Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

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This discussion has been archived.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.

Comments Filter:
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:10AM (#6849136)
    I don't need to worry about the unix 2038 time problem??
  • by rainer_d ( 115765 ) * on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:10AM (#6849140) Homepage
    NEOs

    Near Earth Objects

    A mugshot of Bruce Willis as icon will draw the right associations.

  • by wiggys ( 621350 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:11AM (#6849144)
    ...Armourgeddon outta here quickly!!
  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:12AM (#6849148) Homepage
    ...then we won't have to fix the 32bit time stamp. Someone tell Linus and the rest of the 2.6 devs.

    Kjella
  • by pklong ( 323451 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:12AM (#6849151) Journal
    Look at the bright side, Bruce Willis will drill it AND he won't be coming back.
  • A new scale? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Azghoul ( 25786 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:13AM (#6849152) Homepage
    There should be a new scale: The probability that a particular NEO will cause an article to be written up in main stream newspapers.

    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...
  • by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:13AM (#6849153) Homepage
    The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made.
    Surely the estimated probability now will already have taken that into account? Or is the one in 900k chance quoted not a true reflection of what astronomers feel is the likelihood?
    • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:18AM (#6849187) Homepage
      It's 909,000:1 that it will miss us, but there's only a 50:50 chance that's right.
    • Sure. But the mainstream doesn't understand uncertanity, or statistics.

      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

    • Surely the estimated probability now will already have taken that into account? Or is the one in 900k chance quoted not a true reflection of what astronomers feel is the likelihood?
      Not really - Assuming it's going to miss - then better observations and calculations will get closer and closer to this as they become more accurate.
    • by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:21AM (#6849207)
      No, probabilities are all about uncertainty. After further measurements, there will be less uncertainty, and that affects the probabilities.

      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)

        by nuggz ( 69912 )
        Actually I'd say it is closer to
        1 to (6)^10 (total combinations)
        Which is about 1 to 60 million.

      • by weeboo0104 ( 644849 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:08AM (#6850361) Journal
        Suppose I have rolled 10 six-sided dice

        What for? Save vs. huge-ass rock?

        (My apologies to all the AD&D players out there)
        • You should apologize! You don't roll six-sided dice to make saving throws! Jeez!
        • ...and I bet this is one of those stupid "one save for the entire party" situations.

          Can you imagine the pressure of being the person who has to roll the saving throw for the whole world?

          -Peter
        • by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @01:03PM (#6851856) Homepage Journal
          Occasionally in your campaign you will have to roll for global catastropy. Catastrophies are rolled using 6D10.

          Table 28.9 Global Catastrophies

          • 0 - 700,000: Nothing
          • 700,000 - 709,999: Broken Seal unleashed the Cthulu. All players go insane until consumed.
          • 710,000 - 719,999: Hector freed from the root of the Yggdrasil. 12 moves until Ragnorok.
          • ...
          • 820,000 - 829,999: Google down. All magic users must save versus curse or have wisdom reduced by half.
          • ...
          • 900,000 - 919,999: Catastrophic asteriod impact. All players must save versus fire.
          • 920,000 - 929,999: TSR Discontinues this model of D&D. DM must save versus ice or all reality disappears.
          • ...
    • by saihung ( 19097 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:23AM (#6849232)
      Are they talking about the uncertainty principle? If we observe the asteroid just so, do we actually affect its speed and/or location? All we have to do is measure its speed, oh, 10,000 times from the left and we're saved! Horrah!
      • by wirelessbuzzers ( 552513 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @08:17AM (#6849567)
        Vimes: Does this mean I'm going to die?

        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.
      • by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:52AM (#6850231) Homepage
        All we have to do is measure its speed, oh, 10,000 times from the left and we're saved!

        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...
        • 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...

          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)?
  • 'nuf said.
  • by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:14AM (#6849159)
    Time to dust off those schematics for the Orion lifter... the only thing that has the capability of lifting enough nukes into an intercept course to hit it early enough to get a good deflection vector. Of course the eco freaks won't like the idea of Orion being nuclear powered...
    • by Channard ( 693317 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:43AM (#6849356) Journal
      Of course the eco freaks won't like the idea of Orion being nuclear powered...

