Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Disclose.tv)   Nothing to worry about, really; just a possible giant meteorite impact tomorrow   (disclose.tv) divider line 44
    More: Unlikely, meteorite impact, DST, UTC, space rock, comets, asteroids  
•       •       •

3952 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Nov 2011 at 7:07 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-11-23 03:58:09 PM  
I'll be in my bunk(er).
 
2011-11-23 04:44:16 PM  
Not to piss on subbys parade, and I am no expert, but it looks to me like this asteroid "just doscvered two days ago" has orbital data going back to 1973.
 
2011-11-23 04:57:40 PM  

gilgigamesh: Not to piss on subbys parade, and I am no expert, but it looks to me like this asteroid "just doscvered two days ago" has orbital data going back to 1973.


Please post the ephemeris you are reading.
 
2011-11-23 05:00:02 PM  

gilgigamesh: it looks to me like this asteroid "just doscvered two days ago" has orbital data going back to 1973.


Those are backward projections, not observational data, on the linked NASA page(pops). The date of first observation is listed as the 18 Nov 2011.
That said, I submitted this because it's interesting to see a "live" observation and tracking and the ensuing zomg among conspiragentsia, not because I think there's any great risk.
Well, not that I could do anything about an actual impact, anyway.

/note that I did use the Unlikely tag
 
2011-11-23 05:13:46 PM  
It also appears to make a pass at a distance of 147% of the distance the moon is from the earth. In other words, its a moon and a half's distance away at the closest point.
 
2011-11-23 05:28:52 PM  

Procedural Texture: gilgigamesh: it looks to me like this asteroid "just doscvered two days ago" has orbital data going back to 1973.

Those are backward projections, not observational data, on the linked NASA page(pops). The date of first observation is listed as the 18 Nov 2011.
That said, I submitted this because it's interesting to see a "live" observation and tracking and the ensuing zomg among conspiragentsia, not because I think there's any great risk.
Well, not that I could do anything about an actual impact, anyway.

/note that I did use the Unlikely tag


I stand corrected. As I said, I don't know what I am talking about.

It's tough finding anything about this, but according to this (French) site, which I don't vouch for, the object is about 10 - 27 meters in diameter. Not very big, but is it big enough to survive earth's atmosphere?

Link (new window)
 
2011-11-23 05:29:03 PM  
cdn1.sbnation.com
cdn1.sbnation.com
cdn1.sbnation.com
 
2011-11-23 05:29:56 PM  

me texan: It also appears to make a pass at a distance of 147% of the distance the moon is from the earth. In other words, its a moon and a half's distance away at the closest point.


True, I had it figured at about 340,000 miles. But I imagine there's a high degree of uncertainty for something discovered so recently.
 
2011-11-23 05:38:25 PM  
Also, from what I am reading, objects this size are routinely discovered only a couple of days before they come this close to Earth.

Fascinating stuff.
 
2011-11-23 05:40:13 PM  
27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?
 
2011-11-23 06:03:26 PM  

cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?


Meteor Crater in AZ was estimated to be made by one only *50 meters* across.
I think this one is big enough to put a fair size hole in the world, depending on its composition of course.

Where is The Bad Astronomer when you need him?
 
2011-11-23 06:20:18 PM  

SirLothar: cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?

Meteor Crater in AZ was estimated to be made by one only *50 meters* across.
I think this one is big enough to put a fair size hole in the world, depending on its composition of course.

Where is The Bad Astronomer when you need him?


It's exponential increase in damage, so it would be bad, but not just half as bad as that impact. Much less.
 
2011-11-23 06:29:02 PM  
Great! And I got all my Christmas shopping done early too.
 
2011-11-23 06:38:47 PM  

gilgigamesh: Also, from what I am reading, objects this size are routinely discovered only a couple of days before they come this close to Earth.

Fascinating stuff.


Watching you learn about stuff in real time is fascinating.
 
2011-11-23 06:49:59 PM  
I'm going to stop flossing.
 
2011-11-23 07:11:42 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: gilgigamesh: Also, from what I am reading, objects this size are routinely discovered only a couple of days before they come this close to Earth.

Fascinating stuff.

Watching you learn about stuff in real time is fascinating.


Okay, information is coming in.
 
2011-11-23 07:19:50 PM  
There's a joke in there about it hitting before (or after) my MIL gets here or something but I just can't quite put my finger on it...
 
2011-11-23 07:29:44 PM  

gilgigamesh: me texan: It also appears to make a pass at a distance of 147% of the distance the moon is from the earth. In other words, its a moon and a half's distance away at the closest point.

True, I had it figured at about 340,000 miles. But I imagine there's a high degree of uncertainty for something discovered so recently.


Their predictions give a nominal, minimum, and maximum close approach distance. The difference between the min and max is ~1420 km, which is nothing compared to the total distance. Also, their timing uncertainty is less than a minute, so their distance estimate is probably pretty good.
 
