Thanks again for your updates, but the article is about CP20...
You are most welcome.
And yes (*blush*) I should have typed 2003-CD20!
And is only listed [unipi.it] as having
close approaches to Venus.
Our model shows a number of
close Earth approaches
for 2003-CD20.
During
the next 100 years, we show
close Earth approaches in:
2006, 2009, 2012-2019, 2021,
2023-2025, 2028-2036, 2039, 2043,
2045-2074, 2076-2079,
2081-2084, 2087-2094, 2096, 2098-2099,
and 2102.
It is very likely that over the next few days or weeks, additional observations will allow the model for
2003-CD20 to be refined.
It would not surprise me to see some of those
close encounter points moving
away from Earth's orbit and reducing the
risk from this asteroid.
Given the complex encounter at both
the ascending node and descending node,
I am not surprised that some models
are different.
As usual, I will update my journal as
orbit model for 2003-CD30 changes.
There is a delay small in
announcing significant potential impactors.
The purpose of the delay is to allow for
additional technical review
of the data.
This review period is designed to
last about 72 hours.
I recommend that you read
FAQ
#2 in my journal for more details.
And speaking personally:
While I am very willing to keep new
asteroid information confidential
during the ~72 hour review process,
I would
never agree to permanently hide
any asteroid orbit data.
I believe that many of the technical
reviewers feel the same way.
Some people share
Geoffrey Sommer's (a US Gov
scientific adviser, Rand Corp employee and
adviser on terrorism: but NOT an
asteroid orbit modeler) view point.
However there are more
than enough people who track and model
hazardous NEO's to ensure that NEO data
will released (after the 72 hour
technical review) one way or another.
for secure ftp transfers.
The SafeTP client &
server code runs well on
Unix / Linux as well as those MS-based boxen.
Our ISP has been successfully using SafeTP
for several years.
Their windoz users transparently
use SafeTP with any Windoz FTP application.
Unix folks get that good ol' command
line tool.
Other Unix interfaces exist for
HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, DEC OSF,
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Irix, AIX, etc.
SafeTP works across firewalls as well.
With cryptographic protection and
authentication, SafeTP
is a nice ftp solution.
One day (23 March 1984 to be exact), back
Larry Bassel and I (Landon Curt Noll) were working for National
Semiconductor's Genix porting group,
we were both in our offices trying to
fix some very broken code.
Larry had been trying to fix a bug in the
classic Bourne shell (C code #defined
to death to sort of look like Algol)
and I had been working on the finger
program from early BSD (a bug ridden finger
implementation to be sure).
We happened to both wander (at the same time)
out to the hallway in Building 7C
to clear our heads.
We began to compare notes: "You won't believe
the code I am trying to fix".
And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain
damage level of the code I'm trying to fix".
As well as: "It more than bad code, the
author really had to try to make it this bad!"
After a few minutes we wandered back
into my office where I posted a
flame
to net.lang.c
inviting people to try and out obfuscate
the UN*X source code we had just been
working on.
(I had to post this
typo
correction:-).
Thus began the tradition of putting
typos in the contest rules and guidelines...
to make them more obfuscated of course!:-)
BTW: This posting was made back in the
days when AT&T was the evil giant.
Now, Microsoft makes AT&T look mild
and kind
in comparison.:-( (IMHO)
).
BTW: See the story about the
''Bill
Gates'' award.:-)
OK, back to the story.
We received a number of entries by EMail.
When we began to receive messages from outside
of the US, Larry and I decided to include
International in the name.
The
1st
IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.
The <dis>honorable mention wished to
remain anonymous.
While many have asked who it was, we
have continued to follow the author's
wish to remain anonymous.
A few years ago, we asked the author if
they still wanted to remain anonymous.
They said: "Yes, I want to keep my
anonymity.
But you can tell them that I am a well
known for my connection to the C language".
The only other anonymous winner occurred
this
year.
The
1984
winner
remains one of my all time favorites.
The name used in the posting of the
1st
IOCCC winner
posting was
International
Obfuscated
CCode
Contest
or IOCCC for short.
The posting said 1st annual, so in
1985 we held the
2nd
IOCCC contest
and the tradition continues
as the longest running contest on the Internet.
P.S. Part of the inspiration for making
the IOCCC a contest goes to the
Bulwer-Lytton
fiction contest.
Speaking for myself,
as only one of the IOCCC judges:
I want to make a Public apology for
the extremely late posting of the 2001 winners.
The delay was discourteous to the
people who put a great deal of effort
into their submissions.
Rather than go into the reasons for the delay
here:
Let me say that when the 17th IOCCC
occurs, things will
be done differently.
Thank you all those who
encouraged us to complete the 16th IOCCC.
And a very big S O R R Y for the lateness
of the release.
The news is carrying details of the
loss, devastation, and
deaths related to
one of
Australia's
worst bush fires
in history.
I'd like to focus on one small aspect
of the disaster: the loss of the Mt
Stromlo observatory facilities.
A number of the obvious sites related to
Stromlo are down, due to the
fire or due to the wide spread power
outages in the area.
I will make links to
indirect and cached pages.
Established in 1924, the Commonwealth Observatory at
Mount
Stromlo, on the outskirts of Canberra.
Commonwealth Observatory was recognized for its important research into the origin and future of the universe.
Astronomers at
Mount Stromlo made outstanding contributions to astronomy.
It would be difficult to list all of the
important contributions to Astronomy made
by the people working at Mt. Stromlo.
Now, a few come to mind:
Stromlo research in the 1950s provided the first clue that the Magellanic Clouds had evolved differently from our own galaxy.
These results gave us important insights into galactic evolution.
In the 1990's, astronomers from Stromlo and Sliding Springs (many km away from the fire area)
showed that about 90% of disc galaxies
(such as our own) are greatly influenced by
''dark matter'', in their galaxies' halos.
They made important observations in the
first hours after
Supernova
1987A (the first naked eye
supernova in several
centuries of years) was discovered.
Then there was all of that tedious, but vital
work of spectral classification of southern stars.
Many of the first parallax distances to
Southern stars were first made at Stromlo.
The list goes on and on...
I am sorry that I must leave out so many
other significant contributions!
One of the principal instruments at
Stromlo was the
74-inch
(188-cm) reflecting telescope.
The 74-inch telescope was erected in 1953, and until the completion in 1974 of the 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope at Siding Spring, this was the largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 1982, it
was used to discover
the fossil star CD-38245: a star so old that it is made almost purely of gases left over from the big bang.
It also was home scopes such as the
robotic
50-inch (127-cm).
It was an excellent example of how an older
telescope could be outfitted with new controls
and instruments to perform innovative work.
The
MACHO project was conducted
on the 50 inch.
Two historical scopes come to mind, the Oddie,
and the Yale-Columbia telescope:
The
Oddie, was a wonderful 9-inch Newtonian telescope.
The
Victorian MP, James Oddie, presented this telescope to the Commonwealth government for use in the proposed Commonwealth Observatory.
It was installed on the site at "Mt Strom" (as Stromlo was originally known) in September 1911. Over the years the Oddie telescope has made valuable contributions to Southern Hemisphere astronomy; it did some of the first measurements of the brightness, color and spectral classification of southern stars.
The
Yale-Columbia telescope,
26-inch Grubb long-focus refractor was erected at this site for the determination of parallaxes of southern stars (it was the largest refractor in the southern hemisphere when first installed.
