Slashdot Mirror
No, the Earth (almost Certainly) Won't Be Hit By an Asteroid In 2032
The Bad Astronomer writes "Last week, astronomers discovered 2013 TV135, a 400-meter wide asteroid that will swing by the Earth in 2032. The odds of an impact at that time are incredibly low — in fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%! But that hasn't stopped some venues from playing up the apocalypse angle. Bottom line: we do not have a good orbit for this rock yet, and as observations get better the chance of an impact will certainly drop. We can breathe easy over this particular asteroid."
...that's until the U.S.'s tolerance of gay marriage changes its trajectory.
But how do we know you aren't preparing for a quick bug out when its only a month away? I've seen 2012, I know how this stuff works!!
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
In fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%
Since the odds of any asteroid of a city-destroying size or larger only hit the Earth every 5,000 years or so... this particular asteroid's odds are 36.5 times better than the average one's.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If you tell me that there's going to be no asteroid, then I'll just go up and make one hit the Earth, just to spite you.
You'll know it by the blinky LED lights I'll have on it that will spell out "2032 suckers!" in bright red and green lights.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
99.99998% miss from extinction-level objects means that, on average, they kill a mere 1,400 people.
...that's until the U.S.'s tolerance of gay marriage changes its trajectory.
I'm not sure why this was down modded. I actually got a chuckle out of it personally.
While I'll admit it's a problem for everything within about a 200 mile radius, and has a potential to create a 50+ meter tsunami, depending on where it hits... globally speaking, it doesn't represent a significant threat.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Lower odds has not stopped people from buying the lottery, and so let them at least make up stories of the apocalypse. Human nature is such that they have more fun hoping for the worst.
99.99998% of a miss.
0.9999998 ^ 100,000 = 0.980 -> 2% chance of at least 1 hit with 100,000 such events
Or approx 3.5 million such events for a 50% chance of at least 1 hit
Next questions are
a) how often do such events occur ?
b) how long since the last such event ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's all a scam. They're hiding the possible cure for asteroid impacts, because this way they can continue to get unlimited grant money from the government. They've already planned their off-planet habitat for when the earth is destroyed, but they won't admit to its existence because then the sheeple would question the purpose of those radio telescopes and interplanetary probes.
WAKE UP! STOP BIG ASTRONOMY!
You don't think you'll be able to turn it around in 20 years?
Not really. Local flora and fauna would kill off a zombie epidemic fairly quickly, if live humans weren't around. Just insects alone would have a field day, and in 72 hours would grow fast enough to deal with it.
The Earth really doesn't need us.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If someone has the resources to shift the orbit of an asteroid sufficiently to cause an impact, there are tons of other things they could be spending those resources on that would be much more destructive, and much more immediate.
Phil Plait just posted a correction, 99.998% chance of a miss.
If the odds were higher, then governments might start taking money off their war spending and start putting some serious money into space technology and asteroid deflection programs, which would certainly lead to a faster space colonization, asteroid mining and so on,
You sure? I would think it's a lot easier to detect an asteroid that's headed for earth, than to detect all those ones that are nowhere near earth.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You don't think you'll be able to turn it around in 20 years?
Not likely. Have you SEEN the turning radius on an asteroid?
If someone has the resources to shift the orbit of an asteroid sufficiently to cause an impact, there are tons of other things they could be spending those resources on that would be much more destructive, and much more immediate.
Yes, but shifting an asteroid is way more fun.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Folks- Please note a couple of math errors in the article (and in the headline I submitted here at /.).
1) The chance of it missing is 99.998%, and not 99.99998%. I misplaced a parenthesis when I did the math and wound up essentially getting 100 - 1/63000 instead of 1 - 1/63000. D'oh.
2) Also, the original circle I drew in the article was too big. This one makes me smile wryly: I first drew up the analogy as the circular cross-sectional area of a target region in space versus the cross-section of the Earth. Both are circles. However, a pixel is square! So my circle was too wide by a factor of the square root of pi, since the radius of the circle is the sqrt(area/pi). Put in 63,000 pixels for the area and the radius is 141.
I corrected the article, sent a note to TPTB at Slashdot, and beg the forgiveness of math pedants everywhere. :)
*** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
The odds of an impact at that time are incredibly low — in fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%! But that hasn't stopped some venues from playing up the apocalypse angle.
A 1 in 5,000,000 chance of this asteroid hitting is super high compared to the 1 in 175,223,510 odds of winning the grand prize in the Powerball lottery, yet tons of idiots still line up to play.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
...it's still worth reading The Last Policeman.
chance of an impact will certainly drop
If it would certainly drop, then it would be already zero today. The reason why the estimate is currently 0.00002% is because it is not known at which side the real value is. Actually, a defining criteria of a proper estimate is that it is located in the middle of the probability distribution, meaning that the actual value might lie on either side, with equal probability.
