successfully pointing at a person standing 3km away.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by Chrisq · 2013-01-30 22:25 · Score: 1

Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference, and it contains about 400 satellites at present. Assuming they're each 50m wide (which is probably an exaggeration) then the satellites, in total, cover 20km of that circumference. So if we were to assume that all the satellites are in the same plane, and that the asteroid was definitely going to come in through that plane, then the chances of the asteroid meeting one of those satellites is 0.008%.
A back of the envelope calculation suggests you have the same odds of spinning around in a circle with your eyes shut and successfully pointing at a person standing 3km away.
Thanks, that's a very informative way of putting it into perspective. If I owned a satellites I would not be over-worried but would probably buy some insurance!
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by rts008 · 2013-01-30 22:29 · Score: 1

TFA claimed it would not likely hit any satellites, for what that is worth....

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by RivenAleem · 2013-01-30 22:39 · Score: 1

The asteroid might even be very beneficial! I imagine that it might knock a lot of space junk out of orbit, either decaying or escaping or just being bug-splatted to the front of asteroid and carried off.
I wonder how much gravitational pull it will have on objects in its path, how will it affect* things that it doesn't physically touch.
*Need coffee, had to google whether it was affect/effect, to avoid the wrath of grammar nazis...
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-31 03:59 · Score: 1

What's an 'envelope'?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-01-31 04:18 · Score: 1

About 1/250000th of a football field.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by khallow · 2013-01-31 08:28 · Score: 1

Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference
25,000 km. Something 250,000 km would barely be in orbit around Earth (the L1 point of the Earth-Moon system bounces around 320,000 km)
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 10:31 · Score: 0

Well, there is the Moon which is in orbit beyond 250,000 km...
In principle something could orbit the Earth-Moon system, up to about a million kilometers from Earth before the Sun took over. It might not be a long term stable orbit, but still an orbit.
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by toddestan · 2013-01-31 15:43 · Score: 1

It's something that you do calculations on the back of.
Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by bingoathome · 2013-01-31 18:02 · Score: 1

Circumference
Re: Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? by Sockatume · 2013-01-31 21:52 · Score: 1

I'll level with you: it was actually a pad of post-its.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Bad news by srussia · 2013-01-30 20:45 · Score: 1

General Zod is trapped in this 2D prison and will surely escape as it nears Earth.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Article brought to you by DSI. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 20:50 · Score: 0

So this is essentially 1/4 of an article about the astroid, and 3/4 of an article advertising DSI.

Such quality!

Look on the bright side by Coisiche · 2013-01-30 20:56 · Score: 1

If there has been a miscalculation and it actually ends up on an intersect trajectory, you may find that you no longer feel dejected about not getting a Valentine's card.

Re:Look on the bright side by VortexCortex · 2013-01-30 23:54 · Score: 2

No, instead I'll finally stop feeling dejected because for over 40 years our space programs have been loosing steam, creeping along slow as molasses, when it's perfectly clear that we're still blind as bats and more defenseless than kittens when it comes to space.
That's a heartache I feel EVERY day, not just Valentine's. Candies and shit?! Are you serious? It's 100% garaunteed WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE from one of these damned rocks (if something else doesn't get us first) if we don't do something! The dinosaurs didn't have a space program; We're just like them though, waiting around fighting over petty bullshit and waiting to die. Only we're dumber. We waste mony on fucking consumerist holidays that monetize every last free joy in life, including sex.
If you'll excuse me, I've got a whole wealth of scientific progress to inscribe as pictograms on granite slabs to leave for the next poor fuckers who inherit this rock, or the alien anthropologists who'll no doubt be scratching their what'sits thinking: "Wait, Extincted by an Asteroid? And they had Rockets? For Hundreds of Years Prior? Even made it to space? Well, then fuck 'em, the bastards were too stupid to live."
Re:Look on the bright side by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-31 04:03 · Score: 1

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE from one of these damned rocks (if something else doesn't get us first) if we don't do something!
We ARE doing something. Most of us are trying to die from natural or unnatural (depending on your personal persuasions) causes BEFORE the big one strikes.
Either that or waiting for the Yellowstone Caldera to blow up. Or Global Warming. Or turnover of the Gulf Stream. The Zombies. The Republicans. Ron Paul.
Or something like that.
We're doomed.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Look on the bright side by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 07:03 · Score: 0

It's 100% garaunteed WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE from one of these damned rocks (if something else doesn't get us first) if we don't do something!

