Slashdot Mirror


Bizarre Six-Tailed Asteroid Dumbfounds Scientists

coondoggie writes "Many images from deep space are so cool, weird and unusual it is hard to believe they are real sometimes. This is one of them. Astronomers looking deep into the asteroid belt through NASA's Hubble Space Telescope say they have spotted an asteroid, designated P/2013 P5, with six comet-like tails of dust radiating from it like spokes on a wheel or a spinning garden sprinkler."

134 comments

  1. Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're thrusters.

    1. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 3, Informative

      I figured it was pockets of something outgassing (is that the correct term?) as is spins. Different materials heat/etc different rates blah blah cue Bill Nye or Phil Platt please.

    2. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's powered by beans.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by danigr · · Score: 0

      They're thrusters.

      -Do a barrel roll!

    4. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by somenickname · · Score: 5, Funny

      You joke but, earlier today there was a story about Starship Troopers on Slashdot. I know that if I still lived in Buenos Aires, I'd give serious thought to getting out of town for a while...

    5. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Because you're worried some huge bugs will squirt blue plasma out of their ass through space and hit earth?

    6. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by speckman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was my first thought. Hmm. Every time they take a picture of this thing, it's got a jet going in a different direction.... I mean say we took a picture of a UFO way out in space... what would it look like at lowish resolution? a lump of something with jets coming out of it? Maybe. I guess the true test for that is if it's orbit is changing unexpectedly.

      Because seriously, even putting aside the possibility of already having taken video/shots of UFOs in space, on the planet, etc., what would our first encounter with one in space be like? A grainy photo of an anomalous object that we figure must be a comet, but boy is it acting strange...

    7. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by feral-troll · · Score: 1

      They're thrusters.

      Bah! What we are seeing here is obviously an alien mining operation.

    8. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      10 internet points to you for identifying the joke!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Sla$hPot · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is thruster beams.
      And yes it is an asteriod.
      Is it the new nuclear deterrence?

      I'm sure that someone will claim it has something to do with Nibiru.
      Whohoo, It's a bird [boid]
      Great stuff :)

    10. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll fill your asshole with my baby gravy!

      From deep space to someone's asshole in less than 5 posts.

      Take that Kevin Bacon. You ain't shit.

    11. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by LRAD · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers is SO unrealistic, sheesh!

    12. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If it were something capable of crossing interstellar space, then the thruster exhaust (even if they had some exotic drive for travelling very long distances) would likely be invisible in the visible spectrum and very, very bright in the IR. It would also likely be travelling significantly faster than anything naturally occurring and so would be quite distinctive in several ways.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is your face!

    14. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by bareman · · Score: 1

      It's a marketing gimmick for Planetary Annihilation (http://www.uberent.com/pa/).

      Release day is going to be a smash!

    15. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by trout007 · · Score: 2

      You are more right than you know. There is an explaination that asteroids and comets have tails due to electric discharges as they move through voltage potentials in the solar system.
      http://youtu.be/De9b8Z94nQk

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    16. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      There's one thing that would differentiate between regular celestial body and an artificial celestial construct: Albedo.
      (there are exceptions, YMMV, but largely it's a pretty accurate way of telling them apart)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    17. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Right.

      It's gotta be the end-of-voyage garbage dump. When all the crap that piles up during the months of warp speed travel is ejected from the tubes, after, of course, recovering all the H2O for the hydroponics. Put a bit of a spin on the Waste Storage / Ejection Module so none of the stuff sticks to the hull, and carefully balance the release from the six different ejection ports so the ship's trim is unaffected, and this is exactly the pattern that we would see.

      Are the results of the spectrographic studies back yet? Those would tell us what the visitors have been eating, and give us some idea of what their biochemistry might be like. (I'm guessing a lot of silicon...)

      --
      Will
    18. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Is this more 'electric universe' foldorol? Good grief, I that that foolishness was finally dying out

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    19. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      When each new observation that baffles the experts is explained by another theory I pay attention.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    20. Re: Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omg! It's coming right towards us!

      Won't someone think of the children!

    21. Re: Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a plane.

      It's superman!

    22. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by aled · · Score: 1

      I actually live in Buenos Aires and right now there's nothing to wor%&/.....................