Note that the original article uses "likely" instead of "certainly".
> Bottom line: we do not have a good orbit for this rock yet, and as observations get better the chance of an impact will certainly drop.
What is that supposed to mean? It should get closer to 1 or to 0. It will get closer to 0 with probability .9999998, and to 1 with probability .0000002. So it will not "certainly" drop.
over 5 orders of magnitude is as close to "almost certain" as science gets.
...I was hoping to avoid the 2038 bug.
Not really. if current measures are accurate, and there is a 99.9999 chance of a miss, more measures are 99.9999% likely to support that miss and only 0.0001% likely to contradict it.
Its not quite as simple as that, but its not anywhere near 50/50 like you suggest.
...after reading your username
Actually, no. If you think of all the future paths plotted as a probabilistic cone, Earth occupies a very small portion of the end of the cone. More data will narrow the cone, almost certainly moving it off an Earth-intercept. Almost.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
First, your B-25 example was an accident. While the pilots where not where they should have been at that altitude, they certainly didn't intend to hit the building. 9/11 was decidedly done on purpose.
Second, in the US, there are flight restrictions about flying over populated areas (buildings and such) but the restriction is about how high above such areas you have to stay. Generally, there are no flight restrictions over urban areas or cities as long as you stay high enough. Large cities do tend to have large airports and large airports tend to have restricted airspace around them, but those are about the airport and not the all the people on the ground. Just keep the minimum height and you are golden.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You don't think you'll be able to turn it around in 20 years?
Not with this Congress..
With this Congress, the best thing that could happen to the planet would be a direct impact on Capitol Hill!
In a perverse way, you have a good point. If you have the money to move this thing, you have the money to do it any number of ways much more cheeply than slamming an asteroid into the planet would be.
But if you're going to end all life on the surface of the planet anyway, who cares how expensive it is? Might as well have some fun with it.
Asteroid Apocalypse: What Could Happen, But Probably Won't, in 2032
[Cue a solid hour of CG destruction porn.]
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Do you have any idea of what would be involved? What do you think, that the bad guys (or the good ones, at that) have Star Trek-level technology? Methinks that you would do well to learn some physics and engineering.
Just change the gravitational constant of the universe.
More Twoson than Cupertino
So? Nearly impossible things happen all the time given a sufficiently large sample.
I'm using credit cards and default swaps from people in the target zone.
I figure they'll never collect anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And eat 10 chocolate sundaes. Can't forget that part.
With only 19 or so years to go, we'll have to act quickly to get a long range space craft up to this asteroid if we want to alter its trajectory so it certainly will hit Earth! There's no time to waste if we're going to set up for this future crisis!
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
I had a big retirement fund blowout bash planned for 2032. After all, you can't take it with you. Now I'll have to text everyone that's it's been cancelled....
What would happen if it came really close but didn't hit? Like 2 miles up? What about 500 feet above land? 50 feet?
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
It took Red Dwarf 4000 years to make a U-turn.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Nice, place the blame on Congress but leave the DICKtater Obama alone.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The second kind is apparently ADD from poster not finishing their sig.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I guess we gotta start updating UNIX to have 64 bit dates after all.
The Earth really doesn't need us.
You're projecting again. The doctor called, he wants his thermometer back.
The Earth really doesn't need us.
You're projecting again. The doctor called, he wants his thermometer back.
Most of the earth is molten, actually, and most of the rest is covered with water.
Now, if I were talking with a whale, you might have an argument, but I kind of doubt that.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Large cities do tend to have large airports and large airports tend to have restricted airspace around them,
If they did, nobody could land at them.
You mean they have controlled airspace around them, under the control of various ATCs. The levels of control range from class B (most requirements for use) through class E (not much). G is uncontrolled. These have been around for a long time, unconnected with 9/11.
Why did they start at B instead of A? Class A airspace covers the entire US at and above flight level 180 ("18,000 feet as indicated by a sensitive altimeter set to a standard air pressure of 29.27 inches of mercury"). All pilots who fly there must be on IFR flight plans.
Restricted airspace is a place that nobody is supposed to fly except under very special circumstances. "Within X distance of Air Force One" is one very common bit of restricted airspace. There used to be restricted airspace over the submarine pens up near Seattle. There is now restricted airspace over the White House and other DC stuff.
