Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kirk27 t1_j6fnk2n wrote

It’s blows my mind we can calculate the trajectory of a “random” ass asteroid coming within that close to us. I can barely count getting change back.

97

marketrent OP t1_j6fo0gz wrote

Excerpt:

>The space rock, known as 2023 BU, zoomed over the southern tip of South America [on 26 Jan. 2023], while it was only around 2,200 miles above the surface of the Earth.

>This is one of the closest approaches of an near-Earth object ever recorded. Data from NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies showed that the flyby of 2023 BU was the fourth-nearest of more than 35,000 past and future Earth close approaches in the 300-year period from 1900 to 2200.

>As the asteroid flew past our planet, astronomer Gianluca Masi of the Virtual Telescope Project (VTP) managed to capture some images.

>The VTP is a service provided by the Bellatrix Astronomical Observatory in Ceccano, Italy, that operates and provides access to robotic, remotely operated telescopes.

>"We managed to capture this extraordinary footage, showing such an extremely close and fast asteroid," Masi told Newsweek.

>Masi captured the images with the "Elena" robotic telescope unit, which is capable of tracking the very fast motion of asteroids flying past Earth.

>The images used to create the time-lapse video were captured when 2023 BU was around 13,600 miles above the surface of our planet.

Aristos Georgiou, 27 Jan. 2023, Newsweek (Marc Benioff)

43

ttystikk t1_j6fty2y wrote

Replying to kirk27 (#1,595,922)

If your life depended on counting change, you would have incentive to get it right

When asteroids are coming this close to earth, they really want to make sure of the trajectory, in case of impact.

40

Bigjoemonger t1_j6gba2e wrote

Once again the alien carnival goer misses his chance to score by failing to win his date the giant stuffed teddy bear.

12

Bohrium924 t1_j6gjfyd wrote

Whoever is sending these asteroids is getting their bearings awfully close now!

26

amxorca t1_j6gm3vc wrote

The asteroid is at the larger size estimate of 8 meters in diameter, if it had entered the atmosphere it would not have reached the ground intact and would breakup around 30 km above the ground, thus representing only minimal threat to life. So.. nothing to see here, no pun intented

124

DontSleep1131 t1_j6gt8sm wrote

well looks like the skinnies missed…this time.

10

Ho3n3r t1_j6hqsgo wrote

That is the most massive exaggeration of the "space rock" I've seen so far. By next week, it'll be as big as Jupiter.

2

genowhere t1_j6htf8w wrote

After the 30 second Discover ad continued to repeat I seriously wish that the next near approach actually hits us and disintegrates the entire planet.

2

sintos-compa t1_j6i74wt wrote

What was its velocity relative to earth at its closest?

1

Borky_ t1_j6idfph wrote

Any mention on its size or what the consequences of its impact would've been?

1

Sylph_uscm t1_j6imxlh wrote

Replying to ttystikk (#1,597,325)

(This one was too small to warrant trajectory calculation, since it would be harmless if it hit, but...)

Isn't it still the case that, if there is a potentially disastrous impact detected, knowing doesn't do much good? Its not like you can evacuate a city within a short time frame.

I guess what I mean to ask is - how does knowing about an impact help save us when we can't stop them?

2

Atari__Safari t1_j6iocz4 wrote

This is the real danger to our civilization. We should be funneling money into observing NEO rocks. Last I heard, the program was canceled or defunded.

SMH 🤦‍♀️

1

Fark_ID t1_j6ipzdh wrote

Replying to kirk27 (#1,595,922)

>blows my mind we can calculate the trajectory of a “random” ass asteroid

It is High School physics. Stay in school kids, pay attention, and you mind will be able to handle basic, explainable things unlike most Americans.

2

JustAPerspective t1_j6ivooh wrote

This footage was definitely not made in the 50s for a high school presentation on the moon launch.

It just looks like it was.

1

V3ndeTTaLord t1_j6ixrha wrote

Zoom in and digitally enhance, as they would say in Stargate SG1

1

MayOrMayNotBePie t1_j6j58dm wrote

Extraordinary footage? This is exactly what it looks like driving through a snow storm at night lol.

