# Far Flung Asteroid...?



## Ursa major (Mar 3, 2012)

According to the Torygraph:


> An asteroid with a one in 625 chance of striking Earth in 30 years' time has been identified by NASA.


From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...with-one-in-625-chance-of-hitting-planet.html.


What most caught my eye in this article was one of the suggested solutions:


> NASA has said that options include deflecting the asteroid by attaching a probe to it and using the extra gravity this would create to steer it away from Earth over the course of millions of light years.


I firmly believe that NASA said no such thing.


*shakes head at yet another of science journalism's own goals*


----------



## mosaix (Mar 4, 2012)

The thing is, UM every time I read something in the press that I know a little about I'm always (I know I shouldn't be) surprised just how many errors the article contains. 

This has taught not to believe things in articles that I know nothing about.


----------



## Dave (Mar 4, 2012)

Another thread on bad journalism??

I thought it was going to be about this Meteor: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17248959

I missed it <crying>. The best in thirty years according to the Kielder observatory, but seen from Edinburgh to Devon, and seems to have gone down the West coast.

As for that Asteroid it was identified a long time ago. IIRC they cannot determine if it will ever hit Earth or not because it is dependent on how close it is to Earth on it's next orbit. During that orbit it could be flung into a new orbit that is closer towards us or further away from us in the same kind of slingshot gravity assist maneuver that spacecraft use.


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 18, 2012)

Grr. Has journalism really become so sticky? They'll even lie in a _science_ article? Sheesh. I'm critical of what I read anyway, but now I'm beginning to think not nearly enough.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 18, 2012)

I don't think it's necessarily a case of deliberately misleading but rather an example of just how stupid some journalists (not all) are, especially when it comes to real science.


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 18, 2012)

Perhaps not...but as a journalist, don't you think she should have verified her facts? If she says that NASA said something, she should make sure a spokesperson from NASA actually _did_ say it. I don't think you have to understand science to know that. So saying she did something "stupid" seems like an accurate description (along with "unprofessional").


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 18, 2012)

Michael01 said:


> ...but as a journalist, don't you think she should have verified her facts?


We are talking here about the _London_ papers, Michael, in whose pages facts are rarely sacred. There is little or no separation between pure reporting and pure(sic) comment: what should be (and probably would be in the US) "news reports" are often heavily filtered through the journalist's (and their editor's) point of view: if one wants an unbiased view, one must try** to find the same story written in two papers differing in political outlook and see where the "facts" coincide and were they don't.

(This is why, when I quote from articles and link to them, I usually mention the source, which at least helps the UK readers of these posts to work out which "filters" may be in operation.)

Given this approach to reporting in the main news arena, it's little wonder that what are seen as less important subjects and topics are allowed to be treated in what one might call, if one were being kind, a cavalier attitude.



** - Not always easy, as the same outlook often guides what is reported and what isn't, so some stories only appear in some newspapers.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 19, 2012)

I still hold to the fact that in this particular case it is just careless journalism. I doubt it is lack of research; I expect the information came from a NASA press release in which some of the data was misunderstood. In this case it is not just misleading it is non-sensical.

"Steer it away from Earth over the course of millions of light years"

This appears to be describing a time span but they have units of distance not time. It may not even be the journalist's fault. It is equally possible that it may have happened in editing with some removed words completely changing the meaning.

The bottom line though, if you look into this, is that this particular asteroid is considered a very low risk and I find no evidence of any research or even discussion being done on ways to divert _this particular_ asteroid's course. As it is simply not considered necessary, at least until September 2013, when we should have much more accurate data on it's precise orbit.

I suspect they have picked up on the discovery of the asteroid and that it is listed as having at least some chance of a Earth impact and then they've gone off to look at all the sensible and crackpot ideas that have ever been suggested for diverting asteroids. By the time it came to be written up, the details, and exactly which details came from whom, had been thoroughly jumbled. Just a case of sloppy journalism.


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 19, 2012)

I agree regarding the possible causes of the error: for one thing, I don't think that paper has a particular view of time and stellar distances.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 19, 2012)

- no I sort of felt this slipped out of the normal political stances of most papers (though I'm sure the Fortean Times could take a 'political' stance on it).


