Conference back40::soapbox

    we've already got our evolutionary meteor; it's called AIDS. 

    ... aside from the social commentary, this would almost argue n-o-t
        to eliminate nuclear arsenals. Certainly, conventional weapons
        would be of little use in diverting any large mass.
    
        Chip

    According to Cheech and Chong, the dinosaurs died of terminal
    constipation. Back in those "good old days", marijuana plants 
    grew 20 feet tall, and was very powerful. As the dino's grew ever
    larger and hungrier, they ate up all the available food until there
    was nothing left but pot and rocks. They then ate up all the cannibas, 
    got the munchies and then started eating the boulders, thus leading
    to their terminal constipation. 
    
    Must be true, I heard it on a record....
    
    
    

    .0
    
    > Maybe we should spend a couple of million of dollars a year on
    > watching for such nasties.  If we notice them more than a few years in
    > advance we can nudge them out of the collision course.
    
    if the latest information derived from the impacts of shoemaker-levy 9
    on jupiter is representative, and apparently most experts think it is,
    comets are so loosely agglutinated that trying to nudge one off course
    is virtually guaranteed to break it up into myriad smaller rocks that
    would mostly continue on the original path, whacking us hard all over
    the place instead of at one site.  bad idea.

    
    the professor/scientist/philospher Strahler thinks the idea of an object 
    hitting earth and the various implied extrapolations is ludicrous.
    
    jeff

    .5
    
    how does strahler explain meteor crater in arizona, then?  magic?

    
    i should say he thinks the extrapolations are ludicrous.
    
    jeff

    Jeff, every rocky body in the Solar system bears clear evidence of
    meteor impacts.  Meteor showers occur at regular intervals during the
    year.  Asteroids have passed closer to Earth than the Moon's orbit.
    We may have swept near space clean over the eons, but
    the idea that a randomly moving body might strike us is not at all
    farfetched.  Indeed, I would call it a certainty.
    
    As for the effects of such an impact, the physics of converting
    momentum into heat are very simple; *I* could probably still do it 8^)
    A one-mile wide rock moving at 20 to 30 miles per second packs an
    enormous wallop; what would splash is not the water it might land in,
    but the Earth's crust itself.

    re: .2
    
    Well, you can't close pandora's box anyway, so you may as well keep
    the nukes for a better purpose than blasting each other into atoms.
    
    -steve

  A few months ago I saw a new theory on why the Dinosaurs lived and died that
conflicts with the Asteroid theory. I think I saw it in the Science and Health
section of the Boston Globe. 

  The theory goes that during the Mesozoic Era, the roughly 60,000,000 year
period in which the Dinosaurs lived, there was a dramatic increase in under
water volcanic activity caused by plate activity. This increased the amount of
CO2 in the water which increased ocean plankton. That in turned increased the
amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere allowing species on Earth to grow to a very
large size. 

  The theory goes on to say that at the end of the Mesozoic Era, roughly
60,000,000 years ago, that volcanic activity stopped and the Oxygen levels in
the atmosphere returned to normal. Since the Dinosaurs required a large amount
of oxygen to survive, they died out. 

  Evidence sited included a discussion of plate movements thought to have
happened during that period which coincided with the one large continent on
Earth at that time breaking up into the current group of continents. This would
have created openings in the ocean floor where plates were moving apart which
would result in increased underwater volcanic activity. 

  The proponents of this theory also pointed out two flaws in the giant asteroid
theory. First, it doesn't explain why so many land based species were able to
grow that large in the 1st place during the Mesozoic Era but were not able to
grow that large before or after. 

  Second, they pointed to geologic evidence that while the Dinosaurs died out
quickly in geologic terms, it was not really as quick as if they had been
killed by an asteroid. They claimed that it was a period of 1 or 2 million
years from the point in the Cretaceous period when the dinosaur population was
at it's peak until they had completely vanished. 

