Armageddon... in 2014. Almost. 537
anetic was among several to note a story making the rounds striking fear into the hearts of many.
Armageddon will just barely miss us, so make sure to get your panic in the streets over with early.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Armageddon... in 2014. Almost.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
What about another icon: (Score:5, Funny)
Near Earth Objects
A mugshot of Bruce Willis as icon will draw the right associations.
No no no. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about another icon: (Score:3, Informative)
Armageddon [movieweb.com]
A roughneck crew of the world's foremost deep-core oil drillers, including Harry S. Stamper (Bruce Willis), set out on a heroic journey into space to save the world from an oncoming asteroid the size of Texas.
If the comet hits... (Score:4, Funny)
According to orbit diagrams (Score:5, Informative)
see the close approach table here [nasa.gov] - note the the distances on this chart are typically in single digit earth radii.
See also this data on the NEODyS home page [unipi.it]
It means that any space alien or mad scientist with a grudge could give it a nudge to do something nasty.
Note also that the orbit simulations link given above seems to be calculated with old data. showing no collision in 2014
Re:According to orbit diagrams (Score:3, Interesting)
2014? Great... (Score:3, Funny)
Kjella
Obvious Bruce Willis Comment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious Bruce Willis Comment (Score:3, Funny)
But what will Liv Tyler do now that Ben is with J-Lo?
A new scale? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like every year or less another "near miss" gets some play in the papers.
Who knows, maybe it's the same 3 or 4 objects that keep getting reporting on all the time...
Re:A new scale? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A new scale? (Score:5, Funny)
No, NEO - I am saying that when we're ready - we wont have to.
Another article about another asteroid (Score:3, Interesting)
Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes but atleast... Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
(According to Terry Pratchett anyway, who also admits that there's a million to one chance of it being a million to one chance- ok here on in it gets complicated ;-) )
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on what we currently know, there's 1 chanse in 900K that it'll hit.
This also means that there's 899.999 in 900.000 chanse that it will NOT hit, and probably 850.000 in 900.000 that it'll miss by so large a margin that even a bit more observation now will tell us for sure that it'll miss.
So the article is likely rigth, if silly, the chanses really probably ARE very high that after a bit more observation, we'll be able to say f
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:2)
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose I have rolled 10 six-sided dice. Without any more information, you'd would say there's a 1 in 6 million chance that they are all fours, and you'd be right. But if you look at one of the dice, you will then have more information: if it's a four, then the odds that all dice are fours becomes 1 in 1 million; on the other hand, if it's not a four, the odds become zero. The latter scenario is five times more likely. Therefore, it is accurate to say that "the chances of all-fours are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the dice have been made".
Odds (Score:3, Informative)
1 to (6)^10 (total combinations)
Which is about 1 to 60 million.
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
What for? Save vs. huge-ass rock?
(My apologies to all the AD&D players out there)
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:3, Funny)
Can you imagine the pressure of being the person who has to roll the saving throw for the whole world?
-Peter
From the AD&D Manual... (Score:5, Funny)
Table 28.9 Global Catastrophies
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Informative)
It's further explained by his theory of "narrative causality" that is a sufficiently good story can impact reality in such a fashion as to bring the conditons of "reality" closer to that in the narrative.
The idea here being, how often in some story do they say "It's a million to one chance, but it just might work," and then, like magic it happens.
Check out;
http://www.ie.lspace.org/
for an idea of what he's all about. He's one of my favorite authors.
-H
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we can all be scared.
Re:To get boringly technical about it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. With a fair coin it is proper to talk of the probability being 50:50. The difference between a fair coin and celestial mechanics is that with a fair coin it is not possible to define an experiment which will determine the result in advance. In celestial mechanics it is not only possible, but very straight forward. The experiments will in fact be done, and that is the reason the "probability" will change over time before the date of potential collision.
The thing is that real probabilistic analysis is used in computing the pseudo-probability which is the odds 909,000:1. Taking the information at hand, they compute a volume of space through which both the rock and the Earth might pass through during the given time and then compute the probability of them both being at the same place at the same time within that volume. As the quality of the information improves the volume decreases and the pseudo-probability more accurately approximates the actual probability. The odds either get extremely large or closer and closer to 1:1. (I'm being sloppy here, and not talking about gradients. A real analysis would have different probabilities of being within different parts of an infinite volume.)
On the other hand, this is in fact boringly technical. Pseudo-probabilities are very useful, and it is only natural to call them probabilities in normal conversation. You only have to worry about the difference when actually computing the pseudo-probabilities.