Moreover, there were other scopes as well...
But alas, from what can be seen
from the air at this time, most, if not
all of those
telescopes have been lost.
At appears that heat from the burning of the
nearby
bush/trees was hot enough to melt
many of the domes at the observatory.
The
Canberra
Astronomical Society
used
the Stromlo lecture hall for their monthly
meetings.
During public nights, the public had access
to a domed C14 scope, the Oddie, and a
number of scopes brought to the site by members... all through the hard work and generous
efforts of the
Canberra
Astronomical Society.
I had the privilege of observing at Mt Stromlo
several times and spoke at one of the CAS meetings.
I still can recall flying down from the US
to a CAS
member's home
to see
SN1987,
.
I was there only 36 hours after the
naked eye supernova was
first observed.
I still recall seeing the single star,
at a distance of over 168,000 light-years,
change
in color and rightness over the course of
an evening.
I was one of the most important
astronomical events I have had the honor to
witness.
I recall that
every scope up at Mt Stromlo
was all pointed at the Large Magellanic
Could where
SN
1987A was blazing away.
The previous observing board schedule was
cancelled as people raced to collect as much
early critical data as they could in the
early hours of the event.
I had the privilege of being with the
members of the Canberra Astronomical
Society on two of my several total
solar eclipses: 1991 in Hawaii, US
and most recently the
2001
eclipse in Ceduna, AU.
(Both trips count among my several
successful viewings of solar totality.
Although the 1991 Hawaii
was a close call that was saved because my
friend (the one who introduced me to the CAS)
broke his arm a very short time
before the Eclipse... which allowed both of
us to have a full view of Totality in Hawaii... but that is another story!)
My best wishes and heart felt sorrow go
out to all of those people who worked so hard
to make Mt. Stromlo such a wonderful place
for the public to visit
and who helped the observatory make many
important contributions to Astronomy.
Much of what was lost cannot be replaced.
Still
it is my hope that those who are left
will be able to rebuild something anew out this
tragedy.
I have worked with groups who were very
concerned about data theft.
These people did
not believe data destruction by
multiple over-writes.
They only wrote critical data onto permanent
magnetic media in encrypted form.
They also physically destroyed hardware and
media when they no longer needed it.
If the
above
posting
about RAM and disk recovery
is true, then those
people were justified in their practices.
At the time I thought that physical destruction
of RAM
was a bit much, but based on that Gutmann
paper that was sited, they may not have
been that far off.
So if people are doing data mining
by going through old disk drives
as the article about the 2 MIT
grad students says, and if tools that
wipe a disk drive are not good enough,
then physical destruction is about the
only thing left to protect discarded hardware.
I'm on my way to the Ceduna region for
somewhere between 30 and 32 seconds of
totality. I'll spend ~2 weeks looking
at sites between Canberra and Ceduna,
but the highlight will certainly be
totality.
Why go all that way to in the place where
the "sun don't shine:-)" for a few seconds?
If you have ever seen / experienced a true
100% total eclipse you might understand.
I have NEVER seem a photograph
do justice to the experience.
Not only do photographs fail to present the
full dynamic range of the visual, they lack
the wind, the temperature drop, the effect
on plants, birds, insects, people...
You really have to see and experience a total
solar eclipse directly.
Each eclipse is unique. The shape and
size of the solar corona. The colors.
Solar prominence positions, shapes, rates
of change. Sky brightness. Duration of
the diamond rings. Shadow edge sharpness.
Shadow band size and change rate. etc. etc.
No two eclipses look the same.
The eclipse near/at Ceduna will have some
special features.
The short duration is a result of the moon
and sun being very near the same size.
Long eclipses (such as up 7+ minutes)
allow for observation of the inner
corona (near the solar disk edge) only
near the beginning and end of the Eclipse.
Short eclipses offer excellent inner corona views
throughout the eclipse.
There is a trade-off between inner detail
and duration.
The eclipse will be near sunset. The same
optical illusion that makes a full moon near
the horizon seem large makes the solar
corona (sometimes 2x to 4x the
apparent size of
the sun/moon disk) seem huge.
The Sun will set after totality ends but while
the moon is partially covering the solar disk.
We will watch a crescent sun set. Instead
of watching a single point wink out, we will
watch two points wink out one after the other.
Some are hoping to see a double green flash.
The Sun should be entering quieter phase of
its sunspot cycle. But for the last few
months we have seen an unusual degree of
activity this late in cycle.
A more active sun frequently results in
a non-uniform shaped corona.
A more active sun frequently results more
and unusual numbers of solar
prominences.
Q: Learning Latin - Has it helped you? A:Latin helped me write a Perl program!
I used my knowledge of Latin
to help me write the
Name
of a Number Perl / CGI program.
Now I know how to determine the
English
name of any integer
of any size.
While some dictionaries list names of numbers as large as 10^33 (one decillion) or even
10^63 (one vigintillion), it took a study of
Latin
before I was able
to determine the name of numbers such as:
You never know when you may need to
give the English
name of a large integer.
It was almost 20 years after I discovered
what was then (in 1979) the largest known prime
2^23209-1
before I knew how to pronounce the
English name of its decimal representation.
If I had studied Latin
in more detail when I was in grade school then
I would have been ready to answer the
frequently asked question:
"How do you pronounce it?"
As the first person who ever
took legal action against somebody
who wanted to violate a GPL
(back in 1989) I can definitively say:
The GPL Copyright holder
is the one who has standing to
seek legal action against the party they
suspect is violating the GPL.
I.e., somewhere in your GPL / LGPL there
is a:
Copyright (C) date
name
The name,
or somebody to who they have signed over
the copyright to,
is the one who has standing
to bring suit against a potential violator.
Yes we did use
Lava Lite (r)
lamps to generate random numbers by
the cryptographic hash of the digitization
of chaotic data back in 1996.
Today using a new method we call
lavarnd
(instead of lavarand with 3 a's) that uses the
thermal noise from digitial cameras.
While they were cool the new method
is smaller and does not use the lamps, only
a small USB based digitial camera.
Our new, patent free method can generate
about 100 Kbits/sec off of a
Logitech
QuickCam 3000 Pro USB camera on a
Linux system with ~1GHz CPU.
We hope to have the full site, complete
with Open Source code and CGI
demos (old and new) ready by Nov 2002.
25 Jul 2002 update, where to find newer updates
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 3, Informative
As of 25 July 2002, 21:00 UTC we do not
have not received any new observations
for 2002-NT7.
The 24 July 2002 22:00 UTC orbit model remains unchanged.
So far, no pre-discovery images of 2002-NT7
have been found.
A search of pre-discovery images is on-going.
I will post new updates to
chongo's journal
over the next few weeks.
Please check my journal for the
latest 2002-NT7 orbit model information.
Re:IANACM - but this looks highly questionable to
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
a) The period of the asteroid and the earth must be synchronized to a ratio of 3/7 to within less than app. 1 hour in 60 years - an accuracy of approximately 1:500000"
You are asking a good question.
The reason why the close approaches occur on
the same day of the year is because
2002-NT7's orbit is closest to Earth's
orbit at one point.
That point does shift around.
The current model suggests the closest approach
occurs at:
Feb 1, 2019 12h UTC
Feb 1, 2044 16h UTC (25 years, 4h later)
Feb 1, 2053 0h UTC (9 years, -16h later)
Feb 1, 2060 17h UTC (7 years, 17h later)
Feb 1, 2078 5h UTC (18 years, -12h later)
... others with skips of
7 to 14 years +/- a few hours later
The path of 2002-NT7 will next
cross earth's orbit
plane going upward at a point about
132.1708757 degrees from the Fall
Equinox.