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 19, 2012)

Earth has had many near misses before, like in the 1980's, people freaked out when the Sci-Fi Chanel announced an asteroid the size of a mountain was heading towards us. It passed between the Moon and Earth, plus it was big enough to see without a telescope, spooky, but cool.

I've noticed a steady increase of meteors falling to Earth or racing through the sky only to fly back out into space. Within recent years, I've seen small burning meteors race over head crossing my path as I drove down roads, and some that were big enough to make night appear as day because of the brightness.

I don't think a gigantic asteroid will smash into Earth with enough power to wipe out over 90% of humans with a nuclear winter, or devastating earthquakes and or volcanoes.

But if I'm wrong, it was nice knowing all of you here.


----------



## Dave (Mar 19, 2012)

Starbeast said:


> I don't think a gigantic asteroid will smash into Earth with enough power to wipe out over 90% of humans with a nuclear winter, or devastating earthquakes and or volcanoes.


Well, it has happened before (allegedly). Look at the Gulf of Mexico. See that big circular hole as if someone just took a bite out of Mexico and Texas. That was one that hit us and coincided with the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous Period, 65 Million Years ago. Half the species on the planet die out along with the Dinosaurs.



Vertigo said:


> "Steer it away from Earth over the course of millions of light years"


 I thought that was the point Ursa Major was making - that they were confusing their units. I expect they don't know what Light Years measure, but they sounded a bit more science fiction than normal years. Planning ahead for millions of years time would be quite some forward planning though!

As I said earlier, when I saw the thread title, I thought it was instead about the meteor that passed over the UK that same night. Maybe there was a connection after all. Maybe, on finding the eyewitness reports of that fairly mundane, they dug out some old story with a bit more gee-whiz.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 19, 2012)

Dave said:


> Planning ahead for millions of years time would be quite some forward planning though!


 
Hehe! Now _that_ is the point _I_ thought Ursa was making. Probably was making them both. He's clever that bear is.


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 19, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> I suspect they have picked up on the discovery of the asteroid and that it is listed as having at least some chance of a Earth impact and then they've gone off to look at all the sensible and crackpot ideas that have ever been suggested for diverting asteroids. By the time it came to be written up, the details, and exactly which details came from whom, had been thoroughly jumbled. Just a case of sloppy journalism.


 
Okay. I can understand that. Of course, I figure it's a good idea to really think about any piece of journalism anyway. The U.S. certainly isn't any better. I will admit I have to be careful with some the stories I watch on TRNN, since I tend to agree with many of Paul Jay's viewpoints.


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 20, 2012)

Dave said:


> Well, it has happened before (allegedly). Look at the Gulf of Mexico. See that big circular hole as if someone just took a bite out of Mexico and Texas. That was one that hit us and coincided with the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous Period, 65 Million Years ago. Half the species on the planet die out along with the Dinosaurs.


 
I had a feeling someone was going to mention the demise of the giant prehistoric beasts, and it was you Dave. But you really don't have to go that far back, the 1908 "Tunguska Event" wiped out many square miles without leaving a crater. That could just as easily happen again.


----------



## Dave (Mar 20, 2012)

Wasn't that meant to be a Comet?

The problem with that was it was deep in Siberia where no one lives to see it. Even so, I think it has now become established mainstream fact rather than still being in the realms of conspiracy theorists. (It was supposed to be the warp core ejection on the crash of an alien spacecraft.)


----------



## chrispenycate (Mar 20, 2012)

Or a quantum black hole transpiercing the planet, or solid, pure ice meteor that completely melted before hitting the ground so the expanding steam only made a shallow crater and a shock wave, or the power plant of an experimental Russian spacecraft, or…


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 20, 2012)

Dave said:


> Wasn't that meant to be a Comet?
> 
> The problem with that was it was deep in Siberia where no one lives to see it. Even so, I think it has now become established mainstream fact rather than still being in the realms of conspiracy theorists. (It was supposed to be the warp core ejection on the crash of an alien spacecraft.)


 
I'd rather not chat about aliens and their technology, here.

Anyway, the Siberian mid-air explosion caused by a "comet", shook the Earth for hundreds of miles, about 80 million trees were flattened to the ground and the sky glowed from the aftermath of the blast for days.

Plus there were witnesses who saw the mammoth fireball flying through the sky before it detonated.

Thank GOD this "thing" exploded in a nonpopulated remote area.


----------