      CONNECTION ENDED

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    23. Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. by antdude · · Score: 1

      But will you still be on the grid with your mobile devices? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  2. And by "Dumbfounds" by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    ... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

    Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:And by "Dumbfounds" by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      ... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

      Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

      Every now and then you need the weird exception, it's what helps establish the statistical mean.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:And by "Dumbfounds" by Nyder · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

      Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

      Mainly if they are female...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:And by "Dumbfounds" by tgd · · Score: 1

      ... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

      Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

      Visit the Midwest -- everyone there dumbfounds me.

    4. Re:And by "Dumbfounds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, sir. I am from the Midwest - and I find you dumb.

  3. It ain't no swastika. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, theorizes that sometime within the last 10 or 20 thousand years, a comet with four bright tails, came to wards the Earth in an end-on view. That would look like a Swastika. That shape has been recorded in Chinese manuscripts of comet descriptions. It must have made profound impact on human psyche because of so many associations of the Swastika symbol with supernatural and power.

    So I was looking for some spectacular six tailed swastika there, but, meh, some smokey trails.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It ain't no swastika. by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      "like spokes on a wheel" was not apt description and set my exceptions of the image a bit too high. Meh, indeed.

    2. Re:It ain't no swastika. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if this is some weird new invocation of Godwin's law...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:It ain't no swastika. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The swastika was an important symbol before Germany was a country.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:It ain't no swastika. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering if this is some weird new invocation of Godwin's law...

      Godwin's law isn't about a regular discussion and then BAM! Nazis! Rather discussions tends to escalate and become more polarized until Nazi references occur.
      Going from comets to swastikas is just a natural way there.

      Also, swastikas were commonly used as a symbol for Thor and lightning/thunder, several rune-stones have swastikas on them. (And you are literally Hitler!)

    5. Re:It ain't no swastika. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what, motherfucker, you're the one who brought up Nazis by bringing up Godwin's shitloving law. YOU'RE THE FUCKING NAZI HERE!!!!! You fantasize about Nazis. You want it to happen. You want your sexual fantasies to be the topic of discussion. I bet you dress up in leather clothes and dream of a Nazi beating you with down and pounding you in the ass while you're on the ground.
       
      You're the Nazi here. You're a Nazi sympathizer and you dream of gay sex with Nazis. You try to cover it up with cries of "Godwin's Law." Just admit that you lust for Nazi dicks in your ass and be done with it.

    6. Re:It ain't no swastika. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like it would need to be a plus sign and rotating. While approaching end-on. And really, really big and traveling really, really slowly, apparently.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    7. Re:It ain't no swastika. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know what, motherfucker, you're the one who brought up Nazis by bringing up Godwin's shitloving law. YOU'RE THE FUCKING NAZI HERE!!!!! You fantasize about Nazis. You want it to happen. You want your sexual fantasies to be the topic of discussion. I bet you dress up in leather clothes and dream of a Nazi beating you with down and pounding you in the ass while you're on the ground.

      You're the Nazi here. You're a Nazi sympathizer and you dream of gay sex with Nazis. You try to cover it up with cries of "Godwin's Law." Just admit that you lust for Nazi dicks in your ass and be done with it.

      So, You're saying he is Max Mosley?

    8. Re:It ain't no swastika. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:It ain't no swastika. by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Germany became a country in 1990.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  4. Fox Comet! by ElectraFlarefire · · Score: 3, Funny

    Space Kitsune!
    Off to earn it's last three tails.

    1. Re:Fox Comet! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      As a six-tailed kitsune, I approve of this asteroid!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  5. Why is being called an asteroid? by ceview · · Score: 2

    Why is this being reported as an asteroid when the original research paper says that it is a comet? http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/778/1/L21/article What is the difference between a comet and an asteroid?

    1. Re:Why is being called an asteroid? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      Called both in the article, it was thought it was a comet (icy body outgassing because of sun) but then:

        "As an inner-belt asteroid and probable Flora family member, the object is likely to be highly metamorphosed and unlikely to contain ice. The protracted period of dust release appears inconsistent with an impact origin, but may be compatible with a body that is losing mass through a rotational instability. "

      Asteroids are minor planets of three main types: stony, metallic or carbon-rich

    2. Re:Why is being called an asteroid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. I like the rancid rectum bayer-hole guy better. There was far more cleverness in his/hers writing.

  6. It's Gamelon!!!! by stink_eye · · Score: 1

    Deslock! Deslock! DES...LOCK!!!!

  7. Science. by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

    Asteroids do not have tails. Fusion powered spaceships or comets do though....

