backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by mmcdonalataocd.. on Oct 19 at 2:26 PM
Astronomers say there is an even lesser threat from an asteroid slamming into Earth

Researchers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said asteroid Apophis has just a four in a million chance of hitting Earth, while previous estimates of impact were pegged at one in 45,000.

Apophis has been on the minds of astronomers since 2004, when there was a 2.7% chance of impact in 2029 -- the asteroid has a diameter almost three football fields in diameter.  Given its size, it's significantly smaller than the six-mile-wide asteroid believed to have impacted Earth and eliminated dinosaur life on the planet.

After the threat of a 2029 impact was reduced, astronomers believed 2036 is the most likely year it could hit our planet.

According to the calculations calculated by the University of Hawaii 88-inch telescope and 90-inch Bok telescope, Apophis is expected to pass within 18,000 miles of Earth in 2029.

The close pass could later alter its future trajectory, which has astronomers extremely worried the asteroid could make another pass at Earth.

"We've all but ruled out" the collision in 2036, according to JPL Near-Earth Object astronomer Steve Chesley.  "The deflection caused by the 2029 encounter will be significant.  We're not worried about 2029.  We're worried about its future trajectory."

NASA and other space programs, along with university researchers, are putting more  research into tracking distant asteroids and other bodies that could one day hit Earth.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
For all you asteroid buffs..
By StraightCashHomey on 10/14/2009 8:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
Would the damage to the earth be significantly reduced if an asteroid landed in the middle of one of the oceans as opposed to land?

Yeah, tidal waves, etc, I'm just wondering.




RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By jadeskye on 10/14/2009 8:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a buff but if i recall my reading it would be just as bad if not worse because of the mass and velocity it would probably hit land even if it hit water as it would strike the seabed and cause all kinds of bad stuff.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By ajfink on 10/14/2009 8:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
You've been watching Armageddon, I see.

It would be a whole hell of a lot of better if something this size landed in the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic than in NYC or Tokyo.

YES, there would be tsunami waves on the Asian, Indonesian, Australian, North and South American coasts - but people would have plenty of warning in such a scenario. Also, an ocean impact for something this size would not kick up as much dust and debris, nor start massive fires, nor directly disrupt infrastructure. I would -hope- for an ocean impact.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Connoisseur on 10/14/2009 9:04:14 AM , Rating: 5
Really? Not that either option is preferrable by any stretch, but I'd think the land scenario would be slightly less damaging. A water landing WOULD cause tidal waves and tsunamis that would make the one a couple years ago look like a splash in the pond. Realistically... that would kill millions, warning or not. Technically, a land impact would absorb a lot more of the force. Granted, it would probably still hit with the force of several nukes but, depending on the location, might minimize the immediate casualties. one way or another, we're looking at severe damage.

Some physics buffs can interject here as well.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Ristogod on 10/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By randomposter on 10/14/2009 10:40:55 AM , Rating: 3
You are approaching this argument from the perspective of a "rich" first-worlder with the freedom to move among various cities based on employment prospects, housing costs, and various other factors affecting your quality of life.

There are a few billion people on the planet who approach this argument from the perspective of "my grandparents were born here, my parents were born here, I was born here, and my children will be born here."


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Suntan on 10/14/2009 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think a wave of water cares where your parents were born?

Fair or not, you live close to the coast when a big wave comes, you're going to be SOL. Rich or poor doesn't so much matter then.

-Suntan


By randomposter on 10/14/2009 2:38:53 PM , Rating: 1
I was responding to the gp's insinuation that somebody who lives on the coast is somehow responsible for their own misfortune when a tsunami hits.

In the case of an accountant born in Minneapolis who decides to move to Miami, the answer is "sort of".

In the case of a rickshaw-puller born in Dhaka, Bangladesh and still living in the same house his great-grandfather built, the answer is an unequivocal "no".


