Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Once In a Lifetime" Asteroid Sighting Monday Night

Posted by samzenpus on from the watch-the-show dept.

An anonymous reader writes Tonight, Asteroid 2004 BL86 will make a pass by the Earth at just 745,000 miles away. This should offer stargazers a great opportunity to see the half-kilometer space rock. CNN has some tips on the best method and time to look. From the article: "The best chance for viewing will be from 8 p.m. ET Monday to 1 a.m. ET Tuesday. Asteroid 2004 BL86 is large, and it will brighten, but nonetheless will not be observable with the naked eye. Some astronomy websites say a pair of binoculars could do the trick, but Sky & Telescope recommends at least a 3- or 4-inch diameter telescope. 'One good technique for fast-movers like 2004 BL86 is to identify and lock onto a star along its path,' Sky & Telescope senior editor Kelly Beatty says. 'Then just watch at the time that the asteroid is predicted to pass by that particular star.'"

59 comments

  1. So you're saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I will die if I gaze upon this?

    1. Re:So you're saying by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Yes. If you gaze upon the heavens at the exact right moment... sorry, you still die at some point. This is not any exception to the turning of the wheel.

      As for the claim in TFS, this asteroid isn't even visible. I've seen better.

  2. Fascinating! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does any frequent contributor have more to add to this story?

  3. If I have a really long telescope... by lseltzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I might be able to see it through the blizzard here

    1. Re:If I have a really long telescope... by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think you're legitimate. You didn't say, "...blizzid heah." Too many uses of the letter R.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:If I have a really long telescope... by Maximus23 · · Score: 1

      Same here... Upstate NY... definitely too much cloud cover (unless I had a 10 mile long telescope...

  4. Best Chance For Viewing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The best chance for viewing will be from 8 p.m. ET Monday to 1 a.m. ET Tuesday."

    Or, when the big winter storm slams my area making it impossible to see anything in the sky except falling snow.

    Thanks, Mother Nature!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Best Chance For Viewing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't the blizzard winds blow away the snow, making the view of the sky clear?

      Alternatively, will the snow stick to the asteroid, making it one HUGE snowball?

    2. Re:Best Chance For Viewing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's just a conspiracy to sell milk, eggs, and bread. Go get in line before it's too late!

      My 2015 SNOWPOCALYPSE has just been rain so far.

    3. Re:Best Chance For Viewing by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      seems to be like this all the time in the north east when a nice astronomical event happens. Ive missed pretty much all major meteor showers in the past few years, a few lunar eclipses.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Best Chance For Viewing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The best chance for viewing will be from 8 p.m. ET Monday to 1 a.m. ET Tuesday."

      Or, when the big winter storm slams my area making it impossible to see anything in the sky except falling snow.

      Thanks, Mother Nature!

      >implying the storm isn't actually the asteroid breaking up and they just don't want people to worry

  5. Great timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Will it be visible through a blizzard?

  6. Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    this crap. I worked outside at night for more than twenty years, and of course I never saw one of these claimed things. There are way too many people that have vision problems or are gullible and have jerks talk them into believing they saw one of those things. The people publishing these stories get off on wasting our time.

    1. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by greenwow · · Score: -1

      I got suckered into going camping to see the Leonids. Of course we saw nothing. There was nothing to see, and it was very unpleasant since it was in November and cold. My friend was a high school science teacher, and of course he lied and claimed to see a bunch of meteors. You are correct by using the word gullible. I should have known better after the same guy suckered me into going with him to try to see Halley's Comet when we were in college. You couldn't see anything with the naked eye.

    2. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      Did he have you set up camp on the wrong side of a mountain? I live on the outskirts of an urban area with a population of over 2 million, with all its attendant light pollution, and have watched meteor showers from my back porch before.

    3. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did your job have you spending a lot of time staring up at the sky?

      If so, were you using an image intensifier, or something else that lets you see things too dim for the naked eye?

      I agree that it's silly for CNN to encourage non-enthusiasts to go out and look for this. It won't be hard for any amateur with clear skies and a small telescope, but for anybody else, (a) they're likely to miss it, and (b) they're likely to be underwhelmed if they do see it.

      But "believe in this crap"? Do you think asteroids are some sort of Illuminati lie designed to keep us in line?

    4. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      But "believe in this crap"? Do you think asteroids are some sort of Illuminati lie designed to keep us in line?

      Wow, that is Republican-level intentional misunderstanding. He posted that this entire thing is a scam. It is a scam. Even the summary here admits that it is with the quote "not be observable." YOU CAN'T SEE IT! How much more clear can anyone be? It is a scam. 100%. All it does is encourage people to go outside and waste their time so they hate science. The Republicans are doing this to turn people against science, and it is working.

