Asteroid Whizzing By Earth 6 Times Closer Than the Moon (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader shares a CNET report: The problem with asteroids passing near Earth is that they're often difficult to spot. Fortunately the hardest ones to see in our neighborhood also tend to be the smaller ones. Such is the case with 2017 BH30, which was discovered Sunday by the Catalina Sky Survey just hours before passing by us at the creepy-close distance of only 40,563 miles (65,280 kilometres). This asteroid is estimated to be between 15-32.8 feet (4.6-10 metres) in length, making it somewhere between the size of a truck and a... big truck. That's pretty small by asteroid standards, but it's also the closest spotted asteroid to pass us since September when asteroid 2016 RB1 passed within 24,000 miles (about 39,000 kilometres) of our planet's surface, putting it almost as close as satellites in geosynchronous orbit. This is the third asteroid to buzz by earth closer than the distance to the moon this year. We don't expect a closer pass by one of these visitors until October, when asteroid 2012 TC4 could come more than twice as close.

Comments

Are there more or do we just find more?

[Opportunist]

I can't help it, but those reports have been increasing in numbers rapidly. Either NASA needs money or our detectors have been improving considerably lately.

Re:Are there more or do we just find more?

[skids]

You know, even avoiding mass panic for a mostly-harmless air-burst (or perhaps making nuclear weapons trigger fingers less itchy) with a heads up might be worth it, and, if we did find out with decades of warning, we'd have one hell of a fire under our ass to come up with a solution, so who knows what we might come up with.

Re:Are there more or do we just find more?

[kwiecmmm]

Actually most asteroids orbit the sun and pass by the earth's orbit on the way in and out. So if we found one on the way in that could hit us on the way out, we could do something about it. Or if we determine the orbit could allow it to hit us the next time it comes through then we could do something about it.

Ignoring this would make us no better than the dinosaurs.

Re:Are there more or do we just find more?

[ShanghaiBill]

It is pointless to spend a lot of money on this technology,

Except that "a lot of money" is not required. The equipment used already exists, and even most of the data is already available. It just needs to be analysed to look for the NEOs.

Sounds great in theory but in practice it's not going to do you any good.

Except there is plenty we can do. Even with a few hours warning, we can tell people to get away from windows and remove stuff from shelves. Flying glass was the biggest source of injuries from the Chelyabinsk impact.
Other short term precautions:
1. Stop trains, so they don't come off the track.
2. Stop additional cars from entering tunnels.
3. Pretension seismic dampers in tall structures
4. Sound an alarm to warn people in warehouses and stores to move away from shelves.
5. Pull up automatic safely webbing to prevent pallets from falling off racks.
6. Stop and lower cargo on forklifts.
7. Start powering down heavy machinery
8. Stop people from entering elevators
9. Open fire station doors, so they don't jam closed.
10. Shutdown the flames in furnaces and water heaters
11. Start reducing gas pressure in pipelines.
12. Warn people on beaches to start moving to higher ground.
13. Start backup diesels for emergency services.
14. Retract the control rods from nuclear reactors.

Re:Are there more or do we just find more?

[ShanghaiBill]

You forgot: 15. Create huge panic and looting.

Panics rarely happen, and happen much less with longer term warnings. During a crisis, people tend to cooperate and bond together. This is one area where real life diverges from the movies.

Looting tends to happen in the aftermath of a disaster, so greater warning will be unlikely to make it worse, and will more likely to improve the situation by giving more time to mobilize police and military resources. A warning will also give shop owners more time to get to their shops and exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

6 times closer than the moon?

[goombah99]

What kind of english is that?

Re:6 times closer than the moon?

[Chrisq]

compounded by "more than twice as close." Does that mean less than half the distance (my guess) or more than half the distance?

Re:6 times closer than the moon?

[Oswald McWeany]

What kind of english is that?

That was my thought too. 1/6 the distance of the moon would make more sense. It's like saying Suzy is twice as skinny as Lucy... it doesn't really make sense even though we know what you mean by it.

Re:6 times closer than the moon?

[goombah99]

The article is 6 times less better english speaking than above average. One day I go to park went, There see I a man grinding a monkey's organ.

Re:6 times closer than the moon?

[zm]

Slashdot knows words. They are the best words. It's the best English. It's great. Believe me. Let's make /. great again.

Re:6 times closer than the moon?

[Scarred Intellect]

compounded by "more than twice as close." Does that mean less than half the distance (my guess) or more than half the distance?

Yes.

Re:6 times closer than the moon?

[DontBeAMoran]

It all depends on how close to the Moon we are these days. I mean, are we still angry at it?

I've Had Enough of This

[avgjoe62]

This is the third asteroid to buzz by earth closer than the distance to the moon this year.

That's it, I'm heading down to the local planning office at Alpha Centauri and lodging a stern complaint about this new hyperspace bypass.