Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Downgrades Asteroid-Earth Collision Risk

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the elephant-detector-working-fine dept.

NASA 244

coondoggie writes "NASA scientists have recalculated the path of a large asteroid known as Apophis and now say it has only a very slim chance of banging into Earth.. The Apophis asteroid is approximately the size of two-and-a-half football fields, and updated computational techniques and newly available data indicate the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036 for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million, NASA stated."

cancel ×

244 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apophis (-1, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674285)

Better buy earth some booze first...

Re:Apophis (1)

courtjester801 (1415457) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674313)

At the very minimum, pay for dinner.

Re:Apophis (2, Funny)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674339)

Man, that's a lot of Astro-Glide.

Re:Apophis (1)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674441)

Apohpis? Everybody knows it was Anubis who sent the asteroid.

Just cut the red wire (but they're all yellow!)

Yep, plan 3 works every time.

Re:Apophis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674869)

Some details? www.10-20-2009.com [10-20-2009.com]

four in a million? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674305)

Isn't four in a million the same as one in 250,000 ?

Re:four in a million? (4, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674337)

No, it's the same as two in 500,000. Sheesh.

Re:four in a million? (3, Informative)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674909)

According to NASA, it is 1 in 135,000 and diameter is 0.270 km
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html [nasa.gov]

The image on TFA gives the impression that it is way larger than 20km and the summary claims that is is 200 yard = 0.182 km. And the text claims that it is four-in-a million aka 1 in 250.000.

Re:four in a million? (3, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675039)

Yes, but four-in-a-million is only five syllables, and thus much more useful.

Four in a million

NASA says we might survive

with hyperbole

Re:four in a million? (3, Funny)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674341)

Nah... by the time it get's back to earth, the gravitational pull on it will break it into at least 4 pieces, each with a one in a million chance of impacting terra ferma.

Bill

Re:four in a million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674347)

One would think... perhaps metric million? This is NASA after all. :D

Re:four in a million? (2, Insightful)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674357)

Well yes, but "million" sounds more impressive.

Re:four in a million? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29675057)

I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.

Sorry for the off-topic troll, but I really can't resist your signature. I'll answer your self-satisfied, pedantic quibble with one of my own.

Programmers, unless they are creating new languages, do not produce syntax, they obey syntax [wikipedia.org] . Setting this point aside, maybe you meant, "I am paid to produce things which are syntactically correct, not things which are grammatically correct." Of course, you actually are paid to produce things that are grammatically [wikipedia.org] correct.

Perhaps you meant, "I am paid to write in the highly precise, fascinating languages of computers and not the boring, ambiguous English language that my incompetent high school teachers made me hate." That might be true, but it probably isn't. Most programming jobs require quite a bit of written English, and the more grammatically correct it is, the better. Admittedly, this is usually less important than producing working code.

Another possible reading: "I never quite understood English grammar, even though I felt like I should. I compensate by basing my fragile self image on excessive pride in my other skills and wearing a chip on my shoulder so people will be afraid to call me on it."

They were right... 18% chance (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674451)

So the change was downgraded to 18% chance that the original value of 0.0022% was right.

Re:four in a million? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674635)

It's 4 in a million, and not 5 or 6. You don't get that resolution with 1 in 250000. Maybe they're just too lazy to divide by four, but precision might have been a consideration.

Re:four in a million? (2, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674709)

So it's 1-in-250,000 instead of 1-in-200,000 or 1-in-166,666ish?

Re:four in a million? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674743)

Isn't four in a million the same as one in 250,000 ?

In this, statistical case, yes.

Re:four in a million? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674765)

...because of the million times we might have been hit, we only got hit four times i.e. one in 250k. (In other words: "I shouldn't have said statistical. I Should have gone to sleep."

Re:four in a million? (1)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674759)

What's the source on this number?

Yes it matters!

Like, for instance if C3PO said it, then it would matter alot!

Re:four in a million? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674803)

This is the American measurement system. It's more like throwing two-six's chance in the Library of Congress.