      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.

    • by Bertie ( 87778 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:47AM (#6849375) Homepage
      I saw a Horizon documentary about this on BBC Four a while back during a bout of insomnia. It was absolutely riveting. The whole idea was so bonkers, and completely the opposite of normal engineering thinking. "Well, we're going to blast this thing into space using a series of nuclear explosions, so to take the impact it's going to have to be really big and strong. Let's build a spaceship the size of an ocean liner, then". Gotta love that sort of thinking.

      Check it. [astronautix.com]
    • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:48AM (#6849378) Homepage
      Well, they can object to it all they like, so long as they agree that we can eat them first after the thing hits.
    • by maharg ( 182366 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:49AM (#6849380) Homepage Journal
      'Horizon' on the BBC covered this issue a while back - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/armagedd on.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

      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.


      • If the ball bearing did not go all the way through the asteroid sample, but became lodged in it, then all the energy of the ball bearing was transferred into the asteroid. Sounds like firing a ball bearing at the sample at the right angle, were it far enough away, and headed for Earth, would be an effective way of giving it some lateral momentum and changing it's orbit to miss Earth.

        What I want to see, is the effect of a large thermonuclear bomb on an asteroid sample...

      • by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:28AM (#6850092)
        Somehow, I find it difficult to beleive that an extraterestrial object is "mostly air"! Mostly vacuum or mostly some other gas, maybe. Also, what difference does it make if it "absorbs" an impact -- that just means 100% of the impacting objects momemtum has gone into changing the asteroids momemtum. Methinks that would be a GOOD thing if one were trying to deflect an asteroid!
        • Well,

          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 ... hitting an object wich moves with 30km/s means your ignitiator has only very little time to ignition the nuke before the nuke is crushed ...

          b) ignitioning the nuke close by ... like it is done on earth over japan cities ... has absolutely neglectibel effects in vacuum, because there is no atmosphere and the heat alone will onl
    • by Baumi ( 148744 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @08:09AM (#6849511) Homepage
      the only thing that has the capability of lifting enough nukes into an intercept course to hit it early enough to get a good deflection vector. Of course the eco freaks won't like the idea of Orion being nuclear powered...

      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.
  • by aeinome ( 672135 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:14AM (#6849162) Journal
    Why would you even alert the masses of this? Saying "We were almost all going to die" is akin to saying "You were almost murdered." That would panic the person(s) a lot, and if you didn't tell them they would've been completely happy and fine. Remember, ignorance is bliss!
    • by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:29AM (#6849261)
      Because anyone ignorant enough to do anything irrational upon hearing the news probably didn't hear it. They were too busy watching Frasier, Temptation Island, 700 Club, etc.
      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!"
  • by KrunZ ( 247479 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:15AM (#6849166)
    "The rock is said to measure approximately 1.2 kilometres (less than a mile) across - only one tenth of the size of the meteor thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago"

    ... yeah but I'm am even less than one tenth the size of a dinosaur...

    • by Lonath ( 249354 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:44AM (#6849363)
      The rock is said to measure approximately 1.2 kilometres (less than a mile) across - only one tenth of the size of the meteor thought to have wiped out te dinosaurs

      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.
  • The poster has an unusual definition of "just barely" - according to the article there's only a one in 909,000 chance of it hitting us, and the odds are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements have been made.

    Bruce Willis can stay put.
  • by Reggyt ( 107999 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:16AM (#6849169) Homepage
    Here at NASA JPL http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html is the risk summary.

    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?

  • by confused one ( 671304 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:16AM (#6849173)
    What should an enterprising geek stock an underground shelter with? What would /. users suggest?
    • by khcm8jw ( 664362 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:21AM (#6849208) Journal
      A windup powersource and a storage device capable of mirroring the internet, oh and some beer
    • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:21AM (#6849217) Homepage

      Natalie Portman.

      Carrie-Anne Moss.

      Liv Tyler.

      Jennifer Garner.

      Cowboy Neal.

