Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The odds of a city-killer asteroid impact in 2032 keep rising

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: The odds of a city-killer asteroid impact in 2032 keep rising

#11

Post by fred_is_fred »

peatmoss wrote: post #9

The current odds (0.28% as gnabgid@ cites) are still uncomfortable. But also, most of the Earth's surface isn't a city, so maybe we should be even less worried. But on the other hand, I do wonder if a city-killer blast in the wrong spot could trigger some kind of nuclear response in a jumpy geopolitical climate. I keep thinking about the time the USSR caught some weird atmospheric effect and nearly launched, save for…

I would think the trajectory would be completely wrong since I think most launches are detected on the way up not down.

Re: The odds of a city-killer asteroid impact in 2032 keep rising

#13

Post by _el1s7 »

zahlman wrote: post #3
gnabgib wrote: post #2

Not any more it's at 0.28% https://blogs.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/2025/02/20/additiona... NASA Downgrades the Risk of 2024 YR4 to Below 1% (45 points, 11 hours ago, 54 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43148259

On a meta level, it seems worrying that the probability estimate might update that rapidly....

The odds are changing like a crypto coin price

Re: The odds of a city-killer asteroid impact in 2032 keep rising

#14

Post by defrost »

fred_is_fred wrote: post #12

I am curious how to map the calculation onto a human impact number. 0.28% chance to hit the entire planet, most of which would have limited impact on humanity. What are the odds for example that this kills 1000 people?

You'd need to start with GIS population data for the planet, a first order answer would look at the surface area of the planet divided out by the principal destructive area size of (say) the Tunguska event, each area weighted by population.

Complications over that, once sorted out, include:

* are whether impact sites are evenly distributed across the planet or, perhaps, weight to more common near equatorial regions .. this would relate to the expected incoming trajectories of chuncky rocks which are maybe more likely in the solar plane.

* chance of impacts in non populated (or low populated) areas having a disproportionate secondary effect that kills people.

eg: Will hitting shallow ocean cause a wave that travels and kills?

Will hitting and destroying the massive water pipes that bring drinking water to New York City kill very few directly but indirectly cause the death and suffering of a million+ ?

Re: The odds of a city-killer asteroid impact in 2032 keep rising

#15

Post by fred_is_fred »

defrost wrote: post #14
fred_is_fred wrote: post #12

I am curious how to map the calculation onto a human impact number. 0.28% chance to hit the entire planet, most of which would have limited impact on humanity. What are the odds for example that this kills 1000 people?

You'd need to start with GIS population data for the planet, a first order answer would look at the surface area of the planet divided out by the principal destructive area size of (say) the Tunguska event, each area weighted by population. Complications over that, once sorted out, include: * are whether impact sites are evenly distributed across the planet or, perhaps, weight to more common near equatorial regions .…

I didn't even consider that different parts of the planet may be more or less likely to be hit. Are most of these dangerous asteroids in the normal orbital plane or could something come straight down onto the North Pole from 90 degrees? I assume yes possible, but much less likely.

All in all though it is extremely complex.

Re: The odds of a city-killer asteroid impact in 2032 keep rising

#16

Post by defrost »

fred_is_fred wrote: post #15
defrost wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd need to start with GIS population data for the planet, a first order answer would look at the surface area of the planet divided out by the principal destructive area size of (say) the Tunguska event, each area weighted by population. Complications over that, once sorted out, include: * are whether impact sites are evenly distributed across the planet or, perhaps, weight to more common near equatorial regions .…

I didn't even consider that different parts of the planet may be more or less likely to be hit. Are most of these dangerous asteroids in the normal orbital plane or could something come straight down onto the North Pole from 90 degrees? I assume yes possible, but much less likely. All in all though it is extremely complex.

If you're interested in such things you might enjoy joining your local chapter of the Global Fireball Observatory, an expansion of the original Desert Fireball Network.

https://gfo.rocks/partners.html https://dfn.gfo.rocks/

They've got camera kits, forums, data, nerds, actual recovered rocks, . . .

Post reply on HN