Bad news: The asteroid that just missed Earth is coming back. And...

[scottiepippen1994]

By ANDREW MALCOLM
Posted 09:02 AM ET

In terms of a family car vacation, the ancient asteroid that flew by Earth Friday may have seemed far away -- 17,200 miles.

In astronomical terms, however, Asteroid 2012 AD 14 was actually very close, much closer, for example, than the Moon's 239,000 miles. And computer projections of that asteroid's Earth-like orbit into the future currently forecast an upcoming earthly encounter of the explosive kind. More on that disastrous possibility in a minute.

This asteroid was spotted by Spanish astronomers about a year ago. It's one of an estimated 500,000 near-Earth objects, only one percent of which have been cataloged. It's about half the size of a football field in length and from a distance looks much like a pumice stone.

A meteorite (which is what asteroids are called after entering Earth's atmosphere) that severely rattled Russians Friday morning was merely coincidental to the flyby. Ever heard a major meteor explosion? Turn up your volume and watch this video: (More text below)

And that Russian one was much smaller than the flyby, only an estimated 55 feet across and 10,000 tons of matter before starting its flaming plummet through the atmosphere, shattering and exploding to injure possibly as many as 1,000.

Asteroids hold interest for scientists because they are actual primordial debris, drifting galactic time capsules of minerals and matter created during the solar system's formation about 4.5 billion years ago. Those leftover clumps that didn't gravitate into forming planets have been flying about in the vacuum of space ever since, running into each other and cratering other planetary bodies like our Moon and Mars.

These dead rocks can pack quite a wallop. Ask the dinosaurs. When 2012 AD 14 flew by Earth at 2:24 P.M. Eastern time Friday, it was only 17,200 miles above Indonesia, tumbling along at almost five miles per second. With Earth itself moving through space at eight miles a second, the silent encounter was a brief one.

(Scroll down for NASA video of how the nighttime flyby appeared over Australia. And go here for NASA's usual nifty videos and simulations.)

The passing asteroid actually penetrated inside the orbits closer to Earth than the geosynchronous satellites your TV signals bounce off. Those satellites hover in a tidy ring 22,200 miles above the Equator, a distance that means each circles at the same speed as the spinning planet beneath.

Because 2012 AD 14 flew through on a South to North plane, it never came closer than 5,000 miles to any satellite, according to the U.S. Air Force Space Command.
'Armageddon' (Bruce Willis will save us again)

'Armageddon' (Bruce Willis will save us again)

NASA estimates the flyby asteroid was the largest to approach this close in more than a century.

On Earth it would weigh about 130,000 metric tons. That's even larger than one that tore through the atmosphere in 1908. It too preferred Russia. That meteorite explosion leveled 825 square miles, or 528,000 acres of Siberian forest.

However, Friday's uneventful visit was not without effects. The pull of Earth's gravity altered 2012 AD 14's orbit around the Sun, shortening its annual solar rotation from 366 Earth days to 317.

Based on current information, NASA scientists calculate the orbits of each known near-earth object out for the rest of this century.

For instance, 2012 AD 14's orbit will not bring it back to our neighborhood again until 2046, when Americans will still be paying for Barack Obama's recent borrowing.

Now, about that other bad news. According to the same computer calculations, in 2080 the orbit of 2012 AD 14, if unaltered in these next 67 years by some super-natural force like Bruce Willis, will slam into Earth at almost 18,000 miles an hour.

That explosive encounter, NASA says, will release about 2.5 megatons of energy into the atmosphere, causing "regional devastation."

Hopefully, that will occur over a desolate area like Siberia. Or Detroit.

Detroit?
:andruw:

 

[MRubio52]

It's only going to be a matter of time before someone figures out how to use these close flying asteroids to our advantage. I'm not saying this one in particular, but as sci-fi as this sounds, we could theoretically start mining something that was once considered a threat, and reduce/control the potential danger of an actual impact.

We'd have to actually want to get to space again first. At this rate China will be the ones that make any major/notable space explorations.


Sent from MR Phone

 

[brett05]

What makes you say the universe is a closed system?

Also, we've known other galaxies exist since the late 20's. Prior to that they were called nebulae, and were already known to have many different shapes even before then.

Fun fact; Ed Hubble became famous for proving those were actually other galaxies and not exploded stars.

Let me answer your question with a question. What makes you think that there's something outside of the universe from a natural viewpoint?