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Ob. Terry Pratchet reference (Score:5, Funny)
Death: POSSIBLY.
Vimes: You turn up when people are possibly going to die?
Death: OH YES. IT'S QUITE THE NEW THING. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.
Vimes: What's that?
Death: I'M NOT SURE.
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, just bounce a 50 attowatt laser off one side of the meteor to continuously measure its almost-exact distance and speed. What is left of it will definitely be going in a different direction eventually.
Designing a 50 attowatt laser that can be focused at astronomical distances (potentially through the atmosphere, but there might not be much atmosphere left in its direct line of fire after a second or two) is left as an exercise to the reader...
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:3, Informative)
You are aware that atto is a very small modifier, not a very large one, right? 50 attowatts is equivalent to 5.0 * (10 ^ -17) watts, or 0.00000000000000005 watts.
Perhaps you meant peta (10^15), exa (10^18), zetta (10^21), or yotta (10^24)?
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chances likely to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Just don't name it Wormwood. (Score:2, Insightful)
Project Orion anyone??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Project Orion anyone??? (Score:5, Funny)
And rightly so. Nuclear power is an unnecessary and eco-unfriendly option. Whale blubber, dolphin snouts and bear cub hides make a far more efficent fuel when burnt.
Re:you forgot... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Project Orion anyone??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Check it. [astronautix.com]
Re:Project Orion anyone??? (Score:5, Funny)
Nukes will not work for sponge-like asteriods (Score:5, Interesting)
A quote from the link above:
Asteroids like sponges
Three years ago, the residents of Tagish Lake in northern Canada witnessed a bright explosion in the sky, as an asteroid burned up in the atmosphere above them. Jim Brook was lucky enough to find debris from the impact. The first thing he noticed was that it was far lighter than he expected it would be. Like a sponge, the chunks of debris were mostly air.
Dan Durdan makes his living by firing ball bearings at asteroid samples - meteorites - to study what happens when they are hit. When he tested samples similar to the Tagish Lake meteorite, he was surprised to see that, rather than shattering or being deflected, these less dense asteroids simply absorbed the impact of the blast.
These results were worrying. This could mean that many asteroids would not be deflected by a nuclear blast. Trying to deflect an asteroid with a blast might have no effect, and would keep it coming on its deadly trajectory.
The programme also covered an alternative solution (another quote..)
The power of the Sun
Jay Meloch has suggested a radical new way of dealing with a dangerous asteroid. He wanted a surer, more controlled way of diverting a large body - with a gentle push instead of a blast. His idea was to find a way of harnessing the biggest power source in the Solar System - the Sun.
In the same way as you can use a magnifying glass to set fire to a sheet of paper, you could focus the Sun's rays onto a point on the surface on an asteroid. The spot where the Sun's rays met would heat up, blasting particles of the asteroid into space. This would act like a rocket engine, and might be enough nudge the asteroid out of harm's way.
The scientific community ridiculed his suggestion - until Meloch received a phone call from someone who took his idea very seriously. The US military already uses collectors like Meloch's to gather radio waves. Meloch may well have come up with a suggestion that will one day save the Earth.
Re:Nukes will not work for sponge-like asteriods (Score:3, Informative)
What I want to see, is the effect of a large thermonuclear bomb on an asteroid sample...
Re:Nukes will not work for sponge-like asteriods (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nukes will not work for sponge-like asteriods (Score:3, Informative)
probabably you should try to calculate how much MASS a asteroid has, and how much momemntum is transfered if one or two nukes HIT it.
a) when HITting, the nuke wont explode
b) ignitioning the nuke close by
Re:Nukes will not work for sponge-like asteriods (Score:4, Insightful)
It amuses me to think that the old Asteroids game may have been pretty accurate when it comes to the problems of trying to dispose of asteroids by shooting at them
Re:Project Orion anyone??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Erm... If you're using a series of explosions to blast nuclear warheads into space, there'd be a risk of potential fallout in case of a failure, no matter what technology you'd use to generate the explosions - nuclear warheads have a tendency to be radioactive themselves...
Besides: Orion would be "nuclear powered" not in the semi-clean sense of power plants ("Clean unless there's a disastrous failure and if you know a place to store the leftovers for the next couple of thousands of years."), but rather in the sense of an atmospheric nuclear weapons test ("Sure to generate radioactive fallout which will eventually contaminate some area somewhere."), so you don't have to be an "eco freak" to doubt its feasibility.
