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.

(Bubblews)   Oh, and btw, the Earth might get struck by Asteroid Apophis today. Just saying   (bubblews.com) divider line 198
    More: Scary, Asteroid Apophis, Apophis, Earth  
•       •       •

17341 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 10:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 01:06:01 PM

Mr.Sharpy: So, what are some of the variables in the 2029 approach that affect the probability of an impact in 2032? Is it a matter of how much its velocity changes as a result of interacting with the Earth/Moon system? Is it a question of if it strikes an unsuspecting "weather satellite?"


There are just a lot of unknowables that could change the orbit just a tiny amount now, that has a big effect later. We regard this as chaotic.  Some examples:

* The actual distribution of mass within the object. We don't know it and model the asteroid as a point.  But, imagine that has an irregular shape (likely for small bodies), and one end has more mass. Depending on the rotation and orientation and rotation speed, that end might be a teeny bit closer to the Sun/Earth/Juipter/Moon and change the orbit just a teeny tiny bit, maybe just a matter of centimeters over billions of miles. Might be enough to make a big change several orbits from now. It could be something as minor as a rock sitting on the surface.

* Solar effects. Sunlight and the Solar wind push on it a teeny tiny amount. How much Sunlight pushes depends on the reflectivity. Now imagine that one side is brighter due to a (comparatively) recent strike or something. That area will receive a teeny bit more push from sunlight as photons bounce off rather than being adsorbed. How that area is oriented and the overall brightness map of the asteroid is unknown and can't be modeled.  Same with the solar wind, that will push on it a bit, but we have no idea what the Sun will be doing in the future except in the most general sense, so these are just reduced to simple terms in the orbital calculation.

We just don't have enough computing power or a good enough model of the object or even the Solar system for that matter to predict chaotic orbits like that far in advance. It is getting better all the time, but when you start taking about the 2036 pass we won't know until we see exactly what happens in 2029, and then it is going to be harder to apply a small change and have it have enough effect.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:14 PM

KingsleyZisou: This makes sense to me. Thank you. It's hard to envision the cumulative effect on the weapon as each magnet takes its turn pulling the ballistic. Also, based on the equation, the ratio of m(gun) : m(bullet) comes into play.

/there's only one way to find out! Build it!
//and they will come


Your welcome! Basically, I'm pretty sure it doesn't really matter WHERE the force comes from. Think "For every reaction, equal and opposite reaction."

/By 'pretty sure' I mean 99% certain, but I don't know if I ever did a clasical mechanics problem on this.
// And my research is more nanoscale stuff. Grad student research seems to be slooowwwllly frying my brain.
///Totally agree though, LET'S BUILD IT.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:17 PM
About once I year I get to drag this one back out of the dusty closet ...

imageshack.us
 
2013-01-09 01:09:33 PM

durbnpoisn: kvinesknows: say... how come in deep impact and Armageddon they pretty much knew EXACTLY where on earth it would hit but they dont even know IF this one will hit Earth, never mind where. Has forecasting technology gotten worse since 1998?

No. Those were movies.


so you are saying Bruce Willis aint dead?

fark
 
2013-01-09 01:12:15 PM

KingsleyZisou: Felgraf: KingsleyZisou: Heathen: Mr_Fabulous:

Bottom line: what would we start doing now to fix this, and who would be the people working it out for the next 16 years?

My vote would be a Rail Gun, I don't know why it just sounds cool pelting that big rock with super speed objects to try and knock it off it's course

Now that has me thinking, so this question goes out to all those fark geeks out there (NTTIAWWT). My understanding is a rail gun uses magnets to accelerate an object. So if the rail gun was in space would there be a need for counter thrusters when the gun fires?

If I understand this correctly, the magnetic accelerators are pulling the ballistic. Pretty sure the recoil, at least on a terrestrial version, is negligible to nonexistent. In space, with no gravity well acting on the whole mechanism I'm not sure if you'd need the counter thrust or not.