2

hagfish t1_j6j5xdm wrote

Replying to amxorca (#1,603,022)

Something - anything - disappating that amount of energy that quickly, is going to make a big bang, even if it doesn't leave a huge crater. The Tunguska Event didn't leave a crater, but it would have 'broken a few windows' if it had occurred near a built-up area. If by 'minimal threat to life' you mean 'all life on Earth', then - absolutely - this would have been a local disaster - a few hundred square miles.

5

Fourney t1_j6jb93k wrote

This title is wrong by a factor of ten.* This asteroid came within 25,000 miles, not 2,000.

*It's not wrong. The article had another number I took at face value.

Edit: I stand corrected. Fascinating stuff! Thanks for the corrections.

3

raintree234 t1_j6jrrhx wrote

What happened to Newsweek? It was at one time “cool” enough to be mentioned in Me and Julio Down By The Schoolyard.

1

Rhaedas t1_j6jzbo5 wrote

Replying to Sylph_uscm (#1,617,920)

Knowing what's out there is the first step. Perhaps if we knew there were a lot more and the odds were good one would hit soon, there'd be more push to fund doing whatever we could to intercept. Plus getting better ways to detect and project paths leads to a longer time knowing a better final target, so even if we couldn't do anything, having days instead of hours to move people from a city would be worth it.

It's how hurricane and other storms used to be vs. what we know now. We can't do much of anything about the smaller threats of tornadoes, but we still try to improve accuracy of time and location.

5

Rhaedas t1_j6k1trx wrote

Replying to hagfish (#1,622,325)

Tunguska or the more recent Chelyabinsk meteor were larger objects. Estimates of Tunguska are around a 50 meter icy body and the more recent one was around 20 meters. An 8 meter body means a lot less mass and effect.

Tunguska was a lot more impactful because of its probable angle of impact based on the patterns of the explosion, getting it lower before it detonated from the pressures. Chelyabinsk would have been a lot worse had it also been that straight of an angle in, but less total area affected for the same reason.

17

iCameToLearnSomeCode t1_j6k6iwy wrote

Replying to davenport651 (#1,627,461)

Your country might have a public internet but mine doesn't.

I would happily pay a government entity as opposed to my ISP if the service was just as good but until a public option becomes available I pay for my private internet with a monthly bill.

9

Decronym t1_j6k6koi wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |Isp|Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |JPL|Jet Propulsion Lab, California| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |NEO|Near-Earth Object|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 14 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8500 for this sub, first seen 30th Jan 2023, 22:21]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

davenport651 t1_j6kfuvo wrote

Replying to iCameToLearnSomeCode (#1,630,998)

Your being needlessly pedantic. Your payment to your local ISP pays for their connection to the broader internet, but that pays NOTHING to any person hosting a website or operating a server on the other side. I assume you know that, but you’d rather justify not watching a 5 second video or clicking the ‘x’ on a pop up window.

−8

rjl682 t1_j6ki5rv wrote

So, did no one spot this thing until it was on top of us or did they keep it a secret to avoid mass panic?

1

ttystikk t1_j6klkda wrote

Replying to Sylph_uscm (#1,617,920)

The bigger they are, the easier it is to see them at greater distances, which makes it easier to do something to alter their trajectory because the farther away we intercept them, the less energy is needed to move them off course.

4

rdhatt t1_j6kn5i2 wrote

Replying to Fourney (#1,623,611)

The title is correct. The asteroid was imaged at ~13,000 miles.

Sources:Website of astronomer cited in Newsweek (warning ads):

https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/2023/01/27/near-earth-asteroid-2023-bu-extremely-close-encounter-image-video-and-podcast-26-jan-2023/

JPL:https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-system-predicts-small-asteroid-to-pass-close-by-earth-this-week

>Designated 2023 BU, the asteroid will zoom over the southern tip of South America at about 4:27 p.m. PST (7:27 p.m. EST) only 2,200 miles (3,600 kilometers) above the planet’s surface

edit: ~13,000 miles, not ~22,000. Newsweek is correct, confirmed from first link above

4

BanishedOutkaste t1_j6knw39 wrote

Replying to davenport651 (#1,633,339)

If it was actually 5 secs I wouldn’t have an issue but they get greedy and lazy. The ads get longer and longer more often unskippable, more frequent, and they show the same damn ones a million times over. It’s their own damn fault I want to block them.