If the danger were much greater, it might be considered an option, but for now it looks as if there's not much to worry about anyway.
Why Panic the Masses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Panic the Masses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people don't watch the news unless it has something to do with Iraq, somebody getting shot or murdered, or one of their favourite TV shows.
Of course, a skilled preacher may be able to whip up a nice mob this Sunday. "THE END IS UPON US!"
Re:Why Panic the Masses? (Score:3, Informative)
But Granny I'm still kinda affraid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But Granny I'm still kinda affraid (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what the funny thing is? IIRC, that meteor was about 6 miles (a bit less than 10 km) across. That means, this thing is 1/10 the size IN EACH DIRECTION which is more like 1/1000 of the size of the dino meteor. Or more like (1/8)^3, or 1/512 as powerful. OTOH that doesn't take into account relative velocities and such.
"just barely miss us"? (Score:2, Funny)
Bruce Willis can stay put.
Re:"just barely miss us"? (Score:5, Funny)
Bruce Willis can stay put.
Lets send him anyway..If you're not scared.... (Score:5, Informative)
but the brits are playing it down here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm
Hmmmmmm now where did I put that Anderson shelter?
Re:If you're not scared.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If you're not scared.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If you're not scared.... (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest we find this guy and shoot him into space before it's too late...
And posted in Askslashdot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And posted in Askslashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And posted in Askslashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
Natalie Portman.
Carrie-Anne Moss.
Liv Tyler.
Jennifer Garner.
Cowboy Neal.
Re:And posted in Askslashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
1) A large box of porn magazines and tissues may help pass the time in your underground den of geekdom.
2) Generator + oil
3) Low energy lighting (optional if you live by TFT monitor glare), and low energy computers - that oil is precious
4) A collection of the essential programming books, and the top 30 games, plus the entire MAME collection
5) A futon, so you can both sleep, and sit back and relax (e.g., with previously mentioned porn) - space will be limited
6) Spares: hard drives, OS install disks, CD/DVD/CDRW drives, power supplies, processors, mice, keyboards
7) High energy food source and water. It might be worth dedicating around 50% of your shelter to alcoholic beverages in addition.
8) Pens, Pencils and Paper
9) Shortwave radio
10) Girl
Re:And posted in Askslashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
-- esr
Re:And posted in Askslashdot... (Score:3, Funny)
With apologies to Stanley Kubrick... (Score:5, Funny)
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
Where is the cult? (Score:4, Funny)
God i wish the Scientologists swung that way.. I'd say let the rock take them.
Uh oh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, that doesn't mean the asteroid will hit us, and it doesn't mean it won't. It means that we don't know yet.
Still, the chances of this wiping out most of a continent are better than the chances of you winning the lottery. There, feel better yet?
Re:Uh oh. (Score:3, Funny)
Why do they announce these things so fast? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am Kirok (Score:3, Funny)
The odds (Score:5, Funny)
Why did they name it 'double-Q-forty-seven' (Score:5, Funny)
came up with a name for this massive rock...given the chances that it will hit us, you'd have thought that they'd come up with something more imaginative...
(For good examples, please see relevant crap doomsday movies or scifi novels
In a situation like this, I'd recommend what any other geek would: We need a slashdot Poll!
"Most appropriate name for a massive rock that will most likely possibly maybe destroy all life on earth:
A) EarthCrusher
B) Foot of God
C) StarHammer
D) SCO's Laywers' Bill
E) DinosaurKiller
F)
G) CowboyNeal's Booger
Re:Why did they name it 'double-Q-forty-seven' (Score:3, Funny)
I think 'Wormwood' has the historical precedance and would scare the religious right silly. Please, please, please, please start referring to it as 'Wormwood'.
Re:Why did they name it 'double-Q-forty-seven' (Score:3, Informative)
"Most appropriate name for a massive rock that will most likely possibly maybe destroy all life on earth:
I think Niven and Pournelle came up with a good one: Lucifer's Hammer [amazon.com].
Annoying (Score:4, Funny)
They say that there is a one in 909,000 chance of asteroid 2003 QQ47 impacting our planet.
The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made.
Yes, duh. With our current knowledge, there is a 1 in 909,000 chance of the chance going to 1, and a 908,999 in 909,000 chance of the chance going to 0.
Saying it is likely to become slimmer is a totally content-less comment.
how about a 1 in 10,000 chance then.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh by the way, it's not due 'til 2101..