2011-11-23 07:41:48 PM  
just a possible giant meteorite impact tomorrow

Not to piss you off, but the above statement is true for any given day.
 
2011-11-23 07:50:06 PM  
The first truly happy Thanksgiving in years and now this? Motherfarker!
 
2011-11-23 07:53:21 PM  
Sweet I will fill up on turkey thursday fall asleep and not have to worry about working friday.
Im strangley ok with this.
 
2011-11-23 07:55:44 PM  
This can mean only one thing.

NASA is looking for more funding.
 
2011-11-23 08:24:25 PM  

cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?


I'm thinking of something more similar to Tunguska. (new window) It depends on what it's made out of, but it could wipe out a city, or much more likely explode over an ocean and make some waves.

That's assuming it doesn't miss us, which it probably will. Still, you hear NASA go on about "oh, there isn't anywhere near as many near Earth objects than we thought...hey...what's that?!"

It's nothing to panic over, but still, big rocks hit us sometimes. We should be looking out for them.
 
2011-11-23 10:32:19 PM  

Scruffinator: cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?

I'm thinking of something more similar to Tunguska. (new window) It depends on what it's made out of, but it could wipe out a city, or much more likely explode over an ocean and make some waves.

That's assuming it doesn't miss us, which it probably will. Still, you hear NASA go on about "oh, there isn't anywhere near as many near Earth objects than we thought...hey...what's that?!"

It's nothing to panic over, but still, big rocks hit us sometimes. We should be looking out for them.


But looking out costs money. We've got oil companies to subsidize.

/Still teaching my kids what little I can about Astronomy - I want them to know that stars aren't just something people on TV dance with.
 
2011-11-23 10:46:17 PM  
I'll post my comment on the 25th.
 
2011-11-23 10:53:58 PM  

TommyDeuce: Scruffinator: cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?

I'm thinking of something more similar to Tunguska. (new window) It depends on what it's made out of, but it could wipe out a city, or much more likely explode over an ocean and make some waves.

That's assuming it doesn't miss us, which it probably will. Still, you hear NASA go on about "oh, there isn't anywhere near as many near Earth objects than we thought...hey...what's that?!"

It's nothing to panic over, but still, big rocks hit us sometimes. We should be looking out for them.

But looking out costs money. We've got oil companies to subsidize.

/Still teaching my kids what little I can about Astronomy - I want them to know that stars aren't just something people on TV dance with.


Flaming gaseous balls of death?
www.thedailybeast.comI think DWTS is the perfect place to learn about stars.
 
2011-11-23 11:36:08 PM  
I just wanted to tell you all good luck. We're all counting on you.
 
2011-11-23 11:51:38 PM  
Maybe it'll take along some of our space garbage with it.
 
2011-11-23 11:56:20 PM  

SirLothar: cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?

Meteor Crater in AZ was estimated to be made by one only *50 meters* across.
I think this one is big enough to put a fair size hole in the world, depending on its composition of course.

Where is The Bad Astronomer when you need him?


Heeeeeere I come to save the daaaaayyyy!

Yeah, according to the JPL NEO site, it'll pass 0.00376 AU away, which is 570,000 km away. The Moon is 400,000 km away, so we're safe, despite the panic-mongering at disclose.tv.

If we were to get hit by one that size, a rock that small would burn up in our atmosphere, but would explode with the yield of a medium-sized nuke. The Tunguska impactor was probably 30 meters in size, and blew up with a yield of about 15 megatons. Estimates vary, but you get the idea.

The meteor crater imapctor was about the same size, but made of iron, so it survived all the way to the ground, and blew up with about the same yield.

Point is, we'd rather not get hit by ones this size, and happily this one is way far away.
 
2011-11-24 12:20:45 AM  
As this hasn't happened in living memory, and we only have the Tunguska Event to draw from, this is still speculative science. Computer models and math have probably got it pretty close, but there remains the intangibles.

Thanks TBA for chiming in. I always appreciate your input, and I'm not disputing your take on this. However, how much hard data could have been acquired since the 18th? Can we accurately determine the composition of a meteor in this timeframe? (I'm glad it's not going to hit us) As a hypothetical though, it's an interesting question.
 
2011-11-24 12:38:56 AM  
It isn't an asteroid, it is one of my mother-in-laws Thanksgiving dinner rolls. As long as it doesn't hit us, we are ok. If it does hit us, then its sheer density will knock us right out of orbit and doom us all.
 
2011-11-24 12:50:28 AM  

Scruffinator: cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?

I'm thinking of something more similar to Tunguska. (new window) It depends on what it's made out of, but it could wipe out a city, or much more likely explode over an ocean and make some waves.

That's assuming it doesn't miss us, which it probably will. Still, you hear NASA go on about "oh, there isn't anywhere near as many near Earth objects than we thought...hey...what's that?!"