You're also 100% guaranteed to die from being a drunk clown beating you to death with frozen herrings, if something else doesn't get you first.
Re:Look on the bright side by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 16:46 · Score: 0

If the alternative histories of the world are any indicator, far more advanced civilizations than ours have fallen to the same fate.
Anyway, before we even worry about getting our space science up to snuff, we'd have to do something about the enormous problem of crazy people running our governments, banks and business.
If we can't even get that sorted out, then really, a planetary re-boot might be just what the doctor ordered.
It's coming awfully soon, too, if the various indicators are to be trusted.
Fireballs reported per year. Not the best measure, but a measure to make a thinking man stop and ponder:
2005 > 463
2006 > 517 (+54)
2007 > 588 (+71)
2008 > 726 (+138)
2009 > 694 (-32)
2010 > 951 (+257)
2011 > 1628 (+677)
2012 > 2216 (+588)
2013 > 116 by January 19
http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireballs/fireball-report/

Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by 1u3hr · 2013-01-30 21:06 · Score: 5, Informative

The Stupid Fucking Article linked doesn't even say how close the fucking asteroid will come.

Why source a story sourced from NASA to some wanker's blog in Network World"?Presuambly this asshole just submitted it himself to get more pageviews.

The actual NASA story is Record Setting Asteroid Flyby And it actually tells you that "On Feb. 15th an asteroid about half the size of a football field will fly past Earth only 17,200 miles above our planet's surface." (Sadly even NASA use the inane "football field" measure, but goes on to say "It measures some 50 meters wide".)

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Sockatume · 2013-01-30 22:00 · Score: 1

What's inane about it? I don't have a ready shorthand of things x metres across in my head to get a grasp of the scale, so they're doing me a favour. For nontechnical readers they're making it slightly more tangable than "space thing you don't understand is flying near Earth".

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by 1u3hr · 2013-01-30 23:05 · Score: 1

What's inane about it? I don't have a ready shorthand of things x metres across in my head

Well, I don't have a mental shorthand of what kind of "football field" the guy is talking about. Anyway, you could as easily say 50 yards which is an actual unit in the real world that everyone knows, even if they don't watch football.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by hairyfish · 2013-01-30 23:12 · Score: 1

Sorry, I live in the 95% of the world that doesn't use imperial units. What's a yard?
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 23:19 · Score: 0

you must be new here
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by 1u3hr · 2013-01-30 23:27 · Score: 4, Funny

1% of a Standard Football Field Length.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Rogerborg · 2013-01-30 23:43 · Score: 1

-1 Confusing. I've played football in my yard, you don't need 100 of them to make a field.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Overzeetop · 2013-01-31 00:38 · Score: 2

It's like a meter, but the white version.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 00:45 · Score: 0

How about this.
You know what a meter is.
Now times that by 50.
Profit.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 00:48 · Score: 0

A yard is 3 feet or 36 inches.
36 * 2.54 = 91.4
A yard is 91.4 cm.
math is so hard /sarcasm.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:17 · Score: 0

Mod parent up and for the love of God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever, STOP POSTING THIS GUY'S ARTICLES!!! He's been using /. to drive traffic to his own site for ad revenue for months if not years! Michael Cooney, we know what you're doing and most of us think you're a tool and a bad writer to boot! Maybe if your writing didn't suck you wouldn't have to desperately drive traffic to your crap to save your job!
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by multimediavt · 2013-01-31 01:18 · Score: 1

you must be new here
Yeah, that's why his user number is less than 1 million. It's because he's new here. Cooney? Is that you? Tool!
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by SternisheFan · 2013-01-31 01:45 · Score: 1

Sorry, I live in the 95% of the world that doesn't use imperial units. What's a yard?
It's that thing on the ground outside your front/back door.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by sacrilicious · 2013-01-31 01:54 · Score: 1

Sadly even NASA use the inane "football field" measure
... which is especially vexing to people like me who hate football. Would it kill them to use "soccer field"?

