Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

2004 MN4 Asteroid Odds Inching Up Again

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Dec 27, 2004 02:56 PM
from the duck-and-cover dept.
bfwebster writes "The latest update from NASA now gives 2004 MN4 a 1-in-37 chance (probability of 2.7%) of hitting Earth on April 13, 2029. That's a bump up from the 1-in-46 (2.2%) odds given this weekend and almost a 10x increase in probability from the original 1-in-300 odds announced late last week. Interesting times, indeed."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by daniil (775990) * <evilbj8rn@hotmail.com> on Monday December 27 2004, @02:57PM (#11193537) Journal
    Ladies and gentlemen, may i present the new Slashdot soap opera: Asteroid 2004 MN4!!! That's right -- we have ourselves a new SCO! Watch out, for soon, it'll be demanding $699 license fees from all of you!
    • Mainstream coverage (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mishmash (585101) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:06PM (#11193632) Homepage
      Google news's collation of the worldwide media's coverage of this story [google.com] seams to show that the mainstream serious media is ignoring this story.
      • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:16PM (#11193735)
        Well of course. Until they figure out a way to make some money off of it.

        Asteroid insurance anyone?

      • Mainstream media can only handle one natural disaster at a time, and the one that happened NOW is more important than the one which has a 2.7% chance of happening in 25 years.

        Also, we should expect the probability of impact to continue to increase until it either goes to zero (most likely) or 1. This asteroid has a sigma of 0 - that means the MOST LIKELY path is impact. More observations are most likely going to eliminate the outlying paths first, so as we eliminate more and more of the outlying paths of possibility the most likely path will be more and more likely.

        Until we get the observation that says "Ah, yeah, definitely going to miss", and then it'll be zero again.
      • by pclminion (145572) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:52PM (#11194125)
        This is funny, but it also raises an important point that many people seem to miss.

        Last time I took part in a discussion about asteroid impacts, it was suggested that people who are rich enough would be able to simply buy their way off the planet before the disaster strikes. As in buy with money.

        Think about it. There's a gigantic rock hurtling toward Earth. There are only enough spaceships (let's say) to take 1,000 people off the surface. All life as we know it on Earth is about to be destroyed. Do you: A) Get on your spaceship and get the hell out of there, or B) Accept pieces of paper with dead presidents printed on them in return for allowing other people to get off the planet?

        Even if you survived the ensuing destruction, what good would those little pieces of paper be?

        The rich sometimes seem to think they can buy their way out of any problem, but the total destruction of Earth isn't something that money will save you from.

  • by waynegoode (758645) * on Monday December 27 2004, @02:59PM (#11193552) Homepage
    The odds of it hitting Earth are now at 100% [nasa.gov].

    Or, if you prefer, they are now at 1 in 1,000,000 [nasa.gov].

    This edition of Fun With URLs has been brought to you courtesy of an overly trusting NASA webmaster.

  • Will Bruce Willis even by alive by then?
  • by teshuvah (831969) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:00PM (#11193566)
    I are not under stand what you is try ing to said hear.
  • Impact energy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by b1t r0t (216468) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:00PM (#11193567)
    One and a half gigatons. Nice. Even if it landed in an ocean, it would still make quite a splash.
    • Re:Impact energy (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HeghmoH (13204) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:23PM (#11193802) Homepage Journal
      Ocean would probably be worse. If it landed in the ocean, it would probably be like yesterday's unpleasantness with a great many people killed by tsunami. Landing on land, it would just make a big boom and put a lot of dirt into the air, unless it happened to land in a populated area. Worst case is a city, of course, but that's not likely.
      • Re:Impact energy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:33PM (#11193933) Homepage Journal
        Try a tsunami about 500x times bigger almost a mile high traveling 20 miles inland destroying everything in its site.

        Keep in mind 90% of the population lives within 100 miles of the coast.

