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 Says Asteroid Will Buzz Earth Closer Than Many Satellites

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the skin-of-your-teeth dept.

NASA 225

coondoggie writes "NASA says an asteroid about half the size of a football field will blow past Earth on Feb 15 closer than many man-made satellites. NASA added that while the asteroid, designated 2012 DA14, has no chance of striking Earth. Since regular sky surveys began in the 1990s, astronomers have never seen an object so big come so close to our planet."

cancel ×

225 comments

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

Call Bruce Willis (3, Funny)

starworks5 (139327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748137)

Chuck norris was too busy saving us from north korea, to also blow up the asteroid heading for earth.

Re:Call Bruce Willis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748195)

No, it was a government cover up. They actually planted Chuck Norris into that asteroid.

Re:Call Bruce Willis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748307)

He's probably more likely busy sucking your cock, you gay cunt.

Call Bruce Lee (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748527)

You do understand that Chuck Norris is not only a religofreak, but a moderate fail in martial arts, right?

Seriously, bad martial arts, bad television, insane cult beliefs...

Call Chuck Norris only if you want an example of flagrant nutbarism.

Re:Call Bruce Lee (5, Informative)

letherial (1302031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748709)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001569/bio [imdb.com]

"He is a black belt in Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwan Do. In 1969, he earned the Triple Crown for the highest number of tournament wins, and was named Fighter of the Year by "Black Belt" magazine. By the time he was 34, Norris had established 32 karate schools and had been a champion for six years. In 1996, he became the first Westerner to be awarded an eighth-degree black belt in Tae Kwan Do"

I am not a big fan of this guy, and i agree these Chuck Norris jokes are very annoying, however, facts are facts and clearly you are wrong about the martial arts.

Re:Call Bruce Willis (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748679)

Chuck Norris doesn't believe in asteroids, because they are not consistent with young earth creationism. His one weakness!

Re:Call Bruce Willis (0)

gruntkowski (1743014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748805)

Blowing up the asteroid is not necessary. Just let Chuck Norris do pushups: he does not bend his arms but pushes down the earth. Of course the crucial factors here are the pushup geographical coordinates.
Still my favorite CN fact...

Re:Call Bruce Willis (1)

jdfox (74524) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749139)

> NASA says an asteroid about half the size of a football field will blow past Earth on Feb 15...

That's no asteroid: Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked half the football field from Falcons Stadium into heliocentric orbit, after they beat the Seahawks in the playoffs.

No chance of striking Earth (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748141)

"... has no chance of striking Earth"

Famous last words.

Re:No chance of striking Earth (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748733)

No, they won't be famous at all if they're last.

Re:No chance of striking Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748795)

Usually the last words isn't repeated by the dead person, but the observers. So it's valid.

Re:No chance of striking Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748849)

No, if this bitch hits earth, there will be NOT observers.

Re:No chance of striking Earth (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748949)

NASA's page [nasa.gov] about this asteroid lists impact energy of 2.5MT - about same level as thermonuclear bombs (and 20 times less than Tsar Bomb).

Re:No chance of striking Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749131)

have never seen an object so big come so close to our planet

It has no change in hitting the Earth, although size does seem to matter for some planets.

Re:No chance of striking Earth (5, Insightful)

Catmeat (20653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749169)

"... has no chance of striking Earth"

Famous last words.

Because the laws of dramatic irony obviously trump the laws of physics.

But a chance of striking satellites? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749227)

If it will pass within the orbit of man-made satellites, what's the predicted damage assessment for satellites and communications?

And the best vantage point.. (4, Interesting)

SwampChicken (1383905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748155)

..to view such a spectacle would be?

Re:And the best vantage point.. (5, Funny)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748289)

On the actual asteroid.

Put a critter cam on it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748909)

Put a solar/nuclear critter cam on it & watch the images...

Re:And the best vantage point.. (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748297)

Television or the internet. They'll have great footage made by professional astronomers, along with commentaries from said astronomers. As opposed to you sitting in your garden with a pair of binos, seeing nothing at all and freezing your balls off while your wife screams at you because you're late for dinner.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748587)

Ehh... I have battery power heated thermal socks I will put over my balls. They will be fine. As for the wife, if she isn't passed out drunk, she will never get her fat ass off the couch long enough to make dinner.

