Near Earth Asteroid 'Florence' Makes a Close Pass (space.com) 105
kbahey writes: A big, bright, near-Earth asteroid, known as 3122 Florence, made a safe fly by Friday night. Florence is classified as a Potentially Hazardous Object. At its closest, it was about 7 million km (4.4 million miles) away from earth. It is still visible in amateur telescopes over the next few days where it would be seen to move over several minutes against the background stars. It can be located using this map. According to NASA officials, the asteroid hasn't been this close to Earth since 1890, and it won't be this close again until 2500. "Asteroid 3122 Florence was discovered in 1981 by astronomer Schelte 'Bobby' Bus at the Siding Spring Observatory in Australia," reports Space.com. "The asteroid is named in honor of Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), who pioneered modern nursing, NASA officials said in a separate statement."
Congratulations to /. (Score:1)
Congratulations!
This, at least sounds like news for nerds although I understand that motto is gone.
Thank you,
Re: (Score:2)
The guy was alive, noisily, when I left him pegged out face down for the ants.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail at trolling but what's hilarious about this whole situation is that liberals are all getting their panties in a bunch over things that are orders of magnitude less intolerant and idiotic than what they're themselves doing.
Re: (Score:2)
While "550 Earth diameters" is nerdy, it's 550 Earth diameters away!!!!
Only a ninny bureaucrat with too much time on her hands would classify that as "potentially hazardous".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that centre to centre or surface to surface?
Potentially hazardous, on a future encounter (Score:2)
it's 550 Earth diameters away!!!! Only a ninny bureaucrat with too much time on her hands would classify that as "potentially hazardous".
The phrase "potentially hazardous" does not mean that it will be hazardous on this particular pass. It means that it is in a orbit that makes repeated close passes near Earth, so it potentially may be hazardous on a future pass.
Re: (Score:2)
the asteroid hasn't been this close to Earth since 1890, and it won't be this close again until 2500.
How much closer will it be 483 years from now? We've got a lot more shit to worry about than this...
What, me worry? (Score:3)
The phrase "potentially hazardous" does not mean that it will be hazardous on this particular pass. It means that it is in a orbit that makes repeated close passes near Earth, so it potentially may be hazardous on a future pass.
the asteroid hasn't been this close to Earth since 1890, and it won't be this close again until 2500. How much closer will it be 483 years from now? We've got a lot more shit to worry about than this...
That's the definition of the word. The word is not defined as "objects to panic about right now."
If you don't want to worry about a potentially hazardous object, you don't have to. That does not mean it is not potentially hazardous. It just means you're not worrying about it.
More detailed definition here: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/about/neo_groups.html [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
0.05 au sounds close, and -- astronomically -- it is. But then, Alpha Centauri is relatively close to Earth, compared to the Andromeda galaxy.
Also, why an absolute magnitude of 22.0 or greater? What about the big, dark iron asteroid with an H of 23 who's MOID is 10^-5 au?
Measure what you can [Re:What, me worry?] (Score:2)
Also, why an absolute magnitude of 22.0 or greater? What about the big, dark iron asteroid with an H of 23 who's MOID is 10^-5 au?
Because absolute magnitudes can be measured as soon as an asteroid is found, when an asteroid is far away, while what an asteroid is made of, and what its color is, cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Weeeeellll ... for certain values of "found", you could make that claim. If you've observed an object for long enough to work out it's orbit, and found a "pre-covery" image somewhere so that you've got the multiple-position data needed to calculate an orbit to MPC standards, then yes, you have the distance data needed to convert the apparent magnitude measured at your telescope into an absolute magnitude as it would have at a range
In theory, there's no difference between theory... (Score:2)
We don't really consider an asteroid "found" until there are more two observations; otherwise you don't where it is.
However measuring it's colour (a hint to composition) and taking a reflection spectrum (a better hint to composition and classification) can theoretically take place in the first observation run (if your imager system can switch between imaging and spectroscopy without significant reconstruction).
"theoretically" maybe. Practically: no. You simply need a lot more photons to do spectroscopy than you need to just see something is there. You can only get spectra from astwroids that are reasonably bright, which, for asteroids this tiny, means reasonably close.
Re: (Score:2)
(previous observations)
Found something serendipitously in target field that's not in DSS/ 2MASS/ SIMBAD - looks like it may be an asteroid. 10 shots for positional measurement - first 3 in full bandwidth, 3 with B filter, 3 with V filter, check shot. Use exposure-doubling protocol if filtered views below detection limit.