I'm almost certain you would. It's the same as if you were in space and you threw a baseball. Because, here's the thing: When the magnets are 'pulling' the slug forwards, the slug is 'pulling' the magnets backwards with an equal force. Just as when you fall towards the earth, it's pulling you, but you're also pulling *it* up towards you with the exact same force. (But since F=mass*acceleration, and the earth is FRIGGEN HUGE, its acceleration is absurdly miniscule)

This makes sense to me. Thank you. It's hard to envision the cumulative effect on the weapon as each magnet takes its turn pulling the ballistic. Also, based on the equation, the ratio of m(gun) : m(bullet) comes into play.

/there's only one way to find out! Build it!
//and they will come


Yes exactly. Every individual pull on the projectile to move it forward has the equal and opposite effect on the gun. Now, definitely the projectile's mass is the main thing here, but I'm guessing you'd need a pretty large one for this endeavor. You need to either hit an asteroid with enough force to knock it off course or smash it into small enough pieces that they won't do much damage. Also depends on the size of the asteroid too.

Ok let's build one.
 
2013-01-09 01:14:54 PM
i1214.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 01:23:04 PM

Carn: KingsleyZisou: Felgraf: KingsleyZisou: Heathen: Mr_Fabulous:

Bottom line: what would we start doing now to fix this, and who would be the people working it out for the next 16 years?

My vote would be a Rail Gun, I don't know why it just sounds cool pelting that big rock with super speed objects to try and knock it off it's course

Now that has me thinking, so this question goes out to all those fark geeks out there (NTTIAWWT). My understanding is a rail gun uses magnets to accelerate an object. So if the rail gun was in space would there be a need for counter thrusters when the gun fires?

If I understand this correctly, the magnetic accelerators are pulling the ballistic. Pretty sure the recoil, at least on a terrestrial version, is negligible to nonexistent. In space, with no gravity well acting on the whole mechanism I'm not sure if you'd need the counter thrust or not.

I'm almost certain you would. It's the same as if you were in space and you threw a baseball. Because, here's the thing: When the magnets are 'pulling' the slug forwards, the slug is 'pulling' the magnets backwards with an equal force. Just as when you fall towards the earth, it's pulling you, but you're also pulling *it* up towards you with the exact same force. (But since F=mass*acceleration, and the earth is FRIGGEN HUGE, its acceleration is absurdly miniscule)

This makes sense to me. Thank you. It's hard to envision the cumulative effect on the weapon as each magnet takes its turn pulling the ballistic. Also, based on the equation, the ratio of m(gun) : m(bullet) comes into play.

/there's only one way to find out! Build it!
//and they will come

Yes exactly. Every individual pull on the projectile to move it forward has the equal and opposite effect on the gun. Now, definitely the projectile's mass is the main thing here, but I'm guessing you'd need a pretty large one for this endeavor. You need to either hit an asteroid with enough force to knock it off course or smash it into small enough pieces that they won't do much damage. Also depends on the size of the asteroid too.

Ok let's build one.


Quick thoughts on ballistic size. We can fire more than once. And the other half of the equation, how fast said itemtravels, matters too. So you don't necessarily need to shoot a large caliber bullet. Just one that delivers enough force to alter the trajectory.

In fact at a close enough distance you don't want to smash the asteroid. You'll turn one big event into thousands of smaller ones. Keeping it away is probably better than busting it up.

imagine if we could manipulate them. Mine them for resources, use them as Shields against other asteroids, turn them into space craft! Oh the possibilities.

/science!
 
2013-01-09 01:23:18 PM
Finally, The sweet release of Death...
 
2013-01-09 01:31:35 PM
Some say a comet will fall from the sky
followed by meteor showers and tidal waves
followed by fault lines that cannot sit still
followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshiats


/some say we'll see armageddon soon
//certainly hope will
 
2013-01-09 01:32:34 PM

octopied: I didn't want to live into my 40's. Give me a baby or bring on the death comet.