Now 132.1708757 degrees / 360 degrees =
0.3671413214 of a circle.
Using 365.2564 days (Earth's year),
0.3671413214 of a circle * 365.2564 days =
about 134.1 days from the Fall
Equinox.
134.1 days from Sep 23 (~06 hr UTC) lands one near
1 Feb.
Take a look at this
2002-NT7
orbit
diagram.
The dark blue part of 2002-NT7's orbit is below Earth's plane.
The light blue part is
above Earth's plane.
The yellow line from the Sun (red dot in center)
going down and to the right is the 0 degree
fall equinox line.
The vertical yellow line,
132.1708757 degrees from the equinox line
(as measured in the plane of Earth's orbit,
not the plane shown on your screen)
shows where 2002-NT7 crosses Earth's orbit
plane.
That crossing spot (the place where
the dark/light parts of 2002-NT7's orbit
meet near the yellow line), you will notice, is very close
to Earth's orbit.
That spot is the place where Earth is found
on/near Feb 1.
No other place on Earth's or 2002-NT7's orbit
comes as close.
You ask another
good question about deflection:
"
b) All those near flybys must not significantly alter the course of the asteroid. (comparison: geostationary satellite orbit is app. 35000km, and the satellite is deflected by 360 degrees in one day)"
Not every object that gets within 35000km
of Earth enters a geostationary orbit.
The reason why 2002-NT7 is not captured
by earth is that it is moving about
26.25 km/second as it crosses Earth's orbit
plane.
It is moving too fast to be captured by
Earth and pulled into a orbit around
our planet.
FYI: An object orbiting the Earth once a
day 35,000 km
above the surface is moving about
3 km/second with respect to the center
of the Earth.
The 26.25 km/second speed of 2002-NT7
is much faster.
BTW:
Earth DOES deflect 2002-NT7.
The crossing point and angle in inclination
do shift a but after a close approach,
but not by a huge amount.
These close passes make the 2002-NT7 orbit
tricky to model.
On a different question that somebody else
asked:
"
Why doesn't the XYZZY solar system
program show these close approaches?"
Your typical astro/solar system
display program that
runs on your PC (XEphem, RedShift,
TheSky, or even that Java app on the JPL
site) uses simplified assumptions that are
OK for general approximation of objects
that do not have significant encounters.
They frequently use point size masses
and only take into account the Grav pull
of the Sun and major planets.
High precision models must use much much
much more complex models.
For example,
in addition to accurate 2002-NT7 observations
(to measure its position)
one must use a non-point Earth model.
That gravity lump called EurAsia has a
slightly
different "tug" than the
Pacific Ocean, for example.
Normally that difference is not critical,
but when one is trying to predict with
high precision year in the future, such
details can become important.
Permit me to end with a note about
critical NASA mission called GRACE.
There is a very critical mission
(largely
ignored by the general press) known called
GRACE.
GRACE stands for Gravity
Recovery
and
Climate
Experiment.
The mission will obtain
obtain accurate global and high-resolution determination of both the static and the time-variable components of the Earth's gravity field. This goal will be achieved by making accurate measurements of the inter-satellite range change to within one micron between two co-planar, low altitude polar orbiting satellites, using a microwave tracking system.
GRACE will provide us with an accurate
Gravity map which will improve the
modeling of very close approaches.
I am looking forward to the day with
GRACE's gravity maps can be used to
establish more detailed close approach
orbit models.
I wish the GRACE team all the best!
IAACM (I Am A Celestial Mechanic):-)
and I hope this helps.
We now have 113 observations spanning about 15
days 4 hours.
These 5 new observations fit well with the
other data and have helped improve
the orbit model somewhat.
The following relates to the model
changes from 1600 UTC 2200 UTC:
Not so good news:
The odds of an impact prior to 2060 was
1 in ~6,600,000 and now is about
1 in ~4,500,000.
The Feb 1, 2060 approach is now very close,
only 3570 km!
There is still a great deal of uncertainly.
At 1 sigma, the margin of error is
about +/- 29600 km.
Sure, the center line of the model
comes very close to the earth.
And sure, the 1 sigma margin of error
of the model paints a wide path
that intersects the Earth.
However the model relevance (i.e., how
well does the orbit model match the
real 2002-NT7 asteroid) is still in
doubt and needs more observational data
to refine it.
To give you an example of how small effects
can change the model:
A 125 second model error, adjusted
in the wrong way, out at
Feb 1, 2060 (about 1 part in about 14,600,000)
is all that it takes to turn a miss
into an impact.
At the risk of stating the obvious:
Just because the orbit model draws a line
thru your neighborhood doesn't mean that
the Asteroid will follow the same path.
We have to improve the model and validate
it with direct and accurate observations over
time before we can begin to place more trust
in the model reflecting reality.
So continue to pay your bills and
refrain from end the world rioting.:-)
For those who are keeping track.
The following is the list of close
approaches (according to the model):
Feb 1, 2019 (distance: ~28500 km)
Feb 1, 2044 (distance: ~91100 km)
Feb 1, 2053 (distance: ~53500 km)
Feb 1, 2060 (distance: ~3570 km)
Feb 1, 2078 (distance: ~15900 km)
with interesting passes every 7 to 14 years
after that (your asteroid's mileage may vary:-))
The Palermo Scale value has changed from
-0.05 to -0.25.
(A lower number means less risk)
However the Torino Scale remains at 1.
(A value >0 means there is something to
worry about).
The main reason for the Palermo scale
drop is that there are fewer close
approaches to worry about over the next
50 to 100 years.
Fewer close approaches means fewer
risky events.
Fewer risky events in the next 50 to 100
years results in a lower Palermo value.
IMHO, It is still the case that there is next
to nil chance of impact before 2060.
It is 2060 and beyond events that are
of concern.
It is the pattern of orbit adjustments at and
beyond 2060 that may be of concern.
p.s. My memory of the other asteroid that as
a non-zero Torino value was bad.
The other
non-zero
Torino risk object is the asteroid
1997-XR2
with a -2.44 Palermo Scale value and
the impact odds of 1 in about 970,000.
While better odds than
2002-NT7, it is smaller... only 230 meters
across.
The impact energy of 2002-NT7 (if it
were to hit) is some 3333 times as
great as 1997-XR2.
And while an impact of 1997-XR2 (somewhere
around June 1, 2101) would not be fun, it
is does not have nearly the same potential
impact as 2002-NT7.
The other object on the
hit
parade that is being watched is
2002-NY40.
However we only have 76 observations over
9+ days so things are still WAY WAY too early
to tell or say anything.
It has a -1.91 Palermo value and
a 0 Torino value so far.
IMHO, I would not be surprised to see
the 2002-NY40 drop in the charts as the days
go by.
Well I have other work that I need to do,
so it may be a day or so before I update
things again... unless something changes
dramatically...
A "backward" search is being conducted
with people looking thru photo databases
and plate stacks for an earlier sighting
of 2002-NT7.
As the orbit becomes more well defined, this
task will become somewhat easier.
The same 2060 error problem exists for
backward tracing into the mid 1900's, BTW.
It is possible that the orbit has shifted
recently, perhaps due to a close pass with
Earth or some other unknown object.