    --
    liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    1. Re:Science. by rossdee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So is it accelerating or decelerating consistently?

      And if so is it heading towards us?

      We'll have to get a team of older movie stars (like Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, John Travolta and William Shatner) to intercept it

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

      That makes it even more amazing then :P

    3. Re:Science. by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Asteroids do not have tails. Fusion powered spaceships or comets do though....

      For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    4. Re:Science. by bledri · · Score: 1

      ...

      We'll have to get a team of older movie stars (like Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, John Travolta and William Shatner) to intercept it

      William Shatner is flattered, but respectfully suggests you find someone more qualified.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  8. tentacle porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are not tails but tentacles.

    1. Re:tentacle porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are His noodly appendages, and may you be touched by them.

  9. So it has six big holes in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out of the six holes in comet like core emerge six plumes of comet like dust. Scientists dumbfounded and unable to explain phenomenon according to article.

    Amazing.

  10. How to detect a really bad science writer... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do so many of these stories have things like "dumbfounded" or "baffled" in the title? Are these scientists just standing there, exclaiming to everyone who will listen - "I'm just so gosh-darn BAFFLED!" Not from any scientist I've met - but it's always reported as such, as if unknowns weren't a crucial element of the whole, you know, SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

    Yeesh.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by glwtta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They certainly don't use the word "baffled", but for all the scientist I know, the standard response to new data is "WTF is this shit?!"

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by MyHair · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try this one weird trick to understand....

    3. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      "coondoggie" (the submitter) is Michael Cooney, the NetworkWorld blogger/author. You do the math. Me, I miss Roland Piquepaille every time I get tricked into following one of these "hey click on my blog" submissions.

    4. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Because it's proof of god! Stupid science is dumbfounded by size tailed asteroids, so god must make them.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Or: Interresting!

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, it seems you don't need to shoot the science writer. The word dumbfounded appears to have been used indeed by the scientists. From the article: "We were literally dumbfounded when we saw it," said lead investigator David Jewitt

    7. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in this case. ..

      "We were literally dumbfounded when we saw it," said lead investigator David Jewitt of the University of California at Los Angeles in a statement.

    8. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I much prefer when they say "WTF is this shit?!"

      In my experience when a scientist or an engineer says "Interesting!" it is generally a good idea to step back or GTFO, it never turns out well.

    9. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I prefer, "Fascinating."

    10. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do these comments criticizing the choice of the word baffled get modded up? The research interviewed in the article actually used the word DUMBFOUNDED. The summary lifted the word choice straight from the lips of one of the researches that discovered it.

      I guess "reading the article" is too much to ask in exchange for mod-ups these days...

    11. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Chelloveck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, in this case it's a direct quote from the lead investigator.

      "We were literally dumbfounded when we saw it," said lead investigator David Jewitt of the University of California at Los Angeles in a statement.

      And while I'm not sure a scientist would say "I'm just so gosh-darn BAFFLED!" I have heard them say, "Beats the hell outta me." I guess "Scientists baffled by new sighting" is a more accurate headline than "Scientists get the hell beaten out of them by new sighting."

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    12. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was Asimov who said that new discoveries aren't signalled by "eureka!" but by "hmm, that's strange".

    13. Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i too strongly oppose (popular) science writing that makes informing a lesser priority.

      but, srsly, the word "dumbfounded" really just literally means 'made quiet' as in they had nothing to say about it immediately, that it was inexplicable, so before you call hyperbole consider that the writer may have chose the word due to its actual meaning and function in the sentence rather than the intent to evoke sensation

  11. Obviously the Basestar Kara Thrace saw by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylon_Basestar#Battlestar_Galactica_.282004.E2.80.932009.29 It sure matches the description of the star that was seen in last season.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  12. better science by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

    comets are icy and have tails when close to sun due to outgassing.

    Asteroids (minor planets that are stony, metallic, or carbon compound based) can have tails for various reasons, some covered in the article.

  13. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm only asking you to consider this. My life is better for having found it, I think it makes perfect sense.

  14. Re:And... by fightinfilipino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is not just knowledge for knowledge's sake. this is part of efforts to observe planetoids and asteroids to determine if there's risk of collision with Earth, determining feasibility of mining asteroids for resources, or even plain and simple adding to data sets observing how planetoids and asteroids interact with space

    a lot of basic science isn't about finding groundbreaking stuff all the time. in fact, if you're doing research only looking for the "groundbreaking stuff", you're doing science wrong. much of science is straight observation. and it is USEFUL.