  George 

>A roughly 50 meter rock landed in Siberia in 1908,  releasing about as much
>energy as a 15 megaton nuclear bomb.  It probably killed a few people:  at
>least they were there before the blast and couldn't be found afterwards.
>Wonder what this would do for New York?

    would be a vast improvement IMHO.
    
    we get hit with flying rocks all the time. sooner or later another big
    one will bust through.

    re: .4
    
    >> comets are so loosely agglutinated that trying to nudge one off course
    >> is virtually guaranteed to break it up into myriad smaller rocks that
    >> would mostly continue on the original path, whacking us hard all over
    >> the place instead of at one site.  bad idea.
    
    Absolutely agree.  I'd said this the last time we did this topic
    in the previous box over the summer.  Same goes for asteroids, for
    that matter.  If you nuke an asteroid or comet, what you'll mostly
    get is lots of littler asteroids or comets, still mostly on the same
    path but spread out a little more, and still devastating.
    
    It may be argued that getting hit with mass "M" comprised of a 1,000
    pieces doesn't pack the potential for global disaster that getting
    hit with the same mass "M" in one big piece does.  I might believe
    that, and if so, this would make nuking a more viable alternative.
    
    Some arguments make the point that exploding a nuke on one end of an
    asteroid will have a directed-force effect much like a rocket engine.
    Based on gut feel, I don't agree with that, I think it will be more
    destructive to the structure of the asteroid instead.
    
    In any event, since we trashed the Saturn V we currently don't have
    the hardware to get anything substantial up to escape velocity, so
    the whole thing is academic.  You can't blow them up a few miles above
    the ground like they did in that silly "The Asteroids is Coming!"
    TV-movie a few weeks ago.  And they don't just "disappear", like
    something getting phasered on Star Trek.
    
    Chris

    Maybe if we put a giant applicator filled with Preparation H on the end
    of a solid booster rocket. Or maybe rub it with Witch Hazel... could be
    bad though, if these asteroids were big enough to kill off the
    dinosaurs... whooooh! Makes me cringe just thinking about it!
    
    -b

>    that matter.  If you nuke an asteroid or comet, what you'll mostly
>    get is lots of littler asteroids or comets, still mostly on the same
>    path but spread out a little more, and still devastating.
    
    	Maybe or maybe not still devastating.  If sufficiently broken
    	up, the increased surface area exposed would allow much more of
    	it to be burned up in the earth's atmosphere.  Maybe all of it!
    	Could be quite a light show!

    We should go out and mine them.  Lots of ore available for the taking
    and low g refining may yeild some interesting results as well.  Good
    job opportunities.  
    
    Brian

    .10
    
    > Mesozoic Era, the roughly 60,000,000 year
    
    the mesozoic era lasted from ~225 mya to ~65 mya, a span of roughly 160
    million years, not 60.
    
    > dramatic increase in under
    > water volcanic activity caused by plate activity.
    
    plates were moving before the mesozoic era, and they're still moving. 
    at the start of the mesozoic, all the land area was essentially
    contiguous, called pangaea.  by the middle of the mesozoic, it had
    split into two supercontinents, gondwanaland and laurasia.  by the end
    it had split into roughly what we have today, except that the atlantic
    was a lot narrower and the pacific was a lot wider.  obtw, pangaea
    didn't start out that way, it developed from scattererd land masses in
    the 3.5 billion years or so after the earth's crust cooled but before
    the mesozoic era started.  in another billion years or so there may be
    another single supercontinent.
    
    openings in the ocean floor?  BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  the movement of plates is
    in the range of small numbers of inches per year.  magma wells up like
    putty out of a tube and fills the gaps - check out the mid-atlantic
    ridge.  odd, isn't it, that the greatest underwater vulcanism on the
    planet is in the pacific, where the plates are moving together, not
    apart?  the worst vulcanism known happened very close to the end of the
    mesozoic, all in the space of 1 or 2 million years, forming the basalt
    plains in india that are called the daccan traps.
    
    at which point in this 150 million years was this sudden dramatic rise
    in co2?  and how does it explain that the largest of the dinosaurs, the
    sauropods such as seismosaurus and brachiosaurus and apatosaurus, were
    all extinct ~130 mya, leaving the last 65 million years of the mesozoic
    to smaller critters?
    