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By mindless1 on 10/14/2009 9:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
Generally speaking there is no choice for many. The sea provides abundant food not available inland. Move away and die of starvation instead? Further many lack the ability to migrate because of military deterrents.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Amiga500 on 10/14/2009 9:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
In the ocean - kill millions.

On land - kill billions (if not the entire planet).

If the dust/debris enveloped the earth for any significant period of time, its good night and sweet dreams, extinction is here.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Amiga500 on 10/14/2009 9:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
I should state that the above is for an equal sized/composition object at a mass less than that which would destroy everything anyway.

Basically, ocean is better than land (unless the thing is so big it becomes irrelevant).


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By dxf2891 on 10/14/2009 10:11:23 AM , Rating: 1
Consider the atmospheric changes that would occur from the steam released from this object if impact is in the ocean. The climate would change to one like Venus. Very hot, humid, steamy and unlivable. The heat would travel globally, not to mention the tear in the ozone layer. If not a world ender, a world changer. Who survives and who dies?


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By omnicronx on 10/14/2009 1:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
From the Nasa site:
quote:
The asteroid is about 320 meters wide. "That's big enough to punch through Earth's atmosphere," devastating a region the size of, say, Texas , if it hit land, or causing widespread tsunamis if it hit ocean, says Chodas.
300 Meters is also not big enough to cause a global catastrophe, (usually asteroids >1KM are considered in this range). ~300M would have some seriouos regional consequences, but far from a global catastrophe.

I would also like to note that just because it hits the ocean, does not mean there is no debris. A big enough object, or if the impact location is shallow (such as many points of the pacific ocean) it would not only cause tsunamis, but would spread debris into the air, very much the same as if it were to hit land.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By mindless1 on 10/14/2009 9:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
All debris is not alike, fewer larger particles will more rapidly settle (into the ocean again).

Even so, I tend to think the proximity to large civilizations is more significant than land or sea at this size range.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Mint on 10/14/2009 2:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think an ocean landing would have that much less dust. At that kind of velocity, the ocean will act like a brick wall at the moment of impact. Just think about how a belly flop into water from 10 stories up will basically kill you, but extreme high divers do that routinely.

Hard to say, though.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By PrinceGaz on 10/14/2009 1:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? Not that either option is preferrable by any stretch, but I'd think the land scenario would be slightly less damaging. A water landing WOULD cause tidal waves and tsunamis that would make the one a couple years ago look like a splash in the pond. Realistically... that would kill millions, warning or not. Technically, a land impact would absorb a lot more of the force. Granted, it would probably still hit with the force of several nukes but, depending on the location, might minimize the immediate casualties. one way or another, we're looking at severe damage.


You're assuming there is no advance warning of the asteroid impacting a particular ocean at a particular time. Unlike a typical tsunami, there would be several weeks warning of the pending ocean impact area are the effected coastlines, allowing plenty of time for the population to be removed from areas at risk.

A land-impact would affect the entire planet far more than an ocean-impact which would mainly affect only coastal regions around that ocean.

If we could choose, I'd vote for an ocean-impact every time.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Manch on 10/15/2009 12:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention if it landed in the pacific ocean it would knock over all those ships with the imported Chinese lead tainted items we love so much. We would be out of cheap stuff and it would kill the whales or something./jk


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By Donovan on 10/14/2009 1:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Tsunami are caused by large displacements of water, typically from land slides (underwater or into the water) or from the ocean floor moving during a earthquake. While the simulations are not in complete agreement, Apophis is probably much too small to create a long-range tsunami. Coastlines within a few hundred miles of the impact are in danger, however:

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/spacegd7.ht...

As for land impact, the threshhold for global destruction is around 2km while Apophis is roughly 270m in diameter according to Wikipedia. The radius of total destruction looks to be about 50 miles in that case, with damage continuing beyond that:

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/spacegd7.ht...

So the area at risk for an ocean impact is much larger, but only a small strip of land would actually be affected...unfortunately that area would be the coastline which tends to be heavily populated. The land impact affects a much smaller area, but that entire area is completely destroyed.