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:03 · Score: 0

Oh, a garden. Why didn't you say?
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Stalus · 2013-01-31 02:33 · Score: 1

Considering that this is a statement made by a US agency, and the primary purpose of such an article is to convince the people that are defunding them, primarily the US taxpayer, to continue to fund them, the football field unit is completely appropriate. This is particularly true because most US high schools, and some middle schools have a permanent football field near them, and even parks have football fields temporarily set up from time to time. Anyone in the US who has tried to get an education, and even those who have slept during class, are likely to have walked by football fields enough to understand what the size of them is.
It is certainly more likely that someone in the US will have a feel for the size of 1/2 a football field than 50 yard sticks or 150 ruler lengths. There are very few other standard sized objects on that scale that people have real world experience with. The reality is that most in the US that understand 50 meters will approximate that to 50 yards, and then imagine that distance compared to a football field. NASA is just doing that conversion for those that don't have a feel for meters, and for those that don't realize that a football field is 100 yards.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by RoccamOccam · 2013-01-31 02:39 · Score: 2

You know, it's that measurement that the European Football pitch is based upon: 10 yards is the radius of the centre circle, 18 yards is the specified dimension of the penalty area, etc. You're probably more used to those dimensions being called out as 9.15m and 16.5 m, respectively.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:44 · Score: 0

I don't have a mental shorthand of what kind of "football field" the guy is talking about.

My guess is neither do most people; a football field itself is pretty small, and most people probably think football stadium, which is usually considerably bigger, or at least exaggerates the size of the field.
Moral: if anyone is measuring in football fields, they're telling you they caught a fish thiiiiis big.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by X0563511 · 2013-01-31 02:47 · Score: 1

The... white version?
Where the hell do you think we (caucasians) came from?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-31 03:31 · Score: 1

Sorry, I live in the 95% of the world that doesn't use imperial units. What's a yard?
Here you go.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by jdfox · 2013-01-31 03:57 · Score: 1

>Why source a story sourced from NASA to some wanker's blog in Network World"?Presuambly this asshole just submitted it himself to get more pageviews.
Yes, coondoggie is Michael Cooney, a news editor at Network World. He spends hours every day spamming his articles to Slashdot, Hacker News, etc. Why Slashdot editors continue to reward this sort of bad behavior is beyond me: his "articles" are rarely more than a quick, semi-accurate summary of someone else's article on another site.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:51 · Score: 0

nasa's stroy isn't full of glory either. they use meter to describe the size of the asteroid (many us citizen won't be able to put this into perspective) and then they use imperial for the passing by distance (leaving the rest of the world clueless...)
Well done Nasa. Brings back memories of the mars climate orbiter ;)
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 07:09 · Score: 0

what kind of "football field" the guy is talking about.
Doesn't matter what kind, as the point of such analogies is to give you a rough idea. You could pick just about any common such sports field and be within an order of magnitude, possibly within a factor of 2 in size. In other words, bigger than a typical house, smaller than most small towns. If you want more precision, then use the numbers. They're both there, because not everyone can relate to distance measurements very well, and because not everyone can relate to sports field sizes...
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 07:10 · Score: 0

A decimeter or so shorter than a meter, not enough difference to matter when you're describing the size of something you don't know the exact size of. Most imperial to decimal conversions are pretty easy if you don't need a lot of accuracy. The meter/yard is one example, another is volume; a quart is not quite a litre. A kilometer is .6 of a mile, so if you're doing 60 mph that's 100 kph. Temperature conversion isn't that hard either, divide by three and subtract thirty two to convert to F.
Now, hectares, hogsheads, furlongs, sorry, I don't have a clue. Nobody uses those units.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by ignavus · 2013-01-31 11:46 · Score: 1

(Sadly even NASA use the inane "football field" measure, but goes on to say "It measures some 50 meters wide".)
Well, at least they told us it was a metric football field, and not one of those non-metric football fields measured in yards.

--
I am anarch of all I survey.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by macsoft · 2013-02-01 06:45 · Score: 1

Its only called "soccer" by you americans. The rest of the world calls Football to Football. only you would get some pads, some pumped steroid freaks, steal a name of another sport and call it your own..
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by macsoft · 2013-02-01 07:41 · Score: 1

Right ON!
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by hairyfish · 2013-02-04 12:50 · Score: 1

Don't live in Europe, and my version of football has none of those things you mentioned either.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by RoccamOccam · 2013-02-04 14:51 · Score: 1

I didn't say that your version of football does have those things. I said European Football. Are you not familiar with European Football?
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by hairyfish · 2013-02-04 21:55 · Score: 1

I know there is a round ball which some girly men dance around and fall over, grabbing their faces as if they've been shot, but apart from that no, not really. I certainly have no idea how big the circles are on the dancing surface.
Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog by RoccamOccam · 2013-02-05 01:36 · Score: 1

Well, now you do. You're welcome.