    the asteroid theory, as held by the most respected people in the field,
    is that the big one that hit chicxulub ~65 mya didn't cause the mass
    extinction, which by the way was relatively minor compared to the one
    at the end of the paleozoic,  as you say, the process of extinction,
    driven by many forces such as climatic change and possibly disease, was
    well underway and had been going on for several million years before
    the bolide came along and put the cap on it.  the hit was merely the
    final straw, not the culprit.  sorta like gavrilo prinzip touched off a
    simmering powder keg when he offed francis ferdinand.

re: .10, George

> 						That in turned increased the
>amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere allowing species on Earth to grow to a very
>large size. 

Is there any scientific basis upon which to believe that increased O2 will
foster inordinate increased growth in vertebrates?

>			 volcanic activity stopped and the Oxygen levels in
>the atmosphere returned to normal. Since the Dinosaurs required a large amount
>of oxygen to survive, they died out. 

Is there any scientific basis upon which to believe that "normal" O2 levels
are insufficient for the sustenance of any life forms?

Most of what was said made sense, but these items seemed to lack a lot of
credence.

re: .15, Brian

>    We should go out and mine them.  Lots of ore available for the taking
>    and low g refining may yeild some interesting results as well.  Good
>    job opportunities.  

And, they are cheap transportation.

RE         <<< Note 116.17 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Is there any scientific basis upon which to believe that increased O2 will
>foster inordinate increased growth in vertebrates?

  I was reporting a theory that I read. There was some discussion of the
basis for the theory but nothing explicit on how increased oxygen levels
lead to larger animals.

  But it does leave the interesting question, why were there so many more large
species during the Mesozoic than at any other time? The asteroid theory does
not account for that.

  George

    .19
    
    > why were there so many more large
    > species during the Mesozoic than at any other time?
    
    the asteroid theory does not account for the profound changes in
    climate that were going on throughout the mesozoic.  the jurassic was a
    period primarily of warm moist climate, with a predominance of
    non-flowering plants.  the creataceous was drier and cooler, even to
    the point of having snow in the polar regions, and there were lots of
    flowering plants.  the cenozoic era is much drier and cooler than the
    creataceous.  do you suppose that these climatic differences could have
    some effect on what species would be successful at the various times?

It would appear to me that variety in the food source (flora) would be far
more conducive to inordinate growth of vertebrates (due to protein variances)
than would the oxygen level. Certainly the oxygen level might be a factor in
the respiration levels of various plants, and hence it might influence their
metbolisms to cause the production of nutrients in different levels than what
we might be accustomed to today.

You're all wrong. The dinos went extinct because they were too damn heavy 
for Noah's ark. I just wonder why they don't put that FACT into the 
textbooks...

    they were too heavy?  even the chicken-sized ones?

Re Noah.

  Well no, the Dinosaurs were long gone before Noah built his arch. 

  Actually, when you think about it, the Dinosaurs were long gone before the
Lord created the heavens and the earth which was suppose to be about 4000 B.C. 

  Wonder where they lived and who moved their bones to their current location? 

  George 

              <<< Note 116.23 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    they were too heavy?  even the chicken-sized ones?

Oh...um...well they died of heartbreak, cause of all their cousins left 
behind

    you sure they weren't just playing around, with the unicorns?

              <<< Note 116.26 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    you sure they weren't just playing around, with the unicorns?

Ouch! Don't drop that soap, Dino!

    Eating lots of food will certainly explain how species get large, but
    how do you explain how TALL they got?

    
    Delayed puberty.

    Ya, they probably has sensitive nipples and all that.

    <.10>
    >amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere allowing species on Earth to grow
    to a very
    >large size.
    
    The blue whale, largest animal that ever lived, manages ok on "normal"
    oxygen levels.

    RE: .29 and .30
    
    Stop that right now.  I now have bagel spew on my screen and it is
    really hard to get off, my screen that is, the bagel stuff.
    
