Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Definitely Miss Earth

[JonB]

Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Definitely Miss Earth

An asteroid spotted in January 2011 has had its course recalculated and has a lower chance of hitting earth.

When 2011 AG5 was discovered last year, it was believed that there was a small possibility it would collide with earth 28 years later, but thanks to the diligent work of scientists watching the hard-to-track asteroid, it looks like it definitely won't. 2011 AG5, which is about 460 feet across, was on track towards earth with about a 1-in-500 probability of striking. It is now believed that the asteroid will pass earth at about twice the distance from earth to the moon.

A scientist with the team that monitored AG5 said that "these were extremely difficult observations of a very faint object." The photographs of the asteroid were taken with the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii. NASA and other scientists worldwide work together to monitor and catalog near-earth asteroids. About 9,000 near-earth asteroids have been discovered to date, and NASA believes that of those, 95% of the kilometer or larger asteroids have been discovered.

Source: Space.com [http://www.space.com/19045-asteroid-earth-impact-2040-debunked.html]
Image: Space.com

[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/content/eve/science.php]




Permalink

 

[2fish]

So first the Mayans get the date wrong then it turns out the big space rock will miss? This is not a good start to 2013. Oh well life goes on.

 

[gardian06]

Ok Bruce Willis I know you really want to make "Armageddon" happen, but no dice.

So first the Mayans get the date wrong then it turns out the big space rock will miss? This is not a good start to 2013. Oh well life goes on.

how exactly is this a bad thing again?

 

[Akisa]

So first the Mayans get the date wrong then it turns out the big space rock will miss? This is not a good start to 2013. Oh well life goes on.

How did Mayans got the date wrong? It's like saying we got our calendar wrong because our calendar ends on December 31.

 

[2fish]

how exactly is this a bad thing again?

Well the lack of an earth ending event kinda makes it hard for me to study the end of the world yes?

How did Mayans got the date wrong? It's like saying we got our calendar wrong because our calendar ends on December 31.

Well the Mayan calendar was all about the end of the world ...I mean it was all over the news how could you miss it?

 

[darthzew]

I called Bruce and let him know this wasn't happening. He seemed relieved, especially since it wouldn't be the same without Michael Clarke Duncan. RIP, brother.

 

[Gammayun]

But I wanted to see nuclear missiles being fired at it. We could of made a day of it.

 

[Broken Orange]

Whew, I was worried about those odds.

 

[Remus]

There's still Apophis, which is predicted to pass approx 40,000 miles from Earth, close enough for its trajectory to be significantly altered by Earth's gravitational pull.

 

[Akisa]

how exactly is this a bad thing again?

Well the lack of an earth ending event kinda makes it hard for me to study the end of the world yes?

How did Mayans got the date wrong? It's like saying we got our calendar wrong because our calendar ends on December 31.

Well the Mayan calendar was all about the end of the world ...I mean it was all over the news how could you miss it?

Actually it wasn't about the end of the world. More of a new year...

 

[Meight08]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

 

[Josh123914]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

Because the debris would be worse.
In the grand scheme of thing we'd be better off with one cataclysmic world ending asteroid than a million smaller but equally cataclysmic asteroids.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

So we won't be sending a drilling team up to plant a nuclear bomb in it then?

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'm still pretty sure that humans are going to be the cause of the death of the earth, not some asteroid or random apocalypse.

 

[Meight08]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

Because the debris would be worse.
In the grand scheme of thing we'd be better off with one cataclysmic world ending asteroid than a million smaller but equally cataclysmic asteroids.

But wouldn't it be possible to nuke it to pieces that will just burn up in the atmosphere?, Or hell why only use 1 nuke you could send enough nukes to turn it into a rock the size of your fist.

 

[Akisa]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

Because the debris would be worse.
In the grand scheme of thing we'd be better off with one cataclysmic world ending asteroid than a million smaller but equally cataclysmic asteroids.

But wouldn't it be possible to nuke it to pieces that will just burn up in the atmosphere?, Or hell why only use 1 nuke you could send enough nukes to turn it into a rock the size of your fist.

Because there are not enough nukes in the world for that.

 

[Josh123914]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

Because the debris would be worse.
In the grand scheme of thing we'd be better off with one cataclysmic world ending asteroid than a million smaller but equally cataclysmic asteroids.

But wouldn't it be possible to nuke it to pieces that will just burn up in the atmosphere?, Or hell why only use 1 nuke you could send enough nukes to turn it into a rock the size of your fist.

Because there are not enough nukes in the world for that.

plus the massive cloud of radiation that would cover the Earth from the nukes.

 

[Quazimofo]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

Because the debris would be worse.
In the grand scheme of thing we'd be better off with one cataclysmic world ending asteroid than a million smaller but equally cataclysmic asteroids.

But wouldn't it be possible to nuke it to pieces that will just burn up in the atmosphere?, Or hell why only use 1 nuke you could send enough nukes to turn it into a rock the size of your fist.

Because there are not enough nukes in the world for that.

Here I figured that the whole "not enough nukes" thing only applied because the one they were dealing with in Armageddon, to quote the movie, was "the size of texas". These smaller yet cataclysmic ones all seem to have a volume less than that of what I imagine the global ICBM stockpile is (yes many have been decomissioned, but there are still a whole lot).

So how could we not explode the crap out of it?

 

[Quazimofo]

If an asteroid was likely to hit the earth why can't it be nuked?
I know it sounds weird but is that really impossible?

Because the debris would be worse.
In the grand scheme of thing we'd be better off with one cataclysmic world ending asteroid than a million smaller but equally cataclysmic asteroids.

But wouldn't it be possible to nuke it to pieces that will just burn up in the atmosphere?, Or hell why only use 1 nuke you could send enough nukes to turn it into a rock the size of your fist.

Because there are not enough nukes in the world for that.

plus the massive cloud of radiation that would cover the Earth from the nukes.

Wouldn't that depend on how far away it was when it exploded?