Call Bruce Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 21:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You do understand that Chuck Norris is not only a religofreak, but a moderate fail in martial arts, right?

Seriously, bad martial arts, bad television, insane cult beliefs...

Call Chuck Norris only if you want an example of flagrant nutbarism.

Re:Call Bruce Lee by letherial · 2013-01-30 21:44 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001569/bio
"He is a black belt in Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwan Do. In 1969, he earned the Triple Crown for the highest number of tournament wins, and was named Fighter of the Year by "Black Belt" magazine. By the time he was 34, Norris had established 32 karate schools and had been a champion for six years. In 1996, he became the first Westerner to be awarded an eighth-degree black belt in Tae Kwan Do"
I am not a big fan of this guy, and i agree these Chuck Norris jokes are very annoying, however, facts are facts and clearly you are wrong about the martial arts.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Martial Arts is a broad term, and most people (like you) only pay attention to the "Martial" part. The Style that Chuck specializes in and teaches in his schools is focused on rigid adherence to the traditional Forms, and application of mental Discipline. They are as well-suited to an open fighting situation as disciplines classified as Fighting Styles, which is why you don't see people using pure forms in competitions like the UFC... winners often have a background from a variety of styles which is why they are called "mixed martial arts" competitions.
Not to say that people like Chuck and Bruce Lee aren't pretty mean fighters, anybody with that much training is not going to be an easy mark. But I'd put almost anybody who fights in the large UFC competitions against a pure style fighter any day, especially if they aren't in a ring with time limits and rules.
Having said all that, it's important to note that Chuck, Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and other popular film fighters have to slow down most of their moves so the audience can follow the action, and what they actually do on screen are sequences and styles you wouldn't ever actually use in real life combat. Many of the "moves" they display for the camera are not actually combat moves, but rather are meditative Forms designed to build endurance, focus, and strength.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-01-31 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think I'd classify Bruce Lee in with anyone who focus(ed) on "ridged adherence to the traditional forms". If anything he's the reason we have MMA and UFC. He did everything he could to strip away what he deemed unnecessary. I don't know what Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan are doing these days, but they both learned a lot from Bruce Lee when he was alive.
Agreed regarding the moves that you typically see in movies. They are rarely something that you would see being used off screen. I know that they all have to slow down for movies. I've heard that Bruce Lee had to slow down due to the limitations of the film at the time. I'm sure it also had to do with his movies being shot on low budget equipment too. But if you ever saw any of his demonstrations you'd understand the guy was scary quick.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by dywolf · 2013-01-31 03:20 · Score: 0

If your main complaint is his religious beliefs, then the only nutjob bigot is yourself.
Don't confuse bad acting with bad martial artist. And bad acting or not, he got rich off it, so that pretty much invalidates any comments about that. He is very accomplished in martial arts, owns many dojos, and oversees several youth programs run out of his dojos, and engages in a lot philanthropy causes, again mostly related to helping "troubled youth".

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by cyberchondriac · 2013-01-31 03:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Absolutely dead-on-balls correct. Bruce Lee founded Jeet Kune Do, where the whole idea is to be fluid and able to improvise. Bruce was THE MAN. He got into street gangs in China before moving to the states, so he has some street cred; he knew what it took to fight for real.
As someone who studied Kempo many many moons ago, I wholly agree with Bruce's outlook. What I was taught was extremely rigid, canned moves that might work if you were extremely lucky enough for an attacker to come at you in precisely the manner they trained you for, but if they deviated at all, if all you had to rely on were the moves you were taught (and you couldn't improvise on your own), you'd be toast. Though I'm not sure if this reflects more on Kempo itself, or the school I attended.
Though this leads me to wonder why we have this prevalent Chuck Norris meme, but not one for Bruce Lee?