    RE: Binder
    
    Ever see the size of one of the chickens from back then?
    
    Brian

re: .32

>    Stop that right now.  I now have bagel spew on my screen and it is
>    really hard to get off, my screen that is, the bagel stuff.

Tell your bagels to stop spewing on your screen:-)

Bob

re: Jurassic chickens

Food of the Gods.

  >Well no, the Dinosaurs were long gone before Noah built his arch. 

    there was NO noah, no flood, and no arch. why we keeping "pretending"
    there was and ignoring historical fact is nonsense.

    .35
    
    A non-believer. No wonder you're so cynical.

    
    
    Yes there was!!!!!!!

 Of course, Noah didn't build an arch!  He built an ark!




Jim

    Yeah, the Ark d' Triumph!

Note 116.36 by DPDMAI::SODERSTROM
    
    >A non-believer. No wonder you're so cynical.
    
    scientists can prove events occured and things existed millions of
    years ago. yet there isn't single shred of scientific evidence of noah,
    the ark, and a worldwide flood. so why DO YOU believe?

    Ya, I'm kinda picturing noah and his family and a whole bunch of
    animals hanging onto this big arch bobbing in the water and noah's wife
    saying "I told you He said "Ark".

    Would make a great farside cartoon that would.

  I thought Buzz Aldran had pictures of the Ark?

  George

    I wonder where they found wapiti in Israel though...

    somebody spat?

    .41
    
    Obviously, you've never read the bible. Or, am I to assume that
    you're a prophet also. The bible is fact, Jack.

> The bible is fact, Jack.

????!!!!????

    It's true, i've seen bibles.

    .49
    
    Don't smoke
    

RE:                     <<< Note 116.44 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

  >I thought Buzz Aldran had pictures of the Ark?

  
   Don't think it was Buzz Aldrin, but there was an astronaut who made
   several expeditions to Turkey looking for it..can't remember his name
   now.  He died a couple years ago.



Jim

    Re: .35
    
    >there was NO noah, no flood, and no arch
    
    Deb would be crushed by your fickleness.

    	re .52
    
    	For some reason I recall it being Irwin.

 I think you're right (Irwin)...he lived in Colorado Springs for a while 
 I believe.



Jim

    I've seen the arch.  It's in Ararat Park, St. Louis, Missouri.

Note 116.53  by DTRACY::CHELSEA 
    
    >>there was NO noah, no flood, and no arch
    >Deb would be crushed by your fickleness.
    
    you're right chels. if she were here. i shall include the note, with an
    appropriate apology along with my Xmas card to her. 
    
    to the rest of the gaggle:
    
    believing blindly in what you're told makes you vunerable. in this life
    and others.

    Believing blindly is oxymoronic when speaking of God and sight.  When
    one believes in the Lord one's vision is expanded.  
    
    

    <---- The more I think about this, the more it sounds like a riddle.

Is the title of this topic a recognizable obscenity for hemorroids?

/john

    This troubles me.

    re: .41
    
    Actually, the Grand Canyon, according to some scientists, may attest to
    a huge flood of some kind.  I never could buy into the "river" theory,
    anyway.
    
    -steve

	I know who created the arch!!!!!! It was Deb's parents!

    I think there's a product on the market called Preparation-A that will
    protect us from Asterhoids.
    
    -- Jim

Note 116.58 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
    >Believing blindly is oxymoronic when speaking of God and sight.  When
    >one believes in the Lord one's vision is expanded.  
    
    what can you see that i can't?
    

    
    
    
        Maybe there was an abnormal period of rainfall in and around the
        Tigris and Euphrates rivers that might have flooded "population
        centers" in that area. I"ll buy that,.....but 40 days and nights
        of rain....??? Flooding the world?? I just can't envision that.
    
    
        Other than "the bible",......is there any documentation showing
        40 days and nights of continous rainfall any where on Earth?
    
        Ed

RE                     <<< Note 116.66 by NEMAIL::BULLOCK >>>

>        Maybe there was an abnormal period of rainfall in and around the
>        Tigris and Euphrates rivers that might have flooded "population
>        centers" in that area. I"ll buy that,.....but 40 days and nights
>        of rain....??? Flooding the world?? I just can't envision that.
    