    5. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holy hyperbole, Batman! Are you sure it's not the Democrats doing it so that people waste their nights and end up getting fired from their jobs for being late/tired and have to go on welfare? What about the Libertarians? They could be doing it because....oh, who the hell knows why Libertarians do things. I hate all the parties (even the little ones that just want to make shit better) because they're all corrupt and because it makes people who don't have a fucking brain in their head feel superior when they can blame the other side for all the world's woes. I'll tell you the same thing I told the people saying that they can thank Obama because their physician doesn't prescribe narcotics anymore: get your shit together. All political agencies and parties are corrupt, but none of them are competent enough to have the wide reaching effects that they are blamed for. They're bumbling idiots.

      You're making a political issue where there isn't one. Bad reporting? Yes. Political in nature? Probably not. Does politicizing a non political article make you an inbred retard hell bent on looking as stupid as possible in every situation imaginable? Abso-fucking-lutely.

    6. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      my guess is its the same AC who posts how everything is the republicans fault in everythread. especially threads that have no politics attached to them, like this one. you will always see this trolls post because no matter what it is, he tries to somehow make it the republicans fault

      who knows why, maybe his daddy didnt love him enough when he was little (or he loved him too much?)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That user has posted that story several times before on other stories about meteor showers. The user is either a troll, blind & untrusting of the sighted, or just really stupid.

      You don't need a meteor shower to see meteors, just time and a really clear sky. They show up in photos quite often if you take long exposures. But a shower saves you a lot of time, when it can be one every minute instead of every hour (depends on viewing conditions, can be much faster than that too).

      Claiming comets can't be seen is the icing on the troll cake, because Hale-Bopp was visible through a window without going outside, and the last visit of Halley would be clearly visible anywhere you could see the big and little dipper.

    8. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's me replying to myself. I'm actually every AC in every thread.

    9. Re:Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the matter with you people? Don't you know there is a UFO behind the asteroid.? Time is close. Gotta make us some purple Kool-Aid for the trip. Bye

    10. Re: Interesting how many people believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you made my day with that post

  7. That's a lot of lifetimes by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sort of. Haley's comet only comes around every 75 years, so for most of us that's a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    However, there are oodles of asteroids and comets out there, so in general you will have plenty of opportunities in your lifetime to see some. So feel free to get some sleep tonight if you need to.

    1. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by Matheus · · Score: 1

      It is quite less common that an asteroid of this size passes this close. Yes you can see shooting stars nearly every night but this flyby is maybe worth missing a little sleep if you have the gear and diligence to be able to see it.

      It's just sleep anyway...

    2. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They mean a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see Asteroid 2004 BL86.

      Haley's comet only comes around every 75 years, so for most of us that's a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

      Why would you accept "once-in-a-lifetime" for Halley's comet, but not for Asteroid 2004 BL86?

    3. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sort of. Haley's comet only comes around every 75 years, so for most of us that's a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

      However, there are oodles of asteroids and comets out there, so in general you will have plenty of opportunities in your lifetime to see some. So feel free to get some sleep tonight if you need to.

      AFAIK, these things don't happen too often. The next big asteroid viewing opportunity is likely to be in 2027 when 1999-AN10 makes a near pass (and should be brighter than 2004-BL86). Although asteroid 2004-BL86 will revisit our neighborhood in 2050, it won't be as close as it will be tonight for another 200 years...

    4. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's once-in-a-lifetime thing for those who'll be dead by August 7, 2027.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      lol. Of all the "yeah but" comments I got, this is my favorite.

      I still have 2 issues here though. 1: That's gonna be a pretty small minority of Slashdot readers (barring disaster). and more importantly 2: You left off the "that we know of". There are far more such objects out there that we don't know about than ones that we do. Admittedly, that's an unimportant distinction if you need a lot of advanced notice to see it. However, we discover more all the time (perhaps every day), and 12 years is a pretty large amount of days. This one, as the name implies, was only discovered 10 years ago. So if you'd tried to make such a statement 12 years ago in 2003 about the next chance to see one, you would have predicted wrong.

    6. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by swb · · Score: 1

      Yes you can see shooting stars nearly every night but this flyby is maybe worth missing a little sleep if you have the gear and diligence to be able to see it.

      Call me a cynic, but if you can't see it with the naked eye, is it really that interesting?

      I'm sure it's maybe a big deal for people with telescopes and greater than average interest in astronomy, but for people not in that category it seems like it would just be one more flash of light through a telescope.

    7. Re:That's a lot of lifetimes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, what I had in mind was a flyby of an object of a roughly comparable size, and I'm pretty sure that ~0.5-1km sized objects have been mapped pretty exhaustively. So, yeah, there will be a lot of flybys before 2027, but the flybys of things we don't know about yet are bound to be somewhat less significant.

