It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
#23832 From: Dave Tholen Date: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:40 am Subject: Re: [MPML] 2010 KH tholen@... Send Email Send Email > The object 2010 KH has been observed only by WISE and currently has a > disgusting orbit: semimajor axis = 3.2 +- 3 AU. I don't think that a plus-or-minus value is a very good way to describe a quantity that has a decidedly non-Gaussian distribution. One might be led to believe that the semimajor axis could be as small as 0.2 AU at the one-sigma level, when the semimajor axis is probably no smaller than 0.85 AU. At the other end, one might be led to believe that the semimajor axis has a 12.2 AU upper limit at the three-sigma level, when it is probably unconstrained at the high end; I found a solution that satisfies the observations with a semimajor axis of 953 AU. In fact, we have a double-solution in this case. It's either an Aten with perihelion distance between 0.57 and 0.60 AU and an aphelion distance between 1.10 and 1.23 AU, or it's an Apollo/Amor/Mars crosser with a perihelion distance between 0.94 and 1.45 AU and an aphelion distance greater than 1.84 AU. > In fact, it might not even be a NEO. Indeed; there are lots of Mars crosser solutions, but they all have aphelion distances beyond Jupiter. Possible, but less common. > However, by using the available data, we have found Virtual > impactors, including one in 2015, of course with a very low impact > probability (the asteroid could be almost anywhere, thus we cannot exclude > that it could be on top of us at some time in the near future). > > Now this situation is very unpleasant. This object possibly does not even > exist as a NEO, on the other hand the nominal solution is a NEO with > absolute magnitude 18.2. My best-fitting orbit has it as Mars crosser, though I rejected three observations (or rather my automatic outlier rejection software rejected them). My overall best-fitting orbit has an absolute magnitude of 18.0, but the best-fitting orbit with an Earth-crossing solution has an absolute magnitude of 20.4. > Our way to handle this would be to proclaim > that it has not been discovered, and refuse to give credit to WISE and to > NASA for such a terrible job. However, as you well know, this kind of > decision is not in our hands. Let's not mix the politics of discovery credit with the issue at hand. It's a can of worms to draw a dividing line between "terrible job" and "good job", if that's the criterion you're advocating for assigning discovery credit. We recently looked at the NEO discoveries in 2008 and 2009 and found that about 60 percent of them will have ephemeris uncertainties in excess of 3 degrees at their next apparition, with only about 2 percent of them getting bright enough to be recovered by the existing surveys. That means to find the others, some larger aperture telescope is going to have to do a LOT of hunting with smaller fields of view. One could easily conclude that the 60 percent constitutes a "terrible job" and therefore "haven't been discovered". See why it's a can of worms? > Our job is to report objects which might be impacting the Earth. But if you look at short-arc orbit solutions for newly-discovered objects with ordinary motion that are almost certainly main-belt asteroids, you'll probably find a lot of Earth-crossing solutions, with some smaller fraction being virtual impactors. As a general rule, you don't look at those, however. Are you looking at this one only because it was MPECed with an Amor-class orbit? > It is not > part of our style to adopt scare tactics to push astronomers to observe > asteroids with Virtual Impactors; however, with very simple arithmetics, > it can be deduced from our risk page that in case this asteroid was to > impact the Earth in 2015, the impact energy is estimated at 8,000 > megatons. Thus we are assuming that, whenever an asteroid has a Virtual > Impactor, the astronomers, be they professionals or amateurs, are > available to make an effort to follow up. It should be especially the > responsibility of the person/organization who is credited with the > discovery, because if in fact an asteroid is lost while still having VIs, > the risk for our planet has not in fact been decreased. In this case, the > responsibility should belong mostly to the WISE team, and ultimately to > NASA. As you know, WISE does not do targeted observations. Are you advocating that they don't bother looking for NEOs in the WISE data because they are unable to do the necessary follow-up? What about the NEOs that fade below the ability of the groundbased discoverers to follow-up? Are you arguing that they failed in their responsibility? > We are aware that the observation of this object is not easy, now there is > full moon and the uncertainty is growing rapidly; the magnitude, although > not low, is feasible for several observatories. However, we ask that an > effort is done to recover this object. I have the ephemeris uncertainty as 5.3 by 1.3 degrees right now (one-sigma), with an apparent magnitude of 21.4, subject to the usual uncertainty of converting a thermal flux into a visual magnitude. NeoDys shows a rhombus- shaped uncertainty region only about 3 degrees wide (three-sigma). The difference is partly because it's a double-solution. The Aten solutions produce ephemeris positions that are east and spatially separated from those for the Apollo/Amor/Mars crossing solutions. The NeoDys prediction is pretty much centered on the Mars crossing solutions, but encompasses the Apollo and Amor solutions at the eastern end of the clump, but excludes the Aten clump much farther toward the east. Right now it would take us three Megaprime fields to recover the object, one centered on the Aten clump and two adjacent ones on the Apollo/Amor/Mars crosser clump. However, Megaprime doesn't go back on the telescope until July 6, by which time the problem will be twice as bad. Fortunately, it should be getting brighter, possibly bright enough for the groundbased surveys to recover later in the year, by which time it would be hopeless with a smaller-field telescope. However, for now, attempts at recovery sh
Originally posted by sputnik
Ps. Just watched the ISS rip past at mag. -2.3 - cool as
2015 HD1 Apr 21 0.2 LD 15 m
originally posted by: jimmyx
even at .2 LD, it's still over 68,000 miles out. close in space distance, but it shouldn't even come close to the outer layer of our atmosphere
originally posted by: Darkblade71
a reply to: UnBreakable
www.spaceweather.com...
2015 HD1 Apr 21 0.2 LD 15 m
It is only 15m.
Chances are if it hits the atmosphere it will explode like the one did in Russia.
.2 LD is certainly close though.
Almost like a bullet grazing your hairline.
Thanks for the heads up!
*ducks*
Add from edit:
I had to go look up how big the meteor was that stuck Arizona and left the meteor crater there about 50,000 years ago, and according to what I read that was a 50 m asteroid... and this is a 15m asteroid, so I think we will all be ok...
Just had to double check that...lol
originally posted by: flipflop
and the point to tracking these objects is ????
what can humans do about it ???
originally posted by: tallcool1
originally posted by: jimmyx
even at .2 LD, it's still over 68,000 miles out. close in space distance, but it shouldn't even come close to the outer layer of our atmosphere
Come on, Jimmy - stop ruining the doom porn with all your scientific facts and rational thinking! We need to panic and run around screaming and looting!
originally posted by: JadeStar
originally posted by: flipflop
and the point to tracking these objects is ????
what can humans do about it ???
Asteroid Impact, funnily enough is the one natural disaster humans actually can prevent. It's one handy reason to have a space program. If you didn't know this then you should do some reading here: Saving Earth One Asteroid at a Time