  This may well be. If you think of the time period in which Genesis was
written it was probably somewhere around 700 - 500 B.C. The story of Noah was
probably taken from earlier transcripts written before 1000 B.C. that in tern
were probably recordings of legends. 

  If people around 1000 B.C. had a legend of a "world wide flood" that caused
mass destruction and lose of life, it may well have been an unusually large
flood of several rivers in the middle east a century or so earlier. It is also
possible that someone living in the middle of that flood managed to put his
family and livestock on a boat and float to safety which would have started the
legend. 

  George

     Just wanted to show the typical things that are taken for fact 
    
    My emphasis is the [^^^^^^^]
    
    
    
>RE                     <<< Note 116.66 by NEMAIL::BULLOCK >>>

>>        Maybe there was an abnormal period of rainfall in and around the
>>        Tigris and Euphrates rivers that might have flooded "population
>>        centers" in that area. I"ll buy that,.....but 40 days and nights
>>        of rain....??? Flooding the world?? I just can't envision that.
    
>  This may well be. If you think of the time period in which Genesis was
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  >written it was probably somewhere around 700 - 500 B.C. The story of Noah was
  >probably taken from earlier transcripts written before 1000 B.C. that in tern
    ^^^^^^^
>were probably recordings of legends. 
      ^^^^^^^^
>  If people around 1000 B.C. had a legend of a "world wide flood" that caused
>mass destruction and lose of life, it may well have been an unusually large
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>flood of several rivers in the middle east a century or so earlier. It is also
                                                                      
>   possible that someone living in the middle of that flood managed to put his
    ^^^^^^^^
>family and livestock on a boat and float to safety which would have started the
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>legend. 
    
 > George

    	re .66
    
    	Many cultures have a flood story.

    Evaporation comes to mind for some...

    	God can do anything.

    Re: .70
    
    >Where would all the water come from to flood the world?
    
    Glaciers.
    
    >And if the earth could be flooded where would the waters recede to?
    
    Glaciers.

    .73
    
    > God can do anything.
    
    can he make a rock so big he can't move it?

    .41 et seq.
    
    there is documented evidence of a MAJOR flood in mesopotamia sometime
    in the possible lifetimes of the biblical patriarchs.  the town of ur
    of the chaldees, from which abraham came, has been found to have been
    buried under some 80 feet of mud.

    .75
    
    We have an entire note dedicated to *that* question CHRISTIAN ... take
    a gander.
    
    :-)

    	re .75
    
    	Why revel in the futility of debating the limitations of the
    	human mind?  For starters, why limit the question to just a
    	rock?  We as humans may not conceive of the possibility that 
    	an immovable object can co-exist with an irresistable force.
    	Why must one be limited by the other?  Because we rely on the
    	limitations of human logic, that's why.

    .78
    
    i didn't ask you for a smoke-and-mirrors response, i asked a question
    that can be answered in one word.  choose one:
    
    [ ] yes
    
    [ ] no

    	re .79
    
    	Have you stopped beating your wife?
    
    	[ ] yes
    
    	[ ] no
    
    	You did NOT ask a question that can be properly answered in one 
    	word.

    .80
    
    you seem to have a problem parsing english, then.  allow me to rephrase
    the question.
    
    is your god, whom you pronounce capable of doing all things, capable of
    making a rock too large for him to move?
    
    [ ] yes, he is capable of making such a rock.
    
    [ ] no, he is not capable of making such a rock.
    
    place your mark in one of the two bracketed spaces, please, and do not
    attempt to steal the answer from the paper of the student seated next
    to you.

    	re .81
    
    	See .79 if you insist on the limited choices you offer.

    .82
    
    i assume you meant .80, not .79, which latter is my original question.
    
    in answer to .82, see the first paragraph of .79.  if you can't answer
    the question, just admit it, okay?

    	Yer right.  .80 explains why I can't answer .79 under the
    	limitations you've imposed.
    
