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.

 

Welcome to Our 'Killer Space Rock' Neighborhood

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Hello

A picture is usually worth a thousand words; this picture is worth over a thousand potentially hazardous asteroids.

In an effort to convey how many large asteroids buzz through the inner solar system (and, presumably, to scare the crap out of us) NASA has created a handy dandy overview of the orbits of all known potentially hazardous asteroids, or PHAs. The result? It’s looking pretty crowded out there



As it says in the article a picture is worth 1000 words and NASA has created an overview of the orbits of all known potentially hazardous asteroids.. And it's kind of scary.




View the full resolution image here
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

That is a lot of potentially hazardous asteroids, and I can see why we always here people say it's not a matter of if it's a matter of when one will hit us.

I just hope it's not in my life time..

This is pretty awesome animation of the over 500,000 asteroids discovered in the last 30 years'



I'm surprised we don't get hit more often

link


edit on 21-8-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


Ok I'm ducking!!
Not much to say but WOW!!



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Take it easy. The thickness of the lines is not to scale.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I definatly would say something or somebody is watching.. i know we get hit by small ones all the time, but the law of average says we should get hit by large ones much more often than we actually do.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 50swesterns
I definatly would say something or somebody is watching.. i know we get hit by small ones all the time, but the law of average says we should get hit by large ones much more often than we actually do.


Can you provide some empirical evidence as back-up that shows that we should get hit by more large asteroids than we actually do? Or is that just your "inkling", based on non-epirical information?

I mean, the solar system is large, the earth is small, and there is a lot of nothingness and empty space between the large asteroids. It seems to me that the odds of getting hit are slim...

...Although I grant you that over the span of hundreds of thousands of years those odds will increase. However, the odds of a large asteroid actually hitting the earth in any --say, for example -- 100-year or even 1000-year span is extremely slim.


edit on 8/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by goou111
That is a lot of potentially hazardous asteroids, and I can see why we always here people say it's not a matter of if it's a matter of when one will hit us.
And there are more not shown, not just because they haven't found them, but also because the cutoff size for that classification is apparently 140 meters wide.

The midpoint of the range of wikipedia size estimates for the Tunguska object is 125 meters wide, so if that was the size, that object wouldn't even qualify for the 140 meters wide cutoff of what is shown in the OP, and it might kill 8 million people if it impacted on a large city.

It did this for 830 square miles and it may not even qualify as a potentially hazardous object if it's only 125 meters wide?
www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Can you provide some empirical evidence as back-up that shows that we should get hit by more large asteroids than we actually do? Or is that just your "inkling", based on non-epirical information?
The Chelyabinsk object wasn't that large, but one thing that occurred to me is that impacts of objects similar to that may be three times as frequent as we record, simply because the Earth is mostly covered by water and I'm not sure we'd get accurate reporting of that type of event over the ocean. We certainly wouldn't get the dash cam recordings like we got from Chelyabinsk, with an ocean impact.

The really large impacts would be hard to miss however, since there might be a mega-tsunami among other effects.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Good Lord! It certainly does look scary. Although we've been very fortunate thus far, I believe that a significant impact is inevitable at some point in the future, hopefully not the near future. This being so, it would be the height of foolishness not to have some kind of defense against such an event.

I would like to see an effort at least on par with that of the Apollo program. It would be costly, yes, but consider the alternative. If something big is found to be headed towards us, even one that would cause an extinction level event, it would be very bad to be caught with our pants down. I don't obsess myself over it, but simply believe it to be common sense. I wouldn't want to leave our children or grandchildren to be faced with such a thing. By the way, it actually looks like one of my grandson's Spirograph drawings. Peace!



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
As the man in the video says... the distances are vast

It's very difficult for the human mind to comprehend just how far apart these are while the numbers "sound" so high. Sure we get hit but true ELE's are in the Millions of years.



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by penninja
As the man in the video says... the distances are vast


Indeed they are.


It's very difficult for the human mind to comprehend just how far apart these are while the numbers "sound" so high. Sure we get hit but true ELE's are in the Millions of years.


I think it's safe to say that Extinction Level Events being millions of years a part is nothing more than reckless speculation, though still could be a normal accurate theory. I believe it's more likely to be closer to 10,000 - 50,000 years, Which is more reckless speculation by myself. Then you have the bad luck or chance factor where it happens twice in 3000 years.

Let's not forget that a lot depends on what is happening within our own Galaxy at any given time, or even more so our own Solar System. Certain events increase the chances of various objects striking planet Earth. Look at the Asteroid belt? Here is more reckless speculation by me, but whatever happened there might have caused life for the Dinosaurs to become extinct here in the past. Love discussing this sort of stuff either way.
~$heopleNation
edit on 26-8-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO




top topics



 
10

log in

join