Another object, 2002-CU11 (0.83km
in size, with a 125 second (in time)
miss of the earth in 31 Aug 2049
if I recall correctly)
has not shown up on previous photos
where it should have been.
It has a 31 Aug 2080 close pass that
should prove "interesting".
We know of photos taken at the right
time by scopes that should have picked
up 2002-CU11 on a previous pass.
It was not there.
It is possible that the photo is flawed
at that point.
It is possible that 2002-CU11 has a
"not so shiny" (low albedo) side
that was rotated toward the camera.
It is possible that 2002-CU11's orbit
shifted/altered by some close encounter with
Earth or other unknown object in the
recent past.
It would be nice to know more of 2002-CU11's
past.
FYI: 2002-CU11 is the other object that
rates a 1 on the Torino Scale.
I.e., 2002-CU11 is in a similar risk class
to 2002-NT7.
5 more observations (now a total of 107 over
14 days and a few hours), plus a systematic
error correction has changed things slightly.
The good news:
The Feb 1, 2035 and Feb 1, 2051 close
approaches have moved far enough away to
become a nil-hazard.
The not-so-good news:
The Feb, 1 2044 and Feb 1, 2053 passes have
shifted from the nil-hazard to a
close approaches.
In the case of Feb 1, 2044 the miss is
by about 86,900 km.
In the case of Feb 1, 2053 the miss is
about 30,600 km.
The size estimate of the object has changed
from 2.03km to 2.06km in diameter.
The mass estimate has been upgraded
from 1.1e13 kg to 1.2e13 kg.
The bad news:
The Feb 1, 2060 and Feb 1, 2078 approach continues to
be a concern.
With the data we have
now the close approach on Feb 1, 2060
is only about 18,000 km (much closer than
before).
The Feb 1, 2066 miss distance has increased
but
the Feb 1, 2078 approach is about
18,800 km.
But as I said before, future events will
be hard to pin down until the 2019, 2044 and
2052 approaches become better understood.
Overall the impact probability has
changed from 1 in ~100,000 to
1 in ~6,600,000.
The Palermo Scale has changed from
0.06 to -0.05.
However the object remains 1 on the
Torino Scale remains at 1.
While the Earth's perturbation on the
pre-2060 approaches has been reduced,
2002-NT7 still seems to settle into
a 7 to 14 year close approach pattern
post 2060.
IMHO, now: 2002-NT7 is not a problem
prior to 2060.
On and after 2060 those passes could
be a problem.
We need more data and more time to
improve the orbit models.
Don't be fooled by those orbit
calculators that you find in
over the counter astro programs
or on-line ones such as the
supplied on the JPL web site.
Those are good for most cases but fail
when anything gets close or when one looks
out farther in time.
They simply do not have the precision needed
to calculate such close approaches.
To give you an idea of the precision:
In the Feb 1, 2060 case a time error of
only 550 seconds (1 part in ~3,200,000)
is enough to convert the 18,000 km miss
into an almost certain impact.
And the uncertainly of Feb 1, 2060 makes
it even harder to pin down Feb 1, 2078
and beyond.
I'll post an update (as a reply to my
initial 2002-NT7 update posting)
if new observational data changes things again.
Re:2002-NT7 update (clarification)
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 5, Informative
When I said:
"
Such an impact would be on par (but somewhat less) with the impact that ended the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago."
The
KT
event asteroid
that hit
65 million years
and formed the
Chicxulub
crater
ago was almost certainly larger.
Estimates of that impactor have ranged
from 4km to 18km in diameter
with more recent evidence suggesting that
the smaller size estimates may be
more accurate.
Others prefer the larger sizes.
Even if they are correct and the KT-impactor
was on the larger end of the scale,
an impact of a 2km asteroid is
no trivial matter.
Assuming the same density, the ~2km
2002-NT7 has about 1/8th the mass
of KT impactor.
Perhaps 1/10th the mass if 2002-NT7
turns out to be a lower than average
density asteroid.
When I said:
"
It is not known where on earth it might impact. Too early to tell. Not that is matters for a rock of this size... anyway on early will suffer sooner or slightly later."
I should have said:
"
It is not known where on earth it might impact. Too early to tell.
Not that is matters where a rock of this size
hits.
No matter where it hits, civilization will
suffer sooner (i.e., near the impact)
or later (i.e., somewhere else on the earth)."
I want to repeat that the chance of impact
prior to 2060,
based on the current limited set of
observations,
is slim (1 in ~100,000 more).
The chance of an 2002-NT7 impact after 2060
is uncertain.
It is hard to estimate the location
of 2002-NT7 on/after 2060 in part
because of the 4 prior close approaches
and in part because positions become more
uncertain as time goes on.
It is common to consider
asteroid positions 100 years
or more in the future to uncertain enough
as to not be useful to estimate impact
risk.
This 100 year uncertainty limit gets
shorter when one throws in 1 or more
close approaches.
While 2002-NT7's orbit position will become
better defined with additional data,
the risk assessment of the 2060 pass
(and beyond)
will remain more uncertain for some time.
Time (and more accurate
observations) will tell how much the next
generations will have to worry or not
about 2002-NT7.
IMHO,
there is nil chance of an impact
by 2002-NT7 before 2060.
The trend / perturbations on 2002-NT7
suggest that things could get ugly
later on.
Monitoring of 2002-NT7 over time, plus
improved orbit models will tell
how much future generations will need to worry
about an impact >= 2060.
There have been 102 observations (as of 8 hour ago)
up thru 22-Jul-2002
Radar images show that the object is between 2 and 2.1km
in size. The mass is about 1.1e13 Kg. This is somewhat
light for an asteroid of this size. This suggests that
it may belong to the "pile of compressed rock" set as opposed
the more solid "iron chunk" types.
Impact speed is high, about 28.5 km/s. This speed is
due to the nearly "head on" approaches for most of
the close approaches.
There is too little data and some of the observations
may suffer from systematic errors. So over the next
week or two the odds of impacting will change.
Currently the odds of being hit by 2002-NT7 is about
1 in 100,000. The problem comes from how Earth deflects
it during some of its close-by approaches.
The orbit of 2002-NT7 takes about 837 days. The path
takes out as far as Mars and just inside Earth's orbit.
Close approach dates are:
Feb 1, 2019
Feb 1, 2035
Feb 1, 2051
Feb 1, 2060
Feb 1, 2067
Feb 1, 2078
... and 7 years thereafter...
The odds, given the current limited observations, of impacting
us 2019 thru 2051 are slim. The real problems show up
in the 2060 and every 7 years after that. Small changes due to
the close passes in 2019 thru 2051 make it hard to pin down
later on.
If this rock hits the earth then our way of life as we know it would
surely end. Such an impact would be on par (but somewhat less) with the impact that
ended the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
It is not known where on earth it might impact. Too early to tell.
Not that is matters for a rock of this size... anyway on early
will suffer sooner or slightly later.
Looking at the raw data: when one tosses out one set data (all from the
same source) that seems to have a systematic error: then things get
worse. That is, the limited data minus this one source suggests
that the odds of being impacted on or after 2060 are much more likely.
But again, more independent observations are needed before one can
say all this with more certainty.
IMHO: 2002-NT7 does not have much of a chance to hit us before 2060.
From 2060 on, things get really ugly.
How will you know if they are following your
demand? Do you have a list of IP addresses
from which they scan/ping/traceroute/whatever?
