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!

Bizarre Six-Tailed Asteroid Dumbfounds Scientists

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the six-tails-are-better-than-one dept.

Space 134

coondoggie writes "Many images from deep space are so cool, weird and unusual it is hard to believe they are real sometimes. This is one of them. Astronomers looking deep into the asteroid belt through NASA's Hubble Space Telescope say they have spotted an asteroid, designated P/2013 P5, with six comet-like tails of dust radiating from it like spokes on a wheel or a spinning garden sprinkler."

cancel ×

134 comments

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

Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (5, Funny)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 10 months ago | (#45364303)

They're thrusters.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (3, Informative)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 10 months ago | (#45364315)

I figured it was pockets of something outgassing (is that the correct term?) as is spins. Different materials heat/etc different rates blah blah cue Bill Nye or Phil Platt please.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45364407)

It's powered by beans.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364925)

I'll fill your asshole with my baby gravy!

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366223)

I'll fill your asshole with my baby gravy!

From deep space to someone's asshole in less than 5 posts.

Take that Kevin Bacon. You ain't shit.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366895)

Phucking Phil Plait doesn't give a phuck about Slashdot unless he can use it to funnel traffic to his phucking blog. He pimps out his blog and rakes in the money and you phucks still adore him like no one else. He never comes back to be part of the community by discussing the story. He just wants you to go to his sites. Phil's all about the dollars and nothing phucking else.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

danigr (1586831) | about 10 months ago | (#45364857)

They're thrusters.

-Do a barrel roll!

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (5, Funny)

somenickname (1270442) | about 10 months ago | (#45365091)

You joke but, earlier today there was a story about Starship Troopers on Slashdot. I know that if I still lived in Buenos Aires, I'd give serious thought to getting out of town for a while...

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#45365141)

Because you're worried some huge bugs will squirt blue plasma out of their ass through space and hit earth?

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45365793)

10 internet points to you for identifying the joke!

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

LRAD (1822746) | about 10 months ago | (#45366371)

Starship Troopers is SO unrealistic, sheesh!

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366743)

So is your face!

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (3, Insightful)

speckman (2511208) | about 10 months ago | (#45365453)

That was my first thought. Hmm. Every time they take a picture of this thing, it's got a jet going in a different direction.... I mean say we took a picture of a UFO way out in space... what would it look like at lowish resolution? a lump of something with jets coming out of it? Maybe. I guess the true test for that is if it's orbit is changing unexpectedly.

Because seriously, even putting aside the possibility of already having taken video/shots of UFOs in space, on the planet, etc., what would our first encounter with one in space be like? A grainy photo of an anomalous object that we figure must be a comet, but boy is it acting strange...

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 10 months ago | (#45366425)

If it were something capable of crossing interstellar space, then the thruster exhaust (even if they had some exotic drive for travelling very long distances) would likely be invisible in the visible spectrum and very, very bright in the IR. It would also likely be travelling significantly faster than anything naturally occurring and so would be quite distinctive in several ways.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

feral-troll (3419661) | about 10 months ago | (#45365771)

They're thrusters.

Bah! What we are seeing here is obviously an alien mining operation.

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about 10 months ago | (#45366139)

Yes, it is thruster beams.
And yes it is an asteriod.
Is it the new nuclear deterrence?

I'm sure that someone will claim it has something to do with Nibiru.
Whohoo, It's a bird [boid]
Great stuff :)

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (1)

bareman (60518) | about 10 months ago | (#45367221)

It's a marketing gimmick for Planetary Annihilation (http://www.uberent.com/pa/).

Release day is going to be a smash!

Re:Well, there's a simple explanation, really. (2)

trout007 (975317) | about 10 months ago | (#45367471)

You are more right than you know. There is an explaination that asteroids and comets have tails due to electric discharges as they move through voltage potentials in the solar system.
http://youtu.be/De9b8Z94nQk [youtu.be]

dubstep comet on acid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364309)

yep. also the captcha was "stepped". apt

I'll just leave this right here.. (-1, Offtopic)

tehsnarf (1335729) | about 10 months ago | (#45364313)

What is this? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365087)

I clicked the link and it's just an image of two guys sitting in a car. What is this about? Why do you waste our time like this? I don't think it was very nice.