Challenge accepted.
 
2013-01-09 01:34:15 PM
A "Lucifer's Hammer" scenario, pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplea se.

Pure. Sweet. Culture.
 
2013-01-09 01:52:14 PM

Bungles: It's listed as peaking at 40 lunar distances. So 13,000 is only off by 730 times.


Must have had Fla Gov Rick Scott do the ciphering on that one.
 
2013-01-09 01:52:37 PM

Guns n' Farkin Roses: HMS_Blinkin: If it does it does. Nothing we can do about it.

[www.mjhsbnn.com image 350x237]

Oh really???


came to not see this. leaving disappointed.
 
2013-01-09 01:57:28 PM

Rev.K: Armageddon is one of the most horrible movies ever made.


It is indeed horrible. Especially if you look at it from the standpoint of, "is this even the slightest bit plausable?!" Its tough for some people to suspend their disbelief for that long.

But despite that, it is a fun movie with some spiffy effects. Just don't get too caught up in it.
 
2013-01-09 02:09:17 PM

neongoats: A "Lucifer's Hammer" scenario, pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplea se.

Pure. Sweet. Culture.


I just finished that last summer. Great read.
 
2013-01-09 02:12:17 PM

birchman: Ban asteroids!


If you criminalize asteroids, only criminals will have asteroids.
 
2013-01-09 02:13:37 PM

KingsleyZisou: Carn: KingsleyZisou: Felgraf: KingsleyZisou: Heathen: Mr_Fabulous:

Bottom line: what would we start doing now to fix this, and who would be the people working it out for the next 16 years?

My vote would be a Rail Gun, I don't know why it just sounds cool pelting that big rock with super speed objects to try and knock it off it's course

Now that has me thinking, so this question goes out to all those fark geeks out there (NTTIAWWT). My understanding is a rail gun uses magnets to accelerate an object. So if the rail gun was in space would there be a need for counter thrusters when the gun fires?

If I understand this correctly, the magnetic accelerators are pulling the ballistic. Pretty sure the recoil, at least on a terrestrial version, is negligible to nonexistent. In space, with no gravity well acting on the whole mechanism I'm not sure if you'd need the counter thrust or not.

I'm almost certain you would. It's the same as if you were in space and you threw a baseball. Because, here's the thing: When the magnets are 'pulling' the slug forwards, the slug is 'pulling' the magnets backwards with an equal force. Just as when you fall towards the earth, it's pulling you, but you're also pulling *it* up towards you with the exact same force. (But since F=mass*acceleration, and the earth is FRIGGEN HUGE, its acceleration is absurdly miniscule)

This makes sense to me. Thank you. It's hard to envision the cumulative effect on the weapon as each magnet takes its turn pulling the ballistic. Also, based on the equation, the ratio of m(gun) : m(bullet) comes into play.

/there's only one way to find out! Build it!
//and they will come

Yes exactly. Every individual pull on the projectile to move it forward has the equal and opposite effect on the gun. Now, definitely the projectile's mass is the main thing here, but I'm guessing you'd need a pretty large one for this endeavor. You need to either hit an asteroid with enough force to knock it off course or smash ...


You're on to something. We don't shoot at it, we shoot to it! With our special thruster and science team who install the thrusters and them propel the asteroid into a new stable orbit around the Earth. Then we find the strange inorganic life which threatens to destroy us all but the lady scientist with seizures doesn't notice.
 
2013-01-09 02:14:58 PM

Shakespeare's Monkey: I'm not saying it's aliens.


i290.photobucket.com
Somebody better get to work on Project Orion.
 
2013-01-09 02:19:20 PM

Twilight Farkle: [i.imgur.com image 790x426]

(Original version: Bob the Angry Flower, Asteroid 2030)

The cartoon from 13 years ago was originally in reference to 2000 SG344, but there's still a sliver of hope in the form of 2011 AG5, which will make a keyhole pass in 2023.


