Slashdot Log In
2004 MN4 Probably Won't Kill Us
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Dec 27, 2004 07:44 PM
from the this-wrecks-a-bunch-of-pick-up-lines dept.
from the this-wrecks-a-bunch-of-pick-up-lines dept.
Xshare writes "It's now official. NASA's Near Earth Objects page lists 2004 MN4, the asteroid that's been covered on slashdot recently, as having a 1 in 56,000 chance of hitting earth, and even then only in 2037. It seems that earth was near the edge of the cone of probability of when it could go. As the cone kept closing, the probability of hitting earth grew, but it kept getting closer to the edge. It's now outside the cone, and we can be safe."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
You might want to try the Wally approach [dilbert.com].
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
The sky is falling ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The sky is falling ... (Score:5, Funny)
P.S.: And I for one, welcome our pedantic overlords.
Not even in 2037 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not even in 2037 (Score:5, Funny)
Reading your post, I can feel even safer since I realized that if you do the math (83,000 * 526,316,000) there is only a 1 in 43,684,200,000,000 that it will hit us in both 2037 and 2044.
Good (Score:5, Funny)
But then again.... (Score:5, Funny)
how many other disasters in the 2030's? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:how many other disasters in the 2030's? (Score:5, Interesting)
The four previous peoples of the earth were wiped out by jaguars, hurricanes, fires, and finally a great flood. Middle-eastern religions document the flood as well. The Popul Vuh [meta-religion.com] has many interesting parallels to the Torah/Pentateuch making it a disturbing read. The best explanation for that starts out with "If Newton and Liebniz could separately invent calculus, and both the lightbulb and phonograph were seperately created while nearly identical..." And remember, the reason Cortez got away with what he did is because they thought he was the second coming of their saviour.
...won't kill us. (Score:5, Funny)
Lies, lies lies! We are going to die! (Score:5, Funny)
Why isn't the media covering this? (Score:5, Interesting)
(and, even weirder, the ones that -do- mention it are dated days ago and talk abut an "actually miniscule probability". can't they read?!)
I guess I'll just have to turn to Slashdot for all my eschatological news.
The Cone (Score:5, Funny)
Straight from the horse's mouth (Score:5, Informative)
"Near-Earth Asteroid 2004 MN4: improved situation
"The asteroid 2004 MN4 will have a very close approach to Earth in 2029. However, the observations collected by the astronomers, both professionals and amateurs, have provided enough information to exclude the possibility of an impact in 2029. This asteroid has an estimated diameter of 400 meters, and the nominal orbit solution results in a close approach to the Earth at 64,000 Km minimum distance on April 13, 2029. The actual distance could even be smaller, as small as 8 times the radius of the Earth. At the time of closest approach, the asteroid should be as bright as a fifth magnitude star, thus from some areas it will be visible to the naked eye.
"The sharp decrease in the estimated risk from this object was the result of the enormous work done by astronomers from all over the world. Notwidstanding the Christmas holidays, many dedicated people went to work in their observatories, in the archives of past observations and at their computers, as it was the case for the staff of NEODyS. More than 200 new observations of 2004 MN4 were obtained in the last 5 days. The discovery observations of June have been painfully remeasured, the impact monitoring computer programs have been run more than 30 times. Finally today some prediscovery observations from March 2004 were found and extracted from the archives of the Spacewatch survey. These allowed to extend significantly the observations time span, thus the confidence region for the orbital elements was sharply reduced and many impacts compatible with the previous data turned out to be incompatible with the extended observations."
asteriod? (Score:5, Funny)
news.google.com search [google.com]
Yea, that's right.
Figures.
-S
Media restraint? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this is why. The data is/was incomplete. The calculations are/were preliminary and ever-changing based on new observations. There was no point in starting a panic and sensationalizing the story at this point.
Sometimes we, the readers/contributors of Slashdot aren't as collectively bright as we think we are.
-S
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad you'd be guessing wrong. NASA's information page on 2004 MN4 [nasa.gov] has been continuously updated throughout the weekend. Just a few hours ago, based on certain observations, it was concluded that the probability was 1/37. After further calculations and observations, the trajectory of the asteroid was plotted with enough confidence to warrant a reevaluation of the impact probabilities. Hence, we now see a 1/56,000 chance. It's all right there on NASA's page. Nothing sensationalistic about it.
How'd we get arrive at those probabilities within a matter of hours? Read the article summary. It does a good job of explaining it.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The best way to visualize it: Imagine a dot on the ground. Cast a shadow on it from your hand. That shadow is the probable area where the future asteroid would be. As measurements become more accurate you would move your hand closer and closer to the ground. The probability goes up because the area of the shadow becomes smaller while the size of the dot on the ground (the Earth) remains the same. As the shadow continues shrinking then the probability of impact continues to go up until your hand gets so close to the ground that your hand touches (or misses) the dot..
At that point the shadow is either on the dot (impact) or it is off the dot (miss) and right now the shadow is off the dot (miss).
Two choices: (Score:5, Informative)
Trust the math
Do the math
I only briefly considered it but enough that I trust the math. It's not that the estimates are unreliable, it's that the estimates are only as reliable as the measurements made, and as the measurements become increasingly accurate in number and value, so too the estimate.
So the first estimate was made with a small number of measurements: The theoretical 'circle' of probability was large and intersected quite well with the Earth. As more measurements are made, the probability circle gets smaller, but because the size of the Earth doesn't shrink the chance of impact go up; more of the volume of the probability circle coincides with the Earth.
Then as even more measurements are made the circle grows ever smaller until it is small enough that only the edge of the circle is now overlapping the Earth, and thus the chance of impact goes down.