Damn, I've booked my time off already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674317)

I've booked off a few vacation days before April 13th so I could stock up on emergency supplies, guns+ammo, canned food, etc.
now I just look stupid.

Re:Damn, I've booked my time off already (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674615)

Don't worry, it just means you'll be prepared in plenty of time for when the Y2K38 bug causes civilization to collapse.

Comparing different ratios... (2, Insightful)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674323)

Is it really that hard to use the same intial number for 2 ratios? I mean honestly... 1 in 250,000 is much easier to compare to 1 in 45k than 4 in 1million

Re:Comparing different ratios... (0, Flamebait)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674449)

But 1 million is such a large number that it couldn't possibly happen! They should have just used 22 in 1 million to begin with...

Re:Comparing different ratios... (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674495)

They're writers, not scientists, man! Their mission is to write words to attract internet links to their websites and bring in ad revenue. Performing simple division simplification wouldn't help that mission.

Re:Comparing different ratios... (2, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674925)

Yes, but can we get this in a real world equivalent. Something like 1200 words out of a library of congress?

Metric? (4, Funny)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674349)

>two-and-a-half football fields
So is that US football fields or are we using the metric system (ie. Soccer fields) ?

Re:Metric? (2, Informative)

Col. Bloodnok (825749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674421)

It's about 0.0000001 times the size of Wales.

Re:Metric? (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674651)

It's about 0.0000001 times the size of Wales.

That's no help. Humpback Wales or Dr. Who Wales?

Re:Metric? (3, Funny)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674423)

Doesn't matter. There's legislation being made to redefine a football field to two square inches so this asteroid will then be too small to have to worry about.

Re:Metric? (3, Funny)

superdana (1211758) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674937)

Let me guess: Indiana.

Re:Metric? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674669)

You could have said "american or european?"...

Re:Metric? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674847)

What about Canadian Football fields? Does that include end zones?

Does anyone else see the stupidity of trying to compare the size of a three dimensional object to a two dimensional object?

I'm assuming they're talking diameter here, but still... is it perfectly round? Is it average diameter or maximum diameter?

Re:Metric? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674939)

NASA = USA

We can't have them confusing US football fields with the other football field...again

The Difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29675037)

An American Football field with end zones included is the same length as a regulation pitch. The width would be the only significant difference (seeing as the pitch would be wider).

Of course, this presumes the author intended to include end zones...which I suppose makes sense if you think you are being clever, but makes no sense in terms of actual football since a field is useless without the end zones :P.

Four in a million, huh? (3, Insightful)

RabidMoose (746680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674365)

How about 1 in 250,000?

And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size. Besides "football" having two different meanings, one of which has multiple field sizes, what kind of volume are we looking at here?

Re:Four in a million, huh? (1)

Daagar (764445) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674551)

1 in 250,000 is metric. Clearly the summary was converting to imperial units for those of us in the US.

Re:Four in a million, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674749)

I, for one, welcome our new asteriod overlord.

Re:Four in a million, huh? (2, Informative)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674571)

Well, if you RTFA and look at the picture they've conveniently provided, you'll see that it looks like it is somewhere around 60-70 kilometers long.

Apparently those are some pretty big football fields.

Re:Four in a million, huh? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674659)

Well, if you RTFA and look at the picture they've conveniently provided, you'll see that it looks like it is somewhere around 60-70 kilometers long.

Looks bigger than that in the picture.

Of course, the text also said it was less than two football fields long, not two and a half football fields. Who writes this stuff?

Re:Four in a million, huh? (2, Informative)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674787)

Who writes this stuff?

And what are they drinking/smoking?

The title and the picture don't match. From Wikipedia:

"Based upon the observed brightness, Apophis' length was estimated at 450 metres (1,500 ft); a more refined estimate based on spectroscopic observations at NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii by Binzel, Rivkin, Bus, and Tokunaga (2005) is 350 metres (1,100 ft)."

