Near miss...again?

Near miss...again?

neo.jpl.nasa.gov

(2008 CT1) 2008-Feb-05 0.0009 0.3 8.2 m - 18 m 13.98

(visit the link for the full news article)

Hi All

Being fairly new to this, please forgive me if this thread is in the wrong topic etc etc. I just added a new topic from the TU24 one.

Not sure if this has already been covered and I did post in TU24, but no answers as of yet.

Looking on the NEO close approaches page, yesterday saw the approach of (2008 CT1) 2008-Feb-05 0.0009 0.3 8.2 m - 18 m 13.98

0.3 LD... Isn't this closer than TU?24 was?
I'm not good with all of the technical details, just wondered if anyone can confirm, was this another close miss, and why no cover from ATS.

Ok, my apologies if this info isn't new, but I really didn't know where to go to ask this question.

Cheers all
Ceekay.

neo.jpl.nasa.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

The reason that particular .3 LD was not reported is because it was so small it would have burned up upon entering Earth's atmosphere. It never posed a hazard; but, scientists can learn things by tracking and observing even the smallest asteroids.

We had a .4 LD since TU24 as well.

TU24 was a significant size. That's the major difference.

Thanks for watching the skies for us though! We appreciate it.

P.S. And you are correct, TU24 was 1.4 LD so these smaller space objects are closer.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Trexter Ziam]

Hi, thanks for your reply.

I did notice that this was smaller, but didn't know that it would burn up.
TU24 was very scary, thank god I didn't know about these others prior to today, I would now be sitting in a big hole, dug with my very own fingernails!

I will remember this for the future. What is classed as big enough to be a threat then?

Thanks again

Julie.

I'm not a scientist; but, even the scientists seem to differ on what size constitutes a threat. Personally, I look at 365m and up, based on a new theory that Tungalooska (spelling?) might have been "as small as" 365 meters.

I suspect scientists take other facters into consideration, such as the material composition of the asteroid and such.

One thing they do take into consideration, which I don't understand enough to explain well here - is how the asteroid moves. Some roll, tumble, weave like a player in a dodge ball game and such. Some have erratic movement and motion, others don't.

Another thing they take into consideration is the gravitational pulls from other space objects (other asteroids, comets, moons and planets etc.) and those minute changes make a large difference over a long distance.

An analogy I use for myself is that if you mitre a wood edge for a 1:12 dollhouse, any flaws (1/1000th inch) you make can be disasterous ... though, comparing the same exact size of flaw in a full-sized (not miniature) piece of woodwork the same flaw is so neglible as to be unnoticeable. Skip my own personal analogy if it just confuses you more though.

Lol, I am confused now!

Maybe I'll just leave it to the guys in the know!

There really are way too many details for me to understand. I'll just stick to the 365 m theory.... So expect to hear from me if theres a big one, thats pretty close!

Thanks for your time to explain to me, even though it's still hard to understand!


Julie.

I postedhis on the last "near miss" thread also: I really hope this isn't a "near miss" because that would mean that it actually HIT!. I am guessing you mean this asteroid will be a "near hit" .....

This is already being discussed here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry I beat ya to it...

as pointed out, already being discussed.

thread closed.