Eventually one will become dangerous (Score:3, Informative)
I think that most space agencies know this, which is why there is a fair amount of observation and research into discovering, predicting and hindering such objects. For instance, it has been discovered that only the high density non porous asteroids can be reliably moved with nuclear explosions. Porous low density asteroids and comets will need completely different technologies in order to change their trajectories, such as solar powered lasers to melt parts of them and ion engines to manouver the probes.
Goodbye Everybody!!! (Score:3, Funny)
So who won? Gates? Figures.
Where does the looting begin? Can I do an Ask Slashdot about whether to loot a projection TV or an LCD?
More sensationalist crap (Score:5, Informative)
2003 QQ47 only merits a 1 on the Torino scale. That's the same rating given to random events. For anyone to get upset, you'd be looking for at least a 3 (out of 10) which is a 1% chance of a collision and some regional destruction. Compare this to a 10, which is guaranteed collision and global climatic catastrophe. A 10 event on the Torino scale happens every thousand centuries or so.
Journalists really ought to at least try and understand their subject matter before committing their thoughts to be distributed to the general public. They have a duty of responsibility to ensure that data of limited significance is not represented as some twisted interpretation of a coming apocalypse.
*That* Armageddon (Score:3)
Near Miss?? (Score:5, Funny)
Comments on the story (Score:5, Funny)
The Torino scale seems a wonderful invention, since obviously the dinosaurs didn't have it, and see what happened to them! But it has an obvious bug, it works only with integer values. Zero means "all clear" and One means "enough danger to panic and start looting". What about "enough danger to reconsider whether life as a tea jockey is really worthwhile?" I mean, it would be really useful to know that the current Torino scale is 0.003 or whatever. People could change jobs and say "Torino went up, I'm reconsidering my life choices!" or whatever. A single decimal Torino jump could be enough to spark divorces, a full digit change enough to halt wars. But we need more accuracy.
I for one welcome our new Torino overlords!!
I know statistics!! You can't fool me (Score:5, Funny)
Why isn't anyone doing anything!!
Re:I know statistics!! You can't fool me (Score:3, Funny)
Why isn't anyone doing anything!!
Nine weeks to unemployment. Please hire me in NYC/Long Island area
Shhh, you fool! That's 6,601 jobs opening up!
-T
scarier than it seems... (Score:3, Informative)
Date: 2078-03-22.19
Distance in earth radius from center of earth: 0.11
Chance that it won't hit: 0.000
I REALLY HOPE that there's some new measurements coming out soon...
Probability (Score:3, Insightful)
How close can it actually come without causing ill effects? Suppose it missed by 100kM ? 10kM? Can anyone provide enlightenment?
The Torino Scale (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I'll start worrying when the propability is more than 1% (Torino Scale 3) and increasing with time.
Re:The Torino Scale (Score:3, Informative)
So I can envision someone creating a mass-equivalent scale using this vehicle because it was his first car. Stranger things have happened.
Mayan Apocalypse (Score:5, Interesting)
--
Gut reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, we go out and vote to spend our money bombing a country that was of no threat to us. Maybe we deserve to have a big rock dropped on us.
Pertubations (Score:5, Interesting)
15 March 2005: The object will be .082 AU from earth.
24 September 2012: The object will pass within 0.098 AU of earth.
I also noticed (if I am reading the orbital diagrams correctly) that the points where the object is closest to the earth coincide with the points where the object passes through the plane of the ecliptic. Since these are the Acending / Decending nodes of a solar orbit, wouldn't this point be ideal for a change of orbital plane? I'm thinking these near-Earth encounters may change the object's orbit somewhat, since surely the earth encounters will impart some delta-v on the object.
Anyone else up on orbital mechanics care to take a better look at the ephermis?Re:Pertubations (Score:4, Informative)
But more interestingly -- is 2014 an election year?
Coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
No problem... check it by yourself! (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you can just try to figure out what's going on with 2003 QQ47 using the ORSA software [sf.net]. It is not a simple computation, but you can try anyway. --Lino
Story almost duplicated 9/2! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yay for Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2.6 billion tonnes? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Was it the Aztecs or Mayans? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Probability of impact (Score:4, Interesting)
We seem to have lost touch with the stars and became much more focused on more trivial, Earth-centric problems recently. Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving the environment and national defense and all that, but all it would take is a good, massive impact to solve all of our problems here and leave our ruins for some alien civilization to possibly come across. Here's to the future...