Re:Four in a million, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674761)

The one with the round ball is played on a pitch.

Re:Four in a million, huh? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675099)

And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size. Besides "football" having two different meanings, one of which has multiple field sizes, what kind of volume are we looking at here?

They mean American football, but even that is misleading; a football field on TV looks enormously huge, so if you've only seen one on TV you might think this asteroid is bigger than it really is...

Re:Four in a million, huh? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675113)

And "two football fields" doesn't tell us much about the thing's actual size.

Agreed. Why can't they use more useful units?
For example, how many "Library of Congresses" is it?

Re:Four in a million, huh? (2, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675117)

Yes, I get upset when they compare objects (where the important dimension is mass (weight) and maybe volume,) to something that is clearly a measure of area at best.

Similarly hail should not be sized by coins.

Million-to-one chance (1)

wazoo666 (1410491) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674367)

It's a million-to-one chance, but it might just work!

Re:Million-to-one chance (2, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674719)

Million-to-one chances crop up 9 times out of 10.

Uh oh... (2, Insightful)

musefrog (1471169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674369)

They better be careful with those odds... that's dangerously close to a one-in-a-million chance, which everyone knows happen ALL THE TIME...!

Re:Uh oh... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674591)

A DiskWorld reference. We should use the powerful wizard, Ricewind, to eliminate the threat. See, I have corks hanging from my hat.

Re:Uh oh... (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674769)

By 2036 I will be dead already, along with bunch of other fellow aging Slashdotters, therefore I could not care less.

Re:Uh oh... (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674859)

But what about those loved-ones you leave behind? ... Oh, wait - not applicable.

Re:Uh oh... (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675101)

lets see... plus 1.... carry the 2.... equals.....uhhhh..... 57....

oh shit... I will only be old.

and we will all miss the slashdot 40th anaversery too!!! fuck!

Re:Uh oh... (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675123)

make that:
anniversary

awww damn... I won't be able to post correct myself either!!!

this world ending stuff just sucks.

Bad Economy (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674377)

Even the chance of an apocalypse is being downsized.

Oh god (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674383)

We're all going to die.

Re:Oh god (2, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674837)

This is like those COPS shows, where they are following a high speed chase from a helecopter. The announcer is always announcing how they nearly hit the pedestrians, who were on the sidewalk, on the opposite side of the street.

Dammit... (4, Funny)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674385)

I guess that means I'm still going to need to worry about the Y2k38 problem.

Re:Dammit... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674541)

That's nothing.

I've nearly got two women to agree to have sex with me when I told them about the impending doom of our planet.

Unfortunately, the first one worked as a statistician, and the second one was morbidly obese.

Damn you science! I'm changing my major to something in the Humanities department!

Future excuses (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674831)

Forget the "solar flares", maybe next few decade's excuse could be something like:
    "Sorry, but the holosite is unavailable due to a large meteor. No ma'm, it didn't strike earth, our datacenter was on the moon."

40 rods to a hogshead = 1.8 Library of Congresses? (1)

BadMrMojo (767184) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674387)

... the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million, NASA stated.

Can we keep our units/ratios consistent?

... the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about one-in-250,000, NASA stated.

When you're regurgitating statistics that are generally considered good news - such as the decreased chance of global catastrophe - doesn't it seem reasonable to make those statistics intelligible?

I'm oddly disappointed. (1)

Commander Doofus (776923) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674407)

April 13 is my birthday, and there's something ironically awesome about the world being destroyed on one's birthday.

Check my Numbers... (1, Insightful)

bradorsomething (527297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674417)

The Earth's population is estimated at 6.789 billion. So statistically, this asteroid is going to kill 27,156 people?

Re:Check my Numbers... (2, Funny)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674665)

Yes, in much the same way that Jame Cameron murdered 49 people. [thebestpag...iverse.net] (See point #6)

Re:Check my Numbers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674671)

Except an object "two football fields" in size is probably not a planet killer even if it does collide to the earth.

