Slashdot Log In
Mars Asteroid Impact Effectively Ruled Out
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jan 10, 2008 06:59 PM
from the now-we-can-go-back-to-fretting-about-earth dept.
from the now-we-can-go-back-to-fretting-about-earth dept.
An anonymous reader writes with a followup to previous news noting the possibility that an asteroid would collide with Mars: "Further observations have reduced the odds of asteroid 2007 WD5 impacting Mars to approximately 1 in 10,000. According to NASA this asteroid followed the same pattern of increasing in probability, then finally being ruled out as a threat."
Related Stories
[+]
Mars Asteroid Impact More Likely Than Before 207 comments
sheldie writes "The probability of asteroid 2007 WD5 impacting Mars has been revised following further observations. The chance of impact has increased from 1.3% to 3.9%" This is a follow-up to earlier coverage of this asteroid from last week.
Firehose:Mars Asteroid Impact Effectively Ruled Out by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading ... Please wait.

Too bad. (Score:2)
What if they caused it to happen? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What if they caused it to happen? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NEO prediction needs more funding (Score:5, Insightful)
What a shame! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What a shame! (Score:4, Funny)
I'd be more concerned about the ejecta matter leaving Uranus.
This sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be too late already. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, I really don't get this argument. I can understand a wake-up call about how we're messing with nature so much it's gonna end in tears. I can understand wake-up call
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Moving an asteroid off course would seem likely to require huge nuclear warheads in any case. Obviously, we can't wait until we see something headed towards us in a telescope to start refining uranium or whatever the hell, so
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you nuts? Nuclear warheads? That is probably the absolute very last thing you would want to try to deflect a large body with. It might fracture, which woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need gigaton nukes to deflect asteroids. A simpl
Re:This sucks. (Score:4, Informative)
Moving an asteroid is MUCH easier than solving poverty, crime or homelessness. If you have enough lead time it takes a relatively small rocket attached to the asteroid to steer it clear of the earth. A paper on moving asteroid, with 10N of force! [umich.edu] Another simple proposal. [technovelgy.com]
On the other hand, there is already enough food for everyone on the whole planet, but human greed, for both wealth and power, prevents a huge number of people from enjoying peace and prosperity. And no amount of technical or political knowledge is going to help.
In short, it is a very low chance event with very bad results that we CAN do something about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Paper beats rock, then? We already knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
The chances of a large asteroid impact in your lifetime are MUCH HIGHER than you think. The Earth is currently a "single point of failure" for humanity. We have the ability (and the obligation) to detect and escape such impacts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A wake-up call to a 1 in a 1000000000000000000000000000000 chance of a piece of rock hitting us? I couldn't care less, and even if I did care, there is nothing I can do about it.
Two words: Bruce Willis.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the threat is asinine. Your statement of the odds shows a clear misunderstanding of the reality.
The odds are exactly 100% that we'll get hit. It's just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we can be pretty sure that No 1 will happen at some point (when solar luminosity has increased enough to boil the oceans off the surface of Earth), but that's still over a billio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a Tunguska-sized asteroid (or worse, a Yucatan-sized one) is en route for earth, and we have 20 years' notice, it wouldn't be that hard to launch some nukes up there to nudge it into a safe orbit in time. We went from Sputnik to landing on the moon in less time than that, and all we have to do is make launch systems capable of taking our already-existing nuclear warheads and planting them on or near an asteroid some distance from earth (but probably less distance than Mars, which we have no trouble sending probes to). The only thing that's actually preventing us from deflecting asteroids is the fact that we don't have any prior warning of them, simply because we don't bother to look for them very hard.
You talk about correcting the orbital patterns of an asteroid as if it's an impossible feat, but as I've already shown, it's quite realistic. The problem is just knowing about the asteroid in time to do something. A nuclear weapon can move an asteroid only slightly. With 10 years' notice, that's all you need. But if the thing is going to hit the earth in 1 day, the amount of power needed to move that rock would be astronomical. So who's the dumbass?
As for "infinitesimal", as if an asteroid strike is unlikely, there are craters all over our planet from large asteroid strikes. I live a short distance away from one, in fact, located at "Meteor Crater, Arizona" (it's on Google Maps; it's where the final scene of Starman was shot incidentally). There's a much, much bigger one on the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico which was an extinction event. And in recent history, a comet came down in Tunguska, Siberia in the early 1900s, wiping out a huge amount of forest. If that had been a populated area, instead of a remote frozen tundra that even now is mostly unexplored, the devastation would have been greater than any natural disaster in history most likely. Another asteroid (or comet, not much difference really) striking the earth in the next few hundred years isn't as unlikely as you suggest, and certainly a much bigger worry than the Sun reaching the end of its lifespan, which we're fairly certain will take several billion years, which is more than enough time to deal with that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but every time I see someone worrying abo
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. But I like the sci-fi idea that we'll get off this planet, spread our seed 'round the galaxy, and evolve. So that by the time the Sun consumes the Earth, our two-headed five-eyed descen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Sun will not go supernova. It's simply not massive enough.
Re: (Score:2)
And also the final scene of Mac and Me [imdb.com].
I should really have posted this AC...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's still ONE chance (Score:2)
Crap summary (Score:2)
How can we mock USA Today when so-called geeks are so poor at handling numbers.
So, does that mean ... (Score:2)
Where is it going? (Score:2)
Hurricanes (Score:2)
When a hurricane is first spotted heading our way, its usually too far out to have any idea where its going to end up. As it keeps heading our way, the likelihood of a strik
earth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)