    	Please answer .80.  TYVM.

    .84
    
    if you can't answer .79, admit it and we'll move onward.  if you can
    answer it, do so.  but skip the smoke and mirrors.

    Look, immovable means immovable, and irresistible means irresistible. 
    If you want to posit the existence of an immovable object that might or
    might not resist an irresistable force, find some other words.
    
    Reminds me of something I heard related many years ago.  Someone was
    complaining that spaceships blowing up in space don't go "BOOM!" as
    depicted in a movie he had just seen.  Whereupon his companion
    remarked, "Hey, _anything_ is possible."  Well, divine intervention is
    about the only way you're gonna get sound to travel in a vacuum.

    .86
    
    yabbut, god can do anything, chels, haven't you heard?

	he apparently can't make joe answer your question, though.

	Joe, me thinks if you can't answer the questions with the inpossed
limitations, try answering it period, with your own words. It's a paradox that
can't be answered on our level (imho). But I'd love to see you try.


Glen

    	Methink, Glen.  Methinks.
    
    	If you want to appear clever and smart and pompous, at least
    	use the word properly.
    
    	As for answering the question, I did, and Dick rejected that,
    	requiring a simple yes/no answer.  He still hasn't answered
    	.80, so why should I submit to his requirements?

    	And if you don't like the answer in .78, consider this.  God
    	creates an immovable object.  He then moves all the rest of
    	creation away from the immovable object.  In effect, the object
    	has been moved.
    
    	Like I said, though, just because human logic can't conceive
    	of the two coexisting doesn't mean that they don't.

    
    Binder is, of course, posing a paradox based on linguistics, and
    a rather well-known one at that.  It has two solutions, each with
    flaws.  Of course, the simple dichotomy proposed shafts any simple
    answerer.  By the way, the rube being fleeced need not be religious.
    
    Here's a similar one from mathematics (sets of sets) :  consider the
    set of all sets of sets which do NOT contain themselves as members.
    It is easy to show that this is illegal in the same way as dividing
    by zero.
    
    Ah, certitude !  There cannot be BOTH an immovable object and an
    irresistable force, in the ordinary sense.
    
    I am reminded of Alice's problem in subtraction (Thru the Looking
    Glass) : "If you take a bone from a dog, what remains ?"
    
      bb

	Joe, that was funny. Hey, I have a penny and I'm gonna put it here. Now
I will move everything away from it, which means the penny moved. Joe, it's
still in the same location, and no matter how far away you move eveything else,
the object itself never moved. But nice try.

>Now I will move everything away from it, which means the penny moved. 
    
    	Nice trick.  Let's see you do that.

	Gee Joe, nice pick-up. The peeny would not have moved. Of course you
knew what I meant as from reading the rest you would have seen that.

    	How would you, as part of all of creation that God moves away
    	from the immovable object, know that you, and not the object,
    	moved when relative to everything else you see it is only the
    	object that appears to have moved?

    "Make an object soo big even he can't lift it"
    
       Feels like I'm listening to Bill Cosby !
    
    
    Rick
    
    
    PS   Joe don't bother with these guys, no matter what you answer
    someone else will have a comment.  Besides why would God want to 
    make a rock soo big even he couldn't lift it.  To prove something to
    us?  I doubt it...
    
    
    

    
    "With God, all things are possible."
    
    End of debate.

    .98 
    
    I just have one thing to say

    SNARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

    Come to think of it, the problem of the immovable object and the
    irresistible force is actually the problem of two irresistible forces,
    one force being the thing that makes the object immovable.

    	.97
    
    	Rick.  I have faith that God can make a rock so large that He can't
    	lift it.  I also have faith that He can lift that rock.  I don't
    	understand -- given my logic limited by human reasoning -- how that
    	can be, but I have faith that it can happen nonetheless.  
    
    	In the same manner I have faith that there is an after life.  Given
    	limited human reasoning I don't know how that could be, but I have
    	faith that it exists nonetheless.
    