What prevents them from scanning from a
non-rangeronline location? Are you going to
go after every IP address that scans as well
as pings/traceroutes you to determine if it
is rangeronline?
While I admire your spirit, I'm wondering how
you will accomplish your goal. But regardless:
best wishes and keep us posted on how this
all works out.
While the typical PC store today may have multiple
to choose from, the keyboards that they do
carry have those Stupid MS Windows logo key
and a collection of idiot keys!
You have all seen those keyboard with
idiot keys
such as an "Internet" key, an "EMail" key,
a "Finance" key, etc...
It is harder to find a generic (say VT100-like)
keyboard these days.
Can anyone recommend a source for a PS2
(or USB)
generic, non-MS tainted, non-idiot key
infested quality keyboards?
My company's IT department is trying to set up secure FTP with a vendor
To secure FTP traffic, I highly recommend
SafeTP
from the folks at Berkeley.
SafeTP is an
RFC 2228
compliant FTP Security Extension that uses
Public Key Crypto to authenticate and
secure the link.
SafeTP
is supported under Unix / Linux as
well as Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/etc.
Source code for Unix and compiled code for
Windows is available free of cost.
This quote from the Berkeley folks may be useful:
How is SafeTP better than existing FTP systems?
First and foremost, SafeTP secures the FTP control channel
to ensure the privacy of the user password, thereby providing secure
authentication. This in itself is a huge improvement over the traditional FTP
protocol, which sends user passwords (and everything else) in the clear
(see RFC 959).
SafeTP protects the control and data channels against a number of attacks,
including eavesdropping attacks, modification attacks, and replay attacks.
SafeTP provides this security through a public-key crypto-system based on the
ElGamal, DSA and TripleDES security algorithms, and is implemented as an
RFC 2228 security mechanism.
The security negotiation is similar to the one used by ssh and SSL -
see the X-SafeTP1 protocol specification for details.
SafeTP has several advantages over most existing FTP security systems (such as kerberos or ssh tunnelling):
Transparent - the windows client automatically and transparently
secures FTP connections from within the OS - which means the user can
continue using their favorite FTP client, without ever having to think
about it again. No need to tweak any settings in their client, no need to
setup any tricky proxy or port forwarding software.
Interoperable - the client software (windows and UNIX) automatically
works with both secure and insecure (legacy) servers. The server software
always accepts secure connections, and can be configured to allow or
disallow insecure connections.
Data security and integrity configuration - SafeTP always secures the
control channel (which includes the username/password login sequence), but
the client can be configured to provide privacy, integrity and
authentication for the transferred file data as well. The user may also
choose to disable data encryption to maximize performance.
We have found
SafeTP
to be both user friendly and expert friendly.
We have been successfully using it now for
several years.
It works well behind firewalls.
The code is both well written and stable.
The f-18 is able to chase/extend the time it
spends in twilight. At middle North America
latitudes (say 40 Deg. North) the twilight
shadow moves over the ground at about
1275 km/hr (~793 MPH), well within reach of
an f-18. A scope on the f-18 can stay within
the twilight shadow for an extensive period
of time.
As for the concern about stable cameras, NASA
has been flying mounted scopes for some time.
The guidance and anti-vibration systems are
good enough to conduct real astronomy.
In fact, craft such as
SOFIA
are pushing the technology even further.
Yes, scopes on aircraft is outstanding practice.
One might, however, ask if the glare of the
twilight combined with observing low to the
horizon will impact their ability to find
Vulcans.
Compared to the Eclipse method, the f-18
observing conditions are poor (low in the
horizon, reduced image brightness, glare from
the Sun that just set, dust, etc.).
On the other hand the number of minutes to
observe during totality (see my other posting
on this topic) are limited. A single f-18
run can rack up more minutes than ground based
eclipse imagery can in a decade.
Better would be to fly cameras on an f-18
or Concord or SR71 in the Moon's shadow during
a total eclipse. You can get the best of both
worlds.
Better still would be to observe from space
with a special telescope that can take images
near the sun.
NOTE: Scopes like the Hubble cannot look too
close to the Sun for obvious reasons.
That is why you have and will never see a
Hubble image of Mercury, let alone Vulcan
asteroids.
Craft such as SOHO were not designed to look
for Vulcans because they, if they exist, are
too dim.
Vulcan asteroids, if they exist, are very dim.
Bright Vulcans would have been spotted long
ago during some eclipse or if nothing else during
the extensive Vulcan search in the late 1800's.
Each method as its +/-'s as well as cost
tradeoff.
I wish this new Vulcan program all the best
in the hopes that they can do what others
have failed to do so far.
For the past several years, astronomers have been
looking for Vulcans during total solar eclipses.
The hope is to catch a Vulcan asteroid on
either side of the Sun during totality.
Photos are taken during totality. One camera is
stationed near the beginning of the totality path.
A few more are placed in various places along
the path. A final camera is placed near the end
of the totality path. Typically there is about
2 to 3 hours time between the 1st and last
camera images.
The images are searched for faint moving
objects that are in orbit around and near the sun.
Thus far, a few comets have been detected but
no Vulcan asteroids have been found.
Slashdot Mirror
You are most welcome. And yes (*blush*) I should have typed 2003-CD20!
And is only listed [unipi.it] as having close approaches to Venus.
Our model shows a number of close Earth approaches for 2003-CD20. During the next 100 years, we show close Earth approaches in: 2006, 2009, 2012-2019, 2021, 2023-2025, 2028-2036, 2039, 2043, 2045-2074, 2076-2079, 2081-2084, 2087-2094, 2096, 2098-2099, and 2102.
It is very likely that over the next few days or weeks, additional observations will allow the model for 2003-CD20 to be refined. It would not surprise me to see some of those close encounter points moving away from Earth's orbit and reducing the risk from this asteroid.
Given the complex encounter at both the ascending node and descending node, I am not surprised that some models are different.
You might want to also look at the NEO program 2003-CD20 page.
As usual, I will update my journal as orbit model for 2003-CD30 changes.
There is a delay small in announcing significant potential impactors. The purpose of the delay is to allow for additional technical review of the data. This review period is designed to last about 72 hours. I recommend that you read FAQ #2 in my journal for more details.
And speaking personally:
I highly recommend using the Berkeley:
for secure ftp transfers. The SafeTP client & server code runs well on Unix / Linux as well as those MS-based boxen.
Our ISP has been successfully using SafeTP for several years. Their windoz users transparently use SafeTP with any Windoz FTP application.
Unix folks get that good ol' command line tool. Other Unix interfaces exist for HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, DEC OSF, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Irix, AIX, etc. SafeTP works across firewalls as well.
With cryptographic protection and authentication, SafeTP is a nice ftp solution.
We began to compare notes: "You won't believe the code I am trying to fix". And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain damage level of the code I'm trying to fix". As well as: "It more than bad code, the author really had to try to make it this bad!"
After a few minutes we wandered back into my office where I posted a flame to net.lang.c inviting people to try and out obfuscate the UN*X source code we had just been working on.
OK, back to the story. We received a number of entries by EMail. When we began to receive messages from outside of the US, Larry and I decided to include International in the name. The 1st IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.
The name used in the posting of the 1st IOCCC winner posting was International Obfuscated C Code Contest or IOCCC for short.
The posting said 1st annual, so in 1985 we held the 2nd IOCCC contest and the tradition continues as the longest running contest on the Internet.
P.S. Part of the inspiration for making the IOCCC a contest goes to the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.
