What's Up With This Asteroid Stuff

a reply to: darkbake

I'm guessing that they found a mistake and redid their calculations, or double-checked their work because of its significance. And I think that conspiracy theorists are picking and choosing interesting stories they hear and painting them together into a larger conspiracy, kind of like science-fiction writing.

Good answer see I don't just accept conspiracy theories but not all are void
of honest critical thinking. This is why I'm asking.

a reply to: Phage

I see. In your mind a 2.7% chance of it hitting means "that Apophis would impact earth."

It doesn't mean that. It means there was a small chance with a much greater chance that it would miss.

And yes with a few early observations calculations showed that there was a small chance, within a wide margin of error. With more observations the orbital elements were refined, the margin of error got smaller.

That's the way it always works. Here on ATS, some people even think that means the orbit changed. It didn't.

Thank you Phage
I ask questions knowing I always run the risk of sounding highly
uneducated.

a reply to: carsforkids

Better to ask questions, sound uneducated, and learn something new, than to sit in the dark.

Everyone starts with a base of knowing basically nothing. Not saying that's you, but hey, I was the one who asked all these dopey questions to start with.

Thanks for the participation, excellent discussion and facts, all.

a reply to: face23785

That doesn't say it would hit the Earth. It says they initially thought it had a 2.7% chance of hitting Earth, about 1:37 odds. If they were saying it will hit earth, the odds would be 1:1 or 100%. As they got better and better measurements, those chances continued to go down. The odds are so low now that they can effectively say it's not gonna happen.

ETA: Sorry Phage already got to this.

It's all good and I do understand percentages at least. But I was viewing
the 2.7% chance as being far greater than zero chance. And that 2.7%
chance must mean it's fly by would be painfully close. I by no means
would try to argue a point here. Believe me!

a reply to: Crosswinds

Just being a little snotty here but you sure have a lot of questions you want everyone to answer, while appearing to do very little discovery on your on.

Seems so many threads start out with a question these days.

a reply to: CharlesT

Touché!

Not looking so much for answers. Just discussion to open up new doors to research new things quietly. Seems there aren't any new songs to sing, I'm afraid.

Why is everyone talking about asteroid years from now.

C19 (Atlas) comet is on its way it was found late December and its massive in the right sky can be seen with naked eye soon.

a reply to: KonigKaos

The thread is about an asteroid which will be at close approach in a few weeks. Not that it will be very close.

C/2019 Y4 (there are a few other C/2019s) might become naked eye visible. Then again, it might not.

Oops. A mistake in the second to last paragraph of my previous reply.

It should read:

.....However, we still have only detected a small fraction of the 100+ meter diameter NEOs, and almost none of the ones smaller than that.....

a reply to: 1947boomer

a reply to: Phage

I would think if we had a strike it be by one that caught us off guard.
From the blind side out of no where so to speak. Similar to the recent
one that shook Russia. That was awesome! lol

a reply to: carsforkids

I would think if we had a strike it be by one that caught us off guard.

I don't think that detecting it has any effect on the likelihood of it hitting us.


But the smaller they are, the more numerous.

a reply to: Kromlech

You just won ATS.

Re: invisible asteroids and likelihood of an impact,
Yeah, it's not like that quantum observation stuff that modifies something because it's been observed.
There could be a 0% chance or a 100% chance and if we don't know it, that doesn't change a thing.
Man is not that mentally powerful.

I still don't understand why so many people seem to actually want the asteroid so bad. That was actually one of my primary points in the OP but I kind of buried it in there. My bad.

a reply to: Crosswinds

I still don't understand why so many people seem to actually want the asteroid so bad. That was actually one of my primary points in the OP but I kind of buried it in there. My bad.

Like I said amigo they're F#@$^&% awesome! lol

a reply to: carsforkids

Ight, that's a fair answer.

I'll just take it and run with it now.

I'll remember those words if a giant tsunami decides to show up in my life preceded by a streak of light in the sky or whatever it'll look like.

Awesome. Lol

a reply to: Crosswinds

I still don't understand why so many people seem to actually want the asteroid so bad.

1) Clean slate. Only they and theirs will survive. Classic adolescent fantasy. Me, my babe, and my buds are gonna repopulate.

2) It's the apockyclipse. Neener, neener ya'll. We was right and you was wrong.

2020-Apr-29 09:56 < 00:01 Earth 0.0420483318631192 0.0420477609194719 0.0420489028084157 (in Au - Average, Maximum and Minimum)

Near miss distance ~ 4 million miles average.

You do not even require cognizance less than 250,000 miles (less than an LD) .

Not even a windy day.

Mathematics is your friend. Observe and be thankful.

a reply to: Crosswinds

Just remember me when your ass washes up on a brand new continent
along with seven naked virgins. When you're kick'n around the campfire
realizing nobody else survived. Then suddenly the camera zooms for your
cameo and you say.

THAT WAS AWESOME!

Remember me!

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thank you for that interesting post.

I am curious how NASA decided it had tracked 90%? Did they start out with an estimated number of the big ones and go from there or was it more dynamic.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: 1947boomer

Thank you for that interesting post.

I am curious how NASA decided it had tracked 90%? Did they start out with an estimated number of the big ones and go from there or was it more dynamic.

I found an article that talks about the methods used for estimates.

It looks like there was a learning curve as more NEOs were discovered and more recent estimates may be better. For over 1km Near-Earth objects, they estimate there may be 934 of which I think they have found about 96.6% now.

There is some detail on the methods used for population estimates starting on page 31 of this pdf:

Update to Determine the Feasibility of Enhancing the Search and Characterization of NEOs

An estimate of the population of NEOs, including their sizes, albedos, and orbit distributions, was generated by using the best methods in the current literature. We estimate a population of about 934 NEOs larger than 1 kilometer, leading to an impact frequency of about one in a half a million years. The population of NEOs with diameters of 140 meters and larger is estimated to be ~25,000.To the lower limit of an object’s atmospheric penetration (about 50 meters in diameter for non‐metallic objects), we estimate about half a million NEOs, with an impact frequency of about one in a thousand years.

Since most of the 1km and larger NEOs have been found, the next step is to get a better handle on more of the 140 km and up objects. As that shows, the numbers go up dramatically if trying to consider 50m and larger objects.