Thank you for reading this complaint.

mod up^ (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 10 months ago | (#45365575)

I like how an AC took the time to politely chastise a logged-in griefer posting sub-moronic Reddit type shit...

Good on you, AC...and I'd give a +1 informative for sparing any of us the clickbait and telling us what it links to

Re:mod up^ (0)

MarginalWatcher (1055844) | about 10 months ago | (#45365779)

Are you sure that's what the link contains? Maybe AC wasn't telling the truth, and instead the link is the answer to life, the universe and everything. How can you NOT look at the link now?

No, mod down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365807)

and I'd give a +1 informative

Which will then draw more attention to the original post which was quite happily hidden at -1 for most readers. Now you've posted at +2, and if I hadn't posted anonymously there'd be another +2 post here.

Mod parent down.

Re:No, mod down (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 10 months ago | (#45365819)

I can see what you're saying here:

Now you've posted at +2, and if I hadn't posted anonymously there'd be another +2 post here.

And by "Dumbfounds" (2)

JBMcB (73720) | about 10 months ago | (#45364389)

... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

Re:And by "Dumbfounds" (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45364433)

... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

Every now and then you need the weird exception, it's what helps establish the statistical mean.

Re:And by "Dumbfounds" (1, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | about 10 months ago | (#45365475)

... they mean it's something new scientists haven't seen before, and haven't figured out yet.

Kinda like the same way you meet someone you don't know, you are dumbfounded by them.

Mainly if they are female...

It ain't no swastika. (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#45364399)

Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, theorizes that sometime within the last 10 or 20 thousand years, a comet with four bright tails, came to wards the Earth in an end-on view. That would look like a Swastika. That shape has been recorded in Chinese manuscripts of comet descriptions. It must have made profound impact on human psyche because of so many associations of the Swastika symbol with supernatural and power.

So I was looking for some spectacular six tailed swastika there, but, meh, some smokey trails.

Re:It ain't no swastika. (1)

killkillkill (884238) | about 10 months ago | (#45364561)

"like spokes on a wheel" was not apt description and set my exceptions of the image a bit too high. Meh, indeed.

Re:It ain't no swastika. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 10 months ago | (#45365031)

I'm wondering if this is some weird new invocation of Godwin's law...

Re:It ain't no swastika. (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45366627)

The swastika was an important symbol before Germany was a country.

Re:It ain't no swastika. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366769)

I'm wondering if this is some weird new invocation of Godwin's law...

Godwin's law isn't about a regular discussion and then BAM! Nazis! Rather discussions tends to escalate and become more polarized until Nazi references occur.
Going from comets to swastikas is just a natural way there.

Also, swastikas were commonly used as a symbol for Thor and lightning/thunder, several rune-stones have swastikas on them. (And you are literally Hitler!)

Re:It ain't no swastika. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366981)

You know what, motherfucker, you're the one who brought up Nazis by bringing up Godwin's shitloving law. YOU'RE THE FUCKING NAZI HERE!!!!! You fantasize about Nazis. You want it to happen. You want your sexual fantasies to be the topic of discussion. I bet you dress up in leather clothes and dream of a Nazi beating you with down and pounding you in the ass while you're on the ground.
 
You're the Nazi here. You're a Nazi sympathizer and you dream of gay sex with Nazis. You try to cover it up with cries of "Godwin's Law." Just admit that you lust for Nazi dicks in your ass and be done with it.

Fox Comet! (3, Funny)

ElectraFlarefire (698915) | about 10 months ago | (#45364401)

Space Kitsune!
Off to earn it's last three tails.

Re:Fox Comet! (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 10 months ago | (#45365065)

As a six-tailed kitsune, I approve of this asteroid!

Why is being called an asteroid? (2)

ceview (2857765) | about 10 months ago | (#45364453)

Why is this being reported as an asteroid when the original research paper says that it is a comet? http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/778/1/L21/article [iop.org] What is the difference between a comet and an asteroid?