P^2.S. See the overall README for more details.
P^3.S. See also the IOCCC FAQ.
P^4.S. Please see my apology for the late posting of the 2001 winners.
I want to make a Public apology for the extremely late posting of the 2001 winners. The delay was discourteous to the people who put a great deal of effort into their submissions.
Rather than go into the reasons for the delay here: Let me say that when the 17th IOCCC occurs, things will be done differently.
Thank you all those who encouraged us to complete the 16th IOCCC. And a very big S O R R Y for the lateness of the release.
The loss of Mt. Stromlo Observatory facility is very great loss.
Established in 1924, the Commonwealth Observatory at Mount Stromlo, on the outskirts of Canberra. Commonwealth Observatory was recognized for its important research into the origin and future of the universe.
Astronomers at Mount Stromlo made outstanding contributions to astronomy. It would be difficult to list all of the important contributions to Astronomy made by the people working at Mt. Stromlo. Now, a few come to mind:
One of the principal instruments at Stromlo was the 74-inch (188-cm) reflecting telescope. The 74-inch telescope was erected in 1953, and until the completion in 1974 of the 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope at Siding Spring, this was the largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere. In 1982, it was used to discover the fossil star CD-38245: a star so old that it is made almost purely of gases left over from the big bang.
It also was home scopes such as the robotic 50-inch (127-cm). It was an excellent example of how an older telescope could be outfitted with new controls and instruments to perform innovative work. The MACHO project was conducted on the 50 inch.
Two historical scopes come to mind, the Oddie, and the Yale-Columbia telescope:
The Oddie, was a wonderful 9-inch Newtonian telescope. The Victorian MP, James Oddie, presented this telescope to the Commonwealth government for use in the proposed Commonwealth Observatory. It was installed on the site at "Mt Strom" (as Stromlo was originally known) in September 1911. Over the years the Oddie telescope has made valuable contributions to Southern Hemisphere astronomy; it did some of the first measurements of the brightness, color and spectral classification of southern stars.
The Yale-Columbia telescope, 26-inch Grubb long-focus refractor was erected at this site for the determination of parallaxes of southern stars (it was the largest refractor in the southern hemisphere when first installed.
Moreover, there were other scopes as well ...
But alas, from what can be seen
from the air at this time, most, if not
all of those
telescopes have been lost.
At appears that heat from the burning of the
nearby
bush /trees was hot enough to melt
many of the domes at the observatory.
The Canberra Astronomical Society used the Stromlo lecture hall for their monthly meetings. During public nights, the public had access to a domed C14 scope, the Oddie, and a number of scopes brought to the site by members ... all through the hard work and generous
efforts of the
Canberra
Astronomical Society.
I had the privilege of observing at Mt Stromlo several times and spoke at one of the CAS meetings. I still can recall flying down from the US to a CAS member's home to see SN1987, . I was there only 36 hours after the naked eye supernova was first observed. I still recall seeing the single star, at a distance of over 168,000 light-years, change in color and rightness over the course of an evening. I was one of the most important astronomical events I have had the honor to witness. I recall that every scope up at Mt Stromlo was all pointed at the Large Magellanic Could where SN 1987A was blazing away. The previous observing board schedule was cancelled as people raced to collect as much early critical data as they could in the early hours of the event.
I had the privilege of being with the members of the Canberra Astronomical Society on two of my several total solar eclipses: 1991 in Hawaii, US and most recently the 2001 eclipse in Ceduna, AU.
I look forward to meeting with many of these same people when we go to Antarctica for the 2003 solar eclipse.My best wishes and heart felt sorrow go out to all of those people who worked so hard to make Mt. Stromlo such a wonderful place for the public to visit and who helped the observatory make many important contributions to Astronomy. Much of what was lost cannot be replaced. Still it is my hope that those who are left will be able to rebuild something anew out this tragedy.
They only wrote critical data onto permanent magnetic media in encrypted form. They also physically destroyed hardware and media when they no longer needed it.
If the above posting about RAM and disk recovery is true, then those people were justified in their practices. At the time I thought that physical destruction of RAM was a bit much, but based on that Gutmann paper that was sited, they may not have been that far off.
So if people are doing data mining by going through old disk drives as the article about the 2 MIT grad students says, and if tools that wipe a disk drive are not good enough, then physical destruction is about the only thing left to protect discarded hardware.
I can see why some people are questing the value of this standards proposal.
Why go all that way to in the place where the "sun don't shine :-)" for a few seconds?
If you have ever seen / experienced a true
100% total eclipse you might understand.
I have NEVER seem a photograph
do justice to the experience.
Not only do photographs fail to present the
full dynamic range of the visual, they lack
the wind, the temperature drop, the effect
on plants, birds, insects, people ...
You really have to see and experience a total
solar eclipse directly.
Each eclipse is unique. The shape and size of the solar corona. The colors. Solar prominence positions, shapes, rates of change. Sky brightness. Duration of the diamond rings. Shadow edge sharpness. Shadow band size and change rate. etc. etc. No two eclipses look the same.
The eclipse near/at Ceduna will have some special features. The short duration is a result of the moon and sun being very near the same size. Long eclipses (such as up 7+ minutes) allow for observation of the inner corona (near the solar disk edge) only near the beginning and end of the Eclipse. Short eclipses offer excellent inner corona views throughout the eclipse. There is a trade-off between inner detail and duration.
The eclipse will be near sunset. The same optical illusion that makes a full moon near the horizon seem large makes the solar corona (sometimes 2x to 4x the apparent size of the sun/moon disk) seem huge.
The Sun will set after totality ends but while the moon is partially covering the solar disk. We will watch a crescent sun set. Instead of watching a single point wink out, we will watch two points wink out one after the other. Some are hoping to see a double green flash.
The Sun should be entering quieter phase of its sunspot cycle. But for the last few months we have seen an unusual degree of activity this late in cycle. A more active sun frequently results in a non-uniform shaped corona. A more active sun frequently results more and unusual numbers of solar prominences.
Here is some bio information on Christiaan Huygens for whom the Cassini probe is named after.
For more details, see the Bio of Christiaan .
A:Latin helped me write a Perl program!
I used my knowledge of Latin to help me write the Name of a Number Perl / CGI program. Now I know how to determine the English name of any integer of any size. While some dictionaries list names of numbers as large as 10^33 (one decillion) or even 10^63 (one vigintillion), it took a study of Latin before I was able to determine the name of numbers such as:
You never know when you may need to give the English name of a large integer. It was almost 20 years after I discovered what was then (in 1979) the largest known prime 2^23209-1 before I knew how to pronounce the English name of its decimal representation. If I had studied Latin in more detail when I was in grade school then I would have been ready to answer the frequently asked question: "How do you pronounce it?"
1/2 :-)
As the first person who ever took legal action against somebody who wanted to violate a GPL (back in 1989) I can definitively say: The GPL Copyright holder is the one who has standing to seek legal action against the party they suspect is violating the GPL.
I.e., somewhere in your GPL / LGPL there is a:
The name, or somebody to who they have signed over the copyright to, is the one who has standing to bring suit against a potential violator.
Today using a new method we call lavarnd (instead of lavarand with 3 a's) that uses the thermal noise from digitial cameras. While they were cool the new method is smaller and does not use the lamps, only a small USB based digitial camera. Our new, patent free method can generate about 100 Kbits/sec off of a Logitech QuickCam 3000 Pro USB camera on a Linux system with ~1GHz CPU.
