Slashdot Mirror


A Small Asteroid Buzzed Earth Wednesday, But Everything's Cool (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: If the Earth were a person, it might have felt a sudden wind rustling its hair when a small asteroid whizzed past the planet on Wednesday. The asteroid, saddled with the name 2016 RB1, is a new discovery. Astronomers just noticed it on September 5 thanks to the keen eye of a telescope from the Catalina Sky Survey in Tucson, Arizona. What makes 2016 RB1 so sneaky is its small size. It's only about 25 to 50 feet (7 to 16 meters) in diameter. It passed within just 25,000 miles (40,000 kilometers) of Earth, which NASA helpfully translates into 1/10th the distance from Earth to the moon. In terms of the massive size of the galaxy, that qualifies as a relatively close shave. An animated GIF of the flyby shows a tiny white dot moving against a grainy space background. The asteroid's trajectory kept it well out of the way of any satellites, and the planet was never in any danger.

94 comments

  1. Wooshdot by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

    subject says it all

  2. What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm too lazy to do more than ask the question: what if it had hit earth? How bad would that have been? Are we talking "hey, what was that noise?" or would it have destroyed a city block, or more?

    1. Re:What if? by coolmoe2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well this one was only slightly larger at 20 Meters.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      So yeah it might have done some significant damage to a city but not a planet killer.
      Your welcome

    2. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a physicist (IANAP?), but my guess is that, at 17 meters of diameter it probably would've burned up on entry.

      Worst case scenario, if it didn't burn up, it would still retain some of it's mass and cause a small-ish impact crater. Not fun for anyone on or near the impact site, but not catastrophic for the planet either.

    3. Re:What if? by As_I_Please · · Score: 1

      This asteroid is about half the diameter of the Chelyabinsk meteor that landed in Russia, so it would probably have similar, if smaller, effects depending on its elevation and proximity to cities when it exploded/impacted Earth.

    4. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My welcome? My welcome what?

    5. Re:What if? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      There are other variables to take into account such as the objects composition/density, it's velocity, and the angle that it hits at.

    6. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your welcome has been misplaced.

    7. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it was a rubble pile there would be virtually no chance that it would just "burn up". The Chelyabinsk asteroid a few years ago was only a few meters larger and it released a blast equivalent to 450k tones of TNT. Luckily it broke up fairly high in the atmosphere so the explosion was somewhat dampened, even so it blew doors off their frames and smashed windows. The asteroid that created Meteor Crater in Arizona is believed to have been only about 50 meters in size and it carved a crater almost a mile wide and well over 500 ft deep.

    8. Re:What if? by Falos · · Score: 0

      A doubled diameter is probably significant. I'm no physicist, but I think if volume's the key value it's a cubed effect, squared if it's mass. Though framing it like that (if valid) is probably oversimplified.

      Sister post suggests some likely relevant factors, but I think we're overlooking proximity to civilization, a fluke of Chelyabinsk is my understanding. Earth won't notice a 20-meter in the ocean.

    9. Re:What if? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      50 feet is a Chelyabink-sized asteroid. Had it been a direct hit on the city, it could have killed a million people.

    10. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A doubled diameter is probably significant. I'm no physicist, but I think if volume's the key value it's a cubed effect, squared if it's mass.

      You're also no mathematician. At the same density, mass has to go directly with volume (as the cube.) Assuming the same density and velocity, 2x the size gives 8x the KE.

    11. Re:What if? by Falos · · Score: 1

      Are you going to contradict "significant"? If not you've quibbled the inconsequential, by definition.

      In fact, your emphasis is supporting my claim. After downvoting it. I guess you managed to contradict something.

    12. Re:What if? by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      I found the relative velocity through the JPL small body database - a very slow 8 km/sec. Looking at the orbital diagram, it was more like the Earth passing the asteroid rather than the other way around!

      Purdue's impact calculator has it at a 51 kiloton explosion, versus 541 kilotons for a projectile the size of the Chelyabinsk meteorite

      Now who's welcome?

    13. Re:What if? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The AC was saying that both mass and volume would be a cubed effect, not cubed for volume and squared for mass.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  3. That's close, in space terms by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    25000 miles sounds like a lot, but all the geo-stationary satellites (50+) are just about that high at about 22000 mi.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:That's close, in space terms by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      25000 miles sounds like a lot, but all the geo-stationary satellites (50+) are just about that high at about 22000 mi.