Unfortunately, my binoculars are broken because the neighbor thought I was looking through the window when his wife was getting out of the shower. Of course I wasn't, I was watching the TV in their bedroom in an attempt to get away from my wife.

But hey, I'm still interested in standing in the garden looking at nothing if you want to tell me which direction I should stare at.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748701)

Up and to the right.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (1)

djupdal (629381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748683)

No, it makes me sad that this got +5 insightful.

By all means, see the TV footage /after/ the event, to make sure you learn something. But I don't want to miss actually looking up at the sky.

There is a huge difference to the feeling of actually experiencing something real, versus looking at it at TV.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748817)

If you've got the equipment, have a look in person, but then if you have the equipment you probably already know that. It'd be a stretch for a novice with binoculars, and naked eye is right out.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (1)

djupdal (629381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748895)

True, this will require an effort to spot and requires binoculars or telescope.

I just reacted to the idea that a little bit of effort and freezing should result in staying in front of your TV instead.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (2)

plaukas pyragely (1630517) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749607)

while your mom screams at you because you're late for dinner

Fixed that for you.

Re:And the best vantage point.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748415)

The ISS

Yeah, about that... (1)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748165)

Isn't this the asteroid that they found they were off by an order of magnitude on the size of a month or so back? Yeah, I wonder if they used the old mass or the corrected mass when they estimated the ballistic trajectory, because, you know, that might make a bit of a difference in just how far it'll miss by...

Re:Yeah, about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748225)

No it won't. The body is too small to influence the earth or the moon, and the acceleration on a body does not depend on its mass. Remember the thing about a feather and a bowling ball falling at the same speed in a vacuum?

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748323)

Remember the thing about a feather and a bowling ball falling at the same speed in a vacuum?

I am pretty sure that there were no bowling balls on Apollo 15.

Re:Yeah, about that... (2)

They'reComingToTakeM (1091657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748503)

Correct, they used a hammer.

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748367)

Had we been talking about what the acceleration was, you'd be absolutely right. The problem is CPA is a DISTANCE, properly determined by a solution of the Law of Universal Gravitation, f=Gm1m2/d^2, and some integration to determine the relative minima and maxima of f, and when d < r (earth), we have BIG problems.

Re:Yeah, about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748413)

wat

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748281)

Isn't this the asteroid that they found they were off by an order of magnitude on the size of a month or so back?

I love the way you constructed that sentence. I think you're stretching the limits of the English language a bit, but it does appear to be grammatically correct :-)

Then again, it's not my native language so maybe that sentence sounds perfectly normal to native speakers.

Re:Yeah, about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748407)

One of the strengths of English is that you can mangle the hell out of it and usually still be understood. Many (most?) other languages aren't as forgiving.

Re:Yeah, about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748547)

I'm fluent in Polish (my native language) and it also has an incredibly flexible syntax, possibly more so than English. In fact, word ordering is one of the ways to control emphasis in Polish.

Re:Yeah, about that... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748777)

I'm fluent in Polish (my native language) and it also has an incredibly flexible syntax, possibly more so than English. In fact, word ordering is one of the ways to control emphasis in Polish.

We know. Thats how we got Polish notation.

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748725)

Then again, it's not my native language so maybe that sentence sounds perfectly normal to native speakers.

Hmmm....let me say it this way:
If waddgodd's sentence were a rubber band, I would not perform that level of stretching near my person. The impact when it snapped would be painful.

It is missing proper punctuation, in my opinion, and could be improved with a lot of editing.
Word choice in that sentence was spectacularly terrible.

Trust me, that sentence would have any English teacher in the USA upset.

But, I find myself intrigued by that sentence.
I find myself perplexed when trying to describe all that is wrong with it, yet I feel that I know it is not grammatically correct.

I found myself re-reading that same sentence several times before I could understand what the poster meant. :-)

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

Smauler (915644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749479)

It makes anyone who speaks the language cringe because it's difficult to understand, not because it's grammatically incorrect. There are masses of ugly grammatically correct sentences. One of the charms of English is being able to call them out as ugly.

If you try, you can easily make grammatically correct sentences that no one will understand. This [wikipedia.org] is a well known example.

how about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749079)

isnt this the asteroid that they found they were off on size by an order of magnitude a month or so back?