      The interesting thing here is the somewhat skewed shape of the size distribution of known NEAs, which suggests to me that the skew due to detectability happens somewhere below the ~300m region. That's what makes me think that most of the ~1km sized stuff has been already discovered.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  8. Real tips are not on CNN... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder why the summary let us think the CNN article is giving good tips while the real tips are coming from Sky and Telescope's website. It is a waste of time to refer people to the CNN article. Aren't we on a website for nerds or not? Here is the link: http://www.skyandtelescope.com...

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
    1. Re:Real tips are not on CNN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are all posting in EST time, which is pointless to the rest of the world, and that site actually tell you to go convert it yourself. Instead of also adding UTC time(to which most people know their +/- already).

      I'm starting to suspect this is subconcius thing in people from the states, as in they assume everyone should know their difference to EST, not UTC/GMT. In the same way they like to "forget" that they're one of the few countries left not operating on the international standard for measuring(or at least they don't like to admit that a lot of their scientific work have to use it, to get taken seriously around the world. Which brings me back to the site you linked, find someone that knows how to communicate time with the rest of the scientific community next time maybe?).

  9. Just make sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to wipe the snow off your lens first.

  10. "once in a lifetime?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Y*hw*h is going to smite us with this asteroid like he smited the godless dinosaurs?
    Time to break out the Nikes and the poisoned applesauce and leave these physical shells to beam up to the mothership!

  11. Too bad space habitats seeds not yet ready... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    A comment by me nine years ago on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
    "... So, what is a bottleneck is that we do not know how to make that seed self-replicating factory, or have plans for what it should create once it is landed on the moon or on a near-earth asteroid. We don't have (to use Bucky Fuller's terminology) a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science that lets us make sense of all the various manufacturing knowledge which is woven throughout our complex economy (and in practice, despite patents, is essentially horded and hidden and made proprietary whenever possible) in order to synthesize it to build elegant and flexible infrastructure for sustaining human life in style in space (or on Earth).
        So that is why I think billionaires like Jeff Bezos spending money on CATS [Cheap Access To Space] is a tragedy -- they should IMHO be spending their money on DOGS instead (Design of Great Settlements). But the designs can be done more slowly without much money using volunteers and networked personal computers -- which was the point of a SSI paper I co-authored:
                http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/... 2001_web.html
    or a couple other sites I made in that direction:
            http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...
            http://www.freevolution.net/
    My work is on a shoestring, but when I imagine what even just a million dollars a year could bring in returns supporting a core team of a handful of space settlement designers, working directly on the bottleneck issues and eventually coordinating the volunteer work of hundreds or thousands more, it is frustrating to see so much money just go into just building better rockets when the ones we have already are good enough for now."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  12. Trial run: Nuke that thing by s122604 · · Score: 1

    We ought to nuke that thing as a trial run if we ever had to for real

    I bet you could see that!

    1. Re:Trial run: Nuke that thing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We have no nukes that can 'fly' so far ... besides a nuke likely won't even 'hi't it.
      If a nuke would work at all, we need a new targeting and ignition system for the nuke (besides a missile to get it there).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Trial run: Nuke that thing by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Delta IV Heavy + deep impact targeting system + B53 = 9MT wherever you want it on the asteroid. The B53 is already hardened for use as a bunker buster so as long as you can keep relative velocity at impact similar to the reentry speed it was designed for you don't have to worry too much about where you land it on the asteroid.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Trial run: Nuke that thing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The relative speed is the problem. The asteroid will pass with something like 30km/sec. That is ten to hundred times faster than reentry of a missile.

      And a nuke that kills a bunker, wont really scratch a 'real' asteroid which easy is dozens of km in diameter.

      The only technical feasible approach is to hit it so far out that a minimal deflection is enough to have it miles or more away from its original path when it reaches earth.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Trial run: Nuke that thing by afidel · · Score: 1

      According to this study reentry speeds are up to 9.5km/s so keeping relative speed to something in that range should not be hard at all.

      A 2km spherical asteroid of average composition will have a mass of ~1.3 x 10^13kg, the energy of the B53 is ~3.8 × 10^16 Joules which for maths purposes we can assume is delivered in 1 second so an an imparted energy of 3.8*10^6N which gives an acceleration away from the blast site of ~2.9m/s^2 which should be easily sufficient to avoid impact if it's delivered with any time lead.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Trial run: Nuke that thing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The question if you can get a favorable relative speed is a question of fuel and burn times.
      Getting there to hit it, is easy (besides the actual hit) but you likely have to break again to match the speed again, to come down to the 9km/sec you mention.