Kinda hard to pick a winner, but I think the tiebreaker goes to favoring a water impact because there will be additional time for evacuation. That might not be significant for asteroids we see coming, but it's the only chance we get if the asteroid catches us by surprise.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By theapparition on 10/14/2009 8:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
By most expert analysis, the one that eliminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago impacted in the ocean.

So not any better.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By ajfink on 10/14/2009 9:01:00 AM , Rating: 2
That was six miles across and may have been in tandem with massive volcanism (or may have CAUSED massive vulcanism). This is dinky in comparison. Catastrophic weather affects, yes, but not civilization-ending.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By cerx on 10/16/2009 3:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
vulcanism


I believe it did cause vulcanism and the world will never recover!!


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By siliconvideo on 10/14/2009 9:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
With the velocities and masses involved in such an impact, a strike in the middle of the Pacific ocean would be just as devastating as a land impact. Upon impact a huge volume of water (many cubic kilometers) would be instantly vaporized covering the earth. Massive tidal waves would then hit every Pacific shore. The majority of the asteroid energy would then impact the sea floor causing global earthquakes adding more destruction to the world.

I'm sure the scientists have already run land vs ocean impacts and both will be equally destructive.


RE: For all you asteroid buffs..
By gstrickler on 10/14/2009 12:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Depends upon the depth of the ocean on the impact trajectory. If it hits deep water (at least 3x as deep as the diameter of the asteroid), the atmospheric impact is dramatically lower. If the water is too shallow, then a water landing is not materially different than a land impact.

Yes, the tsunami would be devastating, but it's the atmospheric affects that cause long term problems. Tsunami and ocean effects tend to be more immediate and shorter term.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/14/2009 11:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
Typical DailyTech posts. I have read the article and therefore I have an informed opinion!

Actually, the imapct zone runs across Siberia, the Pacific, through Central America, across the Atlantic, and nearly to the coast of West Africa. The greatest probability therefore is that it will land over water.

The affects would be catastrophic over thousands of square kilometers (composition notwithstanding) but would hardly produce global climatic changes. The economic impact would be far greater due to local habitat destruction, shipping lanes and fisheries.


By Amiga500 on 10/14/2009 8:41:17 AM , Rating: 1
And this asteroid is big enough to cause planetary extinction.

What happens?

Could the human race collectively get its arse into gear and develop the technology to fix the problem?

From the 1960s through to the start of the 90s, I would say yes. The technology was there, as was the willingness to do whatever it takes to get the job done.

Now that bean counters and lawyers are paralysed engineering R&D efforts everywhere in the world... I genuinely don't think we could.

Not unless the bean counters and lawyers were shed... preferably by shooting the lawyers ;-)

Look at going back to the moon...

NASA are looking at 2030... they are absolutely riddled with 'cost engineers' and paperwork.

The Chinese are hoping for 2020 - but I don't think they have the expertise (just yet - but they are learning fast) to achieve that - they'll get there eventually of course.

The Russians...? A great unknown, has the collapse of the economy in the 90s resulted in a loss of a lot of the experience and knowledge that CCCP had?

ESA? Lightweight compared to the others, and political fighting between the constituent countries is always going to be a handicap.

I think 10 years wouldn't be enough... and I don't think world governments would get their arses into gear if it was further away than 10 years either.




By Mitch101 on 10/14/2009 8:50:41 AM , Rating: 5
We dont have to Bruce Willis is still alive and should be for at least 30 more years.


By PhoenixKnight on 10/14/2009 9:25:59 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, but Bruce Willis will inevitably die destroying the asteroid, and what if a second asteroid comes along within that 30 years? We'd be screwed. I think we should send Harrison Ford and Aerosmith for this one, and keep Bruce Willis in reserve.


By Mitch101 on 10/14/2009 9:43:06 AM , Rating: 3
They haven't been movie tested. The alternate would be Chuck Norris.