From the Apophis [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia article:

NASA initially estimated the energy that Apophis would have released if it struck Earth as the equivalent of 1,480 megatons of TNT. A later, more refined NASA estimate was 880 megatons.[2]

Soothsaying (2, Insightful)

ugen (93902) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674433)

Clearly 4 in a *million* must be a very very small number, not like 1 in 250000 - which has thousands on the right-hand side, so that can't be good.

In an attempt to make a new probability "less scary" the authors (or summary writers) also commit a specific error - there is only ONE asteroid so any probability related to it is ALWAYS 1 in something. It can never be 4 in something because there is only once chance of collision.

Re:Soothsaying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674479)

Unless you count two passes instead of just one? :P

Re:Soothsaying (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674537)

They're comparing probable paths that the asteroid will take. There could be four paths that will crash into Earth.

There are infinitely many points where the asteroid could potentially collide with Earth, if you really want to be pedantic.

Re:Soothsaying (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674609)

I think they're implying that there are four universes. Perhaps Nasa has decided that for the sake of argument the multiverse is just four.

Re:Soothsaying (1)

pluther (647209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674823)

No, no that would be a million universes.

Of which, the asteroid will strike Earth in four of them.

There is a 1 in 250,000 chance, however, that anyone reading this will be in one of the four.

Husband?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674437)

What was all that four-in-a-million talk??

How useful is this, really? (1)

NYMeatball (1635689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674457)

So we've gone from a two in 90,000 chance of being whacked upside the head 27 years from now to a one in two hundred-fifty thousand chance.

Great

What is the real use in this? When, within reasonable (I'm not a scientist, but lets use an 85% confidence interval) levels of knowing, would we be able to determine that in fact, yes, this thing is or is not going to hit us? It's certainly not now, 27 years prior. Is it a year prior? six months? A month? A day? And, once we reach that date, do we have the resources/funding to have a defense system or contingency plan set up in time? Knowing chances and all is great, but we're not going to build a bruce willis-mobile 27 years in the future.

The article states that they aren't being given the funding to further fund research centers for adequate testing. Politics aside - is there any funding (and more importantly, scientific viability) for preventative action for any of this, or are we just providing confidence intervals of our ultimate doom?

Probability? (0, Redundant)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674475)

The article states that the probability of a collision went from 1 in 45,000 to about 4 in a million. I never made it very far in math, but it seems like 4 in a million is the same as 1 in 250,000. What's the point of saying 1 in 45,000 and then 4 in a million instead of in 1 in 250,000?

Re:Probability? (1)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674597)

They're equivalent. It doesn't matter.

Kree (1)

alain_delon (1361705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674487)

No worries, Daniel, O'Neil, Sam and Tiel'c will take care of it.

Re:Kree (1)

LordRPI (583454) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674535)

Only the real Apophis had better aim and was able to do it in months

is this too early to predict path ? (1, Interesting)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674489)

Given that it is supposed to hit in 2036, isn't it too early to be able make accurate predictions ? I mean, I am sure these predicted probabilities will keep changing as it gets closer ( assuming its headed in our direction right now ). I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc

Re:is this too early to predict path ? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674775)

I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc

If there are any stars out there besides the sun close enough to affect this asteroid... we're pretty much fucked already.

Re:is this too early to predict path ? (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674845)

I mean, who knows if the path of the asteroid may deviate a little bit due to gravitational pull of different planets/stars etc.

Well they're pretty certain that it will deviate due to the variety of forces on it, which is exactly why the result is given as a probability, rather than a "will hit" or "will miss by X miles". It's also why the probability changed with further observation. Conditional probability is basically serving as a stand-in for what we don't know and the fact that we can't solve N-body gravitational problems. The more we know about the asteroid's trajectory, the more we can say about it's potential future paths and the likely hood of it hitting earth. At the end of the day (or the planet), it will either be nudged onto a path that will impact us or it won't, but right now it looks unlikely that it'll happen.

