No, the Earth (almost Certainly) Won't Be Hit By an Asteroid In 2032 142
The Bad Astronomer writes "Last week, astronomers discovered 2013 TV135, a 400-meter wide asteroid that will swing by the Earth in 2032. The odds of an impact at that time are incredibly low — in fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%! But that hasn't stopped some venues from playing up the apocalypse angle. Bottom line: we do not have a good orbit for this rock yet, and as observations get better the chance of an impact will certainly drop. We can breathe easy over this particular asteroid."
well... (Score:5, Funny)
...that's until the U.S.'s tolerance of gay marriage changes its trajectory.
Hey Mods! (Score:2)
...that's until the U.S.'s tolerance of gay marriage changes its trajectory.
I'm not sure why this was down modded. I actually got a chuckle out of it personally.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am glad that if I am smooshed by a big rock in 2032, odds are around 99.99998% that it will be a big terrestrial rock and not a space rock. Perhaps slightly lower given that there are other space rocks out there which could fall on me.
There, anonymous troll mod, are you happy?
Re: (Score:2)
undoing mod. It was funny, not overrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes his comment just undid his undoing of the aforementioned mod which is why I am commenting because I won
t be undoing his non undoing of moderation. (sorry but this is more funny to me than the comment.)
Re: (Score:2)
We apologise again for the fault in the moderation. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
Sure, you say that now... (Score:2)
But how do we know you aren't preparing for a quick bug out when its only a month away? I've seen 2012, I know how this stuff works!!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's also not forget Y2K.
We all survived that didn't we?
All throughout history each generation preaches the end is nigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Protip Tiger, we all saw 2012 and we all woke up December 26 2012 didn't we?
If by "we all" you limit yourself to "everyone who is alive to day and reading this particular story in /.", well, yes, you are absolutely correct. Everyone who woke up this morning also probably woke up on December 26, 2012. A very uninteresting statistic.
Now, a more useful reading of your words that isn't quite so self-referential and circular in reasoning would be that you're claiming that everyone in the world woke up that morning, which is patently false. There are 26 documented cases of people who d
Re: (Score:2)
No. I think I spent the night from 25 to 26 awake.
Re: (Score:2)
we all woke up December 26 2012 didn't we?
No we didn't. We are just a simulation of what would have happened if we weren't killed back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You don't think you'll be able to turn it around in 20 years?
Not likely. Have you SEEN the turning radius on an asteroid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think you'll be able to turn it around in 20 years?
Not with this Congress..
With this Congress, the best thing that could happen to the planet would be a direct impact on Capitol Hill!
Re: (Score:2)
Statistics (Score:3)
In fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%
Since the odds of any asteroid of a city-destroying size or larger only hit the Earth every 5,000 years or so... this particular asteroid's odds are 36.5 times better than the average one's.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%
Since the odds of any asteroid of a city-destroying size or larger only hit the Earth every 5,000 years or so... this particular asteroid's odds are 36.5 times better than the average one's.
We've had cities for 5,000 years. How many have been destroyed by asteroids?
None. Overdue for one dont-ya-think?
Re: (Score:2)
None.
That we know of.
Like a large, isolated city that just disappeared. And stories were written how it sank under the water...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not really, three percent of the earth land is covered by cities. but that is of 29% of earth covered by land. We'll thus probably go for hundreds of thousands of years before a city gets hit by "city-destroying" asteroid. boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the next Michael Bay film, in which case we'll lose half a dozen cities before reaching the third act. And it will be... still boring.
Re: (Score:2)
And we'll see exploding explosions that will explode in slo-mo
Re: (Score:2)
None. Overdue for one dont-ya-think?
No. If you roll a six-sided die and you roll five 1s in a row, what's the odds that the sixth roll you make will be a 1? 1 in 6. What you're doing here is called the Gambler's Fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If that's true then it missed its city by several hundred miles. If it hit its target we could have been spared WWII (target isnt moscow but Berlin)
Re: (Score:2)
Just for that I'm going to the Kaiper Belt (Score:1)
If you tell me that there's going to be no asteroid, then I'll just go up and make one hit the Earth, just to spite you.
You'll know it by the blinky LED lights I'll have on it that will spell out "2032 suckers!" in bright red and green lights.