The sad thing is he's right.  Like a obese man who won't diet until he has a heart attack, humanity will do nothing to protect itself against an asteroid strike until we survive one.

The fact that he made the strip 13 years ago and we're still doing nothing is all the proof we need.
 
2013-01-09 02:27:25 PM

Felgraf: KingsleyZisou: Heathen: Mr_Fabulous:

Bottom line: what would we start doing now to fix this, and who would be the people working it out for the next 16 years?

My vote would be a Rail Gun, I don't know why it just sounds cool pelting that big rock with super speed objects to try and knock it off it's course

Now that has me thinking, so this question goes out to all those fark geeks out there (NTTIAWWT). My understanding is a rail gun uses magnets to accelerate an object. So if the rail gun was in space would there be a need for counter thrusters when the gun fires?

If I understand this correctly, the magnetic accelerators are pulling the ballistic. Pretty sure the recoil, at least on a terrestrial version, is negligible to nonexistent. In space, with no gravity well acting on the whole mechanism I'm not sure if you'd need the counter thrust or not.

I'm almost certain you would. It's the same as if you were in space and you threw a baseball. Because, here's the thing: When the magnets are 'pulling' the slug forwards, the slug is 'pulling' the magnets backwards with an equal force. Just as when you fall towards the earth, it's pulling you, but you're also pulling *it* up towards you with the exact same force. (But since F=mass*acceleration, and the earth is FRIGGEN HUGE, its acceleration is absurdly miniscule)


Yes, there would be recoil.  Specifically, unless I'm wrong, conservation of momentum says, for whatever momentum imparted on the projectile, we would see an equal-but-opposite momentum on the gun.
 
2013-01-09 02:35:49 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Did it come from the Arachnid quarantine zone?

/want to know more


I nominate Sky Marshall Tahat Maru to plan the assault. She knows that in order to defeat the bug, we must understand the bug.

/only good bug's a dead bug
//i'm from Buenos Aires and i say kill'em all
 
2013-01-09 02:37:56 PM
i42.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 02:47:43 PM
Eh... not so close.

img801.imageshack.us
img836.imageshack.us

Link  (Java needed)
 
2013-01-09 02:53:51 PM
I hear Apophis is also going to make a close pass with Earth in 2029 and 2036.

I think we should take this opportunity to blast it out of the sky.
 
2013-01-09 02:54:26 PM

ciberido: Shakespeare's Monkey: I'm not saying it's aliens.

[i290.photobucket.com image 633x475]
Somebody better get to work on Project Orion.


I kind of hated that book. And I generally love the authors.
 
2013-01-09 03:15:01 PM
This seems a bit more serious

img39.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-09 03:40:51 PM

KarmicDisaster: The real danger is going to be probabilities. People don't understand how they work. They will come out with a probability that it will hit when people want a yes no. This is big enough to possibly kill everyone, even the preppers in their bunkers. What kind of probability is acceptable? It we wait until they are 99% sure, it will be too late to deflect it. If we start early when they are 1/1000 sure, we can still do it, and the earlier we start the cheaper the mission.  Certain elements of society aren't going to want to spend money at the 1/1000 level.  Plus we don't really know enough about how to deflect these things, there are a lot of untested ideas like coating them with paint to cause a very small push by sunlight, but those things have to be applied early.


Much as we don't know how to deflect, honestly the best option if we were pretty damn sure (50%+) would be to just blow it into small chunks so we can watch the pretty meteor shower. It's viable, it requires explosives (which America is  really good at making and appeals to everyone's sense of loving things going boom), and it's got the least possibility of just flat-out not working.

/Paint is probably never going to be a viable option.
//Smashing it into small chunks, though, leads to some nice meteor showers.
 