Re:Yeah, about that... (3, Informative)

pv2b (231846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748317)

Why would a change in mass change the trajectory? Granted, it was a while since I took physics, but from what I remember:

1. The force of gravity follows F = GMm / (r^2) where M and m are the masses of the two objects in consideration. Here I will use m as the mass of the asteroid and M as the mass of any other object that is not the asteroid.

2. F = ma.

3. From this follows that a = (GMm / (r^2)) / m = GM / (r^2). As we can see, m (the mass of the asteroid)

This means means that the accelleration of an object due to gravity is only affected directly by the other object's mass, not by the object's own mass. However, a more massive object *could* attract other objects with a higher accelleration than expected, thus reducing r, thus over time increasing the accelleration, changing the tracjectory of not only the asteroid but also the other object.

Consider for a moment, however, how insignificant such an effect would be:

First imagine an asteroid the size of a football field. Then imagine the moon. Then imagine the earth. Then imagine the sun. Now imagine the mass of an asteroid even moving the moon more than an imperceptible amount due to gravity, let alone the sun.

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748339)

If the object fragments in the Earth's gravitational field then the resulting objects will definitely have different trajectories. Some parts of the asteroid could finish up in earth orbit.

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

pv2b (231846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748365)

Is there any evidence that it might? More specifically, does the change in the estimate of the mass of the object suggest this?

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748411)

It could be like Comet_Shoemaker Levy 9 [wikipedia.org] but on a smaller scale. I think the risk is quite small and I don't think any change in the estimated mass is relevant.

Re:Yeah, about that... (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748997)

The trouble is that what happened to Shoemaker Levy 9 doesn't scale down: it was ripped apart by the tidal forces of a gas giant, and those forces don't exist for a similar size of body interacting with Earth.

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748567)

It's not so much of a change in mass, it's a complete screwup in how they figured it, as in they found that pretty much everything they'd assumed about it to that point was wrong, including but not limited to actual distance and mass.

Re:Yeah, about that... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748829)

is only affected directly by the other object's mass, not by the object's own mass.

I am by no means any type of astrophysicist, but my understanding of gravity (in this context) was that a mutual attraction usually happens.
Maybe that would account for the change in trajectory?
Or am I misinterpreting something here?

I agree that will not change things significantly, but only on a measurable or calculable scale. :-)

BTW, I am not singling you out here, but what volume is a football field (or half of a football field in TFS), or even better, what mass?

I realise you were just going with the flow here, and we all understand that an asteroid the size of half a football field translates (I hope!) into an asteroid approx. 50 yards/meters in diameter. :-)

My rant is with the summary and article, so I apologize.

I was astounded that equating an area measurement with a volume measurement was used, then even more amazed that it passed unchallenged by this crowd.

Football field unit. (2)

_GNU_ (81313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748167)

Is this unit measured in 2D?

Re:Football field unit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748189)

Clearly it's a very thin asteroid.

Re:Football field unit. (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748229)

An American football field? We are safe! A proper Euro pitch? Doomed!

Re:Football field unit. (5, Interesting)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748277)

A soccer field doesn't have any size defined. It's just "between 90 and 120m" long and "between 45 and 90m" wide. So btw the smallest and biggest field, there is almost a factor of 2.7 in area. That's a bit of a margin!

Re:Football field unit. (1)

_GNU_ (81313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748311)

Still no height defined, so it would have no volume or mass.

We are quite safe.

Re:Football field unit. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748345)

Maybe its that two dimensional prison thing from the original superman movies. Could be a whole lot of bad guys inside having a Bad Time,

Re:Football field unit. (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748409)

Still no height defined, so it would have no volume or mass.

We are quite safe.

"Still no height defined" implies "no volume of mass defined", it does not imply "no volume or mass".

Re:Football field unit. (2)

CheeseTroll (696413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749553)

But paper beats rock, so we are still doomed. Launch the giant scissors!

Re:Football field unit. (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748405)

The journalists are to be commended for coming up with a analogy that appropriately captures the uncertainty

Nasa says [nasa.gov]

Diameter - This is an estimate based on the absolute magnitude, usually assuming a uniform spherical body with visual albedo pV = 0.154 (in accordance with the Palermo Scale) but sometimes using actual measured values if these are available. Since the albedo is rarely measured, the diameter estimate should be considered only approximate, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two.

