Asteroid Flies Under the Radar, Literally 385
mrn121 writes "Space.com is reporting that a 16-foot wide asteriod has passed the Earth in a phenomenally close call. The Asteroid, named 2004 YD5, passed just below the 22,300 mile range where geostationary satellites sit. What makes the incident most interesting is that the asteriod was not seen until after it passed the Earth, due to the well-known Cosmic Blind Spot caused by the Sun."
First post (Score:5, Insightful)
The asteroids that are large enough to do damage can be seen far away enough that the cosmic blind spot is irrelevant. The article mentions a 2.9 mile wide asteroid (which would quickly wipe out all life on the planet [nationalgeographic.com] if it hit) which scientists have known about for years. It won't come anywhere close.
At the moment, we have no defense against a planet-killing asteroid, but the European Space Agency [esa.int] is studying the issue [cnn.com], and NASA's Deep Impact [nasa.gov] project is also working on it.
This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Something more dedicated to this would make everyone feel better probably
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:3, Funny)
Just look surprised.
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Who cares how people feel about it. I can see how tracking near-Earth objects might be interesting from a scientific perspective. However, I don't see the point in using a massive amount of resources in doing so just in an attempt to provide piece-of-mind.
I am the type of person that, in the case of the annihilation of the human race, believes that ignorance is bliss. If a scientist discovers that we will all
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, like, I know some people who drill for oil that are sooooo the right people to call in on something like this.
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT reassuring ... (Score:3, Funny)
I think watching the world go all Mad Max would be really interesting. I plan on welding spikes on a dune buggy for no reason.
-B
Re:First post (Score:2)
Doesn't that depend on the asteroid's composition?
Re:First post (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Illiteracy (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First post (Score:5, Informative)
Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:2)
At the moment, we have no defense against a planet-killing asteroid
Bikini Atoll [bikiniatoll.com] might argue otherwise.
Seriously, if there are any Nuke-E guys out there [who would know what they're talking about] - what would be the effect of outer space detonation? Within the atmosphere, much of the damage to structures is caused by the shock wave travelling through the atmosphere - but, of course, in outer space, there is no atmosphere.
If you were to detonate on an asteroid, would [the 50% of the total] radiation t
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:4, Funny)
Wrong. We have have an accurate delivery system in the form of Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner [imdb.com].
If we need a second chance, maybe they can get Lance Bass.
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not.
The Zeus EX/Spartan had an operating ceiling of only 560 km (350 mi) and maximum range of 740 km (460 mi). I've read that the ideal range to intercept an asteroid/comet, so that its trajectory is altered enough to guarantee a complete miss, is 300 million km (186 million mi). That's because such an object would be travelling very quickly (as much as 60,000+ km/h) and we'd need a lot of lead time (at least a week) to figure out the object's composition and course, and prepare a missile/payload that could alter its course (or destroy it).
In other words, I don't think that anti-missile technology from the 1950s (or even present-day technology, for that matter) is going to save us.
D.
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:2)
To really do any good, one would drive the warhead into the asteroid before detonation
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:4, Informative)
No, that would just break it up and make it worse. Some fragments might be accelerated sideways enough to miss the earth, but more will be accelerated forward or backward along the asteroid's current path. The result would be like being hit by shotgun blasts as the earth rotated through the asteroid fragments.
The total energy imparted to the planet by the asteroid would remain the same, but it would be spread over a greater area.
A better idea would be to use a stand-off blast where the nuke is detonated alongside the asteroid to give it a sideways shove and deflect it whole, but even this would be extremely inefficient, and you'd need to identify the trajectories very early.
NB, to the grandparent poster, the fact that the asteroid is the only object in the vicinity of the explosion would have no affect on the amount of energy it receives.
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:3, Informative)
I think the problems will be caused by energy being imparted to the earth by millions of tonnes of rock at high velocities rather than the impacts with the ground.
What do you think the result of flash-heating the upper atmosphere to several thousand degrees for several hours is likely to be?
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:3, Insightful)
Several hours? How long do you think it takes a rock to fall through the atmosphere? Less than a minute or so. And, unless all the fragments go through the exact same spot one after the other, the energy will disperse. The reason you have to worry about the impact is that the energy is transferred to something solid (At those speeds water can be considered solid because it c
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:5, Interesting)
Warning! Gross oversimplifications and estimates follow!
