91–100 of 374 posts
Full link: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20Y...
You can email hn@ to ask them to fix a link. The title bot likes to strip URL parameters.
I work on the Near Earth Object Surveyor space telescope (NEO Surveyor) writing simulation code which predicts which objects we will see. This one has drummed up a bit of interest due to its (relatively) high chance of impact. I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday digging through archive images trying trying to see if it was spotted on some previous times it came by the Earth (no luck unfortunately). Since w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why crisis? People should simply not look up.
> Why crisis? People should simply not look up. I don't understand why this apt pun on that movie is being downvoted. Would anyone of the downvoters of parent care to explain?
Working link: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20Y... 8.1 megatons of kinetic energy. According to the Torino rating, only risk of “localized destruction” (less than “regional devastation”): https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/torino_scale.html
*megatons of TNT. 1 MT of TNT = 4.14*10^15 joules
Working link: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20Y... 8.1 megatons of kinetic energy. According to the Torino rating, only risk of “localized destruction” (less than “regional devastation”): https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/torino_scale.html
It's 1.2% cumulative over 6 passes that begin in 2032.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless it lands in the ocean in which case tidal waves, and if on land, probably an earthquake/shockwave.
A comparable ocean impact would be the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which was about 3x more energetic.
So is anyone working on increasing those odds?