  15. Is it an ayakashi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just making sure we're dealing with an asteroid and not a six tailed japanese god fox.

  16. Here's the real story by Nov8tr · · Score: 1, Funny

    OK this comet was coming at Earth. Chuck Norris found out. He used a SpaceX ship to fly to the comet. He twisted the comets tail with his powerful karate and made it spin out of control. (which is why it now has 6 tails) Now it will miss the Earth by millions of miles. Once again Chuck Norris has saved humanity!!

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
    1. Re:Here's the real story by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      He used a SpaceX ship to fly to the comet.

      Obviously untrue. What does Chuck Norris need with a spaceship?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Here's the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he makes things do his dirty work and the propellant wasn't even rocket fuel, it was powered by Chuck Norris's powerful aura.

    3. Re:Here's the real story by Nov8tr · · Score: 1

      Silly, he loaned his super cape to Superman after the evil menace from Planet 9 stole his. He borrowed the ship from the Texas Rangers. God don't you know anything? pfffttt!!

      --
      I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  17. Oh no. Not them again. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Enough with the probing already!

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  18. It'd be nice to have some more/better images. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the looks of those, it still appears to be a single jet(spewing out for whatever reason) and it's just spinning.

    1. Re:It'd be nice to have some more/better images. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2
  19. Re:And... by glwtta · · Score: 2

    And no, this is not a troll or flamebait - it's justified, rational criticism.

    Just saying it doesn't make it true.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  20. What is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I clicked the link and it's just an image of two guys sitting in a car. What is this about? Why do you waste our time like this? I don't think it was very nice.

    Thank you for reading this complaint.

  21. Seems they didn't all go beyond the rim by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2
    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  22. Re:And... by msauve · · Score: 1

    I'm not clicking that, but am happy that Two Girls, One Cup, or whatever it is made your life better.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  23. Why tails not spirals? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it was spinning then would the discharge be in a spiral(s) rather that individual tails?

    1. Re:Why tails not spirals? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Solar wind perhaps?

      What's interesting is that they think it's spinning very fast.

      P/2013 P5 has been ejecting dust periodically for at least five months. Astronomers believe it is possible the asteroid's rotation rate increased to the point where its surface started flying apart.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Why tails not spirals? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The angle of any spiralling will depend on how fast it's spinning and how fast the jets are, so any spiralling just might not be perceivable in the images.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Why tails not spirals? by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

      If it was spinning so fast you could not see the spiralling, then you would not have separate tails either. They would all blend together into one big blurred tail. I think it is electrical arc machining due to difference in voltage potential in the object and it's location in space. Electric Universe theory keeps popping up everytime I see these new discoveries in space.

      I especially loved the article linked from that one about the "X" shaped asteroid. They say it must have been a collision with an oddly shaped object, like how a brick makes an oddly shaped splash. Which I have never seen! Splashes in water are always round no matter the shape of the object. And let's pretend they are correct, and the shape makes a difference. Then that destroys their explanation of impact craters always being round no matter the direction of impact because the force is so powerful it explodes into a round shape anyway. But when it's a 18,000 KPH projectile hitting an asteroid in space, then our rules about explosion shape does not apply anymore?! Who are they trying to kid with this crap! Or is it a cover-up for alien technology and they can't actually admit the truth?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    4. Re:Why tails not spirals? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I think it is electrical arc machining due to difference in voltage potential in the object and it's location in space.

      I think you're making shit up because you want to make yourself feel superior. I'm also pretty sure you don't work at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

      What, in the image, do you see that leads you to believe that there is more to this than a leaking asteroid?

      Electric Universe theory keeps popping up everytime I see these new discoveries in space.

      No, you keep seeing it because it's your pet theory - I say "theory," I mean "buzzword" - that you probably just love to trot out at any opportunity so people can see how awesome you must be because you know the truth.

      If it was spinning so fast you could not see the spiralling

      I was suggesting that it might be spinning too slowly - and the jets too fast - for you to see any spiralling. Or was that too simple for your planet-sized intellect to grasp?

      I especially loved the article linked from that one about the "X" shaped asteroid. They say it must have been a collision with an oddly shaped object, like how a brick makes an oddly shaped splash.

