Mars Asteroid Impact More Likely Than Before

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.

That first picture...

[dattaway]

See that first picture where the arc of the asteroid makes a flyby right into our orbit, while just passing Mars?

Versus Jupiter

[us7892]

How come the experts cannot mathematically say for certain whether this rock will hit Mars? What's the wildcard in this calculation that injects uncertainty?

Re:Preview of news media coverage

[Smidge204]

To be fair, a "1 in 24" is much better odds than "1 in 76." So yes, It is three times more likely and yes, that is a pretty big deal.

A fresh impact crater would reveal all sorts of valuable, once-in-a-lifetime data about the planet that is likely to be the first humans will tred on since Earth. Don't underestimate the science.
=Smidge=

The rovers

[ACS Solver]

Is there any information yet on whether Spirit and Opportunity might see anything if there actually is impact - such as maybe seeing the dust rise or even capturing a glimpse of the asteroid in the Martian atmosphere?

Re:Increasing probability

[rasantel]

The impact probability does not *have* to increase just because the asteroid moves on and more data is available. There is no reason why the cone has to magically center on Mars so that Mars takes a bigger and bigger part of it. Mars could have as well "moved" outside the cone in the last prediction adjustment. If chances raised to 3.9% that Mars is hit, it is not because "inevitably" Mars consumes more and more of the cone's space. It means that it is truly more likely that Mars is hit according to new data, than expected initially. The initial estimate was just an estimate (as the current one is also an estimate), not something necessarily doomed to grow.

Re:Preview of news media coverage

[JetJaguar]

But no FRESH ones.

That's not really true. The orbital cameras around Mars have detected new craters from impacts that occurred in just the last few years. Here's just one example. [nasa.gov]

Re:Taking All Bets

[ladoga]

Is there any sensible reason to care about moderations? It's something that has escaped me,
but I'm relatively new here so maybe someone could elaborate.

Re:Wow

[snowraver1]

It would cause alot of dust and dirt to become airborne, allowing spectral analysis to determine the presence of substances. The argument about water existing on the planet would likely be answered, and we could get a good look on what resources might be available on mars if humans were ever able to establish a base camp.

Re:New history

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be spectacular. Mars is up all night right now. It's just past a opposition so it's huge and bright. It's still dark at 3:00AM so if it's going to hit I'll definitly be up at 2:23 with my scope and watch it.

Oh crap; I live in the Pacific Northwest. In January there's no chance of seeing anything in the sky.

But you might want to go out with binoculars.

Re:Preview of news media coverage

[MichaelSmith]

Not sure if it is the same crater but I did see a picture of a new Mars crater which was just a smudge in the sand. The impactor had fallen apart before impact and just spread some darker dust around. I think it would be very interesting to see how much of this object actually hits the ground, and how much mass gets thrown into the atmosphere.

Maybe I am counting on this too much. 4% is not that high. Cross fingers. Touch chipboard.