We hope to have the full site, complete with Open Source code and CGI demos (old and new) ready by Nov 2002.
So far, no pre-discovery images of 2002-NT7 have been found. A search of pre-discovery images is on-going.
I will post new updates to chongo's journal over the next few weeks. Please check my journal for the latest 2002-NT7 orbit model information.
You are asking a good question. The reason why the close approaches occur on the same day of the year is because 2002-NT7's orbit is closest to Earth's orbit at one point. That point does shift around. The current model suggests the closest approach occurs at:
The path of 2002-NT7 will next cross earth's orbit plane going upward at a point about 132.1708757 degrees from the Fall Equinox. Now 132.1708757 degrees / 360 degrees = 0.3671413214 of a circle. Using 365.2564 days (Earth's year), 0.3671413214 of a circle * 365.2564 days = about 134.1 days from the Fall Equinox. 134.1 days from Sep 23 (~06 hr UTC) lands one near 1 Feb.
Take a look at this 2002-NT7 orbit diagram. The dark blue part of 2002-NT7's orbit is below Earth's plane. The light blue part is above Earth's plane. The yellow line from the Sun (red dot in center) going down and to the right is the 0 degree fall equinox line. The vertical yellow line, 132.1708757 degrees from the equinox line (as measured in the plane of Earth's orbit, not the plane shown on your screen) shows where 2002-NT7 crosses Earth's orbit plane. That crossing spot (the place where the dark/light parts of 2002-NT7's orbit meet near the yellow line), you will notice, is very close to Earth's orbit. That spot is the place where Earth is found on/near Feb 1. No other place on Earth's or 2002-NT7's orbit comes as close.
You ask another good question about deflection:
Not every object that gets within 35000km of Earth enters a geostationary orbit. The reason why 2002-NT7 is not captured by earth is that it is moving about 26.25 km/second as it crosses Earth's orbit plane. It is moving too fast to be captured by Earth and pulled into a orbit around our planet.
FYI: An object orbiting the Earth once a day 35,000 km above the surface is moving about 3 km/second with respect to the center of the Earth. The 26.25 km/second speed of 2002-NT7 is much faster.
BTW: Earth DOES deflect 2002-NT7. The crossing point and angle in inclination do shift a but after a close approach, but not by a huge amount. These close passes make the 2002-NT7 orbit tricky to model.
On a different question that somebody else asked:
Your typical astro/solar system display program that runs on your PC (XEphem, RedShift, TheSky, or even that Java app on the JPL site) uses simplified assumptions that are OK for general approximation of objects that do not have significant encounters. They frequently use point size masses and only take into account the Grav pull of the Sun and major planets. High precision models must use much much much more complex models. For example, in addition to accurate 2002-NT7 observations (to measure its position) one must use a non-point Earth model. That gravity lump called EurAsia has a slightly different "tug" than the Pacific Ocean, for example. Normally that difference is not critical, but when one is trying to predict with high precision year in the future, such details can become important.
Permit me to end with a note about critical NASA mission called GRACE.
There is a very critical mission (largely ignored by the general press) known called GRACE. GRACE stands for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. The mission will obtain obtain accurate global and high-resolution determination of both the static and the time-variable components of the Earth's gravity field. This goal will be achieved by making accurate measurements of the inter-satellite range change to within one micron between two co-planar, low altitude polar orbiting satellites, using a microwave tracking system.
GRACE will provide us with an accurate Gravity map which will improve the modeling of very close approaches. I am looking forward to the day with GRACE's gravity maps can be used to establish more detailed close approach orbit models. I wish the GRACE team all the best!
IAACM (I Am A Celestial Mechanic) :-)
and I hope this helps.
Not so good news: The odds of an impact prior to 2060 was 1 in ~6,600,000 and now is about 1 in ~4,500,000.
The Feb 1, 2060 approach is now very close, only 3570 km! There is still a great deal of uncertainly. At 1 sigma, the margin of error is about +/- 29600 km.
Sure, the center line of the model comes very close to the earth. And sure, the 1 sigma margin of error of the model paints a wide path that intersects the Earth. However the model relevance (i.e., how well does the orbit model match the real 2002-NT7 asteroid) is still in doubt and needs more observational data to refine it.
To give you an example of how small effects can change the model: A 125 second model error, adjusted in the wrong way, out at Feb 1, 2060 (about 1 part in about 14,600,000) is all that it takes to turn a miss into an impact.
At the risk of stating the obvious: Just because the orbit model draws a line thru your neighborhood doesn't mean that the Asteroid will follow the same path. We have to improve the model and validate it with direct and accurate observations over time before we can begin to place more trust in the model reflecting reality. So continue to pay your bills and refrain from end the world rioting. :-)
For those who are keeping track. The following is the list of close approaches (according to the model):
(your asteroid's mileage may vary
The Palermo Scale value has changed from -0.05 to -0.25. (A lower number means less risk) However the Torino Scale remains at 1. (A value >0 means there is something to worry about). The main reason for the Palermo scale drop is that there are fewer close approaches to worry about over the next 50 to 100 years. Fewer close approaches means fewer risky events. Fewer risky events in the next 50 to 100 years results in a lower Palermo value.
IMHO, It is still the case that there is next to nil chance of impact before 2060. It is 2060 and beyond events that are of concern. It is the pattern of orbit adjustments at and beyond 2060 that may be of concern.
p.s. My memory of the other asteroid that as a non-zero Torino value was bad. The other non-zero Torino risk object is the asteroid 1997-XR2 with a -2.44 Palermo Scale value and the impact odds of 1 in about 970,000. While better odds than 2002-NT7, it is smaller ... only 230 meters
across.
The impact energy of 2002-NT7 (if it
were to hit) is some 3333 times as
great as 1997-XR2.
And while an impact of 1997-XR2 (somewhere
around June 1, 2101) would not be fun, it
is does not have nearly the same potential
impact as 2002-NT7.
The other object on the hit parade that is being watched is 2002-NY40. However we only have 76 observations over 9+ days so things are still WAY WAY too early to tell or say anything. It has a -1.91 Palermo value and a 0 Torino value so far.
IMHO, I would not be surprised to see the 2002-NY40 drop in the charts as the days go by.
Well I have other work that I need to do, so it may be a day or so before I update things again ... unless something changes
dramatically ...
The same 2060 error problem exists for backward tracing into the mid 1900's, BTW.
It is possible that the orbit has shifted recently, perhaps due to a close pass with Earth or some other unknown object.
Another object, 2002-CU11 (0.83km in size, with a 125 second (in time) miss of the earth in 31 Aug 2049 if I recall correctly) has not shown up on previous photos where it should have been. It has a 31 Aug 2080 close pass that should prove "interesting". We know of photos taken at the right time by scopes that should have picked up 2002-CU11 on a previous pass. It was not there. It is possible that the photo is flawed at that point. It is possible that 2002-CU11 has a "not so shiny" (low albedo) side that was rotated toward the camera. It is possible that 2002-CU11's orbit shifted/altered by some close encounter with Earth or other unknown object in the recent past.
It would be nice to know more of 2002-CU11's past. FYI: 2002-CU11 is the other object that rates a 1 on the Torino Scale. I.e., 2002-CU11 is in a similar risk class to 2002-NT7.
The good news: The Feb 1, 2035 and Feb 1, 2051 close approaches have moved far enough away to become a nil-hazard.