    • by hattig ( 47930 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:31AM (#6849276) Journal
      This is not the time to become emotional over your 10 year old collection of Linux CDs and other such media. You have to concentrate on what matters.

      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
    • by kilonad ( 157396 ) * on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:36AM (#6849319)
      General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

      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.
  • by Monofilament ( 512421 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:18AM (#6849188) Homepage Journal
    So where is the story now about the cult following 2003 QQ47. I mean there has to be somebody who thinks its driven by aliens and will take them off the planet to nirvanna.. to leave the rest of us to hell or something equivalent.

    God i wish the Scientologists swung that way.. I'd say let the rock take them.
  • Uh oh. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FlukeMeister ( 20692 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:21AM (#6849213) Homepage
    Note how the story doesn't mention the asteroid actually missing us. It notes that the probability of it hitting us is a little under 1:900000, based on current data.

    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)

      by Rico_za ( 702279 )
      Still, the chances of this wiping out most of a continent are better than the chances of you winning the lottery If it's only gonna take out one continent, what are we scared of? Much less to hit down here in the Southern Hemisphere. If we're lucky it strikes somewhere in the North Atlantic so the tidalwave can take out North America and the British Isles. Then we get more value out of the impact.
  • by el-spectre ( 668104 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:26AM (#6849246) Journal
    The nasa page says that the calculation is based on less than 7 days of observation, but everyone is saying 'let us look for a few more months, it may not be a big deal'. Why don't they wait a couple of months before announcing this? It serves little to no purpose other than selling newspapers.
  • I am Kirok (Score:3, Funny)

    by nekosej ( 302666 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:29AM (#6849268)
    According to my wife, Miramani, you take out a communicator, you say "Kirk to Enterprise", and the magic repulsive laser pushes the rock away.
  • The odds (Score:5, Funny)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:30AM (#6849271) Journal
    At 1 in 909,000, you're still much more likely to be hit by an asteroid than you are to win PowerBall.

  • by madmarcel ( 610409 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:30AM (#6849273)
    I have to wonder how they (them, you-know-who ;)
    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
  • Annoying (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:31AM (#6849281) Homepage

    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.

  • by maharg ( 182366 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:33AM (#6849302) Homepage Journal
    I'd be more worried about this one [nasa.gov] which is also rated 1 on the torino scale but has a 1 in 10,000 chance of hitting the earth.

    Oh by the way, it's not due 'til 2101..
  • by theolein ( 316044 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:35AM (#6849309) Journal
    The probability of this one hitting the earth is near to zero, according to the JPL NEO site, but eventually one will turn up with a much higher probability, given that there are many objects that have not yet been discovered and that comets can change their trajectories very rapidly due to outgassing near to the sun.

    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.
  • by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:35AM (#6849314)
    Wow. So this is how it all ends. I don't think that the roaches are gonna survive this one. Let's hope that in the next evolutionary cycle that the birds finally get a chance to rule the planet. Or maybe the insects. Anything but the reptiles again.

    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?
  • by FlukeMeister ( 20692 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:37AM (#6849324) Homepage
    Well, looking at the NASA NEO page (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html) shows the actual probability of 2003 QQ47 impacting the Earth in 2014 is 1 in 1.754 million, the highest isolated probability. The BBC's figure of 1 in 909000 is the cumulative probability of the asteroid impacting the Earth in the next century.

    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.

  • by LetterJ ( 3524 ) <j@wynia.org> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:38AM (#6849330) Homepage
    You mean the crappy Bruce Willis movie. Here I am, thinking the story is about some Nostradamus-related story about the great final battle that destroys the world somewhere in the Middle East. You know, what Armageddon has meant for hundreds of years before Billy Bob Thornton and Ben Affleck were involved.
  • Near Miss?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:40AM (#6849344) Homepage Journal
    They say that if two airplanes almost collide, it's a near miss. Bullshit, my friend, it's a near hit! A collision is a near miss - [WHAM! CRUNCH!]
    "Look! They nearly missed!"
    "Yes, but not quite."
    --George Carlin

  • Sorry to take this seriously, but enough of the "And I for one welcome our new Asteroid Overlords" jokes. The idea of a scale that measures the likelyhood of impending destruction just seems too wonderful to leave unanalyzed.

