Modding is a process
by asteroid or comet?
Published on July 26, 2009 By Zyxpsilon In Everything Else

15 years ago, Shoemaker-Levy rifled up a series of comet debris into the gas giant.

Well, seems like it took an amateur astronomer from Australia by the name of Anthony Wesley to tip Nasa or other professionals on July 19th to aim their telescopes at the event.

Earth would have been slammed to oblivion, btw.

Here's the Hubble "report"!

Nobody was able to detect the object BEFORE such an impact, this time.


Comments (Page 2)
on Jul 27, 2009

Hi!

Crunching numbers isn't counter measure(s), coincidental or predictable.

True, but crunching numbers, or more specifically "bean counting" is the basic moving force of our civilization. Virtually noone will invest 1M$ per year for the next 100,000,000 years, for no return, and extemely low chance of some interesting finding.

Besides, there are more serious and imminent threats to our civilization, than a big meteor impact, and what are we really doing to prevent them?    

BR,  Iztok

on Jul 27, 2009

When humanity is such a threat to itself, I find it funny that people are looking for the wrath of the heavens.

on Jul 27, 2009

pseudomelon
When humanity is such a threat to itself, I find it funny that people are looking for the wrath of the heavens.

I don't care if humanity dies out, what can I do to save the spotted owls?

Seriously though, it is something we should care about even with all the other problems we face. Cosmic impact is one of the few threats we face as an entire species. Wars, disease, climate change - these can all threat specific areas, populations, and ways of life, but not really the survival of the species itself.

One of the best books I've read about an impact is Lucifer's Hammer, by Niven and Pournelle. It was written in the 70s so some aspects will feel dated, but I like the way they addressed societal impacts of such a catastrophe. The impact scenario they chose was pretty good too, a comet on the outbound leg of a highly eccentric orbit. No single mass to deflect or destroy, but "the duck's view of the shotgun blast".

on Jul 27, 2009

double post

on Jul 27, 2009

Want statistics? I'll give you some; vulnerability outweighs the consequences twice and over rather than once.

How exactly are you quantizing vulnerability and consequence?  Your statistic makes no sense... (And if you do come back to clarify it, post a source?)

I don't care if humanity dies out, what can I do to save the spotted owls?

lol, nice.  While I see where you're coming from, with the miniscule chances of something striking the Earth along with total lack of a plan regarding what to do if we even find something, I'm not too sure keeping up the search is worth the expense.  Depends on who's price quote is correct, I guess (trillians for a small portion of the sky or 100 million per year to watch everything).

on Jul 27, 2009

oop double post, sorry

on Jul 27, 2009

Primal Zed

Want statistics? I'll give you some; vulnerability outweighs the consequences twice and over rather than once.
How exactly are you quantizing vulnerability and consequence?  Your statistic makes no sense... (And if you do come back to clarify it, post a source?)

Vulnerability = Not having the means nor the technology to detect, aim and meet Asteroid X (in 2036, ONE has a shot at us, so far... but this status may change) before it hits Earth. --- EDITED with link.

ConsequenceS = Letting any strike us.

Why should i need to post a source? Truth & theory aren't clear enough to you or anybody else who'd "feel" threatened by such a collision in the future, be it whenever (or anywhere on Earth, btw) from now on?

on Jul 27, 2009

Why can't people resist the urge of going off-topic... this is about Jupiter (and other "activities") mopping up stuff in the solar system and not about ANY other threats to humanity.

on Jul 27, 2009

Definitions don't even come close to indicating how you quantize those two words into numbers to come up with your 2:1 ratio.  Not only that, but it completely disregards any notion of likelihood.  Way to make up stuff and try to pass it off as "statistics."  It's hardly what I'd call 'truth', and no one should be satisfied with no information other than random speculation.

on Jul 27, 2009

No, primalzed... my statistical claim was a metaphor or esotheric enough to discard odds. A figure of speech, a poetic justice with tricky words, a chaotic emotion non-scientifically expressed, a flawed logic.

Apophis has 1/6250 chance to hit Earth --- now, THAT's an astronomical value worth nit-picking about if you must.

on Jul 28, 2009

The fact is, the odds are so astronomically low that it would hardly be worth the funding and effort required. We have real problems, and they're earth-based.

on Jul 28, 2009

pseudomelon
The fact is, the odds are so astronomically low that it would hardly be worth the funding and effort required. We have real problems, and they're earth-based.

That would be a valid argument if asteroid searches took a significant amount of resources, which of course they don't. We've spent less on these programs in the last 10 years than we do buying a new aircraft carrier, or lofting one satellite. It's less than a pittance compared to something like social security. A few hundred million dollars, spread over several years (and more importantly, many countries) is a trivial cost compared to the potential down side of not knowing about an impact before hand.

on Jul 28, 2009

Even if we did know an impact was imminent, is there anything that can be done about it?

on Jul 28, 2009

Even if we did know an impact was imminent, is there anything that can be done about it?

Well, there are several things we could do, most of them involve detonating things on or near the rock to knock it away from us, or putting some sort of an all-thruster robobtic device on it, that then pushes it away. It only takes a slight varience in direction or speed to make something miss us entirely.

on Jul 28, 2009

WIllythemailboy

That would be a valid argument if asteroid searches took a significant amount of resources, which of course they don't. We've spent less on these programs in the last 10 years than we do buying a new aircraft carrier, or lofting one satellite. It's less than a pittance compared to something like social security. A few hundred million dollars, spread over several years (and more importantly, many countries) is a trivial cost compared to the potential down side of not knowing about an impact before hand.

You'd be surprised what a few hundred million dollars could do for several humanitarian efforts.