8

Sylph_uscm t1_j6lkry9 wrote

Replying to ttystikk (#1,634,842)

Agreed, but last I checked, any detection is happening way to late to do anything with current technology.

My thoughts are that, if we were truly motivated by the 'life or death' nature of a potential impact as some here implied (I disagree with this reasoning) ; efforts would be going into means of stopping them (we have pretty much none), rather than detection.

1

Sylph_uscm t1_j6llc2b wrote

Replying to Rhaedas (#1,629,350)

Funding the search effort is no different than funding technology to stop them, if that's the motivation behind the search (I don't believe that it is, I'm counterpointing people that believe that 'it's the life-or-death nature of impacts that make people search' here.)

Ergo, if we really want to survive impacts, we need to work on ways to stop them - our detection is already 10000x further than our ability to stop anything. It's more than good enough for our current abilities to stop anything.

2

ttystikk t1_j6m3hxh wrote

Replying to Sylph_uscm (#1,645,217)

Taking these in order:

>Agreed, but last I checked, any detection is happening way to late to do anything with current technology.

Simply not true; big ones are spotted and plotted years in advance, plenty of time to mount missions to deal with them.

>My thoughts are that, if we were truly motivated by the 'life or death' nature of a potential impact as some here implied (I disagree with this reasoning)

You disagree that a large asteroid would be an extinction level event? The one that wiped out the dinosaurs was a bit more than 6 miles in diameter- and it would do the same to humanity.

Apophis, the one that blew by here a few years ago, was discovered in 2004. Its diameter is only 600' but we know it comes close to Earth occasionally. If the probability of impact were high, we definitely would put together a mission to meet it...

>efforts would be going into means of stopping them (we have pretty much none), rather than detection.

..which leads to my last points; first, we have to detect them to know they're coming. Hell, we want to know about every chunk of rock flying around the solar system just because!

Second, between large boosters to get heavy payloads into orbit, high yield nuclear weapons, and precision guidance of the kind demonstrated by NASA's recent impactor mission, we definitely have the capability to do the job. It's a question of will, that's all.

3

Sylph_uscm t1_j6m6hxb wrote

Replying to ttystikk (#1,650,675)

OK, thanks. It appears that my information must be out of date then. (I was taught about nuclear explosions being ineffective due to objects either re-coalescing (long range, rubble piles etc), or being too close to divert from earth (close range).

I was taught that the 'buckshot' effect of a bolide being destroyed via nuclear explosion would only be slightly, if at all (depending on size) preferable to the original impact, given that tracking so many fragments makes evacuation of specific cities/countries etc impossible. There's arguments involved about total kinetic energy transfer from impactor to earth, too.

(I was also taught that other options, propelling the object in a more controlled manner, are terrible in comparison to nuclear explosions, due to the age old limitations of the rocket equation. I'm sure you're familiar. )

However:
Now that we're discussing it, it might well be the case that I was being taught about interstellar objects, since the lecture grew out of a lesson about objects with an orbital eccentricity > 1.

Thanks for your post, I'll find some more recent opinions and info about solar system objects and educate myself further!
(If we have anything like the technology to propel even solar system objects I'll be super-impressed!)

Oh, the 'other thing' -

I certainly didn't mean that I disagreed that an impact could be disastrous. What I disagree with is: The idea that we have become as adept as we are at detecting asteroids and comets, out of a desire to survive.

If you read the other comments in this topic you'll see a few examples of this claim, and it's that I am challenging. (I'm really hoping this is clear now, because I'm trying really hard to state it clearly but it still seems hard to have it land. I really never said what you took me to mean, sorry.)

To clarify again: I believe that we have become as adept as we currently are because of an interest in astronomy, the general desire to understand physics, even geology and the origins of the universe etc! Not out of a desire to survive impacts.

1

cafetero7 t1_j6mcz1s wrote

An ad after every 5 seconds of footage? Trash site. Just the the article don’t bother

1

ttystikk t1_j6mdlqf wrote

Replying to Sylph_uscm (#1,651,437)

The desire to detect near earth and potentially threatening objects has been a recurring theme in proposals for detection equipment, budgets and observation time for at least several decades. It might not be the headline reason, but it often makes the list. NASA has also built up an extensive library of such discussions over the years. I hope that makes you feel better.

1