2013-01-09 03:54:02 PM

PsiChick: KarmicDisaster: ...Much as we don't know how to deflect, honestly the best option if we were pretty damn sure (50%+) would be to just blow it into small chunks so we can watch the pretty meteor shower. It's viable, it requires explosives (which America is  really good at making and appeals to everyone's sense of loving things going boom), and it's got the least possibility of just flat-out not working.

Bad idea.
You'd never be able to blast it into small enough chunks to burn up in the atmosphere.
Earth would get nailed with a shotgun instead of a rifle.
Don't you watch the Science Channel?

 
2013-01-09 03:55:42 PM
Wow... did I ever fark that quote up.
 
2013-01-09 04:13:11 PM

stu1-1: Wow... did I ever fark that quote up.


Eh, I do it all the time, don't feel bad.

And no, not usually, but I fail to see how we can blow up large chunks of rock normally into small shards (because even something a  mile across is going to burn up to a reasonable size in-atmosphere) and can't  possibly do that with any other scenario. I mean, it wouldn't be 'launch the nukes' like in a movie, it would require controlled and shaped detonations, but still, it doesn't exactly sound implausible.

/And remember, we aren't going for dust here. We're looking for just large chunks.
 
2013-01-09 04:19:53 PM
I just read that the 2036 fly-by is also going to just miss the moon.
SInce the moon is a smaller body, it seems possible it's own orbit around Earth could be affected.
This would be extremely bad for everyone.
I think that even though this asteroid is no immediate threat, the possibility exists that it could be the one that eventually ends us, one way or another.
Something should be done about it now....like altering it's orbit so it no longer intersects with Earth's.
 
2013-01-09 04:39:09 PM
smc.temple.edu
 
2013-01-09 04:45:52 PM
PsiChick:
And no, not usually, but I fail to see how we can blow up large chunks of rock normally into small shards (because even something a  mile across is going to burn up to a reasonable size in-atmosphere) and can't  possibly do that with any other scenario. I mean, it wouldn't be 'launch the nukes' like in a movie, it would require controlled and shaped detonations, but still, it doesn't exactly sound implausible.

/And remember, we aren't going for dust here. We're looking for just large chunks.


Your assumption that a mile-sized rock would burn up is incorrect.
The meteor crater in Arizona was created by a rock only 130 feet wide.
Nukes are not an option unless you like your meteor showers to be radio-active.
 
2013-01-09 05:01:50 PM

kvinesknows: and this article says 15 million kms away today


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/asteroid-extremely-remote-possibility-striki n g-earth-2036-makes-090011942.html


Thank you. Was about to mention that today is more of a prolog for the 2036.
 
2013-01-09 05:35:29 PM
img96.imageshack.us

We should attach a rocket to it and send it to Detroit!
 
2013-01-09 05:52:57 PM

stu1-1: Nukes are not an option unless you like your meteor showers to be radio-active.


Doesn't everyone?
 
2013-01-09 06:23:46 PM
Good thing I farted. Disaster averted. You're welcome.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:12 PM

Need_MindBleach: I hear Apophis is also going to make a close pass with Earth in 2029 and 2036.

I think we should take this opportunity to blast it out of the sky.


That's why all the talk about doing so
 
2013-01-09 11:00:18 PM

ciberido: Twilight Farkle: [i.imgur.com image 790x426]

(Original version: Bob the Angry Flower, Asteroid 2030)

The cartoon from 13 years ago was originally in reference to 2000 SG344, but there's still a sliver of hope in the form of 2011 AG5, which will make a keyhole pass in 2023.

The sad thing is he's right.  Like a obese man who won't diet until he has a heart attack, humanity will do nothing to protect itself against an asteroid strike until we survive one.

The fact that he made the strip 13 years ago and we're still doing nothing is all the proof we need.


Eeyup.

The real disappointment about Apophis (and SG344, and probably 2011 AG5 by the time of its 2023 keyhole pass) is that the keyhole pass is a double opportunity.