(continue planned observing run)
[Next night] Conti
That's nothing... (Score:2)
An asteroid buzzed the Earth at 50,000 miles away last year.
https://www.space.com/33891-newfound-asteroid-buzzes-earth-2016-qa2.html [space.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I might have read your link too quickly but anyway; what strikes me in those kind of reports is that they don't mention the relative speed of the object with Earth as a reference and this plays a big role in the amount of energy released should an impact occur.
Re: (Score:2)
When you get hit by a bus it doesn't really matter if it's going at 250 km/h or 2500 km/h.
Re:That's nothing... (Score:5, Informative)
Asteroids will hit the Earth (if at all) at LEAST at 11.2 km/sec, as they have greater than escape energy relative to the Earth's gravitational field. That's 11.2 kilometers per SECOND, or a bit over 40,000 kilometers per HOUR. The energy released is greater than 64 million joules per kilogram of rock (escape energy). So if you take a (say) 2.5 km ball of rock (5 km in diameter), roughly estimate its mass as 4 times r^3 you get 4 e+18 joules. Convert this to tons of TNT and you get roughly a teraton. The total explosive energy of the entire nuclear arsenal of the Earth is less than 7 gigatons (including reserve weapons -- only around 1 GT is on delivery vehicles almost all of this belonging to the US and Russia). The biggest explosion in recorded history was the explosion of Tambora in 1815, estimated at 33 GT. This is then equivalent in crude terms to over 100 times the entire global arsenal nuclear and conventional, or over 30 times the explosive power of the largest explosion in recorded history, one that altered global climate for close to a decade. Or GREATER.
I'm not sure "hit by a bus" is an apropos metaphor.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a serious question, I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
So here's a serious answer. Gravitational potential energy has the form U = -GMm/r where r is the distance from the center of the earth. Practically speaking, this means that a kilogram of mass sitting on the surface of the Earth has a gravitational potential energy of -GMm/R where R is the radius of the earth and m = 1. If you work out the arithmetic, this is NEGATIVE 64 MJ give or take a hair (GM/R = gR = 6.4x10^7 J).
Total energy is potential energy plus kinetic energy: E = K + U with K = 1/2 mv^2. I
Re: (Score:2)
You are (I think) confused and have this backwards. We consider how much energy/speed we have to give something to throw it up to arrive, at rest, at a maximum height of e.g. 25,000 miles (which is the energy/speed it will have if it lands when dropped from there, at rest. To throw it up HIGHER you have to throw it FASTER with MORE energy. Gravitational POTENTIAL ENERGY is actually LESS in proximity -- greater in magnitude but (by convention) MORE NEGATIVE.
Specifically, if we drop one kilogram from rest
Re: (Score:2)
Escape velocity is relevant for launching somthing into orbit, or to escape to outer space. Hence the name.
It has nothing to do at all with the potential speed of an impacting body!
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken. Escape velocity has nothing to do with launching something into orbit. Well, yes it does. One has to add half of escape energy to an object as kinetic energy to establish it in a low, circular orbit, but that is more or less an interesting algebraic coincidence (related to the virial theorem). Furthermore, as I work out algebraically above, escape speed IS EXACTLY the speed of an object with escape energy, and is in turn BY DEFINITION the speed of an object dropped from infinitely far
Re: (Score:1)
and is in turn BY DEFINITION the speed of an object dropped from infinitely far away, initially at rest.
It isn't.
An asteroid can hit earth with any imaginable speed. And usually that is far faster than escape velocity.
No idea why you as self proclaimed physics teacher does not know that, facepalm.
So go find one of your own, or google "escape velocity" or "escape speed".
Why should I google trivialities?
But as you insist, to make a fool out yourself:
a) Escape velocity earth: 11.2 km/s
b) earth orbit speed:
Re: (Score:2)
So, you didn't bother to read any of the other two or three posts where I worked out the algebra (face-palm) before spouting crap. No, asteroids cannot hit "at any speed imaginable". They can hit at any speed that is GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO Earth's escape speed, as I actually discussed and derived. Also, escape speed FROM EARTH is relative TO EARTH. So yes, I absolutely neglected solar potential energy because it just doesn't vary that much across the range where most of the actual acceleration of an
Re: (Score:2)
You :
Which is a different situation to RGB's :
Of course, if you complexify RGB's tex
Re: (Score:2)
So, Earth's atmosphere doesn't slow asteroids down, and therefore the minimum speed of an asteroid falling unimpeded from space is also the minimum speed needed to sling something back into space?
Is that what you're saying?