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by yahwotqa · 2013-01-31 03:46 · Score: 3, Funny

That's just because Bruce did not have the +10 Manly Beard of Manliness.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by PPalmgren · 2013-01-31 04:10 · Score: 1

Its still important to teach the pure forms, otherwise the mixed forms will never properly develop. Karate dojo:UFC is as Physics:Engineering. The former is one tool in the latter's belt. In this sense, the schools are the 'art' and the UFC is the practical application of many arts.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by Chris+Burke · 2013-01-31 04:47 · Score: 1

winners often have a background from a variety of styles which is why they are called "mixed martial arts" competitions.
Since someone else pointed out how inappropriate your observation is with regard to Bruce Lee, I'll say this:
The reason they're called "mixed martial arts" competitions is because they allow people from any martial art discipline to participate. As opposed to a Tang Soo Do, Judo, kick boxing, boxing, etc. competition which is dedicated to a particular style.
People who practice only one style often win, but it has to be a style that can handle a variety of circumstances and not just the moves of their own style. People with multi-disciplinary backgrounds also do quite well, but the name came first.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Call Bruce Lee by am+2k · 2013-01-31 04:48 · Score: 1

What I was taught was extremely rigid, canned moves that might work if you were extremely lucky enough for an attacker to come at you in precisely the manner they trained you for, but if they deviated at all, if all you had to rely on were the moves you were taught (and you couldn't improvise on your own), you'd be toast.
I'm training in a school with a similar upbringing. It has deviated a lot from that in the last years, and so there was a lot of discussion about that issue.
The philosophy behind what you're criticizing is that you're learning thousands of techniques, every one for a different situation (opponent properties such as stance, weight distribution, movement, inertia, total weight, height, agitation, etc.). Then you repeat them so often that you just know which one to use when, without thinking (aka moving the information to the cerebellum).
The problem with it is that it takes a looong time to get that far, maybe 20-40 years, depending on the person's talent. This clashes with western philosophy, where something that takes longer than a week isn't considered to be viable. Thus, many western schools move more towards teaching principles instead of techniques, which allows you to react to a random situation much earlier in training, but your responses aren't as elaborate (which isn't that important in self defense, since the first attack usually strikes down an untrained/inattentive opponent anyways).
Re:Call Bruce Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:59 · Score: 0

Bruce Lee is the originator of mixed martial arts. To say he is a stylized fighter is to admit you know nothing about Jeet Kune Do. Styles are what Bruce called "the classical mess".
Re:Call Bruce Lee by kryliss · 2013-01-31 06:42 · Score: 1

And the fact that Bruce is dead while Chuck is not.

--
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 07:45 · Score: 0

I know! I mean, all my muggings have happened in a octagonal cage where eye gouging and small joint manipulation are not allowed....
Snark aside, MMA is a step away from purism, but it's not the final step. Real world application of martial arts involves as much being aware of your surroundings, avoiding confrontation, fleeing when you can't avoid, de-escalating when you can't flee, and defending when you can't de-escalate. In none of those circumstances should you press the attack, in the fashion of a competition, once the option to disengage presents itself. That's practical application of martial arts.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by jafac · 2013-01-31 12:17 · Score: 1

Okay - well, it's not just the "well trained" aspects of Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee (etc) - but they are (were) very talented athletes as well. A lot of these UFC competition fighters are also VERY talented athletes. You take an average joe, who does not have a lot of natural talent, but maybe some good dedication, puts in a lot of effort - that average joe is going to do well after training in a traditional martial art. Up against an average joe who is not trained. Or even a "big tough guy" - who doesn't train, or may focus only on a limited style like boxing. (or BJJ - which is a popular, and effective - but very limited fighting style).
These "special" guys - who have a lot of natural talent, they'll kick an average joe's ass any day. You'll see them credit their particular training method because; guess what? They can make a fuckton of money selling lessons, equipment, supplements (etc). Doesn't mean it's all bullshit. Just that you can make up for the fact that you have no talent - by training. But if someone has talent, AND trains, you better fucking carry a gun. Or an asteroid.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by jafac · 2013-01-31 12:39 · Score: 1