Re:How reliable are these calculations? (Score:5, Informative)
its quite simple
you have a cone of probable impact
. METEOR
. / \
. / \
. / \
. / \
. / \
./ o \
(o=earth)
its in the cone, high probability
calculations are more refined:
. METEOR
. / \
. / \
. / \
.
base of cone is smaller, earth now has an even larger chance of getting hit.. now some more narrowing of the cone:
. METEOR
. / \
. / \
. o/ \
oops.. earth is no longer in the cone.. probability just jumped to 1/56,000
--
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason Please use fewer junk characters.
lalala In three days this has gone from 1/233 chance, to 1/45, to 1/56,000. How can there be so wide of a spread over such a small time interval if the method being used to estimate this is at all reliable? I could see how small trajectory changes in the asteroid would vary the predictions a lot if it were closer, but this is still 30+ years away.
What's to say tomorrow won't be 1/1? How is this latest measurement the final word that there is no threat
The now-defunct Lycos anti-spamsite screen saver, MakeLoveNotSpam, was extremely well received despite the whines and hand wringing from the no-one-should-ever-actively-defend-themselves crowd. There was speculation after its demise that Open Source spam-punishing tools would emerge. Other tools such as SpamVampireThe now-defunct Lycos anti-spamsite screen saver, MakeLoveNotSpam, was extremely well received despite the whines and hand wringing from the no-one-should-ever-actively-defend-themselves crowd. There was speculation after its demise that Open Source spam-punishing tools would emerge. Other tools such as SpamVampire, LadVampire (punishes fake bank sites), Spam Research Tool and others were mentioned with increasing frequency, but there has been no coherent followup to gauge what people are doing since the death of the Lycos screen saver. What are you doing that you think is effective in punishing spammers or their spam-site sponsors?" , LadVampire (punishes fake bank sites), Spam Research Tool and others were mentioned with increasing frequency, but there has been no coherent followup to gauge what people are doing since the death of the Lycos screen saver. What are you doing that you think is effective in punishing spammers or their spam-site sponsors?"
Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
While this may be true, you have to wonder if it's a good thing to venture into other worlds now, I mean, look at our world.
Our main fuel source is a non-renewable, polluting one that won't last us into the next century. We still have billions of people living in utter poverty, and children aspire to be rock stars, and the likes.
I don't think our (american/european) culture is ready to venture into space and colonize, we need to start putting value on the right ideals. To where children aspire to be scientists, to where the best idea wins out, not the shiniest one, to where corporations and people in general terms aren't "out to make a buck."
I'd hate to see these ideals brought into space. Militarization of space? No thanks.
We could support many more billions of people on the planet if the right alternatives were taken to sustain life, and not just make money
Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a few misconceptions. (Score:5, Informative)
We use coal, oil, and natural gas because they're CHEAPER than other energy sources. When they actually DO start to run short the price will rise and we'll (incrementally) switch to using something else.
But don't use "known reserves" as a measure of how much is left. "Known reserves" measure how much has been hunted up. When enough for a few decades has been found it becomes uneconomic to hunt for more now, rather than waiting until later.
Early money is better than later money - because it can be put to work meanwhile. There is a crossover point where it makes more sense to put the money to work earning more money rather than hunt for more resources that you won't need for decades. The exact crossover point varies depending on interest rate and other factors (such as the planning horizon needed for your operation). But normally it's never more than 30 years in the future.
As a result, having "known reserves" good for more than about 30 years occurs only by accident: Either the last discovery made was enormous, or expected demand has dropped since the planning that ordered the last round of explorations.
But that means, if you assume known reserves are all reserves, you ALWAYS think you're "going to run out in 30 years" or so, and have a crisis. This has been true for the last 50 years at least, and people have been "viewing with alarm" and raising a big popular stink about it every decade or so for all that time.
I hear it has been going on for much longer. History records similar popular angst about running out of whale oil for lamps and limits to city size due to knee-deep horseflops in the streets from the delivery wagons. But I can attest to the doomsayers of the last 50 years or so from personal observation.
Yes, eventually the oil will run short. But there won't be a sudden catastrophy when the last well suddenly sucks dry. Instead the price will gradually rise, and the production gradually fall. First power plants, then cars, will switch to other fuels while the remaining production is used for more lucrative purposes (such as chemical feedstocks, until it becomes expensive enough that the chemicals will be synthesized some other way).
We still have billions of people living in utter poverty, and children aspire to be rock stars, and the likes.
And that's a total non-sequitur. So some people are in poverty. So what? That has no effect on whether some of the people who AREN'T starving will chose to spend some resources building mansions, watching football, touring the Moon, or colonizing space.
I don't think our (american/european) culture is ready to venture into space and colonize, we need to start putting value on the right ideals.
If america/europe doesn't do it first, somebody else will. That's how evolution works - for species, ideologies, corporations, and the couple dozen or so other things that have some of the characteristics associated with life. Nature red in tooth and claw. Every gene/meme for itself, and cooperation occurs only if it's advantageous for the cooperator.
Some groups die out. Some find new, more successful, niches. But those that put expansion into new opportunities on the back burner until they have "perfected" themselves lose out to those who ignore such hand-wrining and "boldly go".
You snooze, you lose!
I'd hate to see these ideals brought into space. Militarization of space? No thanks.
So your feelings will be hurt. Space is already militarized, and has been since the first shots. The entire process evolved from a war effort.
Right now we have ICBMs and spy satellites as major parts of military strategy. The {apparent} lack of always-up orbiting nuclear bomb platforms (to suplement the always-up bombers and always-down submarines) is an artifact of the dance that brought all-out war to a screeching, no