Re:Why is being called an asteroid? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364555)

You foolishly left your juicy snappyhole defenseless! I'll take advantage of your immense naivete and slurp the hole between those delicious cheeks of you ares! Wow! Wow! Wow! That was simply scrump! I can't even begin to stand the scrumpyolyness of such a fuckin' thing!

Vanish!
Oh, yeah!
"Vanish! Vanish! Vanish!" the audience demanded.
Everyone wants you to vanish.
You're a laughing stock.
How comical! How comical!

Re:Why is being called an asteroid? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#45364811)

Called both in the article, it was thought it was a comet (icy body outgassing because of sun) but then:

  "As an inner-belt asteroid and probable Flora family member, the object is likely to be highly metamorphosed and unlikely to contain ice. The protracted period of dust release appears inconsistent with an impact origin, but may be compatible with a body that is losing mass through a rotational instability. "

Asteroids are minor planets of three main types: stony, metallic or carbon-rich

It's Gamelon!!!! (1)

stink_eye (1582461) | about 10 months ago | (#45364483)

Deslock! Deslock! DES...LOCK!!!!

Science. (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | about 10 months ago | (#45364515)

Asteroids do not have tails. Fusion powered spaceships or comets do though....

better science (4, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#45364701)

comets are icy and have tails when close to sun due to outgassing.

Asteroids (minor planets that are stony, metallic, or carbon compound based) can have tails for various reasons, some covered in the article.

Re:Science. (3, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about 10 months ago | (#45364707)

So is it accelerating or decelerating consistently?

And if so is it heading towards us?

We'll have to get a team of older movie stars (like Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, John Travolta and William Shatner) to intercept it

Re:Science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364709)

That makes it even more amazing then :P

tentacle porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364591)

Those are not tails but tentacles.

So it has six big holes in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364667)

Out of the six holes in comet like core emerge six plumes of comet like dust. Scientists dumbfounded and unable to explain phenomenon according to article.

Amazing.

How to detect a really bad science writer... (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 10 months ago | (#45364675)

Why do so many of these stories have things like "dumbfounded" or "baffled" in the title? Are these scientists just standing there, exclaiming to everyone who will listen - "I'm just so gosh-darn BAFFLED!" Not from any scientist I've met - but it's always reported as such, as if unknowns weren't a crucial element of the whole, you know, SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

Yeesh.

Ryan Fenton

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (5, Interesting)

glwtta (532858) | about 10 months ago | (#45365077)

They certainly don't use the word "baffled", but for all the scientist I know, the standard response to new data is "WTF is this shit?!"

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about 10 months ago | (#45365591)

Or: Interresting!

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366779)

I much prefer when they say "WTF is this shit?!"

In my experience when a scientist or an engineer says "Interesting!" it is generally a good idea to step back or GTFO, it never turns out well.

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45367037)

I prefer, "Fascinating."

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (4, Funny)

MyHair (589485) | about 10 months ago | (#45365133)

Try this one weird trick to understand....

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45365259)

"coondoggie" (the submitter) is Michael Cooney, the NetworkWorld blogger/author. You do the math. Me, I miss Roland Piquepaille every time I get tricked into following one of these "hey click on my blog" submissions.

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 10 months ago | (#45365585)

Because it's proof of god! Stupid science is dumbfounded by size tailed asteroids, so god must make them.

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365619)

In this case, it seems you don't need to shoot the science writer. The word dumbfounded appears to have been used indeed by the scientists. From the article: "We were literally dumbfounded when we saw it," said lead investigator David Jewitt

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365931)

Actually, in this case. ..

"We were literally dumbfounded when we saw it," said lead investigator David Jewitt of the University of California at Los Angeles in a statement.

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45367693)

How do these comments criticizing the choice of the word baffled get modded up? The research interviewed in the article actually used the word DUMBFOUNDED. The summary lifted the word choice straight from the lips of one of the researches that discovered it.

I guess "reading the article" is too much to ask in exchange for mod-ups these days...

Re:How to detect a really bad science writer... (3, Informative)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 10 months ago | (#45367773)

Well, in this case it's a direct quote from the lead investigator.

"We were literally dumbfounded when we saw it," said lead investigator David Jewitt of the University of California at Los Angeles in a statement.