Re:Football field unit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748957)

They're not too sure, but FTA "Although its size is not well determined, this near-Earth asteroid is thought to be about 45 meters in diameter."

Big enough to make a mess of any man-made satellite...

Re:Football field unit. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748325)

Worse: its Aussie rules.

Re:Football field unit. (1)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748549)

aussie rules football is oxymoronic ;P

Re:Football field unit. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748559)

Can't argue with you there.

Re:Football field unit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748651)

Are you trying to imply that the game doesnt have rules?

Re:Football field unit. (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748331)

The article goes on to say it's 50 meters wide. If it was an American football field, they would have used fathoms and/or chains.

Re:Football field unit. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748703)

So, its diameter is the same as the smallest dimension of an American football field, i.e. it would fit inside one if it was spherical.

Re:Football field unit. (2)

OolimPhon (1120895) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749039)

Assume a spherical football field...

Re:Football field unit. (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749257)

Assume a spherical football field...

Hurrah, it's already in a vaccum!

Re:Football field unit. (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748857)

Gah!
It's hogsheads per fathom, or if yer a landlubber, hogsheads per hectare!

And on a serious note, no matter the thickness of a football field, the USA football field will out-mass the football field of anyone else due to the players! ;-)

Re:Football field unit. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748989)

The chains are only used to measure first down.

Re:Football field unit. (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748391)

Nope, it's a Canadian football field, so you're doomed like a moose in a canoe.

Re:Football field unit. (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748871)

...so you're doomed like a moose in a canoe.

It could be worse. You could be a moose in a conoe going over/through the Bear Whizz Waterfall, after having bit my sister.

Re:Football field unit - Turtles all the way down (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748247)

Yup, it is obviously a very flat asteroid. Maybe it escaped from the Terry Pratchett disc world series. Just wait till the giant turtle floats past - that will be much bigger news.

Bad news (1)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748337)

General Zod is trapped in this 2D prison and will surely escape as it nears Earth.

They had to use that unit (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748585)

They had to use the football field unit, because elephants don't fly so high.

Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748333)

Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? I mean I don't know if they can calculate timing accurately enough to predict if it will yet. If it did I would imagine the display would be pretty spectacular!

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748351)

I could imagine it stirring up some existing orbital debris. Turning big chunks into small chunks and changing their trejectories.

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (2)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748451)

I can't authoritatively state, but I suspect that the satellite distribution is more concentrated at the LEO end of the scale and much rarer at geo-stationary orbit distance. And I bet the asteroid pass is much higher than LEO.

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748745)

Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference, and it contains about 400 satellites at present. Assuming they're each 50m wide (which is probably an exaggeration) then the satellites, in total, cover 20km of that circumference. So if we were to assume that all the satellites are in the same plane, and that the asteroid was definitely going to come in through that plane, then the chances of the asteroid meeting one of those satellites is 0.008%.

A back of the envelope calculation suggests you have the same odds of spinning around in a circle with your eyes shut and successfully pointing at a person standing 3km away.

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748867)

Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference, and it contains about 400 satellites at present. Assuming they're each 50m wide (which is probably an exaggeration) then the satellites, in total, cover 20km of that circumference. So if we were to assume that all the satellites are in the same plane, and that the asteroid was definitely going to come in through that plane, then the chances of the asteroid meeting one of those satellites is 0.008%.

A back of the envelope calculation suggests you have the same odds of spinning around in a circle with your eyes shut and successfully pointing at a person standing 3km away.

Thanks, that's a very informative way of putting it into perspective. If I owned a satellites I would not be over-worried but would probably buy some insurance!

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748951)

The asteroid might even be very beneficial! I imagine that it might knock a lot of space junk out of orbit, either decaying or escaping or just being bug-splatted to the front of asteroid and carried off.

I wonder how much gravitational pull it will have on objects in its path, how will it affect* things that it doesn't physically touch.

*Need coffee, had to google whether it was affect/effect, to avoid the wrath of grammar nazis...

Re:Is there a chance of it hitting a satellite? (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748881)

TFA claimed it would not likely hit any satellites, for what that is worth....