      So a missed opportunity to put a big rock into a parking orbit for mining. I wonder what the delta-V is on those bad boys.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill, you're insane.

    3. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy large.

    4. Re:That's close, in space terms by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      so it missed them by about 3000 miles a little more than the width of the United States... if you drove about 8 hours a day approximately 500 miles it would take almost 6 days to cross. Sounds like a fun trip.

    5. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as Earth's radius is about 6000 km, if the Earth was a person, this would be like a bacteria (~1e-6 m) buzzing by 13 m up in the air.

    6. Re:That's close, in space terms by glenebob · · Score: 2

      That sounds like a horrible trip. There aren't any gas stations out there.

    7. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * bacterium and * about 20 m (humans aren't 1m tall), sorry, so much error in so little text :(

    8. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like a horrible trip. There aren't any gas stations out there.

      So make sure you go potty before you leave

    9. Re:That's close, in space terms by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So a missed opportunity to put a big rock into a parking orbit for mining. I wonder what the delta-V is on those bad boys.

      Here's how to do it: Put some ion thrusters on the asteroid a few month ahead of time, and then alter the trajectory just enough so that it skims through the upper atmosphere. The friction will slow it down enough to convert the trajectory from a hyperbola to an eccentric elliptical orbit. Then use thrusters to slowly nudge it into a stable circular orbit.

      In addition to mining, it can be used as a counterweight for a space elevator.

    10. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that bacterium was a simple soil bacteria sure most people might go "so what", swap that out with Ebola or a flesh eating strain and the response changes signification. That said however its a pretty faulty comparison, the "Planet" (the biosphere) shrugged off the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs like a person recovering from an all night kegger, a headache and some queasiness but it was mostly over it by the the next day. Unknown asteroids of this kind are more like a serial sniper, popping up at random and picking off people in your community. We've simply been lucky over the past hundred years that when this "sniper" took a shot they happened to miss (hit remote areas or detonated high in the atmosphere).

    11. Re:That's close, in space terms by I4ko · · Score: 0

      That's not close. It is about the Earth circumference at the equator. Anything farther out and the earth's diameter is too far out.

    12. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill, compared to this lunatic you're completely normal.

    13. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The delta-v required to put a rock like that into orbit after not even finding it until a handful of days ago would be enormous. As in, all your rockets are belong to that effort and still didn't do it enormous.

    14. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hard drives can store more and we have 3D printers now! Surely mining asteroids is as simple as installing Python?

    15. Re:That's close, in space terms by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a horrible trip. There aren't any gas stations out there.

      Who needs gas, after all, a Tesla will make it... right.... a quick stop to solar charge it for a week (250W panel) and you are on your way again...

    16. Re:That's close, in space terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes: as simple as installing Python on an ENIAC.

      Why?

      Becuse rokkit sciense iz hard.

    17. Re:That's close, in space terms by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      20-odd metres across is hardly "big".

      Useful, but not a dinosaur killer. It's comparable in size to the Chelyabinsk window-shattering meteorite of a couple of years ago.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:That's close, in space terms by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      In addition to mining, it can be used as a counterweight for a space elevator.

      But we need to mine Great A'tuin to make the unobtanium for the space elevator.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:That's close, in space terms by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      If they had a couple of years warning it would make a perfect target for mining - relatively small mas, close proximity, nice low delta V..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    20. Re: That's close, in space terms by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for beating me to that. I cringe when someone uses the plural as singular. cf alga and algae

    21. Re:That's close, in space terms by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      If they had a couple of years warning it would make a perfect target for mining - relatively small mas, close proximity, nice low delta V..

      Don't worry, if it was passing that slow it will be back later, we can get it then.
      If it doesn't hit us then...

    22. Re:That's close, in space terms by martinfb · · Score: 1

      25 to 50 ft diameter is not a worthy candidate for the millions it'd take to just get to it, let alone mine it!

      And, what about the possibility of introducing unwanted organisms to our biosphere?

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  4. A more useful measurement by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    Is that it passed at 6.3 earth radii. If earth was a standard football (radius 4.5 inches/11.5 cm) it passed 28 inches (72 cm) away. Comfortably safe.

    1. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Standard football?