Re: (Score:2)
"Earth" slows asteroids down when they land on it. To rest, in the Earth's rest frame, in reasonable approximation. This is a completely inelastic collision, and given the disparity in their masses nearly all of the asteroid's relative kinetic energy is transformed into heat. Some of that heat heats the atmosphere as the atmosphere lands, sure, but seriously, look at the magnitudes involved. This is pretty much irrelevant, given that the impact is going to blow the friction-heated atmosphere near the im
Re: (Score:2)
Not significantly. (Please note the word "significantly" in the phrase "not significantly".) The atmosphere is about 10km thick for the bottom half of it (by weight), which is traversed by an impactor in 0.9 seconds or less (see dispute surrounding ; rgbatduke is right). Even for something as small as a bullet, 0.9 seconds of atmospheric drag isn't sufficient to make them safe.
For something like the Chixulub impactor (the so-called "dinosaur killer" ; see m
Re: (Score:2)
Why is escape velocity relevant? Are we chucking the bloody things into space? I was under the impression that they're moving the other way...
And this got to +4 informative?
Re: (Score:2)
Escape velocity is the minimum velocity you need to completely escape Earth's pull. So if you you're on the Earth's surface, and you impart a velocity of 11km/s to an object, it will juuuuuuuust escape Earth's sphere of influence.
Similarly if you have an object in space that is juuuuuust within Earth's sphere of influence and it gets pulled in, it will have a velocity of at least 11km/s by the time it reaches the surface.
"At least" being the operative term there, because the object could already be heading
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's a fucking windbag and he has the communication skills of a mineral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mass is important but with a big enough mass, the speed becomes much more important since the kinetic energy varies to the square of the speed:
E = 0.5*m*v*v
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the relative importance change? Is there some slider control that trades one for the other?
Re: (Score:2)
As another poster has mentioned, small enough objects don't make it to the Earth surface due to the protection of the atmosphere. I assume they just disintegrate faster the greater the speed.
Also, to further illustrate the formula I posted, if the mass is 8 times greater you get 8 times more energy but if the relative speed to Earth is 8 times greater you get 64 times more energy and it is even more than that if the object travels at a considerable fraction of the speed of light relative to Earth. The formu
Re: (Score:1)
No, creimer, having facts is not being "bitter". Gaining weight after a month of your much-hyped "low carb" diet is a bitter pill to swallow, though.
Re: (Score:2)
No, creimer, having facts is not being "bitter".
That my trolls have trolls is funny.
Gaining weight after a month of your much-hyped "low carb" diet is a bitter pill to swallow, though.
If losing weight was so simple, there wouldn't be overweight people and self-righteous pricks to condemn them.
Re: (Score:2)
You cured diabetes in six months by diet, remember?
No. My father went off of insulin shots after being on a low-carb diet for six months. He wasn't cured of diabetes. Diet and exercise kept his diabetes in control.
And by self-righteous, do you mean like someone who ignores diet advice from people who weigh 180 pounds?
Self-righteous as in if I'm not doing weight loss their way I must be doing it wrong then.
Re: (Score:2)
And since you keep getting fatter, you are doing it wrong.
Wrong. I made a change in my diet, it didn't work, and, since I reversed that change, I'm losing weight again.
Either get some help, or keep getting fatter and failing again.
Only an idiot gets help on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, don't follow this advice, and keep fucking your health up for the next few years left to you.
I've lost 13 pounds since I got my digital weight scale. I made changes to my diet that didn't work, and, now that I reversed that change, I'm losing weight again. My system is working just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost 13 pounds to get to 357, then gained 3 pounds back because your bullshit wasn't working. That's a total loss of ten pounds, creimer.
I'm back at 357 pounds. A total loss of 13 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
The information and the help is out here - you just have to be willing to take it.
The same information that I'm already using to lose 13 pounds. I'm already down two pant sizes and my newest pants is starting to feel loose. But because I'm not doing it your way, I must be doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, lose 13 pounds, and then stick there indefinitely, because 13 pounds ought to be enough for anybody.
Bullshit. Just, bullshit. Even if every pound you lost was *right under your belt*, you wouldn't be "feeling loose" and going for 3 pant sizes down.
No, because you're not losing weight you must be doin
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot. ...
Your lunch plan makes no sense at all.
If you want to starve one to lose weight, you give him enough to drink to get the vital vitamins and trace elements.
Letting him eat salad over salad makes no sense at all
Your stupid idea of weighting food in the kitchen, wow, how helpfull is that to a person that actually is nit eating much but is a super good converter of energy?