Known the shapes, or suspected? Any link to it as a known fact? Not doubting, generally interested.

 

[brett05]

It's only going to be a matter of time before someone figures out how to use these close flying asteroids to our advantage. I'm not saying this one in particular, but as sci-fi as this sounds, we could theoretically start mining something that was once considered a threat, and reduce/control the potential danger of an actual impact.

Landing on an asteroid? I just can't see it. And to mine something that relatively is so tiny like half a football field. And the costs to actually do it. For me too much wish.

 

[DewsSox79]

I'd prefer to have the "how the universe began" and "intelligent life on other planets" question fully answered before I die (we're getting so close).

As for the rest of those questions you mention...eh, I have faith that I already know those answers well enough. ray:

:clap:

 

[AuCN]

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

They'd be better off getting certain states to change their stance on mining regulations. Or take on the risks of Afghanistan.

 

[DewsSox79]

Landing on an asteroid? I just can't see it. And to mine something that relatively is so tiny like half a football field. And the costs to actually do it. For me too much wish.

there already is a satellite launched to land on a meteor next year.

 

[Crystallas]

Landing on an asteroid? I just can't see it. And to mine something that relatively is so tiny like half a football field. And the costs to actually do it. For me too much wish.

Why would they have to land on the asteroid? Some theories of mining asteroids use limitations of gravity in space to their advantage. Anyhow, if it's feasible and the benefit is worth the investment, then at some point landing on certain space objects will be a reality.

 

[MRubio52]

Why would they have to land on the asteroid? Some theories of mining asteroids use limitations of gravity in space to their advantage. Anyhow, if it's feasible and the benefit is worth the investment, then at some point landing on certain space objects will be a reality.

IIRC there is a mission to Europa (or the other moon) to mine the ice and see if there is life underneath the surface.

All unmanned, all done on the cheap.


Sent from MR Phone

 

[Crystallas]

IIRC there is a mission to Europa (or the other moon) to mine the ice and see if there is life underneath the surface.

All unmanned, all done on the cheap.


Sent from MR Phone

That's true. Safely manning of these vessels is really what makes exploration so expensive.

 

[Stapler]

Let me answer your question with a question. What makes you think that there's something outside of the universe from a natural viewpoint?

Known the shapes, or suspected? Any link to it as a known fact? Not doubting, generally interested.

The easy answer to your question "why I think there's something outside the universe?" is that less than 100 years ago it was generally thought the Milky Way was the whole universe. The more complex answer is what the particle smashing higgs-bosson hunters are trying to pin down.


Here's an indepth paper from '75; CLASSIFICATION AND STELLAR CONTENT OF GALAXIES OBTAINED FROM DIRECT PHOTOGRAPHY...it discusses/expounds on Hubble's Galaxy Classification work from '25-'50. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sandage/frames.html

 

[Anno Catuli]

12 Year Old Genius Challenges Big Bang Theory
Students of the Bible--Big Bang Theory Goes Against Common Sense
By Megan Myers
Facts are always analyzed in terms of the prejudices of the investigator.' Sir Fred Hoyle, Highlights in Astronomy, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1975.
Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the universe come and go. Today's "science" is tomorrow's superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the steady-state theory as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding universe. "Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead" (Weaver 1974, 625).
The current inclination concerning the beginning of our universe is known as the big bang theory, but even the "bang" notion is receiving competition from a newer view called the plasma theory (DeYoung 1992, i-iv).
Now, 12-year Jacob Barnett, currently studying for his Ph.D, has amazed professors by challenging the plausibility of the "Big Bang Theory." Barnett's new theories involve some problems with the Big Bang and Relativity.
Perhaps, because Jacob is still a child, he has not formed prejudices against the facts and is able to see what many students of the Bible have known for years--the Big Bang theory goes against common sense.
The Big Bang Theory states that in the mother of all explosions, the Big Bang blasted out the hydrogen needed to form stars. In time, the hydrogen started to condense into gas clouds which, when they got dense enough, ignited, forming the first stars. When these early, massive stars died, they blew up in supernovae, thus creating all of the heavier elements that populate our universe.
Jacob recognized a problem--where did all the carbon in the universe come from? After all, a supernova explosion can only blast carbon so far into interstellar space. Jacob's idea--some other, unknown mechanism created all of the carbon in the universe.
Those with faith in the Bible know that "mechanism" was God.
Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a "holocaust," to use Jastrow's term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state" (1983, 40).
If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is "clumpy," i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang. The facts are:
The temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical bang.
Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature "ripples," confess now that it is "harder than ever" to explain "how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe" (Flam 1993, 31).
Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a "cause of some alarm" that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as "proof" of the big bang (1992, 731).
The Bible versus the Big Bang
The fact is, there are significant contradictions between the big bang theory and the Bible record.
(1) As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire universe, including the earth with its various "kinds" of biological organisms, came into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). The big bang theory postulates eons of time.
The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory. They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun.
However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise.
The big bang theory supposes that the universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psalm 102:25ff; Hebrews 1:10-12).
Big bang cosmology postulates a universe that is nearly twenty billion years old, with the human race evolving only three or four million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the universe from that of mankind.
But the Scriptures affirm:
The human family came into existence the same week as the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50; Romans 1:20).
Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord's ancestry all the way back to Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). There are some two millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another two thousand years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that twenty billion years can be squeezed into those twenty generations. The universe thus cannot be billions of years old.
It would seem that if scientists really wish to be objective they would study the Bible as a source for scientific discoveries. Every time scientists have questioned the scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible, they have been proven wrong and the Bible's accuracy proven.
For those who doubt this statement, but are open to learning, check out the following: Scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, God and Science, Science and the Bible
Sources:
Wayne Jackson,The big bang theory vs. God's word, Christian Courier
12 year old Jacob Barnett challenges Einstein's Theories,Your Jewish New/Examiner.Com
Prejudice, Answering Genesis Org.