It's true; Bruce Lee never really mastered any traditional martial art.
Many Chinese practitioners consider Wing Chung kind of a "dumbed down" martial art - because it's simplified, and easier to master. It focuses on basic combat techniques, (more than traditional Kung Fu/Chuan Fa/Wushu styles do), and has a lot less of the "ornamental" type of meditative forms.
And Bruce Lee never really fully mastered Wing Chung either. (though he did study with the legendary master Ip Man). Bruce Lee was simply an exceptionally talented athlete. His parents were actors. He was also a very talented dancer. Very dedicated and hard working. When he came back to America, he started his own martial arts school, and developed his own style, and it was really based on a broad set of concepts. He had already gotten a wide reputation in the martial arts community, and had studied with a lot of the big players, and learned at least the basics of many different styles, and the simplicity of Wing Chung still appealed to him. So that's why JKD has a lot of elements of Wing Chung - but is really just another chapter in the overall American Mixed Martial Arts movement.
20 years before Bruce Lee, just about every American since WWII who came back from Asia with any kind of Martial Arts experience, was trying to open a school. There was huge demand. But few had real credentials - and few had any ability to "sell" a set of Asian philosophy to an American market. So many traditional martial arts were mixed and matched and re-created. (particularly in the Ed Parker family of Kenpo styles). And after that, all of these schools engaged in turf wars, suing each other over trademarks, and the like.
Some of these mixed arts are actually very effective, and worthwhile.
But Bruce Lee was really innovating. He was putting a lot of thought into re-inventing fighting. You can go on to youtube and look at what the practitioners at his school are teaching today. It's pretty different than most other arts. And these guys seem to fare well at these Ultimate Fighting things. (I wouldn't say that they *dominate* like the BJJ guys did, for a while).
Chuck Norris just did his traditional styles, kicked some major ass in tourneys in the 70's, did some hollywood, and retired to run his chain of schools. That's the life.
Jackie Chan? He's a lifelong actor, stuntman, producer. Just extremely talented. He basically invented the "drunken boxing" style - which is completely ornamental pantomime. (but entertaining). And now, he's kind of becoming a tool for the PRC ruling party, making propaganda films and history revision pieces. Sad, because I otherwise really like him.
I think that, in general, because of the popularity of UFC and MMA type fighting spectacles, a lot of traditional martial arts schools are having trouble attracting as many students as they used to, back in the 70's and 80's. People don't want to learn all the super complex forms and katas and combinations, they don't want to do all the rote memorization. They don't like the pajamas or the bowing. They seem to prefer the "big tough jock" aspect of MMA, and the simple focus on sparring engagement (which - in a lot of traditional styles, is often neglected; mainly because it's so dangerous to practice without going full-bore with safety equipment and rules).
That's okay - but I guess the point is, these are two different disciplines. They appeal to two different personality types. And neither one is going to make you an invincible super-warrior. It takes the training of the system, at a good school, with a good teacher, plus, a lot of natural talent, plus, drive, determination, and frankly, luck (to avoid injuries - so you can maintain continuity).
I think that either path can lead to the same end. As long as one doesn't limit one's self.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by Ocker3 · 2013-01-31 14:45 · Score: 1

Fans of Bruce Lee know his legend needs no embellishment
Re:Call Bruce Lee by dywolf · 2013-02-01 01:33 · Score: 1

So its ok to be bigoted toward religious folks, and not ok to call someone out on it?
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. A person who labels someone a nutjob because of their christianity is just as big a bigot as the christian who hates on middle easterners because "theyre all islamic terrosists".
Thank you, by modding my post flamebait you only further prove my point about the hypocrisy and anti-religious bias by some people on this site who abuse the moderation system.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 14:30 · Score: 0

Also he is a USAF SP Vet, but they were called AP's then and SF's now. So ya he is a bad ass with weapons too.
Not that I am a fan.
Re:Call Bruce Lee by nobodie · 2013-02-02 02:56 · Score: 1

all this MMA stuff fails on the street, as well as any tournament based training. MMA focuses on the rules of the ring, ring distances and all the rest of the artificial constraints created for the "rules" of the various rings. I might add that most teachers focus on how to use the rules of the particular ring they are going to fight in and how to win in that ring with those rules. MMA is no different from any other "martial art."
I studied in what could have been called an MMA before there was such a thing. Our teacher disdained tournament fighting and training, and forced us to use not just an unprotected (no gloves, no pads, no cups) body, but an unconstrained ring. Complaints about shoes, clothes, tricks, or force were scoffed at. "You only get hit if you don't block or get out of the way" was the rule. The other rule was that what we did was an art, and we were doing it as an art, not to fight, not hurt people or beat people or anything other than overcoming ourselves in a way that showed our internal strength and.... beauty.
When my teacher retired another teacher and I took over the school and added only one thing to his teaching: "You only lose a fight if you get in a fight." We had, and still have, nothing to prove to anyone. So if one of us gets in a fight, it is not a time for celebration, but rather for meditation on how we could, after all these years, have done something so stupid.
Back when my teacher was running the school, he would, occasionally, take the school to tournaments. We seldom lost in the fighting categories, often won (but not always, those shaolin guys had some awesome forms) in the forms categories. Even today there are people who, when they see my old brother in arms walk into a tournament and sign up to fight, will ask for their money back and walk away. He still loves the dance, the beauty of a fight. And he's not afraid to lose.