By Amiga500 on 10/14/2009 9:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
What did the asteroid ever do to you to deserve such a draconian punishment?


By Yawgm0th on 10/14/2009 10:07:13 AM , Rating: 3
Why the alternate? We wouldn't need any R&D time. No spaceships, no nukes, and we get to keep Bruce Willis. Chuck Norris would just roundhouse kick it after climbing to the top of Mt Everest.


By Mitch101 on 10/14/2009 10:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Dramatic Effect. Where is the drama in that if we get Chuck Norris to just kick it? Were would a trillion dollars in government spending frivolously be spent on then? I need the government to give me millions on my slingshot idea.


By Calidore on 10/14/2009 3:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Jack Palance would have caught it and thrown it back.


By mindless1 on 10/14/2009 10:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, but Bruce is what, 54 now? Despite the best care money can buy, not everyone lives into their 80s. Don't mean to seem morbid but remember that the average life expectancy is only that, an average, and currently 76 years for males (probably less for those born half a century ago).


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/19/2009 2:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
How does that make sense? How would anyone know what your life expectancy is until you die? The average life expectancy is taken from current acturial tables, which means they look at what age people are dying now. Since the average age of males dying now is 76 years, more or less, then that is the average life expectancy NOW of people born 76 years ago. It should hold true for Bruce Willis, then. It may go down by the time you start closing in on 76, or way up. You won't know till you get there.


By invidious on 10/14/2009 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 3
The reason NASA can't get back to the moon right now is because there are higher standards than there were decades ago. Back during the real space race casualties were expected and the original astronaughts accepted that it was likely a one way trip. Also NASA didn't worry about money as far as what it was getting out of the trip or if it could reuse the shuttles.

Nowadays to achieve the hightened safety, reliability, and cost standards there are many layers of added complexity to an already obsurdly complex system. And worse yet for NASA, other nations like China who are looking to make a name for themselves don't have the same hightened standards. Ultimately we are not in the same boat as China so comparing their estimates for a moon mission to ours is not a fair comparison. We would be best suited not encouraging a rematch for a race that we already won.

In terms of techical readiness to combat a global threat from space I don't think we have any valid data to base any judgements on. At that point we would be talking about diverting all engineering resources in the country (perhaps world) to this one task.


By Amiga500 on 10/14/2009 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The reason NASA can't get back to the moon right now is because there are higher standards than there were decades ago. Back during the real space race casualties were expected and the original astronaughts accepted that it was likely a one way trip.


You do realise that statement is nothing short of insulting to the NASA engineers of the 50s through to 1980.

There were more deaths from either Columbia or Challenger than the entire space program before hand...


By Chernobyl68 on 10/14/2009 5:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
because the space shuttle can carry more people than the apollo capsule can.


4 in a million chance..
By StraightCashHomey on 10/14/2009 8:03:29 AM , Rating: 5
It could just be written as 1 in 250,000.. but 1 million sounds cooler I suppose.




RE: 4 in a million chance..
By randomposter on 10/14/2009 9:17:41 AM , Rating: 4
The summary switches around between 3 different ways of representing probability, and is also littered with numerous other grammatical inconsistencies.


Well, no; not really
By rcc on 10/14/2009 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Astronomers say there is an even lesser threat from an asteroid slamming into Earth


OK, lets be honest here. The chance (or threat) of this asteroid hitting the earth hasn't changed one bit. The astronomers have either refined their data, or decided that they needed a smaller chance of being wrong. Either way, the orbits are the same, the percentage chance is the same, we just don't know what it is.




RE: Well, no; not really
By omnicronx on 10/14/2009 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you read any articles by anyone who knows what they are talking about, they will tell you that it is almost impossible to tell either way if it will hit or miss earth in 2036. Mainly because it has yet to change trojectory. It will not do so until it passes close to earth in 2029, at that point the earths gravity will change its path. Until then, there are too many variables to make such calculations, heck they don't even know for sure how close its going to be in 2029, so there is no way to calculate how much the trajectory will be changed by the earths gravitation pull. They can guess based on many different scenarios, but thats about it.