        Devestating indeed.
          • Re:Impact energy (Score:5, Interesting)

            by MinutiaeMan (681498) on Monday December 27 2004, @04:35PM (#11194508) Homepage
            Even if the energy released in 2004-MN4's impact were roughly equal to the energy released in the recent earthquake, I seriously doubt that the effects could be considered comparable. For one thing, ALL of the asteroid's energy will be released in one gigantic explosion when it enters the atmosphere and hits the surface (either land or sea), concentrated in a relatively small area. But the earthquake's energy was released along a huge (700 miles long) segment of the undersea fault, which almost certainly dampened the effects of the quake. Not to mention that quakes typically take place at least several kilometers underground...

            (IANAGOP -- I Am Not A Geologist Or Physicist. But I am using what I think to be logical deductions based on what little I know.)
            • Re:Impact energy (Score:4, Interesting)

              by platypus (18156) on Monday December 27 2004, @05:00PM (#11194706) Homepage
              I don't think it's so easy. While you are right that in deep water, the energy of the earthquake was distributed across a very long wave with a very low amplitude (i.e. big wavelength, sic), the shallower shore acted as a kind of "lense", concentrating the energy to a smaller area (shorter wavelength, higher amplitude).
              I assume an asteroid might cause waves with shorter wavelengths even in deep water, but OTOH there'd be not such a "lense effect".
              In the end, the product of amplitude, wavelength and the square of the speed of the wavefront determines the energy, so waves being taller in deep water does not mean they'll be more destructive when hitting the shore - i.e. the earthquake causes the whole of the sea to "move", while an asteroid might mainly impact the surface.
              Since at around 800 km/h, wind resistance is a real factor, higher waves might even be considerably dampened on their way through the sea.

  • April 13, 2029 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by akirchhoff (95640) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:00PM (#11193568)
    Would this be Friday the 13th?
  • by DarkHelmet (120004) * <mark.seventhcycle@net> on Monday December 27 2004, @03:02PM (#11193580) Homepage
    That gives slashdotters...

    24 more years to try and get laid.

  • Anarchy! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lussarn (105276) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:03PM (#11193593)
    When can we start the looting?
  • by KaiBeezy (618237) <gnoln@yahoo.com> on Monday December 27 2004, @03:03PM (#11193597)

    this is more likely to kill you than ANY OTHER death due to injury in your lifetime!

    Odds of Death Due to Injury, National Safety Council [nsc.org]
  • by mikejz84 (771717) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:04PM (#11193611)
    I would start to worried if astronomers suddenly started to buy a lot of Boeing and Lockheed stock.
  • by John Harrison (223649) <johnharrison&gmail,com> on Monday December 27 2004, @03:04PM (#11193617) Homepage Journal
    How long does it have to be observed before we know whether it will hit or not? Will a year of observation give us certainty? The Torino scale is a bit strange, given the way that it combines chance of impact, time until impact, and severity of impact. I would think that a three dimensional scale would be more useful.
    • by mikejz84 (771717) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:06PM (#11193639)
      Space.com says it will take a few months, unless they use Arecibo's radar--which would really help norrow the orbit.
        • by Idarubicin (579475) <allsquiet@NOspAm.hotmail.com> on Monday December 27 2004, @04:43PM (#11194570) Journal
          More data points are great, but we need higher resolution data than radar can provide at that range.

          The key here is that they're not necessarily looking for angular position--which, you're right, they can get much more accurately using a respectable backyard optical telescope. What Aricebo gives is better information on range and radial velocity (from the time for a radar pulse to return, and its Doppler shift, respectively). This information combined with the optical measurements we already have will give us a much better measure of its course than either technique alone.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27 2004, @03:07PM (#11193645)
    Ok, we now know the probability of the object hitting the earth. What is the possibility of the object hitting the moon?