If you want to 'help' Creimer, you should for funk sake read one of the first posts where he mentioned his weight.
And if
Timely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we didn't want to cause mass panic. This is how things works out most of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because most of the people who care were busy taking ecstasy at Burning Man
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, it's already done? I better make the most of it and burn my arm hairs at home to simulate the missed experience.
Re: (Score:2)
And no stories from a frequent conributor about solving the ice problem? This site ain't what it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing :-(
https://designyoutrust.com/201... [designyoutrust.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Too dangerous.
Imagine the TFA-oid were still inbound. /.
Some idiot post article on
Suddenly it gets slashdotted.
Asteroid becomes laggy and stops mid-space.
Not only would a laggy/frozen asteroid annoy the astronomy community world-wide but it would also slowly start moving right towards earth - being pulled in by our gravity.
Solution is simple: wait until it passed, most people will ignore asteroids that aren't inbound.
Potentially hazardous in the future. (Score:2)
If this asteroid is classified as a "Potentially Hazardous Object", then why is it being reported two days *AFTER* the pass?
it is a potentially hazardous object because it is in a orbit that makes repeated close passes near Earth, and therefore it may intersect the Earth's orbit at some time in the future (beyond the time frame in which we can make exact predictions, due to chaos). It is potentially hazardous.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of:
4
million
miles
away
did you not get?
I can easily translate that into kilo meters for you, if that helps. (You have a rough idea how far away the moon is, yes? Why do I have the feeling that you have no clue ... ? )
So glad.. (Score:4, Funny)
"A big, bright, near-Earth asteroid, known as 3122 Florence, made a safe fly by Friday night."
So glad we didn't damage it. Those things can be expensive!
Re: (Score:2)
"near-Earth asteroid"
That's not a euphemism for a green pleasure machine here, right?
That makes perfect sense! (Score:2)
Let's honor a woman who saved many lives by naming a rock big enough to cause a mass extinction event after her!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's honor a woman who saved many lives by naming a rock big enough to cause a mass extinction event after her!
Yep, that was my biggest takeaway from the summary, too. If we are driven to extinction, it should be by a rock named after something bad, like a Big Mac.
See Florence and die (Score:2)
was my first thought.
And statistics... (Score:5, Informative)
The asteroid is named in honor of Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), who pioneered modern nursing
Indeed, Nightingale is described as "a true pioneer in the graphical representation of statistics", and is credited with developing a form of the pie chart now known as the polar area diagram,[53] or occasionally the Nightingale rose diagram...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. For some reason, part of my comment went missing - I quoted a bit from the previous post, then added my comment (which disappeared for some reason), then quoted a bit from wikipedia, which now shows up as the unquoted part. As for Mrs Nightingale's contributions to nursing, I think mathematics and scince were only minor contributions; far more important were things like hygiene, nutrition and simply being organised and prepared before the event, to take care of the wounded with trained nurses rather
7M km is "close"? (Score:2)
The moon is 384K km away. This was over 20x further away.
I wish we had been warned. Then I could have spent lots of time not worrying about it in the least.
Re: (Score:3)
that made no sense whatsoever.
How about saying it was 1/20 the average Earth / Mars distance...in other words, pretty fucking far away
Re: (Score:2)
Because the actual Earth-Mars distance varies so far from the average distance that the average is a useless number? Just thinking out loud here.
Re: (Score:2)
not useless at all, 46 million is the minimum, 140 million miles is the average and 401 million miles the farthest. The distance of this asteroid's closest approach being a chunk of all those distances (1/6, 1/20 and 1/50) means this asteroid was pretty fucking far away.
Photos ... (Score:2)
Here are two composite photos showing the asteroid moving against the background stars: Florence 1 [astrob.in] and Florence 2 [astrob.in].
Oh, the irony (lame pun intended)! (Score:1)
So, a "Potentially Hazardous Object" (Wikipedia says "3122 Florence" is possibly "large enough to create serious damage were it to impact") is named "in honor of Florence Nightingale (1820-1910), who pioneered modern nursing" (from NASA statement quoted in the summary).
The idea of the asteroid version of the "Lady with the Lamp" (absolute magnitude H=22), making her rounds (every 859 days, with an eccentricity of 0.42), might one day *cause* millions of people to be killed or wounded, is simply begging the
Asteroid 3122 - from 1981 ??? (Score:2)
For comparison, the current figures from the MPC are
So, on a monthly basis, we're acquiring data at a rate comparabl
Re: (Score:2)