      Yeah, and who do "they" think they are, huh, these scientists with their years of "education" and their "telescopes" and their "data"? Puh-lease.

      You can't take a single, throw-away simile from a news article written for the casual reader and assume you know exactly which scientific concepts they might be referring to - and then go scoffing at them with no explanation. Splashes - not ripples - can indeed take all kinds of strange shapes depending on the objects which create them, and I think it's a safe bet that these guys have studied the dynamics of collisions a lot more closely than you have.

      Which I have never seen!

      Nor spent years (who am I kidding, probably not even minutes) studying, as some of the brightest minds on the planet have.

      Then that destroys their explanation of impact craters always being round no matter the direction of impact because the force is so powerful it explodes into a round shape anyway.

      Who's talking about craters? The image captured is of an X-shaped debris field.

      Drop an X-shaped object into water and you'll get an X-shaped splash. The ripples will rapidly become more-or-less circular as they expand, of course - is that where you're getting confused?

      But when it's a 18,000 KPH projectile hitting an asteroid in space, then our rules about explosion shape does not apply anymore?!

      No, they apply perfectly well. You just don't understand them outside of everyday experience. And by the way, these are collisions, not explosions.

      Who are they trying to kid with this crap! Or is it a cover-up for alien technology and they can't actually admit the truth?

      You want to prove science wrong? Study the evidence. Use the scientific method, find new evidence. But until you've done that, don't be surprised when people won't listen to your nonsense.

      Grow up, get over yourself, accept that you don't know best, don't pick theories because of how hip and retro their names are, try actually studying science, and you'll find out the real world is an even more fascinating place than your fantasy land of poorly-intuited second-hand guff.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  24. Re:And... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What do you want? Something engraved in stone tablets? Gold Tablets? Carefully painted in whole wheat linguini?

    Anything not coming directly from your deity of choice is going to be a rationalization. Get used to it.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  25. wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up the electric universe..

    1. Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go lick a socket.

    2. Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm not suggesting everything the EU folks say is true but something like this does make a good case for thei theory in asteroids and comets. I wonder how elliptical the orbit is. That looks a lot like a plasma discharge.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. by cusco · · Score: 1

      You've never seen images of a plasma discharge then? The two look nothing alike, and don't even radiate/reflect the same frequencies of light! That's not even "grasping at straws" ridiculous, it's just plain dumb.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. by trout007 · · Score: 1
      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Now **that's** grasping at straws. Much better. BTW, x-rays are not visible to optical telescopes like Hubble.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  26. Re:And... by forkazoo · · Score: 1

    Ask again in 200 years. Then we'll know if understanding asteroids proved useful. It takes a long time for basic research and pushing the boundaries of human understanding to pay off, but some of it eventually does. You know, like the electron, or semiconducting, or liquid crystals, or imaginary numbers. All of that stuff was ivory tower academic fluff at one point. The whole value of "out there" research is that it is in areas that we don't fully understand yet, and therefore have no idea how useful they might eventually become.

  27. It's obvious by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 1

    Those are deep space kraken!

  28. mod up^ by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    I like how an AC took the time to politely chastise a logged-in griefer posting sub-moronic Reddit type shit...

    Good on you, AC...and I'd give a +1 informative for sparing any of us the clickbait and telling us what it links to

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:mod up^ by MarginalWatcher · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that's what the link contains? Maybe AC wasn't telling the truth, and instead the link is the answer to life, the universe and everything. How can you NOT look at the link now?

  29. Aliens! by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Alien Asteroid Mining. Either that, or the Fithp from the Niven & Pournelle book "Footfall", preparing a dinosaur killer to soften up the Earth.

  30. I love science for science's sake by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    You present a good defense of the need to track this...

    But what about just because it's good to figure things out?!?!

    Curiosity drives our evolution now...at least it seems that way...I'm not saying we give out a $10 billion NSA grant to find out what these 'tails' are (my guess is that all comets have multiple tails, this one just imaged right and was of the right type for us to see)...

    I'm saying, from a philosophical standpoint, science for science sake is a good human endeavor

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  31. How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone please explain how scientists can tell this fragment was caused by a 'collision 200 million years ago'

    How can they tell from looking at a photo. Serious question I really want to know

    1. Re:How do they know by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Educated guess? I think it's safe to assume that since it's been observed for awhile that this particular asteroid is between a few months old and 4.6 billion years old. Presumably the paper when published will validate the 200,000 year thought. Maybe somebody was playing pool with planets 200,000 years ago and we're just now finding out about it?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:How do they know by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They've linked it (I think mainly by orbit) to other debris and to meteorites which they've presumably dated in other ways.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:How do they know by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Lister was probably pished again.