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.

China by starworks5 · 2013-01-30 21:19 · Score: 1

Didn't you say that you wanted to capture an asteroid? Here is your chance, go for it.

Re:China by q.kontinuum · 2013-01-30 22:16 · Score: 1

They could try... Out of curiosity: If it accidentally changes trajectory due to the attempt to get some part of it and hits US, would it be big enough to effect China as well?

--
Trolling is a art!
Re:China by rts008 · 2013-01-30 22:32 · Score: 1

TFA was an infomercial for that outfit that was talking about mining asteroids, but why not?

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:China by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 00:36 · Score: 0

How many ping-pong tables is half a football field? I think we need to standardize units, this is confusing.
Re:China by X0563511 · 2013-01-31 03:00 · Score: 1

Extinction event.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:China by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 07:27 · Score: 0

From http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/asteroid-hits-earth.htm
"If the asteroid is as big as a 20-story building (200 feet on a side), it has an amount of energy equal to the largest nuclear bombs made today -- on the order of 25 to 50 megatons. An asteroid like this would flatten reinforced concrete buildings five miles from ground zero. It would completely destroy most major cities in the United States."

They had to use that unit by captainpanic · 2013-01-30 21:26 · Score: 1

They had to use the football field unit, because elephants don't fly so high.

I think we need it to hit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:21 · Score: 0

The world is in so much trouble from corruption and malice of every kind, we need a nice chunky one to reset civilization..

Re:I think we need it to hit by JTsyo · 2013-01-31 02:37 · Score: 1

Yes because I'm sure a world without civilization will will have much less malice.

Put a critter cam on it. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 22:33 · Score: 0

Put a solar/nuclear critter cam on it & watch the images...

how about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 23:10 · Score: 0

isnt this the asteroid that they found they were off on size by an order of magnitude a month or so back?

But a chance of striking satellites? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-30 23:48 · Score: 1

If it will pass within the orbit of man-made satellites, what's the predicted damage assessment for satellites and communications?

Re:But a chance of striking satellites? by Gilmoure · 2013-01-31 04:53 · Score: 2

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:But a chance of striking satellites? by DigiShaman · 2013-01-31 12:39 · Score: 1

And reality has a pervasive sick sense of humor. Murphy laughs at us all.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

No HST ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 00:35 · Score: 0

I think this asteroid could be an interesting target for the Hubble Space Telescope.
After all, getting a giant telescope so close to an asteroid is something extremely difficult to do.

I don't see any plans for this. Too bad.

Re:No HST ? by bdeclerc · 2013-01-31 02:20 · Score: 1

They're going to use radar to map the asteroid, which will give us a complete 3D picture of it at much higher resolution than the HST can give - the distances in space are enormous, even supposing Hubble was easily capable of tracking this asteroid (it isn't, the asteroid is moving too fast) the biggest it gets is about 10-15 pixels large. And considering that HST is in an orbit about 550km above the surface of the earth, and the asteroid is passing us by at 25000km it's not even that much "closer" to it than telescopes on earth are.

Odd tag by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-01-31 01:24 · Score: 1

While all you grammarians are pecking away here I thought I'd ask a question: why does Slashdot have a "commasplice" tag for stories like this? There doesn't seem to be a common denominator for the stories which have it, judging by their headlines. The secondary headline for this one does use a commasplice. But why have a tag for that? For the benefit of those with extra dog eared copies of Strunk and White?

Re:Odd tag by 1u3hr · 2013-01-31 02:50 · Score: 1

Tags are created when someone applies them, and show up when a minimum number do. It seems some have been blacklisted, so you can't use, e.g., "yes", "no" as used to be a way of using a tag to comment on a story.

dramatic irony? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:50 · Score: 0

isn't "dramatic irony" when the reader (audience) knows something the characters don't? Are you telling us that life is actually a reality show?