The not-so-good news: The Feb, 1 2044 and Feb 1, 2053 passes have shifted from the nil-hazard to a close approaches. In the case of Feb 1, 2044 the miss is by about 86,900 km. In the case of Feb 1, 2053 the miss is about 30,600 km.
The size estimate of the object has changed from 2.03km to 2.06km in diameter. The mass estimate has been upgraded from 1.1e13 kg to 1.2e13 kg.
The bad news: The Feb 1, 2060 and Feb 1, 2078 approach continues to be a concern. With the data we have now the close approach on Feb 1, 2060 is only about 18,000 km (much closer than before). The Feb 1, 2066 miss distance has increased but the Feb 1, 2078 approach is about 18,800 km. But as I said before, future events will be hard to pin down until the 2019, 2044 and 2052 approaches become better understood.
Overall the impact probability has changed from 1 in ~100,000 to 1 in ~6,600,000. The Palermo Scale has changed from 0.06 to -0.05. However the object remains 1 on the Torino Scale remains at 1.
While the Earth's perturbation on the pre-2060 approaches has been reduced, 2002-NT7 still seems to settle into a 7 to 14 year close approach pattern post 2060.
IMHO, now: 2002-NT7 is not a problem prior to 2060. On and after 2060 those passes could be a problem.
We need more data and more time to improve the orbit models. Don't be fooled by those orbit calculators that you find in over the counter astro programs or on-line ones such as the supplied on the JPL web site. Those are good for most cases but fail when anything gets close or when one looks out farther in time. They simply do not have the precision needed to calculate such close approaches. To give you an idea of the precision: In the Feb 1, 2060 case a time error of only 550 seconds (1 part in ~3,200,000) is enough to convert the 18,000 km miss into an almost certain impact. And the uncertainly of Feb 1, 2060 makes it even harder to pin down Feb 1, 2078 and beyond.
I'll post an update (as a reply to my initial 2002-NT7 update posting) if new observational data changes things again.
The KT event asteroid that hit 65 million years and formed the Chicxulub crater ago was almost certainly larger. Estimates of that impactor have ranged from 4km to 18km in diameter with more recent evidence suggesting that the smaller size estimates may be more accurate. Others prefer the larger sizes. Even if they are correct and the KT-impactor was on the larger end of the scale, an impact of a 2km asteroid is no trivial matter.
Assuming the same density, the ~2km 2002-NT7 has about 1/8th the mass of KT impactor. Perhaps 1/10th the mass if 2002-NT7 turns out to be a lower than average density asteroid.
When I said:
I should have said:
I want to repeat that the chance of impact prior to 2060, based on the current limited set of observations, is slim (1 in ~100,000 more).
The chance of an 2002-NT7 impact after 2060 is uncertain. It is hard to estimate the location of 2002-NT7 on/after 2060 in part because of the 4 prior close approaches and in part because positions become more uncertain as time goes on.
It is common to consider asteroid positions 100 years or more in the future to uncertain enough as to not be useful to estimate impact risk. This 100 year uncertainty limit gets shorter when one throws in 1 or more close approaches.
While 2002-NT7's orbit position will become better defined with additional data, the risk assessment of the 2060 pass (and beyond) will remain more uncertain for some time. Time (and more accurate observations) will tell how much the next generations will have to worry or not about 2002-NT7.
IMHO, there is nil chance of an impact by 2002-NT7 before 2060. The trend / perturbations on 2002-NT7 suggest that things could get ugly later on. Monitoring of 2002-NT7 over time, plus improved orbit models will tell how much future generations will need to worry about an impact >= 2060.
2002-NT7 was discovered 9-Jul-2002
There have been 102 observations (as of 8 hour ago) up thru 22-Jul-2002
Radar images show that the object is between 2 and 2.1km in size. The mass is about 1.1e13 Kg. This is somewhat light for an asteroid of this size. This suggests that it may belong to the "pile of compressed rock" set as opposed the more solid "iron chunk" types.
Impact speed is high, about 28.5 km/s. This speed is due to the nearly "head on" approaches for most of the close approaches.
There is too little data and some of the observations may suffer from systematic errors. So over the next week or two the odds of impacting will change.
Currently the odds of being hit by 2002-NT7 is about 1 in 100,000. The problem comes from how Earth deflects it during some of its close-by approaches.
The orbit of 2002-NT7 takes about 837 days. The path takes out as far as Mars and just inside Earth's orbit.
Close approach dates are:
The odds, given the current limited observations, of impacting us 2019 thru 2051 are slim. The real problems show up in the 2060 and every 7 years after that. Small changes due to the close passes in 2019 thru 2051 make it hard to pin down later on.
If this rock hits the earth then our way of life as we know it would surely end. Such an impact would be on par (but somewhat less) with the impact that ended the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
It is not known where on earth it might impact. Too early to tell. Not that is matters for a rock of this size ... anyway on early
will suffer sooner or slightly later.
Looking at the raw data: when one tosses out one set data (all from the same source) that seems to have a systematic error: then things get worse. That is, the limited data minus this one source suggests that the odds of being impacted on or after 2060 are much more likely. But again, more independent observations are needed before one can say all this with more certainty.
IMHO: 2002-NT7 does not have much of a chance to hit us before 2060. From 2060 on, things get really ugly.
Stay tuned ...
While I admire your spirit, I'm wondering how you will accomplish your goal. But regardless: best wishes and keep us posted on how this all works out.
It is harder to find a generic (say VT100-like) keyboard these days. Can anyone recommend a source for a PS2 (or USB) generic, non-MS tainted, non-idiot key infested quality keyboards?
To secure FTP traffic, I highly recommend SafeTP from the folks at Berkeley. SafeTP is an RFC 2228 compliant FTP Security Extension that uses Public Key Crypto to authenticate and secure the link.
SafeTP is supported under Unix / Linux as well as Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/etc. Source code for Unix and compiled code for Windows is available free of cost.
This quote from the Berkeley folks may be useful:
We have found SafeTP to be both user friendly and expert friendly. We have been successfully using it now for several years. It works well behind firewalls. The code is both well written and stable.
As for the concern about stable cameras, NASA has been flying mounted scopes for some time. The guidance and anti-vibration systems are good enough to conduct real astronomy. In fact, craft such as SOFIA are pushing the technology even further. Yes, scopes on aircraft is outstanding practice.
One might, however, ask if the glare of the twilight combined with observing low to the horizon will impact their ability to find Vulcans. Compared to the Eclipse method, the f-18 observing conditions are poor (low in the horizon, reduced image brightness, glare from the Sun that just set, dust, etc.). On the other hand the number of minutes to observe during totality (see my other posting on this topic) are limited. A single f-18 run can rack up more minutes than ground based eclipse imagery can in a decade.
Better would be to fly cameras on an f-18 or Concord or SR71 in the Moon's shadow during a total eclipse. You can get the best of both worlds.
Better still would be to observe from space with a special telescope that can take images near the sun.
Each method as its +/-'s as well as cost tradeoff. I wish this new Vulcan program all the best in the hopes that they can do what others have failed to do so far.
Photos are taken during totality. One camera is stationed near the beginning of the totality path. A few more are placed in various places along the path. A final camera is placed near the end of the totality path. Typically there is about 2 to 3 hours time between the 1st and last camera images.
The images are searched for faint moving objects that are in orbit around and near the sun.
Thus far, a few comets have been detected but no Vulcan asteroids have been found.