    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!!
  • by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:46AM (#6849368) Journal
    There are approximately 6 billion people on Earth. The odds of this asteroid striking are 1 in 909,000. By my calculations 6,601 people will be struck by this asteroid!

    Why isn't anyone doing anything!!

    • There are approximately 6 billion people on Earth. The odds of this asteroid striking are 1 in 909,000. By my calculations 6,601 people will be struck by this asteroid!
      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

  • by klocwerk ( 48514 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @07:52AM (#6849404) Homepage
    Data on this NEO's future return trips from the nasa site (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html):

    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)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @08:09AM (#6849512)
    All the people commenting that "1 in 909000 is a very small number" or words to that effect, forget that almost every time, someone does get to win the lottery. If we just happen to be in the unfortunate 909000th parallel universe, the fact that it missed in all the others will be small consolation.

    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)

    by Caid Raspa ( 304283 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @08:15AM (#6849552)
    The Torino scale (a number of the danger level) is nicely explained by NASA [nasa.gov]. To get some idea on how it works, look at this [nasa.gov] Note that a 1 on Torino scale is still in the "Green" (press release) region. This one is also very near the edge of "White" (no press release) region, and likely falls there in a few weeks. I think this scale was mainly created to reduce the number of press releases.

    Personally, I'll start worrying when the propability is more than 1% (Torino Scale 3) and increasing with time.

    • Every time I hear the name "Torino" I'm reminded of the 1973 Ford product that I took driver's ed in. [patopomaps.com] Yes, it was a while ago.

      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)

    by sabNetwork ( 416076 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @08:20AM (#6849594)
    The Mayans predicted the apocalypse would be year 2012 CE, for astronomical reasons. Coincidence? Probably.
    --

  • Gut reaction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:30AM (#6850107)
    Yes, we have this same story twice a year. So how many years will it take us to figure out that even if the chances of a real strike are slim, the certainty of the undesirable outcome of the event should make us begin to experiment with ways to send Bruce Willis' greatgrandson out to nudge it aside? How far could we have gotten with the billions squandered in the Iraq farce?

    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)

    by NickRuisi ( 643726 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:44AM (#6850184)
    I was looking over the JPL's orbital elements and diagrams for this object (here) [nasa.gov], and I noticed the following:

    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)

      by xdroop ( 4039 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:26AM (#6851002) Homepage Journal
      Also to consider is the fact that as earth affects the object's path, the object affects the earth's path. And don't forget, you must ensure that any changes you make to the object's trajectory is imparted into any fragments you make while changing the trajectory -- if we turn a bullet into a cloud of shot, we are more likely to be damaged.

      But more interestingly -- is 2014 an election year?

  • Coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coolmacdude ( 640605 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:21AM (#6850469) Homepage Journal
    I find it interesting that this is in almost the same timeframe as the predicted end of the world based on the Mayan calendar which states that civilization as we know it will end in 2013.
  • by tricaric ( 695061 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @12:14PM (#6851352) Homepage
    Hi all,

    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

  • by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @04:41PM (#6853961) Homepage Journal
    This story was almost duplicated today (9/2), but Slashdot Subscribers [slashdot.org] saved the day. Here's what you missed:
    Science: Asteroid Headed for Earth in 2014

    Posted by michael in The Mysterious Future!
    from the send-in-liv-tyler dept.

    FooAtWFU writes "Fresh off of Discovery Channel News [discovery.com] (and others), it appears that the Near Earth Objects center thinks a giant asteroid *might* hit Earth around March 2014 (though the odds are slim). Duck and cover, break out the duct tape, and start renting Armageddon, Deep Impact, and other end-of-the-world movies." Chances of losing the rock-might-hit-Earth lottery: 1 in 909,000. Chance of winning the Powerball lottery [powerball.com]: 1 in 120,000,000.

    See any serious problems with this story? Email our on-duty editor [mailto].

    ( Read More... [slashdot.org] | science.slashdot.org )
    Seeing something like this is definitely worth my five bucks.

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...