Article brought to you by DSI. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748369)

So this is essentially 1/4 of an article about the astroid, and 3/4 of an article advertising DSI.

Such quality!

Look on the bright side (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748399)

If there has been a miscalculation and it actually ends up on an intersect trajectory, you may find that you no longer feel dejected about not getting a Valentine's card.

Re:Look on the bright side (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749259)

No, instead I'll finally stop feeling dejected because for over 40 years our space programs have been loosing steam, creeping along slow as molasses, when it's perfectly clear that we're still blind as bats and more defenseless than kittens when it comes to space.

That's a heartache I feel EVERY day, not just Valentine's. Candies and shit?! Are you serious? It's 100% garaunteed WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE from one of these damned rocks (if something else doesn't get us first) if we don't do something! The dinosaurs didn't have a space program; We're just like them though, waiting around fighting over petty bullshit and waiting to die. Only we're dumber. We waste mony on fucking consumerist holidays that monetize every last free joy in life, including sex.

If you'll excuse me, I've got a whole wealth of scientific progress to inscribe as pictograms on granite slabs to leave for the next poor fuckers who inherit this rock, or the alien anthropologists who'll no doubt be scratching their what'sits thinking: "Wait, Extincted by an Asteroid? And they had Rockets? For Hundreds of Years Prior? Even made it to space? Well, then fuck 'em, the bastards were too stupid to live."

Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (5, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748461)

The Stupid Fucking Article linked doesn't even say how close the fucking asteroid will come.

Why source a story sourced from NASA to some wanker's blog in Network World"?Presuambly this asshole just submitted it himself to get more pageviews.

The actual NASA story is Record Setting Asteroid Flyby [nasa.gov] And it actually tells you that "On Feb. 15th an asteroid about half the size of a football field will fly past Earth only 17,200 miles above our planet's surface." (Sadly even NASA use the inane "football field" measure, but goes on to say "It measures some 50 meters wide".)

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748769)

What's inane about it? I don't have a ready shorthand of things x metres across in my head to get a grasp of the scale, so they're doing me a favour. For nontechnical readers they're making it slightly more tangable than "space thing you don't understand is flying near Earth".

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749063)

What's inane about it? I don't have a ready shorthand of things x metres across in my head

Well, I don't have a mental shorthand of what kind of "football field" the guy is talking about. Anyway, you could as easily say 50 yards which is an actual unit in the real world that everyone knows, even if they don't watch football.

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749087)

Sorry, I live in the 95% of the world that doesn't use imperial units. What's a yard?

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (4, Funny)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749151)

1% of a Standard Football Field Length.

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749457)

It's like a meter, but the white version.

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749513)

A yard is 3 feet or 36 inches.

36 * 2.54 = 91.4

A yard is 91.4 cm.

math is so hard /sarcasm.

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749207)

-1 Confusing. I've played football in my yard, you don't need 100 of them to make a field.

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749495)

How about this.

You know what a meter is.

Now times that by 50.

Profit.

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749117)

you must be new here

Re:Cite the NASA story, not some parasite's blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749671)

Mod parent up and for the love of God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever, STOP POSTING THIS GUY'S ARTICLES!!! He's been using /. to drive traffic to his own site for ad revenue for months if not years! Michael Cooney, we know what you're doing and most of us think you're a tool and a bad writer to boot! Maybe if your writing didn't suck you wouldn't have to desperately drive traffic to your crap to save your job!

China (1)

starworks5 (139327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748557)

Didn't you say that you wanted to capture an asteroid? Here is your chance, go for it.

Re:China (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748839)

They could try... Out of curiosity: If it accidentally changes trajectory due to the attempt to get some part of it and hits US, would it be big enough to effect China as well?

Re:China (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42748901)

TFA was an infomercial for that outfit that was talking about mining asteroids, but why not?

Re:China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749447)

How many ping-pong tables is half a football field? I think we need to standardize units, this is confusing.

I think we need it to hit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42748853)

The world is in so much trouble from corruption and malice of every kind, we need a nice chunky one to reset civilization..

No HST ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749445)

I think this asteroid could be an interesting target for the Hubble Space Telescope.
After all, getting a giant telescope so close to an asteroid is something extremely difficult to do.

I don't see any plans for this. Too bad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>