    What impact will the earth have if the object hits the moon?
      • by dustinbarbour (721795) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:21PM (#11193792) Homepage
        Though you are correct, I don't think an asteroid of this size would obliterate the moon. As such, life on Earth would remain largely unaffected I should think. If we were lucky and it hit the bright side of the moon, we may no longer have the so-called "Man in the Moon", but that would be a small price to pay to see such a terrific impact on a body so close to Earth.
  • HA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jrwillis (306262) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:08PM (#11193655) Homepage
    1 in 37? Who'd be dumb enough to worry with odds like that?! Now excuse me, I need to go buy a lottery ticket for this week.
      • Re:One in 37 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Viking Coder (102287) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:36PM (#11193964)
        1 in 37! Nice. =)

        (Roulette has 18 black, 18 red, and 1 green for those not in the know.)
          • Re:One in 37 (Score:4, Interesting)

            by TheCabal (215908) on Monday December 27 2004, @04:30PM (#11194469) Journal
            American roulette wheels have 2 greens. There are a few tables here in Vegas that have single green, and the smart roulette player (oxymoron) will take a few minutes to find that table. Most of the big Strip casinos don't carry them, or may have one, tucked away somewhere. The off-Strip casinos are a bit more open with their roulette wheels, or placement of low-minimum blackjack tables (try finding a $5 table at one of the big Strip casinos after 5PM).
  • It will be intereresting to see what happens on the political front, if it is eventually determined that this thing will hit earth.

    At 300m across, it is small enough to be nuked out of harm's way. And fortunately, we still have a lot of time on our side to plan and fly a mission to blast it to rubble, or at least into a different trajectory. But this would mean at least temporarily revoking some treaties regarding nuclear detonations in space. And how will the bill be divided up? What happens if is eventually determined that this thing will land in central Asia or Africa - will unaffected countries still be willing to pick up the tab?

    Looks like we will need to develop some sort of (funded) international contingency plan to deal with dangers from space, even if it is eventually determined this particular rock will miss us.
  • by nizo (81281) * on Monday December 27 2004, @03:16PM (#11193741) Homepage Journal
    If you ever get a chance to bet on an asteroid wiping out humanity, make sure you bet that it won't; otherwise even if you win you can't collect.
  • Crash (Score:4, Funny)

    by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Monday December 27 2004, @03:17PM (#11193752) Homepage Journal
    And I thought the last crash of '29 was depressing.

    -Peter
  • by iMaple (769378) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:26PM (#11193841)
    How long do we have to wait for this

    Hi
    I am Prince Okabaoakauu of of the microbial strain found on Asteroid Mn4. We control the motion of our asteroid and can divert it safely if the earthlings wish so. However we are not sure if the earthlings(a.k.a. you) want a collision or not. Hence to help us decide , please forward this mail to 12 people within 1 hour of receiving the mail if you do not want a collision. You will also get a free mobile phone and 2 Ipods. If you do NOT immediately forward this email we will assume that you want the collision.
    Thanks

    I JUST RECVD THIS MAIL, PLS FWD IT TO ALL UR FRIENDS
  • by iamlucky13 (795185) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:29PM (#11193887)
    I found another article [space.com] discussing the asteroid that isn't slashdotted. Even more interesting though is the Impact Effects Calculator [arizona.edu]

    I ran it through the calculator for a 400 meter asteroid (from the article) made of dense rock (assumed) at 17 km/s and 45 degree impact (suggested by the calculator). I also dropped it in 1000 m of water, as it has a 75% chance of landing in the oceans.

    Results
    • Impact Energy: 1.23 x 10^19 Joules
    • Crater Formed in Seafloor: 2.46 km diameter
    • Earthquake: 6.0 on Richter Scale
    • Radiant Flux at 100 km: 7.68 times that of sun
    Numbers should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt
    • by JeanPaulBob (585149) on Monday December 27 2004, @04:02PM (#11194240)
      Numbers should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt
      As you suggest, I ran the figures for a grain of salt through the impact effects calculator.

      Specifically, I used a 0.0003 meter grain of salt with a density of 2165 kg/m^3 (suggested by the I'm Feeling Lucky result for how big is a grain of salt [google.com]) at 17km/s and 45 degree impact, and dropped it in 1000 meters of water.

      Results
      • Impact Energy: This projectile is so small that it burns up during atmospheric traverse
      • Crater Formed in Seafloor: Are you kidding?
      • Earthquake: It burns up in the freakin' atmosphere!
      • Radiant Flux at 100 km: You're an idiot.
      I really don't see what you're so worried about.
  • by da cog (531643) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:29PM (#11193889)
    Just because the probability keeps going up, it doesn't mean that we are getting increasingly sure that the asteroid will hit Earth. Suppose that the asteroid were going to come close to Earth without hitting it. At first, the impact probability would appear low since the "window" of orbits allowed from the data would be wide. As we got better observations, however, this window would shrink, but the Earth would stay inside it since it's near the center. Thus, for a time the probability of impact would go up, since the Earth would take up a greater percentage of the window. Eventually, though, the window would shrink past the Earth and the probability would go down again.