2 in 10 million... (Score:4, Funny)
99.99998% miss from extinction-level objects means that, on average, they kill a mere 1,400 people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:2 in 10 million... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
After an error was corrected in TFA, the asteroid is now expected to kill well over 100 000 people. The trend is certainly worrying.
Re: (Score:1)
Well The NSA is already ahead of the game isn't it.
Even if it did... it's not a huge threat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A far greater risk is the high probability that the Pacific Rim will unzip from BC down to CA sometime in this decade.
That means tsunamis and 9.0 quakes and volcanoes like Rainier going.
But ... there's not a single thing you can do about that, so stop wasting time worrying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
High probability? Do you mean it's probable that you imagine such things while you're high? Because back in the real world the probability of such an event is pretty close to zero.
Re: (Score:1)
The probability on any day is close to zero.
But we know the Cascade Subduction Zone does rip over the entire chain, and it's done this quite a few times in recorded history, based on temple records in Japan and other areas of Tsunamis and local tree subsidence (ghost forests) and grey zones in the tidal aspects from the deposits.
As I said, you can't do anything about it, but it will happen and we're in the middle of the highest probability zone right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't clear, sorry. I was mostly referring to the sometime in this decade portion of the post as being unlikely.
An event as large as you describe, stretching from BC to CA, doesn't appear in the record anywhere. Tsunamis, ghost forests and the like are the effects of local events that, while they may be devastating to the area affected, are not region-wide disruptions. In fact to my knowledge an earthquake on that scale is pretty much unknown anywhere on the planet, ever. Rainer's last eruption 10,00
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong.
If you want more info, just check out the UW recent research.
I think you're confusing eruption of an active volcano with eruptions within a timespan of a few years of active volcanoes (plural) including other triggered events.
Of course, just ask people in the Phillipines how safe they feel right now.
It isn't called the Ring of Fire because we like to have beach cookouts, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't called the Ring of Fire because we like to have beach cookouts, you know.
No, it is because of the spicy food that people in those regions tend to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've looked, and I don't see anything referring to a possible earthquake occurring along 800 kilometers of fault at once. Do you have a link?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, economic evidence shows that such events tend to cause faster growth in the affected regions, higher levels of technology, and a more liberal attitude.
Face it, we win both ways.
Plus, with our way, we get giant robots!
odds (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"incredibly low" (Score:2)
99.99998% of a miss.
0.9999998 ^ 100,000 = 0.980 -> 2% chance of at least 1 hit with 100,000 such events
Or approx 3.5 million such events for a 50% chance of at least 1 hit
Next questions are
a) how often do such events occur ?
b) how long since the last such event ?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. Local flora and fauna would kill off a zombie epidemic fairly quickly, if live humans weren't around. Just insects alone would have a field day, and in 72 hours would grow fast enough to deal with it.
The Earth really doesn't need us.
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth really doesn't need us.
You're projecting again. The doctor called, he wants his thermometer back.
Re: (Score:1)
The Earth really doesn't need us.
You're projecting again. The doctor called, he wants his thermometer back.
Most of the earth is molten, actually, and most of the rest is covered with water.
Now, if I were talking with a whale, you might have an argument, but I kind of doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if I were talking with a whale, you might have an argument, but I kind of doubt that.
"Projection" is a psychological term that means you are assuming someone else has the same feelings and beliefs that you do. For example, you are mad at someone for some reason and based on that you assume they are mad at you.
In this case, you feel the Earth doesn't need you and you project that into a statement that it doesn't need "us". The Earth may very well not need you, I can't speak to that issue. If that is true, you are welcome to leave; the rest of us who want to stay will wave goodbye as you ex
Re: (Score:2)
"before we get hit by that asteriod?"
There are plenty more rocks in space for us to be hit by. There's hope yet!
Just more from Big Astronomy (Score:5, Funny)
It's all a scam. They're hiding the possible cure for asteroid impacts, because this way they can continue to get unlimited grant money from the government. They've already planned their off-planet habitat for when the earth is destroyed, but they won't admit to its existence because then the sheeple would question the purpose of those radio telescopes and interplanetary probes.
WAKE UP! STOP BIG ASTRONOMY!
Re: (Score:1)
You're only complaining because they rejected your application for the asteroid vaccine trials.
Would it make you feel better to know th*&!@at th&$#^ som%$* minor^%!)* side-effects?