For the purposes of this problem, we'll assume the ginormous million-year doomsday rock, a 1000-m diameter chunk of iron. A 1000-meter sphere of iron has a mass of 3.30 × 10^13 kilograms. At an impact speed of, say, 30 km/s (approximately Earth's speed of orbit around the sun), that rock has a total of (1/2) * (3.30×10^13 kg) * (3×10^4 m/s)^2 = 1.5 × 10^22 Joules of kinetic energy.
Now, let's make some assumptions about the atmosphere. We'll assume the atmosphere is of uniform density, distribution, and composition, and about 120km high (not a terrible approximation, but not a good one either). The volume of the atmosphere is then (4/3) * pi * ((6.498×10^6)^3 - (6.378×10^6)^3) = 6.25 × 10^19 m^3.
The density of air at sea level is approximately 1.29 kg/m^3, so the mass of our atmosphere is then (6.25×10^19 m^3) * (1.29kg/m^3) = 8.06 × 10^19 kg.
If we assume the volume remains constant, the specific heat of the atmosphere is 716 J/kg*K, so the introduction of 1.5 × 10^22 Joules of energy will result in a temperature increase of dT = E / (m*s) = (1.5 × 10^22) / (8.06 × 10^19 kg * 716 J/kg*K) = 0.26 K
So, in summary, a 1-km diameter asteroid made entirely of iron, travelling at 30km/s relative to the Earth, and assuming all the kinetic energy was converted to thermal energy and spread evenly across the entire globe, would raise worldwide temperature by less than half a degree celsius.
Now, if we assume a rock like the one supposed to have extinguished the dinosaurs, i.e., a 10-km rock, which consequently has 1000 times the mass, then the global temperature change could be as high as 260 degrees celsius, which is where things really start cooking.
If I made any slip-ups in my math, please point them out. It's entirely possible, since I didn't bother double-checking. Although I made so many liberal assumptions anyway that if you use these numbers for anything, you're crazy. This was more a diversion into the sort of problem you'd find in an elementary physics textbook than an actual scientific exercise.
Re:Tell that to Bikini Atoll... (Score:4, Interesting)
We'll assume the atmosphere is of uniform density, distribution, and composition, and about 120km high (not a terrible approximation, but not a good one either).
The atmosphere is not that thick really. There is atmosphere up to this height, but its density is minuscule at an altitude of say 100 km. If you would assume constant density, it would be safe to assume a thickness twice the altitude where pressure is half that at sea level. This equates to around 2*5km, since at 5km pressure is 0.5 atm, and 50% of the air mass is contained below this level.
This would increase the temperature rise 60-fold, an increase of 15K... which would probably not kill us all, but would have great impact on life.
On the positive side, much of the energy generated will be radiated into space (over half of all radiation produced is directed away from earth). As the whole process probably occurs at high temperature, much of the energy will be radiant.
Finally, the other half of the radiant energy will strike the ground, heating up soil and water, increasing the total amount of mass that absorbes the energy.
Pretty complex stuff ;)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like we need to send an exploratory force out towards the sun to find out who the bastards are! Maybe they're on venus or mercury or somethin.
Oh wait. We don't _have_ an exploratory force. Oh well, guess we'll just have to be sitting ducks.
Or hope this was just a freak coincidence.
Sounds like a plot for a new movie...
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Um, no. But it is strange, from TFA:
One just above... one just below. Now of course it's an infinitesmal probability, but theoretically an asteroid could take out, say BSAT-2c, NSTAR, or one of the Galaxy series. I wonder if it's a serious threat (I doubt it however, ESD from keV plasmasheets pose a mor
Ain't happenin'. They don't have any oil up there. (Score:2)
Can't be the Martians (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Today, we were told MS can't have their media player included in Europe.
I think I even know who the asteroid was directed for.
And this is also proof that we, or at least some companies, have contact with aliens.
Well if I'm going to be obliterated by an asteroid (Score:4, Interesting)
I would... (Score:2)
And, no by "something important to me" I don't mean playing EverQuest.
Re:I would... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would... (Score:2)
Re:Well if I'm going to be obliterated by an aster (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well if I'm going to be obliterated by an aster (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't that fall under the porn category?
