Near Earth Objects danger understated by NASA. Compare the NEO's they predicted and how many actual

Originally posted by underdogradio
reply to post by mockrock

 

Yep, the clicky diagram thingy does show that the 9th is the closest approach but it appears they are using 00:00 UT as the time for the position for the applet. If you click to show the 'close approach data' further down the same page the time of the closest approach is 2011-Nov-08 23:29 UT. So at the time of the emergency test 14:00 EST (about 19 1/2 hours later) yu55 will be getting farther and farther away.

Just out of curiosity earlier you answered another question of mine by saying you have among other things, a years supply of water. What daily usage did you base the quantity on? Again I'm just curious.

Well technically an infinite supply of water - spring water source and filtration system.

And another thing..

The 1976 near miss by 2010 XC15 was half the size of this one.. Which is also obviously why they released the size data later on.. First is was 175M.. So nobody could say this is the largest NEO we have known about on record to pass this close... So then it became 200M wide, still not eclipsing the 1976 estimated 200M object.. Then finally it jumps to 400M. This helped reduce the discussion about this one and kept us focused on Elenin.

You have to keep in mind there were observations made of YU55 when it passed in 2010 "Arecibo radar observations of asteroid 2005 YU55 made in 2010 show it to be approximately spherical in shape. It is slowly spinning, with a rotation period of about 18 hours. The asteroid’s surface is darker than charcoal at optical wavelengths"
www.astronomy.com...

But the Italian NEO program was always saying YU55 was bigger "Its size is currently estimated by NASA to be about 426 feet across. NeoDys estimates the size range to be between 393 feet to 918 feet across."

This from a 2008 conspiracy article on yu55 www.vorchester.com...
The Italian NEO program newton.dm.unipi.it...

It is the MOID number which is used to calculate the risk of collision.

"Minimum orbit intersection distance (MOID) is a measure used in astronomy to assess collision risk between astronomical objects.[1] It is defined as the distance between the closest points of the osculating orbits of the two bodies in question. Of greatest interest is the risk of a collision with Earth; the MOID between an object and Earth is called Earth MOID "

en.wikipedia.org...

On the same page an example of a potentially hazardous object is given as "The orbit of (4953) 1990 MU, which, with a MOID of 0.0276 AU, is classified as a potentially hazardous object"

So if an MOID of 0.0276 is hazardous.. Then YU55 with an MOID of 0.0010 is VERY hazardous... Why have lesser asteroids been given a Torino scale number but not YU55, when it is the largest NEO on record to have ever past this close..

2005 YU55 was rated level 1 in February 2010[11], and downgraded to 0 on 9 April 2010[12].. Why was in downgraded whilst it's size estimates, over time increased.. along with the orbital uncertainty?

Damn it! I am trying to find this that cancel this out as a risk but then find inconsistencies.. If they had just said it's 400M originally and given it a realistic Torino scale rating.. I would find that more comforting than finding obvious signs of manipulation.

No nutter insinuations please, we can get that out the way by a confession that I may be a nutter and promise to seek therapy post 11/11/11

I think the NEOs are important. Something small like the Tonguska impact would be nice to know about in advance so people could be evacuated. Furthermore, we need to know months in advance. A week or two of notice isn't enough, because it's really hard to move millions of people and their pets anywhere very fast.

reply to post by mockrock


The Torino Scale and the Condition Code don't apply to just one approach. Both of them look at an object's orbit for at least the next century. If you look at the Torino Scale most of the objects listed aren't potential threats for almost 50 years. The reason 2005 YU55 was taken off the scale is because of new calculations done in April of last year that found it poses no impact risk whatsoever for the next 100 years.

Originally posted by cloudyday
I think the NEOs are important. Something small like the Tonguska impact would be nice to know about in advance so people could be evacuated. Furthermore, we need to know months in advance. A week or two of notice isn't enough, because it's really hard to move millions of people and their pets anywhere very fast.

In other words: I hope NASA isn't focused only on large asteroids that threaten extinction. It would be very useful to know a month or two in advance about a small asteroid that would kill thousands of people in a localized area.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by mockrock

 

The Torino Scale and the Condition Code don't apply to just one approach. Both of them look at an object's orbit for at least the next century. If you look at the Torino Scale most of the objects listed aren't potential threats for almost 50 years. The reason 2005 YU55 was taken off the scale is because of new calculations done in April of last year that found it poses no impact risk whatsoever for the next 100 years.

But that does not make sense.. we know it is the closest approach of an asteroid this size on record, if the scale doesn't apply now then when does it ! ?

This is an interesting article from 2006

"As far as we now know, the next very close approach of a Potentially Hazardous Asteroid will come on November 8, 2011, when 2005 YU55 skims Earth at a distance of 98,000 miles (158,000 km.) That's less than half the distance of this weekend's close encounter with 2004 XP14."

www.space.com...

Is it coincidence that the 2006 98'000 mile miss distance is virtually the same distance as the current Earth MOID (Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance) given by JPL 96 636 (0..0010396 AU)

Now I want to show you something very bizarre..

YU55 was discovered in 2005.. it's orbit calculated..But on the NASA fact sheet (from 2006) they give the date 2093 Nov 9 for it's closest pass.. no mention of earlier encounters.

2005 YU55 2093 Nov 9 0.0027

Does it seem a little strange the 2093 date lands on November the 9th again? and no 2011 encounter is mentioned.. and the data is almost identical to the current pass? 0.0022?

A NASA fact sheet on NEO's dated: 13 September 2006, DRW

So it was possible to calculate the close pass 80 years in the future but not a mere 5 years ahead..

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Found YU55 from the 2010 observation.

"2005 YU55 was about 2,700,000 km away. The file is fairly large so it may take a few moments to load before the animation starts running."

www.slas.us...

Great find !!

reply to post by mockrock


If the asteroid has no chance of hitting us why would it be on a list of potentially hazardous asteroids regardless of its size? Also, have you checked the list of potentially hazardous asteroids? Most of the ones on that list are under 50m. So, even if 2005 YU55 is the closest an asteroid of that size has come, it doesn't mean that there aren't tons of smaller asteroids that come closer. There are presently two asteroids rated over 0 on the Torino Scale and they both are about a quarter the size of 2005 YU55.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by mockrock

 

If the asteroid has no chance of hitting us why would it be on a list of potentially hazardous asteroids regardless of its size? Also, have you checked the list of potentially hazardous asteroids? Most of the ones on that list are under 50m. So, even if 2005 YU55 is the closest an asteroid of that size has come, it doesn't mean that there aren't tons of smaller asteroids that come closer. There are presently two asteroids rated over 0 on the Torino Scale and they both are about a quarter the size of 2005 YU55.

But the ones given a torino rating 1 are not predicted to come as close as YU55..

reply to post by mockrock


Another asteroid was actually just bumped up to 1 since my previous posts. The thing about two of these asteroids rated over one is that they were discovered in the past 60 days. This means that not only is the minimal distance to Earth comparable to that of 2005 YU55's, but the condition code is higher. As for the asteroid that wasn't discovered in the past 60 days and has an accurate orbit plotted out, it's minimal distance is .00005 AU away, which brings it much closer than 2005 YU55.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by mockrock

 

Another asteroid was actually just bumped up to 1 since my previous posts. The thing about two of these asteroids rated over one is that they were discovered in the past 60 days. This means that not only is the minimal distance to Earth comparable to that of 2005 YU55's, but the condition code is higher. As for the asteroid that wasn't discovered in the past 60 days and has an accurate orbit plotted out, it's minimal distance is .00005 AU away, which brings it much closer than 2005 YU55.

But at this stage with YU55 around the corner.. I think they will keep an eye on chatter and throw us something else to talk about.. Such as risks in the distant future. Some of that info I found proves deliberate manipulation of info.. so I would expect that to continue..