    4. Re:How do they know by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Pool God! King of the Cues! Prince of the Planet-Potters!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  32. No, mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I'd give a +1 informative

    Which will then draw more attention to the original post which was quite happily hidden at -1 for most readers. Now you've posted at +2, and if I hadn't posted anonymously there'd be another +2 post here.

    Mod parent down.

    1. Re:No, mod down by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      I can see what you're saying here:

      Now you've posted at +2, and if I hadn't posted anonymously there'd be another +2 post here.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  33. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Allready six-tails!

    Thats dangerous Naruto, come back!

  34. FSM by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    You dolts! It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster(tm)!

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    1. Re:FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      may you be touched by His noodly appendage.

  35. Re:And... by msauve · · Score: 1

    "like the electron, or semiconducting, or liquid crystals, or imaginary numbers."

    None of which were discovered through by a government program like NASA (Cambridge Univ., Bell Labs, antiquity, respectively). Thanks for supporting my point.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  36. Did anyone clean the lens? by Skiron · · Score: 1

    I mean, this is like looking through a dirty/wet window at a street lamp etc.

  37. Possible astroid belt origin? by minogully · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    P/2013 P5 has been ejecting dust periodically for at least five months. Astronomers believe it is possible the asteroid's rotation rate increased to the point where its surface started flying apart.

    All they said was, "At least five months". If we worked backwards, how big would this asteroid have been, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago?

  38. Re:And... by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Cambridge university received massive amounts of funding for that research, by the way. His point still stands - there is plenty of research paid for by governments around the world which has no seemingly-obvious practical applications, but which ends up creating whole industries in which countless people work, which help improve our daily lives immeasurably. Just because you can't see it doesn't magically make it worthless. In fact, your post was more of an admission of your lack of knowledge than a condemnation of the system of government-sponsored research wasting money.

  39. Rhysling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    flushing the jets clean

  40. First quantum asteroid found by smitsco · · Score: 1

    Everytime they observe it, it changes. If they would stop looking at it, the debris will stop.

    Down with the astronomers, they are destroying the asteroid.

  41. No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mining operations by the Centauri Consortium are causing more than usual activity in a neighboring solar system. Please adjust starship trajectories accordingly."
    - Small notice on the back pages of the Galactic Gazette

  42. Re:And... by melikamp · · Score: 1

    a lot of basic science isn't about finding groundbreaking stuff all the time

    In this case, however, it is literally about groundbreaking stuff.

  43. give me that ol' time kook-ligion by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    BAH.
    Obviously it's the Ringmakers of Saturn doin' whatever they do.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  44. Can Asteroids not have geysers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Earth geysers are usually the result of radioactive decay heating water until the pressure builds up enough to expel it through the rocky crust.

    Is there some reason an Asteroid can't have some radioactive material and an ice pocket under the rocket/metallic surface?

  45. P/1023 P5 is NOT between Mars and Jupiter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    P/1023 P5 is NOT between Mars and Jupiter. P/2013 P5 is a quarter orbit outside of the Mars Jupiter alignment
    Shoddy fact checking, reporters. What else is miss-reported?

    Now, it's between the ORBITS of Mars and Jupiter. If that's what you meant, better fix it!

  46. Re:And... by cusco · · Score: 1

    You said that much more politely than I was going to do.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  47. Gaia spoke by fritsd · · Score: 1

    We just received word from Cirocco Jones, the astronaut closest to the phenomenon, that she received a transmission: "y'all are welcome to come visit, but leave the furries at home, because they creep out My titanides. Oh, and heroes only.".

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  48. Warning: Video I linked has brief female nudity by bledri · · Score: 1

    I only listened the first time I played it, so I missed it. So if a brief flash of Playboy model Deanna Brooks nude is offensive to you or those around you, don't click on it. Sorry about that... Or, your welcome.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  49. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no, this is not a troll

    Bullshit. Who are you trying to fool, kid? FOAD.

  50. Comet-No-Spin-Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this object was rotating we would observe a spiral in its arm(s). These appear to be beams. I don't see how it could be perceived any other way. Trust your eyes.