It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


June - a rocky ride?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:25 AM
Potentially dangerous NEOs for June 2010. There's 19 here. The 4th and 24th look a bit dodgy. Hopefully nothing terrible will happen, but will sit out June and see what happened, check quakes and volcs, etc., perhaps draw conclusions, if any. Thus, I'm not expecting any reply posts until June is over. For info only.


(2010 HZ104) Jun-01, Ld 24.9, Size 81m - 180m
(2010 FH81) Jun-01, Ld 47.4, Size 120m - 260m

(1999 MN) Jun-04, Ld 13.0, Size 140m - 310m
(2010 JK1) Jun-04, Ld 26.7, Size 36m - 79m

(2004 KH17) Jun-05, Ld 32.8, Size 110m - 250m
234061 (1999 HE1) Jun-05, Ld 29.9, Size 770m - 1.7km

162120 (1998 SH36) Jun-12, Ld 59.7, Size 210m - 470m

(2007 XB10) Jun-13, Ld 27.8, Size 890m - 2.0km

(2007 DD) Jun-17, Ld 33.3, Size 19m - 42m

(2010 CJ171) Jun-18, Ld 46.4, Size 150m - 350m

(2009 UD) Jun-23, Ld 64.3, Size 9.9m - 22m

(2007 CS5) Jun-24, Ld 22.5, Size 33m - 75m
(2008 YC3) Jun-24, Ld 12.2, Size 23m - 51m
(2008 WM64) Jun-24, Ld 24.8, Size 200m - 450m

(2010 JM151) Jun-27, Ld 74.2, Size 240m - 540m
(2010 HC) Jun-27, Ld 46.8, Size 140m - 320m
154590 (2003 MA3) Jun-27, Ld 28.8, Size 120m - 260m
(2005 ED318) Jun-28, Ld 27.1, Size 190m - 430m

(2005 QC5) Jun-29, Ld 58.9, Size 310m - 690m

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:59 PM
Thanks for posting these

I will come back to your thread through out

the month and check for updates.

Here is a link if your interested in seeing the orbits, just click on the object name and a orbit diagram will pop up, you may need to give it a minute to load.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by InvisibleObserver]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by mclinking

Since the closest of those you listed is 12 Lunar Distance, it doesn't seem too dangerous. Last month we had one pass at .7 or .8 LD and even that wasn't a problem.

[edit on 2/6/2010 by Chamberf=6]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by Chamberf=6

I agree that we should be ok if the projected distances are correct, but some previous distances have known to be incorrect. However, I have noticed correlations between close flybys and reports of quakes and erupting volcanoes : that may be coincidence. Equally, the same applies to weather events. I'll wait and see.


top topics

log in