RE: Well, no; not really
By rcc on 10/16/2009 5:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you missed my point. The chance of it actually hitting did not change. "Our" interpretation did.


Am I the only one...
By ajfink on 10/14/2009 8:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one who thinks it would be much cooler if it hit the moon? Do scientists calculate for THAT? Talk about a fireworks show. We would have probes, telescopes and everything watching, and if it were on the visible side of the moon at night, people would get to see something pretty cool.

Alternatively, since I read about this a few days ago, I've been wondering what the chance is of this asteroid being captured - if even temporarily - in Lunar or Earth orbit.

An extra moon, if tiny, would be neat. It would be much too small to disrupt tidal forces.




RE: Am I the only one...
By Kosh401 on 10/14/2009 9:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
It's traveling way too fast to ever be captured by earth's gravity; it will whiz by and our gravity could/will alter its course slightly, but nothing like capturing it in our orbit for any amount of time.

A big impact on the moon would be kinda cool, but I wonder what that would do in terms of launching up dust and debris into the moon's orbit? With no atmosphere and less gravity, and a big enough impact, that could seriously hamper future lunar missions; like a massive, instant "space junk" issue?

I also think an impact in the ocean probably has less long-term affects in this case than on land. No dust, water would recede, but possibly more lives lost initially. Another interesting yet scary debate! O_o


If Stargate is any proof
By amanojaku on 10/14/2009 10:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
Don't count out Apophis until you see him blow up.




RE: If Stargate is any proof
By Hardin on 10/14/2009 10:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
I always thought he would return to kill us all.


Sea v land impact
By zozzlhandler on 10/15/2009 7:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, one crucial difference in a sea impact is that more of the energy of the collision is retained by the earth, thus causing very bad long-term stuff to happen (lots of cloud cover due to huge volume of evaporated water => higher planetary albedo => nasty climate changes, etc). A large asteroid impacting on the land will blow a lot of its impact energy right back into space. Global tsunamis etc are added features.

However, I haven't seen a good analysis of the relative damage of the two scenarios recently; the last I can remember was a wonderful article in Analog magazine, I think around 1973!!! (It was a cover article titled "Giant Meteor Impact".)

But I believe the point about amounts of energy retained is still valid, and would make sea impact by far the most damaging.




RE: Sea v land impact
By zozzlhandler on 10/15/2009 7:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
I found the issue it was in: Analog (March 1966); The story was by J.E. Enever.


Mega Millions
By Regs on 10/14/2009 10:53:53 AM , Rating: 3
Just to compare the odds: winning the mega millions is 1 chance in 175,711,536.

So we have better chances of being wiped off the face of the earth than winning the mega millions.




12-21-2012
By SLEEPER5555 on 10/14/2009 8:10:53 PM , Rating: 3
well the world ends in 2012 anyway so this doesn't matter does it? hahahaha




Eeekkkk
By Cookoy on 10/14/2009 11:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
water or land, doesn't matter. somebody will have his life shortened. lots and lots of somebodies. famous last word of grandpa Dino, "the chance of that thing hitting us is 1 in-" WHAM! I hope the astronomers are better at finding a way to deflect that thing before it hits us than at making calculations and observations!




By ggordonliddy on 10/15/2009 12:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone with half a clue knows that asteroids are most likely made with the consistency of fouled cheese and therefore pose little threat to anyone beyond 500 yards of the impact (and even those who are directly smitten will probably just have moderate nightmares for a day or two). In fact I will hope to be nearby with my camera at the time of impact. It is highly likely that we will be able to consume vast portions of said asteroid, and use it to power our jalopies, tanks, and toilet seat heaters, for an extended period.




Change the pic
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/19/2009 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
The image you have is of an impactor hundreds of miles across. This one is only a couple hundred meters across. Unless that is a large lake in the picture.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki