Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the Chelyabinsk-wannabe dept.

Astronomers spot closest Earth-buzzing asteroid ever recorded :

Astronomers have identified an asteroid that's just made the closest pass to Earth ever recorded – and it was only spotted after it had passed. The object skimmed Earth's atmosphere over the weekend, close enough to have its orbit changed by the planet's gravity.

On August 16, an asteroid designated 2020 QG whizzed past our planet at a distance of only 2,950 km (1,830 mi) above the surface. That's well within the altitude of many satellites, and almost twice as close as the previous record-holder, an asteroid called 2011 CQ1. Of course, this record is about the closest pass to Earth, and doesn't include objects that have impacted the planet.

That said, even if it had hit, asteroid 2020 QG wouldn't have caused any damage. It measures about 3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft) wide, meaning it would have just burned up in the atmosphere.

Also at phys.org and JPL.

Perhaps the Monolith was doing a fly-by.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:31PM (24 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:31PM (#1039371)

    True; however, a "warning" after the fact is completely useless.

    And spotting a small, well-lit object extremely close to the Earth is a useless test of our ability to detect large, poorly lit objects at a large distances which is what we really need warnings about.

    Had this thing been 10x the diameter (1,000x the mass), just as well lit, and 100x further away (so that we'd have many seconds of warning, assuming we noticed it as soon as it was imaged), it would only have been 1/100th as bright. And that's assuming it was just as well lit - which it wouldn't have been since it was coming at us from the direction of the sun, and was thus only well lit after it had passed.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:44PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:44PM (#1039468)

    A warning after the fact is still knowledge of what it was, this is valuable for reasons gp outlined.

    Rest of your comment is valid, we need to see the obscure ones, especially if they matter.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 20 2020, @07:46PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 20 2020, @07:46PM (#1039514)

      Unfortunately, for nuclear counter-strike purposes you pretty much have to launch immediately upon detecting the first strike (assuming you didn't detect the incoming missiles). If it is an attack, and you wait even a few minutes to get confirmation, it's probably safe to assume that subsequent strikes will have already eliminated your ability to counter-strike. And standing orders generally reflect that reality. Nuclear war is an incredibly fast-paced, high-stakes game. We already dodged nuclear Armageddon once in such a scenario when a Russian officer refused to follow standing orders in response to what did turn out to be a meteor strike.

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by FatPhil on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:49PM (12 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:49PM (#1039533) Homepage
    You need to be warned: khallow will post something dumb as a top level post to this story - don't fall for the trap of trying to engage in supposedly scientific discourse with him by replying.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 20 2020, @10:44PM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 20 2020, @10:44PM (#1039566)

      Actually I've found Khallow can sometimes bring up good points, and be fun to argue with - and what do we come here for if not to argue with each other?

      And as a more general rule, I think we have a civic duty to ensure that any plausible-sounding misinformation presented in public get a solidly-grounded counter argument as quickly as possible, if only to slow the spread of misinformation.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 21 2020, @06:28AM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday August 21 2020, @06:28AM (#1039792) Homepage
        I agree. I used to have khallow as a foe as I disagree with him on about 90% of topics he gets actively involved in, and his posts were often painful to read. however, I unfoed him because no matter how wrong he was, he was putting forward his arguments clearly and earnestly, and was open to debate, which is a positive trait I wish more had.

        However that's irrelevant, MY POST WAS A FUCKING JOKE!
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @02:07PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @02:07PM (#1039874)

          Sorry, I have to disagree - unjustified personal attacks are not "jokes", they're bullying. Especially on the internet where communication lacks both tone and larger context. And as misinformation, they demand correction.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 20 2020, @11:00PM (8 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 20 2020, @11:00PM (#1039575) Journal
      I see you have foiled me by cunningly engaging in non-scientific discourse.
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 21 2020, @06:40AM (7 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday August 21 2020, @06:40AM (#1039796) Homepage
        My claim was falsifiable. That was good enough for Popper, what other properties do you demand for something to be scientific?

        (And note to Immerman: I think this makes my point, I suspect that khallow did detect the humour in my prior post, even though he was the subject of it (the *target* of it being post-hoc "warnings"), and has responded politely and wittily.)
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @02:18PM (4 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @02:18PM (#1039882)

          It seems you are correct, however I stand by my comment on jokes above, and the flamebait mod seems to agree with me:

          Without the larger context of your apparently ongoing sparring, your statement is an inaccurate insult which can only serve to damage one or both of your reputations. Had you attacked them directly, or made clear that you were joking, it would be a somewhat different situation. But you presented it as an honest warning directed at an independent third party (myself).

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 21 2020, @03:38PM (3 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday August 21 2020, @03:38PM (#1039929) Homepage
            I had presented it as a post-hoc warning to someone who'd just made a comment about the pointlessness of post-hoc warnings.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @04:03PM (2 children)

              by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @04:03PM (#1039945)

              No - a post-hoc warning would be a warning that only applied to that specific comment. You presented it as warning about an ongoing trend.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 21 2020, @11:42PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday August 21 2020, @11:42PM (#1040164) Homepage
                maybe it is.....
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 22 2020, @09:13AM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 22 2020, @09:13AM (#1040303) Homepage
                Just because you have no conceptualisation of how to create a joke doesn't mean one wasn't made. At this rate, I'm going to foe you just so I don't have to put up with you inordinate tedium.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by khallow on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:22AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:22AM (#1040181) Journal

          My claim was falsifiable.

          What's your falsifiable criteria for "post something dumb" and what does that have to do with this thread?

          A fair number of people complain about the lack of interesting discussion on scientific subjects. And at the time I started my post, no one had actually posted a thing yet to this story (Immerman who was the first to post completing a minute before I did). Is it really true that mentioning the value of even a brief period of early warning for a harmful asteroid strike is something dumb? Or results in uninteresting discussion as per my concern?

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 22 2020, @09:17AM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 22 2020, @09:17AM (#1040304) Homepage
            Immerman's criticism was a fair one. A "warning" after the event isn't a warning at all. I had presumed that you hadn't read TFA before posting, which is a minor error most of us do, and which isn't a slip worth this level of metadiscussion.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 20 2020, @11:08PM (8 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 20 2020, @11:08PM (#1039579) Journal

    And spotting a small, well-lit object extremely close to the Earth is a useless test of our ability to detect large, poorly lit objects at a large distances which is what we really need warnings about.

    It wasn't any better or worse lit than the objects we need to be able to detect.

    Had this thing been 10x the diameter (1,000x the mass), just as well lit, and 100x further away (so that we'd have many seconds of warning, assuming we noticed it as soon as it was imaged), it would only have been 1/100th as bright.

    Given that we're still doing prototype detection systems, I think we're doing pretty well. I think we can do several orders of magnitude better. Also keep in mind that many such asteroids are repeat offenders. Detecting them on a near pass can determine their trajectory well enough to keep track of them ever after and they will likely near Earth again and again. So one near pass can warn us of numerous near misses in the future.

    And that's assuming it was just as well lit - which it wouldn't have been since it was coming at us from the direction of the sun, and was thus only well lit after it had passed.

    Detectors need not be on Earth.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 21 2020, @12:41AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 21 2020, @12:41AM (#1039634) Journal
      To outline where I'm going with this, I think we'll see a substantial improvement in the next few decades with what we can detect by orders of magnitude - more than two. I think within a few decades we'll be tracking everything inside the orbit of Jupiter, large enough to do us harm. And part of our detection capabilities will include systems stationed far from Earth.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @03:55AM (1 child)

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @03:55AM (#1039736)

        I have my doubt that much of anything will be stationed far from Earth within only the next few decades, though I'd love to be proven wrong. And that goes double for something with a vanishingly low chance of economic payoff as preemptive asteroid collision detection. It could easily save thousands of trillions of in economic damages if there's an imminent major impact in the offing, but the odds of that are very low, and more importantly, basically none of that money would go into the pockets of the people who paid for the early warning system in the first place.

        I suspect that instead we'll have to wait until asteroid mining is mature enough to justify an exhaustive resource-mapping effort, which will detect smaller potential impactors as a side effect.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:24AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:24AM (#1040182) Journal

          It could easily save thousands of trillions of in economic damages if there's an imminent major impact in the offing

          With the potential for nuclear war, a major impact is significantly smaller than any of us would like.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @03:17AM (4 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @03:17AM (#1039712)

      It was only well-lit as/after it passed, when it was already too late to provide a warning.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 21 2020, @05:00AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 21 2020, @05:00AM (#1039769) Journal

        It was only well-lit as/after it passed

        The lighting didn't change much, just our view of it. Hence, some need for off-world observatories or sensors.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @02:32PM (2 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @02:32PM (#1039889)

          Lighting is typically measured relative to the observer. Without an atmosphere to scatter light, something that is backlit is functionally unlit, and invisible against the black background of space.

          But yeah, off-world observation posts are definitely a necessity to detect such things. I believe I've heard some proposals for observatories at the L4 and L5 points for exactly that reason - they'd be far enough away to be able to see things that are backlit from Earth's perspective.

          Another option that can be closer to home is thermal infrared observatories - those still have to be in orbit since the atmosphere scatters infrared, but they can remain close to Earth since they're looking for an object's thermal glow and thus don't depend on the direction of lighting from the sun.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:33AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:33AM (#1040187) Journal

            Lighting is typically measured relative to the observer.

            And as I noted the observer can be in different places, so that the vagaries of trajectory can be accounted for.

            I believe I've heard some proposals for observatories at the L4 and L5 points for exactly that reason - they'd be far enough away to be able to see things that are backlit from Earth's perspective.

            Several of the Sun-Earth Lagrange points would be useful - L1, L4, and L5. L1 in particular is about 1.5 million km out directly towards the Sun. Anything approaching Earth from the Sun-ward side has to pass it. Even fast objects that are barely in solar orbit would take the better part of a day to reach Earth, if they were spotted 1.5 million km out.

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 22 2020, @02:24AM

              by Immerman (3985) on Saturday August 22 2020, @02:24AM (#1040238)

              > observer can be in different places, so that the vagaries of trajectory can be accounted for.
              They can in theory - but not today.

              L1's not so hot as a spotting point, primarily because 14 hours isn't really enough warning to *do* anything. Get the word out to militaries so there's no nuclear "counter"-strikes, but you can't evacuate a city in that kind of time, it'll just be gridlock and rioting. Even a few days would be really pushing it. Ideally you want weeks, months if you're planning to destroy or deflect it. L4 and L5 give you that - you don't need full front-lighting to spot the things, a well-lit crescent as seen from the side will do the job just fine. And from the side you can see it coming almost as soon as it clears the sun - 100x further away than L1.