It's nothing to panic over, but still, big rocks hit us sometimes. We should be looking out for them.


I can't seem to find any information on how the USA would respond if there is an impact. Do we not have a response plan? Or can I just not find one?
 
2011-11-24 01:08:13 AM  

Coelacanth: The first truly happy Thanksgiving in years and now this? Motherfarker!


Mine has just started to look better.
 
2011-11-24 01:28:56 AM  

Sarah Palin's Conscience: I can't seem to find any information on how the USA would respond if there is an impact. Do we not have a response plan? Or can I just not find one?


You know what, I'm not really sure. According to a special on either History or Discovery we have an emergency response plan in place for a nuclear strike, so I imagine we would derive what we can from that. However, the main difference is(if I'm not mistaken) an asteroid impact(either stoney explosion in the air or a direct iron impact) would more or less vaporize a good area around the point of impact, and burn a lot of other stuff as well. There wouldn't be too many pieces to pick up. You would need medical assistance for people around the edges of the "fallout" zone, but to my understanding most doctors already know they may be called upon to tend to a disaster like this.

Of course, if the impact was in an ocean(much more likely) that's a whole different story. Big waves are bad for a lot of people.

I think TBA would be able to better answer that question, but I hope that helped give you a slight idea.
 
2011-11-24 02:45:52 AM  

kayanlau: Maybe it'll take along some of our space garbage with it.


I don't normally wish harm on people unless I am drunk but it would be truly awesome to see it wipe the ISS out.
 
2011-11-24 03:25:45 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2011-11-24 04:22:48 AM  
It's coming to take us out, ha-haaa!!
It's coming to take us out, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa
 
2011-11-24 07:21:49 AM  
I knew I should have made one last futile attempt to get laid last night. Oh well.
 
2011-11-24 07:45:35 AM  
Went to bed, it was a code 6. Woke up, still code 6.
Scale index Link (new window)
 
2011-11-24 11:21:09 AM  

The Bad Astronomer: SirLothar: cman: 27 meters long?

Isnt that small enough to burn upon entry anyways?

Meteor Crater in AZ was estimated to be made by one only *50 meters* across.
I think this one is big enough to put a fair size hole in the world, depending on its composition of course.

Where is The Bad Astronomer when you need him?

Heeeeeere I come to save the daaaaayyyy!

Yeah, according to the JPL NEO site, it'll pass 0.00376 AU away, which is 570,000 km away. The Moon is 400,000 km away, so we're safe, despite the panic-mongering at disclose.tv.

If we were to get hit by one that size, a rock that small would burn up in our atmosphere, but would explode with the yield of a medium-sized nuke. The Tunguska impactor was probably 30 meters in size, and blew up with a yield of about 15 megatons. Estimates vary, but you get the idea.

The meteor crater imapctor was about the same size, but made of iron, so it survived all the way to the ground, and blew up with about the same yield.

Point is, we'd rather not get hit by ones this size, and happily this one is way far away.


I have always wondered what the results of an impact with the moon would be to us. Could something that size, or the size of the November 8th "near earth" asteroid alter the moon's path and mess with tides, weather, etc? With no atmosphere on the moon I take it the physics of an impact are completely different,...
 
2011-11-24 03:01:05 PM  

Euell Gibbons: Went to bed, it was a code 6. Woke up, still code 6.
Scale index Link (new window)


+1 informative, but is that the same scale as the code 6 of this asteroid?
This object moved down from a code 9 to code 6 as a measure of the *uncertainty* about its *orbit*. Contrast that with in the Torino Impact Hazard scale you're linking to, where high numbers equals *certainty* of *impact*.
In fact, the confusion may be what caused the fringers to whargarrbl that this was an imminent disaster.
Thanks for the link.
 
2011-11-24 06:18:21 PM  

Procedural Texture: Euell Gibbons: Went to bed, it was a code 6. Woke up, still code 6.
Scale index Link (new window)

+1 informative, but is that the same scale as the code 6 of this asteroid?
This object moved down from a code 9 to code 6 as a measure of the *uncertainty* about its *orbit*. Contrast that with in the Torino Impact Hazard scale you're linking to, where high numbers equals *certainty* of *impact*.
In fact, the confusion may be what caused the fringers to whargarrbl that this was an imminent disaster.
Thanks for the link.


Good point, because the scale that I linked to is a bit...oh..ominous.
 
2011-11-24 10:30:15 PM  
nope

//damnit
 
2011-11-26 07:27:27 PM  

GAT_00: It's exponential increase in damage, so it would be bad, but not just half as bad as that impact. Much less.


Square cube law. Half the diameter is roughly 1/8th of the mass (assuming the same density) and that means that there is (all other thing being equal) 1/32nd of the potential energy available. And that's assuming that it doesn't lose any mass while passing through the atmosphere. Not a good thing but nowhere near the same as the AZ asteroid hit.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report