No they couldn't (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing else we could throw at an incoming asteroid. The simple reality is that if we humans spotted a big rock coming at us, even with a month or two to prepare for it, all we could really do is dig a shelter, store food away, and pray that it comes down on the OTHER side of the planet.
Re:No they couldn't (Score:2)
That, my friend, we don't have to do. We can calculate where it will come down (at least which side of the planet!) :)
Re:No they couldn't (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, the people on the side of the planet
true but (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:true but (Score:2, Informative)
The chances of something that large hitting a given satellite is probably only a bit more than it hitting you. It is a bit more because it may burn up by the time it reaches the ground. There are 5+ billion people and probably only around 2000 active satellites. Assuming such a rock has about a 50/50 chance of making it to the ground without vaporizing, then it is far more likely to hit a person than a satellite.
(5,000,000,000 * 0.5 * 0.5) / 2000 = 62,500
Re:true but (Score:3, Informative)
Everybody PANIC!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Everybody PANIC!!! (Score:2)
Re:Everybody PANIC!!! (Score:2)
Material Make Up (Score:2, Interesting)
Oops? But does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
If an asteroid does head for us, will it matter if we see it coming or not? Or will the grandiose idea presented in "Armageddon" be employed (despite being cool as hell.)
Personally, i'd rather be blindsided by a sixteen-wheeler, than sit by and see it head towards me for hours/days/weeks.
Let's see (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let's see (Score:2)
Re:Let's see (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's see (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Let's see (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes.
This is the exact reduced model representing the 10-km wide meteorite that hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago at a speed of about 54000 km/h, creating the 170-km wide Chicxulub crater, and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Impressive, isn't it ?
16-foot ASTEROID? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:16-foot ASTEROID? (Score:2, Informative)
You meant meteoroid, not meteor. A meteoroid is a solid body, moving in space (not in atmosphere), that is smaller than an asteroid and larger than a speck of dust. It becomes a meteor when it enters a planetary atmosphere (and meteoroids almost invariably burn up on atmospheric entry).
Pedantic Man, away!
asteroid, meteor, meteoroid, meteorite (Score:5, Informative)
Asteroid:
Any of numerous small celestial bodies that revolve around the sun, with orbits lying chiefly between Mars and Jupiter and characteristic diameters between a few and several hundred kilometers. Also called minor planet, planetoid.
I.E. still in space and orbiting.
Meteor:
A bright trail or streak that appears in the sky when a meteoroid is heated to incandescence by friction with the earth's atmosphere. Also called falling star, meteor burst, shooting star.
I.E. that which is shooting through the atmosphere, heating it and itself up in the process due to friction.
Meteoroid:
A solid body, moving in space, that is smaller than an asteroid and at least as large as a speck of dust.
I.E. still in space, not necessarily orbiting, smaller than an Asteroid. I think you meant this one.
Meteorite:
A stony or metallic mass of matter that has fallen to the earth's surface from outer space.
I.E. Fallen onto the Earth. It's what you may find if you're either lucky, or very observant.
So just to conclude.. this is indeed a Meteoroid, as it's not big enough to actually be an Asteroid. But it's more fun to say, and less confusing to the masses - especially the Nintendo owners out there.
Re:asteroid, meteor, meteoroid, meteorite (Score:3, Funny)
Planet saving == funding drive (Score:5, Funny)
Church: "Give us your money and listen to us or you BURN IN HELL!"
DOE: "Give us your money etc or YOU'LL RUN OUT OF GAS!"
NASA: "Give us your money or YOU'LL GET KILLED BY AN ASTEROID!"
Re:Planet saving == funding drive (Score:4, Funny)
The Dinosaurs didn't fund their NASA, and look what happened to them.
Re:Planet saving == funding drive (Score:5, Funny)
Asteroid shield instead of missile shield (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Asteroid shield instead of missile shield (Score:2)
Re:Asteroid shield instead of missile shield (Score:2)
Re:Asteroid shield instead of missile shield (Score:2)
Dupe (Score:2, Funny)
Yay... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not worried though.
I have my teeny triangular space ship, and I'll destroy it before it becomes a problem....
Did this really fly under the radar, LITERALLY? (Score:2)
The opposite of "literal" is "figurative" and "fly under the radar" seems to have been used in a figurative, not literal sense.