    I suspect that this is what will happen. Could easily be wrong, though.
  • by firew0lfz (690262) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:31PM (#11193905)

    Crazy, I was just checking my bookmark on this when the slashdot article popped up. Anyways..

    Here is the wikipedia page explaining the Torino Scale. I still wouldn't worry about it until the thing hit at least a 8 or so. The article gives a nice explanation of what astronomers would do in warning the governments in the event they thought this thing deserved any real attention.

    Torino Scale [wikipedia.org]
  • by xihr (556141) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:36PM (#11193959) Homepage

    Keep in mind that the very nature of the situation will result in the probability slowly creeping upward until (hopefully of course), it is eliminated entirely. The very nature of having a low-probability situation whose likelihood has to be determined with continued measurements to increase the precision of the prediction means that as the likely set of paths is refined, the cylinder that represents the likely set of paths of the asteroid shrinks. Because it shrinks, the probability that it will be at any given point in that cylinder goes up.

    At the point when the cylinder is projected to miss Earth entirely, the probability of impact will suddenly go to (very near) zero. In other words, the very nature of the situation regarding refining the data we have means that the probability will creep slowly upward before it goes to zero. (This happens for all close encounters, of course; it's just that no one's watching the actual probabilities for those too carefully.)

    So the steady rise of the impact probability may be disquieting, but it is not unexpected and does not actually indicate anything particularly additionally troubling going on.

  • by Dr. Mu (603661) on Monday December 27 2004, @04:02PM (#11194235)
    The IRS income tax deadline in 2029 will be Monday, April 16th. I think, perhaps, I'll file for an extension that year.
  • Free Tacos? (Score:4, Funny)

    by telemonster (605238) on Monday December 27 2004, @04:25PM (#11194435) Homepage
    Does everyone in the world get a free Taco if it hits a Taco Bell?

  • by shawkin (165588) * on Monday December 27 2004, @06:09PM (#11195180)
    Latest NASA update shows limited chance of impact.
    1 in 56,000.
    • by cmowire (254489) on Monday December 27 2004, @03:49PM (#11194086) Homepage
      See, I think that there's a difference and a gift in disguise here.

      The reason why we don't have a system to deflect asteroids right now is because asteroids are one of those things that "could happen" in the far off future.

      It's like smoking. It's not guaranteed to kill you, and nobody drops dead after a single puff. Some smokers live really long lives. So smoking is viewed as something that's "bad for you", not an instant death sentence.

      Therefore, we've got a lot of people who smoke in the world.

      However, pulling out a shotgun, pointing it at your face, and pulling the trigger is unquestionably lethal.

      Therefore, the only people who do that are people who really want to die.

      The difference is that we don't always think about things that *might* cause harm, but we always think about things that *will* cause harm.

      This is just one of the many ways that the human brain is a little screwed up about risk management. It worked when we were on the plains of Africa and needed to evade predators and manage to survive, but it doesn't necessarily hold up now.

      Now, the blessing in disguize is that a quarter century is very much long enough to figure out what to do. Remember, we've got more than enough knowlege to do it -- computers to plot trajectories, a variety of tested and untested propulsion and power systems, techniques, etc. In the quarter of a century timespan, we may just need to paint one side white to provide the push. So, in some sense, it's even easier than trying to go from nothing to the moon landing.

      But what we lack, like most things in space, is a feeling of urgency to really do something about it. Thus, this is a blessing in disguize. If they give it a decent possibility of really hitting Earth, 25 years in the future, we've got time to do something about it in ways that if they said that it'll probably hit tomorrow we won't.

      Same way I know several folk who, when their doctors told them that they were going to be dead in x years if they didn't quit smoking, were able to go cold turkey.