      NFL? High school? NCAA?

      That sounds a bit big even for a NFL football at the thickest point, and too small end to end.

      Or did you mean a soccer ball?

    2. Re:A more useful measurement by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      I am a Brit, so yes: I mean what you call soccer, there are standard sizes. I have no idea how big an American football is.

    3. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He meant football field, not american handegg field.

    4. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football. A combination of ''foot'' and ''ball''. Where you use your foot to move the ball more than once per half.

    5. Re:A more useful measurement by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that all modern sports that aren't done on horseback could be named football, right? Foot referred to the sport being played on foot.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:A more useful measurement by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      If you could put it into Libraries of Congress we'd be able to follow along...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He clearly means American football since we speak American on this site.
      A size 5 foot-ball intended for hand-carry has a radius of about 8.6 cm and a major axis, if you'd call it that, of 17 cm or so.
      Take the log base e of the coefficient of the 9th term in the Taylor series and you might have your answer.

    8. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that all modern sports that aren't done on horseback could be named football, right? Foot referred to the sport being played on foot.

      Counter examples to your theory: hockey, diving, cycling, most of track and field... I'm already bored typing up the examples I can think of.

    9. Re:A more useful measurement by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for giving examples that aren't called football since they aren't played on foot, or don't involve balls...

      I am unsure how any of those are counter examples of sports that could be called football as they are played on foot.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for once again showing us you're an idiot.
      You foolishly claimed 'all modern sports that aren't done on horseback could be named football.'
      If you are going to weasel out by saying "well they could". Well anything could be called anything. Having a beer down the pub could be called football.

    11. Re:A more useful measurement by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it looks like there is an idiot here, but that isn't the person behind my keyboard.

      Intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying doesn't make me an idiot, but thank you for playing.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:A more useful measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you tell us what you think you said, and we can see how well it matches the idiocy you actually said.
      Is that person in front of your keyboard instead?

  5. Just a little bit lower, please by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    a sudden wind rustling its hair when a small asteroid whizzed past the planet on Wednesday

    Explains Trumps' hair.

    1. Re:Just a little bit lower, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn... another moron who can't discuss science so he has to shoehorn in his views on politics or religion.

      Run along, son. Let the adults talk.

    2. Re:Just a little bit lower, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Run along, son. Let the adults talk.

      Says the anonymous coward

    3. Re:Just a little bit lower, please by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's a statement on grooming, not politics.

    4. Re:Just a little bit lower, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the anonymous coward

    5. Re:Just a little bit lower, please by sjames · · Score: 1

      That was no asteroid. It was probably a shoe.

  6. Trajectory by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ...The asteroid's trajectory kept it well out of the way of any satellites...

    Fortunately, the trajectory took the rock to the south of Earth where there are very few satellites. If the rock had passed by at that same distance on the equatorial plane (where the geosynchronous satellites reside at 25,000 miles), many, many people would have lost a lot of sleep.

    1. Re:Trajectory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of trajectory, wouldn't passing so close to earth have altered it?

    2. Re:Trajectory by suutar · · Score: 1

      geosync is 22,300 miles, not 25k... do they put satellites at 25 and just have them thrust to stay in position?

    3. Re:Trajectory by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...geosync is 22,300 miles, not 25k..

      thx for the correction.

    4. Re:Trajectory by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Speaking of trajectory, wouldn't passing so close to earth have altered it?

      Yes. http://www.spaceweather.com/ar... "...After it buzzed Earth, the space rock turned and headed for the Moon, executing a wider flyby of 179,000 miles on Sept. 8th. Researchers say 2016 RB1 is ~50 ft in diameter, about the size of a grey whale. ..."

    5. Re:Trajectory by balbeir · · Score: 1

      Well that's much bigger than a bowl of petunias. And we missed a chance to become good friends.

    6. Re:Trajectory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Clarke belt is about 762 million feet long. There are perhaps a couple hundred important satellites in it. The space rock was 50 feet across. The odds of it hitting anything in the geosync satellite belt, even if it flew straight through it, are worse than the odds of hitting the mega millions lottery.

  7. Thanks for telling me AFTER the fact by mi · · Score: 2

    ... but everything's cool

    I for one am grateful for learning about this after it was all over.