      Not challenging your numerical figures, however a nuke hitting will not even transfer 1 pro mille of its energy to the asteroid. So if your calculation was correct, the speed change of the asteroid is in the range of mm per second, not metes, likely even less. Hold a hand besides a flame of a a candle or a lit bulb. Only the radiation on the side where your hand is will affect your hand or in the asteroid example the asteroid. The rest of the explosion in the "sphere of the light bulb" just goes into space.

      OTOH if you indeed manage a direct hit, preferable with an explosion 'under ground' then only that part of the explosion that ejects matter will alter the course of the asteroid.

      The rest of the energy will simply heat up a crater of molten /evaporating 'stone' which will only change the momentum minimal ... especially considering the rotation of the target, which will spread the acceleration of that radiation equally.

      In other words: the transferred energy will be 99% heat, and only one percent momentum. And depending on the 'hit scenario' the transferred energy will be probably less than 1 pro mille, so bottom line only 1/10000 of the nukes energy changes the impulse/course of the target.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  13. At least you could Haley's Comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Who gives a crap about an asteroid you can't see?

  14. The wording makes me nervous by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The asteroid the dinosaurs spotted was certainly "once in a life-time".

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  15. Insensitive clod! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    I'm in the Northeast and this *&%!@ snowstorm is keeping me from viewing the stars.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Insensitive clod! by GNious · · Score: 1

      Then you shouldn't have voted for Obama!

    2. Re:Insensitive clod! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      I didn't! I still can't see the stars with all these clouds and snow.

  16. Water flowing underground by allquixotic · · Score: 1

    Same as it ever was....

  17. My Telescope experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a telescope for Christmas this year. I live in a dark area with a really nice open sky with a lot of stars visible. I setup my $300 telescope. Totaly unimpressed. Instead of seeing a small white dot with my naked eye, I now can see slightly larger white dots through the telescope. Planets are no better, just a different color. The moon, yeah, that's cool and has some detail but $300 to look at that all the time is a waste of money.

    1. Re:My Telescope experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you got screwed for not doing your research or asking for suggestions/help from someone who knew what they were doing? I can get a new 4.5" scope and an additional eyepiece for under $200 that would let you see detail on planets, such as the polar ice on Mars or bands of clouds on Jupiter. If the optics are cheap and small, some times of the year might be worse if the planet is on the opposite side of the Sun, but even some binoculars can show you more than a dot with Mars and Jupiter.

    2. Re:My Telescope experience by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Meh. YMMV depending on a lot of variables.

      Atmospheric conditions being the predominant one. Size of scope and quality of optics are another. Light pollution within your viewing area another fun one. North Korea would kick ass for sky observation :D

      For the most part, he's right. Most viewing through a telescope is simply ' bigger dots ' or realizing what you thought was a big bright dot is actually half a dozen small ones. If the planets are visible and the conditions are right, then you can make out some detail. Mars Ice Caps, Saturn Rings, Jupiter and a moon or few. For the other " oooooh ahhhhh " stuff such as galaxies and nebulae, you're gonna have to get into astrophotography. This will require a bit more elaborate setup and a lot more $$$$ in gear.

      Silly above variables still apply though. If I lived in a dark area, I would definitely setup a mini-observatory. Alas, I can damn near read a book if I go outside the light pollution is so bad where I live.

    3. Re:My Telescope experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, conditions matter. But as stated, if your optics are bad or your situation is really bad, you won't be able to see the planets as a disk, but that is exceptional. You can make out the shape of Venus, in day light, without that large of a scope, which is about as bad as light pollution can get. If you can't see details on planets during the part of the year one is close by with a 4" scope, either you got the wrong eyepiece, you should wait until it is not cloudy, or stop cleaning your optics with steel wool.

  18. Updating the tracking firmware now... by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    I see these things so last minute - always realizing that the object tracking firmware on my scope will need to be updated in order to track.

    If only my system was internet updatable directly to the scope. Gotta find my Serial to USB connector :-(

    1. Re: Updating the tracking firmware now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heres a astronomy lesson for you all shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!

  19. Moon discovered already by gvanbelle · · Score: 1

    Radar imaging posted by JPL (http://go.nasa.gov/1thVyOO) reveal the asteroid has a moon.

  20. pointless by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    a mere 500 meter rock more than three times the distance to the moon, appearing as a speck in any telescope under $8,000.....why bother

    1. Re:pointless by PsyMan · · Score: 1

      Because the unidirectional gravitational pull of a human eyeball ~ a small moon and with enough of them focused directly on the asteroid at the right time we might be able to pull it in to a permanent orbit and mine it for shiny things.

  21. All I see is snow. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    :(

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  22. SNOW SNOW SNOW by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Nearly every astronomy event of my life with a few exceptions has been once in a lifetime missed by clouds.