Corrected (Score:2, Informative)
It's kind of a pity (Score:2)
Math. Sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
+1 funny... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The chance of it missing is 99.998%, and not 99.99998%
The chances of it happening went up a thousandth of a percent in the half an hour since the summary was posted? If these trends continue, the asteroid will have a 157.68% chance of hitting us!
(9 years x 365 days x 24 hours x 2 half hour x 0.001 chance, if anyone's curious about what I typed into my calculator. There are bigger problems with the above statement anyway. To any cable news journalists reading, this is a joke.)
Re: (Score:1)
Well yeah, people are stupid. (Score:2)
The odds of an impact at that time are incredibly low — in fact, the chance it will glide safely past us is 99.99998%! But that hasn't stopped some venues from playing up the apocalypse angle.
A 1 in 5,000,000 chance of this asteroid hitting is super high compared to the 1 in 175,223,510 [powerball.com] odds of winning the grand prize in the Powerball lottery, yet tons of idiots still line up to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but you're confused, only one person wins the lottery jackpot but we're *all* playing the asteroid game.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple lotteries drawing every week; but there is only one asteroid lottery. More importantly, people witness numerous life-changing lottery payouts every month. Nobody in historical times has ever witnessed a civilization altering asteroid event.
So. Simply looking at the odds isn't enough. The experimental results are that voluntary participation in the lottery produces a handful of millionaires every month, while mandatory participation in the asteroid lottery produces a few rumored deaths
While this one may miss us... (Score:2)
Huh, universal quantor again (Score:2)
chance of an impact will certainly drop
If it would certainly drop, then it would be already zero today. The reason why the estimate is currently 0.00002% is because it is not known at which side the real value is. Actually, a defining criteria of a proper estimate is that it is located in the middle of the probability distribution, meaning that the actual value might lie on either side, with equal probability.
Note that the original article uses "likely" instead of "certainly".
"The chance of an impact will certainly drop"? (Score:2)
> Bottom line: we do not have a good orbit for this rock yet, and as observations get better the chance of an impact will certainly drop.
What is that supposed to mean? It should get closer to 1 or to 0. It will get closer to 0 with probability .9999998, and to 1 with probability .0000002. So it will not "certainly" drop.
Re: (Score:1)
pr(impact) = 1 - pr(miss)
If pr(impact) decreases, it is equivalent to pr(miss) being increased (by the same amount).
So if pr(impact) drops closer to 0, then pr(miss) increases closer to 1.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he means is that they have already made up their minds that it will miss us, so as their calculations get better the probability that it will miss is going to go up from .9 to 1.0.
But, right now we have calculated that there is a .9-whatever chance that it is going to miss us, and their is a .0-whatever that it is going to hit us. In the real world it has already been decided, but we are unsure what which course is already set in stone.
So there is a 99% chance that there is a 100% chance that i
Dagnabbit... (Score:3)
...I was hoping to avoid the 2038 bug.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought, too!
Coming up on the Discovery Channel... (Score:2)
Asteroid Apocalypse: What Could Happen, But Probably Won't, in 2032
[Cue a solid hour of CG destruction porn.]
We have to act fast! (Score:2)
With only 19 or so years to go, we'll have to act quickly to get a long range space craft up to this asteroid if we want to alter its trajectory so it certainly will hit Earth! There's no time to waste if we're going to set up for this future crisis!
There goes my party plans... (Score:2)
I had a big retirement fund blowout bash planned for 2032. After all, you can't take it with you. Now I'll have to text everyone that's it's been cancelled....
What would happen (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The blind leading the blind. (Score:1)
I'm sorry. Astronomers didn't detect Eris until 2005. Eris is a dwarf planet that's more massive than Pluto (that's why Pluto's not a planet anymore, we'd have to admit there was another planet closer and bigger than Pluto, and that we're basically blind. Now, when we factor in that these city or country or world killing asteroids can be smaller than dwarf planets... Yeah, sorry bub. You've got no legs to stand on when you make predictions. The evidence doesn't bear out. This particular asteroid prob
Re: (Score:1)
)
Re: (Score:1)
I think I finally understand why you post with such a superiority complex and arrogant attitude - you're an alien. I mean you must be - you can't be human because you refer to use as "you humans", as if you're separate from the species.
Either that or you're a fucking disgrace of a person who thinks they're better than everyone else. To be honest though, most elitist Linux users have similar views.
How unfortunate... (Score:2)
Almost certainly? (Score:1)
The probability is low (Score:2)
However, remember we only observe a small fraction of the skies, and much of the things that have a 99.99998% chance of missing us, were never detected.