    Astronomers just noticed it on September 5

    Heavens, my pretty little head would've been worried for three days, had it been publicized then...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Thanks for telling me AFTER the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, I am certain your average Trump supporter would go into panic mode, rioting, ransacking, pillaging.

  8. Nothing to see here, move along by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 2

    When a near-miss asteroid of any size is spotted with only three day's notice, it's probably not a good idea for them to say that "The planet was never in any danger."

    Unless they want everyone to just shrug it off and go about our normal business while we wait to die in a sudden 'KT' fiery maelstrom.

    Do they?

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was hard to spot because it was small

      The small size kept it from being a threat to the planet

      If it had been large enough to cause significant damage, then they certainly would have seen it quite some time ago

    2. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they probably would have spotted it at least two weeks ago in that case.

    3. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's NOT certain. They estimate that they've cataloged MOST dangerous asteroids, but dangerous asteroids have previously only been detected on approach, and not because they were small.

      IIRC, the last time I checked the list the estimated that they had cataloged over 99% of all earth-crossing asteroids. But they didn't provided even an estimated level of certainty. And collisions can, at any time, cause an asteroid to alter it's orbit. And they aren't checked that frequently.

      So certainty is not a reasonable evaluation. Confidence, perhaps.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The planet was never in danger by this asteroid, or any asteroids of its size. Occupants of the planet are. This one missed by happenstance, others will not. Depending on where such asteroids land thousands of people could perish by such an object striking Earth.

      The difficulty of detecting such small objects quickly enough with enough precision to evacuate the area the impact would affect is so high it is unlikely that a project to allow for early detections will ever be prioritized and funded by those in power.

      So, we should be happy with the news of other such near misses, until one hits.

    5. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asteroid collisions almost never happen. The average asteroid will never come close enough to even see another asteroid in any given orbit. The conventional wisdom image of a rocky debris field (Star Wars, for example) is completely wrong. The asteroid belt is 99.999999% empty space.

    6. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand things. IIUC, *an* asteroid will almost never collide with another, but asteroids collide all the time. It's the birthday paradox again.

      OTOH, changing the orbit from low eccentricity to an earth-crosser is a major encounter, and would almost never happen...but a slight orbital change that IS reasonable could set things up so that resonance with various planets could amplify the orbital change over time. Changing it into an earth-crosser is, of course, still wildly improbable. Which is why I considered it reasonable to be confident that the danger was minuscule.

      All that said, I am not an astronomer, and I don't think most astronomers would have an informed opinion.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. yeah, kinda happens a lot of the time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See those shooting stars at night? (Well, you probably don't due to light pollution. Go out to the country and you'll notice them if you keep looking up.) Those are *all* bits of space matter that got into our atmosphere, and they happen all the time. Head on over to http://spaceweather.com . Scroll on down to the All-Sky Fireball Network, and look at the number of arcs showing the number of known fireballs in the last 24 hours. Then take one more item down to Near Earth Asteroids and look at the list of objects that are currently being tracked. There are always a dozen or so objects being looked at that are close to Earth, astronomically speaking. Yes, it's pretty rare to get one at .1 LD (lunar distance.) But inside the distance from here to the moon is nothing special. It's not uncommon for an object to be detected just days before an Earth transit. The size of this object is certainly nothing special.

    (To the guy above pointing out this is half the size of the Cheyabinsk meteorite.... learning square-cube laws are really helpful in understanding that half the size means about 10% of the volume of the greater object... which has a lot to do with amount of possible energy release, not to mention odds of an uncontrolled object not surviving entry.)

    Might as well panic yourself that your car will get pancaked on your drive home by a careless driver - the odds of that occuring are *MUCH* greater.

  10. Preposterous comparison by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 4, Funny

    In terms of the massive size of the galaxy, the closest distance of this rock to Earth and the distance from Pluto to the Sun are pretty much the same.

  11. "...and the planet was never in any danger." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phew, so the people and real estate don't matter. That's fine I guess?

     

  12. The planet is NEVER in any danger! by Geste · · Score: 1

    The planet is FINE.

    1. Re:The planet is NEVER in any danger! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "...the people are fucked"
      --George Carlin

  13. Nuclear Powered Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just thinking, we are going to need some fast acting powerful way to defend against something like that. Maybe we can etch some wings on that asteroid so it catches wind when it hits the atmosphere and ejects itself like a skipping rock. Did anyone catch the velocity of that asteroid relative to earth?