Re: dramatic irony? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 04:06 · Score: 0

It also applies when the reader (audience) ~thinks~ they know something the characters don't. It's merely self serving pretension on the readers (audiences) part.

What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:08 · Score: 0

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

I have an idea by slashmydots · 2013-01-31 02:09 · Score: 1

Put up a net, catch it, mine it, profit!!!

Re:I have an idea by JTsyo · 2013-01-31 02:42 · Score: 1

Doubt the profit.

It measures some 50 meters wide, neither very large nor very small, and is probably made of stone, as opposed to metal or ice.

What is the going rate for stone? To catch it would require a lot of effort, even if the asteroid was pure gold, it might not be worth it.

universal version by NotQuiteReal · 2013-01-31 02:19 · Score: 2

People who follow a set of rules are messed up by others who don't or won't follow the same rules.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

end of the world by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:26 · Score: 0

blow past? what happens when it stops abruptly and puts itself into orbit with earth. the end times are just a little late that's all :D

Re:end of the world by X0563511 · 2013-01-31 03:01 · Score: 1

Orbital dynamics, you do not understand them.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:end of the world by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 04:16 · Score: 0

Alien invasions, you do not understand them.
Re:end of the world by ScentCone · 2013-01-31 06:11 · Score: 1

Orbital dynamics, you do not understand them.
Come on, man. Get it right. "Understand orbital mechanics, you do not."

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Half a football field? by rossdee · 2013-01-31 03:00 · Score: 1

Which half? The home teams half or the visiting teams half?

Seriously though, can't they find some 3d object of the appropriate size for a comparison, rather than a 2d surface

Re:Half a football field? by cusco · 2013-01-31 06:25 · Score: 1

Any suggestions? I once saw a small asteroid referred to as having the same volume as x-many minivans, and thought that was kind of neat. Otherwise if you say it's the size of the Piccadilly Station subway terminal or the Houston Astrodome that's only going to make sense to people who have actually been there. I suppose you could say x-many Boeing 767s, or railroad boxcars, those are pretty standard.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Half a football field? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 08:05 · Score: 0

It is about the equivalent of getting hit with a rock the size of the lincoln memorial at mach 5. I think that would hurt.

Mayan Calendar... that's Nibiru by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 06:30 · Score: 1

The Mayans warned us!

We just didn't quite translate the writings correctly.

THE MAYAN CALENDAR ACTUALLY SAID FEBRUARY 15, 2013, just like I've been telling everyone.

You still have time to join my underground colony, just $100,000 per person. Save yourself now, we can still dig more space, there is time!

Nibiru...Nibiru...Nibiru... Mayan Calendar... Something from the bible...

Hope you've figured out I'm not serious about this by now...

Well, they just think it may be an asteroid.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 06:50 · Score: 0

. . . but it could easily be something far more sinister . . .

Or not! sgt_doom (unfit to be rated at the corporation-worshipping, neocon script kiddie site of /.)

it is not... by ryche.rising · 2013-01-31 07:26 · Score: 1

it is not the asteroid we are looking for...

Impact would not be a significant risk by coyote_oww · 2013-01-31 11:00 · Score: 2

per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_DA14

2.5MT, less than Tunguska, numerous volcanos, etc. Really, would need to hit some population to get attention, and most of the planet is not populated by humans because of excessive standing water.

www.meriurdu.com by nuchi · 2013-01-31 18:59 · Score: 1

i want to read all stories into Urdu language NASA research reports are helpful for us

Record Breaking Asteroid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 10:45 · Score: 0

Seriously, the biggest to object to pass earth at a distance of 'X' or less?

Oh wow, it's the biggest snowfall in a 24 hour period for the 2nd snowfall of the year that was 2" or more! RECORD BREAKING!
Jason Kidd just became the first player over 38 to ever record 3 three points, 3 rebounds, 3 steals, and 3 assists. RECORD BREAKING!

Units Please by Occams · 2013-02-01 14:03 · Score: 1

Is that an American Football field or a metric one.

--
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.

Slashdot Mirror

NASA Says Asteroid Will Buzz Earth Closer Than Many Satellites

225 comments