Symantics at Play (1)

charleste (537078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674491)

one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million.... um, they mean from 1-in-45k to 1-in-250k, but gosh darn it! They found a way to say "X in a million chance!"

Re:Symantics at Play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674533)

or maybe the meant to say

  four-in-one-hundred-and-eighty-thousand instead of one-in-45,000

Just saying... Nasa... you know

That's good to know (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674497)

Because Jack O'Neil's getting too old to stop those Goald asteriods.

Re:That's good to know (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674707)

Finally. I was wondering how long it would take someone to make the obvious Stargate reference.

Current estimates (1)

Viper23 (172755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674503)

I love how they never take the time to point out that A LOT can happen to that thing's trajectory to change the +/- .00001 % error required for it to smack head on into the earth. Yet they're willing to toss out numbers like 4 in a million.

We don't know enough about "near earth objects" much less about "near Apophis objects" to make those kinds of predictions that far in advance.

Guess if it makes the folks back home feel better...

Apophis? (3, Funny)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674569)

I thought we killed that asshole at the end of season 3?!

Apophis (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674573)

Was NASA hoping for a naquadah-filled explosive asteroid?

Remember the Mars Orbiter (2, Informative)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674595)

they crashed a $125 million orbiter into Mars because they mixed up metric and imperial units... so im not trusting their math ;)

On a positive note... (4, Funny)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674639)

We won't have to file taxes by April 15 in 2036, or possibly ever again. Death 1, Taxes 0.

One in a million (1)

badass fish (1254730) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674673)

One in a million chances come true 9 out of ten times STOP REFINING!!

NASA is all political now (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674713)

available data indicate the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036

Notice how this is well beyond the next election cycle. That way, when it turns out the odds are really 1:1, the current Incumbents can't be held accountable.

Thank Goodness... (1)

kushiague (817138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674721)

it's four in a million, because we all know that one in a million chance events happen nine times out of ten.

Don't worry (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674755)

We've got those laser defenses, with the castles. As long as we keep blasting them we'll earn enough points to keep getting new laser cannons! Or was that for the alien invaders.

April 12, 2036 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674793)

the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million

What the summary doesn't tell you is that the probability of an Earth encounter on April 12, 2036, for Apophis has increased from four-in-a million to about one-in-45,000.

Re:April 12, 2036 (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674865)

That's funny. Too bad you posted anonymously and are buried behind about fifty "Why didn't they say 1 in 250,000?!" redundant posts.

And yet... (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674813)

People keep buying lottery tickets.

Thank God For That! (0)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674879)

By 2036, almost all the oil will be gone, 9 billion people will be struggling to eat as water tables will have dropped to nothing and climate change, deforestation and soil erosion will have turned half the planet into desert; but hey, at least there won't be an asteroid to worry about.

Anybody worrying about 2036 has their priorities seriously out of whack. Life for the moment.

Will Bruce Willis still be here to save us? (2, Funny)

mayko (1630637) | more than 4 years ago | (#29674935)

The real question is, will Bruce Willis still be alive and fit enough for an emergency space mission?

Born: March 19, 1955. That will put him at 81 years old... We better freeze him now, so we can thaw him out in case of an impending asteroid strike.

One in Four Million...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29674979)

Uhm. NASA's statistical heroics are questionable. They went from 1-in-45,000 to 4-in-1,000,000 - isn't that the same as 1-in-250,000...?
 
Won't most people (probably non /.-ers) see that final "one million" and breath a sigh of relief...? I'd call that very close to propaganda and certainly obfuscation.
 
There's still a chance Apophis will hit us, only it's about 4/5 or 80% less. I am sooooooooo not relieved...

 

1 in 4 million is still better odds (1, Informative)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675005)

that the lotto.

Football fields (1)

nicknameaaron (653485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29675061)

Are these Hollywood sized football fields

New Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29675077)

Earth getting hit by an asteroid... Chances are 1 in 250,000...

Someone can still make a movie outta odds like that. Do I hear an Armageddon 2 in the works?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?