In the overwhelmingly-likely scenario in which it misses the keyhole, you have a chance to send a probe that hitches a ride on an asteroid. This probe should have the usual array of scientific instruments, because hey, free asteroid! It should also have a bit of silver spray paint, or a container of soot. Maybe even a small conventional warhead.

In the astonishingly-horrifying scenario in which it hits the keyhole, you now have a probe with some shiny spray paint to make one side light, and some carbon black to make the other side dark, and a small conventional warhead/rocket engine with which to perturb its path almost a decade before impact. The size of warhead/rocket required to do this at perigee could be very small indeed. The amount of white paint/soot required to brighten/darken the rock might be minimal, if solar radiation and differential heating (the Yarkovsky effect) have nearly a full decade to slowly nudge the rock out of the way, instead of just a few months.

If we do nothing, and there's a 624-in-625 chance that there's a picture of a streak in some guy's telescope, and a 1-in-625 chance that the headlines in 2023 that says 2011 AG5 will hit in seven years. We're a society that can barely design a rocket in 7 years, let alone design and launch an asteroid-deflecting probe on it.

If we build such a probe now, there's a 624-in-625 chance that we have some neat pictures of a dusty rock in 2023, and a 1-in-625 chance that the headlines in 2023 read "2011 AG5 deflected by soft-landing half probe into the rock face-first and firing its engine until it ran out of fuel, and if that wasn't enough, we have 7 years to see how well the second half of the probe, which contained a paintball gun is gonna work."

But we'll do nothing. And after a few dozen times of doing nothing, we'll either lose a billion-dollar city for want of a hundred-million-dollar probe and 7 years of lag time, or we'll spend ten billion dollars building a probe in a matter of months to save a billion-dollar city. Neither of those options is particularly appealing, but nobody ever said humans were good at estimating risk.
 
2013-01-10 12:18:41 AM

digitalrain: FTA: "...but its probably not a planet killer."

Good to know!


It just makes the planet wish it were dead.
 
2013-01-10 01:27:22 AM

neongoats: ciberido: Shakespeare's Monkey: I'm not saying it's aliens.

[i290.photobucket.com image 633x475]
Somebody better get to work on Project Orion.

I kind of hated that book. And I generally love the authors.


Try Moonfall by Jack McDevitt.  It's actually more relevant to this thread as the story is about an impending asteroid collision that could wipe out humanity if people do nothing to prevent it.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:17 AM
The pass in 2029 will be much closer and is expected to take out a few satellites.

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-01-10 04:07:40 AM
Here's the next one we should worry about:

2012 DA14
Closest approach:
Feb 15, 2013
239,000 miles = less than a 10th of the distance between the Earth and Moon
Size: 115 to 246 feet across
Relative Speed: 17,400 miles per hour = 4.8 miles per second
 
2013-01-10 04:12:39 AM
Correction:
distance should be 23,900 miles (damn decimal points)
 
2013-01-10 04:18:44 AM

stu1-1: Correction:
distance should be 23,900 miles (damn decimal points)


I recalculated it and the actual distance is 21,500 miles.
 
2013-01-10 11:08:43 AM

stu1-1: stu1-1: Correction:
distance should be 23,900 miles (damn decimal points)

I recalculated it and the actual distance is 21,500 miles.


You should go outside more
 
2013-01-10 11:27:42 AM

Crewmannumber6: stu1-1: stu1-1: Correction:
distance should be 23,900 miles (damn decimal points)

I recalculated it and the actual distance is 21,500 miles.

You should go outside more


You wouldn't say that if we had an edit button
 
2013-01-10 11:56:40 AM

The Bestest: I might have a foursome with Mila Kunis, Scarlett Johansen and Zoe Seldana today. Just saying.


fortunately for you, the odds of that happening are still better than getting hit by this particular rock
 
Displayed 48 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report