http://voices.yahoo.com/12-year-old-genius-challenges-big-bang-theory-8275773.html?cat=4

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

2) I am not even saying an Oort Cloud exists. It's the belief held by Old universe folks AFAIK

So what the hell was the point of posting this:

Try the unknown Ort Cloud.

 

[Anno Catuli]

So what the hell was the point of posting this:

I think by saying the unknown ort cloud he was saying it didn't exist. though I could be wrong

 

[Crystallas]

We'd have to actually want to get to space again first. At this rate China will be the ones that make any major/notable space explorations.


Sent from MR Phone

Well, we do. Our biggest blockade is the notion that only NASA can do it, and only the government can authorize it. Yet, many independent scientists have developed and funded projects that remain grounded. :shrug: What an epic conflict of interest. You have to be well connected, politically, to get consideration. That's a damn shame if you ask me.

 

[MRubio52]

Well, we do. Our biggest blockade is the notion that only NASA can do it, and only the government can authorize it. Yet, many independent scientists have developed and funded projects that remain grounded. :shrug: What an epic conflict of interest. You have to be well connected, politically, to get consideration. That's a damn shame if you ask me.

This has more to do with national security than NASA.

The collective we do not care about space exploration. The vast majority of people are hesitant to discover things, to explore.

The real shame is our collective decline in ambition since the Apollo program.


Sent from MR Phone

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

The real shame is our collective decline in ambition since the Apollo program.

Just a theory, but I think a lot of interest (especially political) in the Apollo program had more to do with making sure we did things before the Soviets than anything. We currently aren't 'competing' with anyone. I think you mentioned the Chinese earlier, and while they may be our next 'enemy,' I don't see the general public's feelings towards them like it was in the 50's.

Just $.02

 

[MRubio52]

Just a theory, but I think a lot of interest (especially political) in the Apollo program had more to do with making sure we did things before the Soviets than anything. We currently aren't 'competing' with anyone. I think you mentioned the Chinese earlier, and while they may be our next 'enemy,' I don't see the general public's feelings towards them like it was in the 50's.

Just $.02

That's absolutely it, but I do think there was a brief period, after we had "won" where we were greatly interested in learning about the cosmos.

It was unfortunately short lived.


Sent from MR Phone

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

That's absolutely it, but I do think there was a brief period, after we had "won" where we were greatly interested in learning about the cosmos.

It was unfortunately short lived.


Sent from MR Phone

I'll take your word for it. My 'hobby' of astronomy started fairly recently, so I can't speak on how it was during the 90's.

 

[Crystallas]

This has more to do with national security than NASA.

Well, I didn't say it was NASA who gives authority, if you read my response carefully.

Grounding projects in the name of national security is a farce. Anyone that has the existing applications ready to go, could just as easily pose an attack. I don't think anyone who has the motive to attack, would wait for those who they want to attack, to give them a thumbs up.