One that still exists and should probably be cancelled because it is not needed is;
The ridiculous part of this rule is that pilots must know 1) where these stadiums are and 2) when a game is taking place, and for college football, 3) is the college an NCAA division one school. (What happens when a Division II school plays a division I? Is the game "Division 1" or "Division 2"?) They aren't marked in any special way on the charts, and there are no standard NOTAMS (notices to airmen) issued for them. Just the one blanket one.
Now, if I were talking with a whale, you might have an argument, but I kind of doubt that.
"Projection" is a psychological term that means you are assuming someone else has the same feelings and beliefs that you do. For example, you are mad at someone for some reason and based on that you assume they are mad at you.
In this case, you feel the Earth doesn't need you and you project that into a statement that it doesn't need "us". The Earth may very well not need you, I can't speak to that issue. If that is true, you are welcome to leave; the rest of us who want to stay will wave goodbye as you exit.
So 1/50,000 chance... better than winning any lottery, better than winning a 50/50 draw at a sporting event. Considering the consequences, such a number is awfully scary - no?
However, remember we only observe a small fraction of the skies, and much of the things that have a 99.99998% chance of missing us, were never detected.
Also.... when asteroids get close enough to our orbit to have a 0.9999998 chance of impacting us; eventually, the number of times this is happening adds up to a million, and the number of expected collissions is 1 or greater.
"before we get hit by that asteriod?"
There are plenty more rocks in space for us to be hit by. There's hope yet!
Just stay above 3,000 AGL and you are golden.. Assuming you are not into Controlled Airspace, I would consider buzzing around under 3,000 to be somewhat dangerous over urban areas anyway unless it is a really short trip. That extra altitude could save your life should a problem develop. Like my flight instructor was fond of saying.. "Nothing is more useless than the runway behind you, the gas you left in the truck, or the altitude above you." So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows, carry as much fuel as possible and prefer higher altitudes when possible.
OK. OK.. Controlled airspace around airports, not restricted... Sorry, I wasn't technically correct.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Just stay above 3,000 AGL and you are golden.
If you've got an airport nearby that can be difficult. Or less safe at a minimum. Above 3000 AGL and then dive into the pattern at 1000 AGL? Look out below! Or you're making a cross-country flight and you don't know the stadium is there.
Assuming you are not into Controlled Airspace, I would consider buzzing around under 3,000 to be somewhat dangerous over urban areas anyway unless it is a really short trip.
Flying at 2000 AGL is not "buzzing" in anyone's dictionary, except those who 1) aren't pilots or 2) are the kind of person who buys a house next to an airport and then complains about all the noise from those nasty airplane things. You mention your "flight instructor", and I'm guessing you mean "Clippy" and you're using MS flight simulator for your training. If your real-life real instructor is telling you that it is buzzing to be less than 3000 AGL over a congested area, you need a better CFI.
That extra altitude could save your life should a problem develop.
Then let's make the minimum over any congested area be 10,000 AGL. Much safer. There are certainly limitations to existing aircraft that makes doing that a bit difficult, but when we all start flying our anti-grav cars it will be peachy.
So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows,
And then comes the day when you have your first real emergency and the only airport you can reach has a 1500' runway. You've never practiced on anything shorter than the 10,000' runway at your home airport. Wrong time to learn short field landings, I'd say.
and prefer higher altitudes when possible.
If you fly the pattern at 10,000 AGL, don't come around my airport.
So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows,
And then comes the day when you have your first real emergency and the only airport you can reach has a 1500' runway. You've never practiced on anything shorter than the 10,000' runway at your home airport. Wrong time to learn short field landings, I'd say.
I routinely practice short field landing techniques using long runways. I can usually get the C-150 stopped in less than 300' ground roll and usually get wheels on the ground with 10' of the threshold. I use a 4,000 foot runway for practice this all the time. I practice short field departures from the same runway. So when I did happen to fly into the 2,000 ft field, I knew what to do. There's no need to go hit the 1500 ft runway and crash a few times learning how.
But you seem to get my point. Flying is about safety. Anything you can easily do to improve your margins, you should do. That means keeping as much altitude below you, as much gas as you can in the tank, and as much runway in front of you as possible. So staying 3,000 ft AGL isn't a bad idea when the airspace and weather allows it. It has the added bonus that you don't have to avoid all the foot ball games...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I think I finally understand why you post with such a superiority complex and arrogant attitude - you're an alien. I mean you must be - you can't be human because you refer to use as "you humans", as if you're separate from the species.
Either that or you're a fucking disgrace of a person who thinks they're better than everyone else. To be honest though, most elitist Linux users have similar views.