  14. Waste of space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one has to win the biggest non-story award so far this year. This shit happens constantly and is not worth mentioning.

  15. Results of a Hit? by QuadEddie · · Score: 2

    Can someone chime in with the results of a hit? Will that thing survive entry/blow up in the atmosphere/do damage? What would the expect force be (m * a) and what would that mean to us in layman's terms?

    1. Re:Results of a Hit? by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      The Chelyabinsk meteor from 2013 was about 20 meters in diameter, this one says 7-16 meters.

    2. Re:Results of a Hit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many unknown factors, most especially the object's composition and density, and velocity. While all those can be defined for the Cheylabinsk meteor (I'm getting somewhere around 1.53 g/cm^3 density (heavier than the Eiffel Tower in a package about 400 m^3, density right around that of Calcium at 1.55 g/cm^3... yeah, it was like a GIANT Tums. :) ) and speed around 65,000 km/h (41,000 mph.)

      If there's a fast way to get estimates of anything for those values for the object (2016 RB1,) I don't know it.

      But using SpaceWeather's size estimate (12m, 1728m^3 rough volume,) and comparing that to the estimate of the Cheylabinsk meteor (20m, 8000m^3 rough volume,) if the densities were equal and velocities were equal, the volume of this object being only 21% of the Cheylabinsk object would mean much smaller boom. (But great plenty.) Plus we can't have much of an idea if the newcomer would have the same properties of atmospheric heating and detonation - the newcomer may just fizzle and make a pretty fireball.... or it might be a solid chunk of nickle-iron and actually be a ground impactor with BIG boom force.

      Sorry that all this is a fancy way of saying, "Not enough data, sorry!"

    3. Re:Results of a Hit? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      ...and can you express it in Libraries of Congress?

    4. Re:Results of a Hit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction.... I mistakenly used cubic volume of a square instead of a sphere. As a spheroid, the newcomer is roughly 905 m^3 Cheylabinsk is roughly 4,189 m^3 in volume. Doesn't affect the volume comparison of the newcomer being 21% of Cheylabinsk. But it does up the density of Cheylabinsk quite a bit to 2.92 g/cm^3, making it more than Aluminum (2.7 g/cm^3) and less than Bromine (3.12 g/cm^3), right about at Scandium (2.95 g/cm^3.) It may have been as dense as 4.93 g/cm^3 (maximum estimated mass, minimum estimated size,) comparable to Iodine. There's also no assurance that either is/was a true sphere, and it's much more likely it was an oblate spheroid or any other polygonal form... without any easy way to know what its flattening ratio was. HT to Wikipedia, Google Sphere Volume calculator, and calculator.net's density calculator.

      I LOVE PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY!!!!! (duh...) and i have no sex life, either. ;)

    5. Re:Results of a Hit? by QuadEddie · · Score: 1

      Interesting. A bullet or a dirt clod... we'll never know.

  16. An anonymous reader writes? Wrong!!!eleventy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    An anonymous reader didn't write that -- A freelance C|NET tech writer by the name of Amanda Kooser wrote that. In fact, that Slashdot summary was basically a copy/paste of her entire C|NET article.

    If anything it should say "An anonymous reader informed Slashdot of an article on C|NET written by Amanda Kooser which states" and then include a summary of her article and NOT her entire article.

    1. Re:An anonymous reader writes? Wrong!!!eleventy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your entire article is the length of an average Slashdot story summary, well, um...yeah. -PCP

    2. Re:An anonymous reader writes? Wrong!!!eleventy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That's too much like hard work for most ACs. And most "journalists".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. A bit smaller than Chelyabinsk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was estimated as being a little bit smaller than the Chelyabinsk meteor which exploded high up in Russian skies not long ago with the energy of around 20 - 30 Hiroshimas.

    That size isn't planet-threatening, but if it remained intact and reached the ground in a populated area it would obviously be catastrophic.

  18. NO. IT IS NOT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It hit Earth and we all died. You blind fool.

  19. Scout ship? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like a stealth scout ship to me!

    1. Re:Scout ship? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  20. small but still deadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the tunguska one was around that size also, small but still deadly, these little sneaky fuckers can devastate big cities if it they ever impact us