The blind spot that prevented us from seeing the asteroid appears to be a blind spot in the literal sense -- meaning that it prevented us from seeing the rock with optical telescopes, or with our own eyes. I do not believe that the article says that radar was trained on the area, or that the blind spot interfered with said radar.
Additionally, if I read the article correctly, th
Re:Did this really fly under the radar, LITERALLY? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Did this really fly under the radar, LITERALLY? (Score:2, Insightful)
End of the world website (Score:2, Interesting)
RTFA, mrn121!!! (Score:2, Informative)
According to the article, "the object, now named 2002 EM7, was probably between 40 and 80 meters (130-260 feet) in diameter" and was capable of flattening a whole city.
Re:RTFA, mrn121!!! (Score:2)
This is about 2004 YD5, which was about 5 meters wide. 2002 EM7 was more than two years ago...
Re:RTFA, mrn121!!! (Score:2)
WARNING! (Score:5, Funny)
Frickin' hell, the galactic wars have started! (Score:2)
I knew people from planet Apple were almost as dedicated as people from planet Penguin, but I didn't think they wanted to destroy poor peace-loving Microsoft and its fledgling earth colony *that* much.
Er, what do you mean I've confused the stories? The Asteroid [slashdot.org] is for the Mac, right?
Re:Frickin' hell, the galactic wars have started! (Score:2)
What's the burning about? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not just friction (Score:3, Informative)
Friction does play a part. Heat is created as the potential energy of the mete
Define: Irony (Score:2, Funny)
"This is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. And now you know why."
well known cosmic blind spot? (Score:4, Funny)
I've never heard of it, until today!
Re:well known cosmic blind spot? (Score:2)
Re:well known cosmic blind spot? (Score:3, Informative)
1) the moon (although the moon itself is only ~0.5" across, telescopes need to stay far away from it...
2) the earth (jokingly for earth-based stuff, serious for space telescopes)
3) the galactic plane (unless of course you're looking at stuff in the galactic plane...)
4) andromeda (it's friggin huge!)
Near-misses unnoticed (Score:4, Funny)
I think the Slashdot effect is very similar...
submit a story, it gets rejected, and a server admin sleeps quietly through the night.
One day... Mr Beer-Powered Robot Man. Just keep that site running......
Frequent Close Calls (Score:2, Insightful)
Are they becoming more frequent, or is it that we can monitor them more effectively now.
Literally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Literally (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Bart: "Wow, dad. Maybe you're right."
Homer: "Of course I'm right. If I'm not may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow."
Is this a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have to spot the 16 footers.
Re:RTFA, SVP. (Score:3, Insightful)
If we could come up with a way to stop these things, how often would we NEED to, and how much would it cost?
We need to pick and choose where we spend our money. I'm all for spending much, much more on scientific endeavors, but I'd rather spend the LIMITED amount of money we have on scientific endeavo
Saw one Explode at Football Game... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was back in maybe 1965/66? Dark night with no moon, playing an away game of jv football in Albemarle? NC.
That sucker arced across 20% of the sky with a really orange red tail and exploded. Almost looked like dawn was coming, I waited for sound, started counting off seconds to range it's distance, but no sound ever came.
Just for a moment I thought it was the Russians, but that's another story.
Something I will never forget.
And some asteroids come even closer, entering the atmosphere. Most never reach the ground because they break apart under the stress of entry. One study [space.com] of data collected by U.S. military satellites logged 300 in-air asteroid explosions.
Politician mocked for supporting asteroid research (Score:5, Interesting)
trailing right behind it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:meh (Score:5, Informative)
Several objects of this thing's size enter our atmosphere each week. Most of them disintegrate in the atmostphere. A few have pieces that hit the ground, though they're usually rather small by the time they (or the pieces) hit.
To do serious damage, we'll need a rock at least a few hundred meters across. Of course, one of those may hit us next week. Or 10,000 years from now. (Or both.
I wonder if I could find that graph again?
Re:meh (Score:2)
Re:Might want to recheck the size ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:send in the calvery... (Score:2)
Video here (Score:2)
Unfortunately there's no background objects visible so it's impossible to judge the scale
Re:Slashdot Article Completely Inaccurate (Score:4, Informative)
Both discuss the 'blind spot'
Re:Truth stranger than fiction? (Score:3, Funny)