Also.... when asteroids get close enough to our orbit to have a 0.9999998 chance of impacting us; eventually, the number of times this is happening adds up to a million, and the number of expected collissions is 1 or greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If someone has the resources to shift the orbit of an asteroid sufficiently to cause an impact, there are tons of other things they could be spending those resources on that would be much more destructive, and much more immediate.
Yes, but shifting an asteroid is way more fun.
Re: (Score:2)
In a perverse way, you have a good point. If you have the money to move this thing, you have the money to do it any number of ways much more cheeply than slamming an asteroid into the planet would be.
But if you're going to end all life on the surface of the planet anyway, who cares how expensive it is? Might as well have some fun with it.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm using credit cards and default swaps from people in the target zone.
I figure they'll never collect anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
First, your B-25 example was an accident. While the pilots where not where they should have been at that altitude, they certainly didn't intend to hit the building. 9/11 was decidedly done on purpose.
Second, in the US, there are flight restrictions about flying over populated areas (buildings and such) but the restriction is about how high above such areas you have to stay. Generally, there are no flight restrictions over urban areas or cities as long as you stay high enough. Large cities do tend to h
Re: (Score:2)
Large cities do tend to have large airports and large airports tend to have restricted airspace around them,
If they did, nobody could land at them.
You mean they have controlled airspace around them, under the control of various ATCs. The levels of control range from class B (most requirements for use) through class E (not much). G is uncontrolled. These have been around for a long time, unconnected with 9/11.
Why did they start at B instead of A? Class A airspace covers the entire US at and above flight level 180 ("18,000 feet as indicated by a sensitive altimeter set to a standard air pressure of 29.27 inches
Re: (Score:2)
Just stay above 3,000 AGL and you are golden.. Assuming you are not into Controlled Airspace, I would consider buzzing around under 3,000 to be somewhat dangerous over urban areas anyway unless it is a really short trip. That extra altitude could save your life should a problem develop. Like my flight instructor was fond of saying.. "Nothing is more useless than the runway behind you, the gas you left in the truck, or the altitude above you." So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows, carry
Re: (Score:2)
Just stay above 3,000 AGL and you are golden.
If you've got an airport nearby that can be difficult. Or less safe at a minimum. Above 3000 AGL and then dive into the pattern at 1000 AGL? Look out below! Or you're making a cross-country flight and you don't know the stadium is there.
Assuming you are not into Controlled Airspace, I would consider buzzing around under 3,000 to be somewhat dangerous over urban areas anyway unless it is a really short trip.
Flying at 2000 AGL is not "buzzing" in anyone's dictionary, except those who 1) aren't pilots or 2) are the kind of person who buys a house next to an airport and then complains about all the noise from those nasty airplane things. You mention your "flight instructor", and
Re: (Score:2)
So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows,
And then comes the day when you have your first real emergency and the only airport you can reach has a 1500' runway. You've never practiced on anything shorter than the 10,000' runway at your home airport. Wrong time to learn short field landings, I'd say.
I routinely practice short field landing techniques using long runways. I can usually get the C-150 stopped in less than 300' ground roll and usually get wheels on the ground with 10' of the threshold. I use a 4,000 foot runway for practice this all the time. I practice short field departures from the same runway. So when I did happen to fly into the 2,000 ft field, I knew what to do. There's no need to go hit the 1500 ft runway and crash a few times learning how.
But you seem to get my point. Flying is
Re:What astronomers are missing is... (Score:4, Funny)
Do you have any idea of what would be involved? What do you think, that the bad guys (or the good ones, at that) have Star Trek-level technology? Methinks that you would do well to learn some physics and engineering.
Just change the gravitational constant of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
And eat 10 chocolate sundaes. Can't forget that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. if current measures are accurate, and there is a 99.9999 chance of a miss, more measures are 99.9999% likely to support that miss and only 0.0001% likely to contradict it.
Its not quite as simple as that, but its not anywhere near 50/50 like you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. If you think of all the future paths plotted as a probabilistic cone, Earth occupies a very small portion of the end of the cone. More data will narrow the cone, almost certainly moving it off an Earth-intercept. Almost.
Re: (Score:2)
over 5 orders of magnitude is as close to "almost certain" as science gets.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Nearly impossible things happen all the time given a sufficiently large sample.