And while I'm not sure a scientist would say "I'm just so gosh-darn BAFFLED!" I have heard them say, "Beats the hell outta me." I guess "Scientists baffled by new sighting" is a more accurate headline than "Scientists get the hell beaten out of them by new sighting."

And... (-1, Troll)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45364687)

Our lives are better for finding this exactly how?

Hey, I'm all for people who are interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake seeking it. But this is paid for by taxpayers. Where's the justification behind extracting money by force to pay for this? Can I get a research grant to study the effects of a radical increase of income on a middle class citizen (me, say give me $1 million a year to see what happens)?

And no, this is not a troll or flamebait - it's justified, rational criticism.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364775)

I'm only asking you to consider this [youtube.com] . My life is better for having found it, I think it makes perfect sense.

Re:And... (1)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45365135)

I'm not clicking that, but am happy that Two Girls, One Cup, or whatever it is made your life better.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | about 10 months ago | (#45364805)

this is not just knowledge for knowledge's sake. this is part of efforts to observe planetoids and asteroids to determine if there's risk of collision with Earth [minorplanetcenter.net] , determining feasibility of mining asteroids for resources [wikipedia.org] , or even plain and simple adding to data sets observing how planetoids and asteroids interact with space

a lot of basic science isn't about finding groundbreaking stuff all the time. in fact, if you're doing research only looking for the "groundbreaking stuff", you're doing science wrong. much of science is straight observation. and it is USEFUL.

Re:And... (-1, Troll)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45365127)

LOL. Rationalization at its finest. Kudos.

Re:And... (3, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45365287)

What do you want? Something engraved in stone tablets? Gold Tablets? Carefully painted in whole wheat linguini?

Anything not coming directly from your deity of choice is going to be a rationalization. Get used to it.

I love science for science's sake (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 10 months ago | (#45365593)

You present a good defense of the need to track this...

But what about just because it's good to figure things out?!?!

Curiosity drives our evolution now...at least it seems that way...I'm not saying we give out a $10 billion NSA grant to find out what these 'tails' are (my guess is that all comets have multiple tails, this one just imaged right and was of the right type for us to see)...

I'm saying, from a philosophical standpoint, science for science sake is a good human endeavor

Re:And... (1)

melikamp (631205) | about 10 months ago | (#45367517)

a lot of basic science isn't about finding groundbreaking stuff all the time

In this case, however, it is literally about groundbreaking stuff.

Re:And... (2)

glwtta (532858) | about 10 months ago | (#45365067)

And no, this is not a troll or flamebait - it's justified, rational criticism.

Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Re:And... (1)

forkazoo (138186) | about 10 months ago | (#45365501)

Ask again in 200 years. Then we'll know if understanding asteroids proved useful. It takes a long time for basic research and pushing the boundaries of human understanding to pay off, but some of it eventually does. You know, like the electron, or semiconducting, or liquid crystals, or imaginary numbers. All of that stuff was ivory tower academic fluff at one point. The whole value of "out there" research is that it is in areas that we don't fully understand yet, and therefore have no idea how useful they might eventually become.

Re:And... (1)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45366643)

"like the electron, or semiconducting, or liquid crystals, or imaginary numbers."

None of which were discovered through by a government program like NASA (Cambridge Univ., Bell Labs, antiquity, respectively). Thanks for supporting my point.

Re:And... (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 months ago | (#45367069)

Cambridge university received massive amounts of funding for that research, by the way. His point still stands - there is plenty of research paid for by governments around the world which has no seemingly-obvious practical applications, but which ends up creating whole industries in which countless people work, which help improve our daily lives immeasurably. Just because you can't see it doesn't magically make it worthless. In fact, your post was more of an admission of your lack of knowledge than a condemnation of the system of government-sponsored research wasting money.

Is it an ayakashi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45364879)

Just making sure we're dealing with an asteroid and not a six tailed japanese god fox.

Here's the real story (1, Funny)

Nov8tr (2007392) | about 10 months ago | (#45364919)

OK this comet was coming at Earth. Chuck Norris found out. He used a SpaceX ship to fly to the comet. He twisted the comets tail with his powerful karate and made it spin out of control. (which is why it now has 6 tails) Now it will miss the Earth by millions of miles. Once again Chuck Norris has saved humanity!!

Re:Here's the real story (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45366725)

He used a SpaceX ship to fly to the comet.

Obviously untrue. What does Chuck Norris need with a spaceship?

Re:Here's the real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366935)

Because he makes things do his dirty work and the propellant wasn't even rocket fuel, it was powered by Chuck Norris's powerful aura.

Oh no. Not them again. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 10 months ago | (#45365051)

Enough with the probing already!

It'd be nice to have some more/better images. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365059)

By the looks of those, it still appears to be a single jet(spewing out for whatever reason) and it's just spinning.

Why tails not spirals? (3, Interesting)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 10 months ago | (#45365157)

If it was spinning then would the discharge be in a spiral(s) rather that individual tails?

Re:Why tails not spirals? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#45366617)

Solar wind perhaps?

What's interesting is that they think it's spinning very fast.

P/2013 P5 has been ejecting dust periodically for at least five months. Astronomers believe it is possible the asteroid's rotation rate increased to the point where its surface started flying apart.

Re:Why tails not spirals? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45366785)

The angle of any spiralling will depend on how fast it's spinning and how fast the jets are, so any spiralling just might not be perceivable in the images.

wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365489)

Look up the electric universe..

Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366595)

Go lick a socket.

Re:wrong it is electricity... plasma discharge.. (1)

trout007 (975317) | about 10 months ago | (#45367425)

Exactly. I'm not suggesting everything the EU folks say is true but something like this does make a good case for thei theory in asteroids and comets. I wonder how elliptical the orbit is. That looks a lot like a plasma discharge.

It's obvious (1)

kaka.mala.vachva (1164605) | about 10 months ago | (#45365531)

Those are deep space kraken!

Aliens! (1)

kenwd0elq (985465) | about 10 months ago | (#45365579)

Alien Asteroid Mining. Either that, or the Fithp from the Niven & Pournelle book "Footfall", preparing a dinosaur killer to soften up the Earth.

How do they know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45365673)

Can someone please explain how scientists can tell this fragment was caused by a 'collision 200 million years ago'

How can they tell from looking at a photo. Serious question I really want to know

Re:How do they know (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#45366629)

Educated guess? I think it's safe to assume that since it's been observed for awhile that this particular asteroid is between a few months old and 4.6 billion years old. [space.com] Presumably the paper when published will validate the 200,000 year thought. Maybe somebody was playing pool with planets 200,000 years ago and we're just now finding out about it?

Re:How do they know (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 months ago | (#45367081)

Lister was probably pished again.

Re:How do they know (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#45367775)

Pool God! King of the Cues! Prince of the Planet-Potters!

Re:How do they know (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45366801)

They've linked it (I think mainly by orbit) to other debris and to meteorites which they've presumably dated in other ways.

OMG (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45366367)

Allready six-tails!

Thats dangerous Naruto, come back!

FSM (1)

sydbarrett74 (74307) | about 10 months ago | (#45366527)

You dolts! It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster(tm)!

Did anyone clean the lens? (1)

Skiron (735617) | about 10 months ago | (#45366689)

I mean, this is like looking through a dirty/wet window at a street lamp etc.

Possible astroid belt origin? (1)

minogully (1855264) | about 10 months ago | (#45366915)

From the article:

P/2013 P5 has been ejecting dust periodically for at least five months. Astronomers believe it is possible the asteroid's rotation rate increased to the point where its surface started flying apart.

All they said was, "At least five months". If we worked backwards, how big would this asteroid have been, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago?

Rhysling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45367279)

flushing the jets clean

First quantum asteroid found (1)

smitsco (677534) | about 10 months ago | (#45367375)

Everytime they observe it, it changes. If they would stop looking at it, the debris will stop.

Down with the astronomers, they are destroying the asteroid.

No worries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45367447)

"Mining operations by the Centauri Consortium are causing more than usual activity in a neighboring solar system. Please adjust starship trajectories accordingly."
- Small notice on the back pages of the Galactic Gazette

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>