    	I also have faith that I will be raised from the dead on the Last
    	Day.  And that my Great Great Great Grandfather (and his Great
    	Great Great Gransfather, and his and his and his) will likewise
    	be raised from the dead on the Last Day -- eventhough our bodies
    	may have long been consumed by biological decomposition and 
    	perhaps elements of our bodies will have been assimilated by
    	other humans of future generations.  I don't know how, within	
    	the limitations of human logic, that this could be, but I have
    	faith that it will occur nonetheless.
    
    	I have faith in eternity.  I have faith that God always was, and
    	always will be.  I have faith that, if there were truly a "big
    	bang", that God existed even before that.  
    
    	What came before God?  God.  Human logic can't imagine it.  Faith
    	can.
    
    	So can God make an object so big even He can't lift it?  Why not?
    	And still he can lift it.

    Re: .102
    
    >I don't understand -- given my logic limited by human reasoning -- how 
    >that can be, but I have faith that it can happen nonetheless.
    
    Situational truth -- is that better or worse than situational ethics?

    .102
    
    Good question... don't have an answer, but good question... :-)

    re .93
    
    I have to take exception to this on relatavistic grounds, not religous
    ones. If you check into some of the work Einstien (and others) did, you
    will find that there is no difference between you moving towards an
    object or you moving towards it without a common frame of reference. If
    you move "everything" away from a penny, it would to your (and our)
    frame of reference look as though the penny has moved. To imply that it
    is still in the same place inplies a "correct" point of reference in
    the universe that many astronmers and scientist have not been able to
    find. If you want more info on that, look up the Michelson and Morely
    (spelling) experiment on the search for the ether.
    
    
    								Steve R 

    
    The huge flood is also recorded in other cultures' legends, for example
    the Gilgamesh Epos deals with a great flood, covering the whole world,
    that was only survived by Prince Gilgamesh on his boat. It's a legend
    from either the Indus culture or one of the Mesopotanian cultures.
    
    And BTW, as I have written in the previous box (I think), at the end of 
    the last ice-age, the polar icecaps went down to southern Sweden,
    Poland and Scotland. When these glaciers melted, the oceans did of
    course rise. This is, for example, how the North Sea and the Baltic Sea
    were created. You could walk from Denmark to England before that. So I
    figure, the sea-level rose, for about 20 meters (my very own guess).
    This would also explain a flood that matches the description of
    covering all of the world.
    
    Heiko
    

    and if I remeber correctly )it was a long time ago) that's when the Med
    filled up to it's present level via the Starits of Gibralter (at that
    time the world's biggest waterfall). And all around the Med. are the
    historical civilsations with the flood legends....

    
    the question is absurd.
    
    jeff

    .108
    
    and your point is...?

| <<< Note 116.96 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

| How would you, as part of all of creation that God moves away
| from the immovable object, know that you, and not the object,
| moved when relative to everything else you see it is only the
| object that appears to have moved?

	You know Joe, this is funny. You were the one who suggested this was
how it could be done. Now you question your own thoughts. How nice.

    
    if a nonsensical question is posed, it cannot be answered sensibly.
    
    "Can God create a rock that He cannot move?"
    
    isn't it nonsensical to ask whether He who can *create* a rock from
    nothing could *create* a rock that was beyond his physical strength
    to move?  what limits in physical strength or power would a God who
    creates from nothing encounter?
    
    what is greater?  the power to create from nothing or physical strength?
    
    isn't it a confused question that compares a divine action with a
    human limit?
    
    jeff 
    
    
    
    

    > isn't it nonsensical to ask whether He who can *create* a rock from
    > nothing could *create* a rock that was beyond his physical strength
    > to move?
    
    not to someone endowed with the usual complement of cortical synapses,
    no.  a parallel question would be, "can de fermat formulate a theorem
    that he can't prove?"  now, according to de fermat himself, he had an
    actual proof, but since nobody else ever saw it, the question remains
    valid - did he in fact have a good proof?
    
    but then i suppose it's asking too much to expect a thumpist to think
    instead of merely buying the party line.

	.110
    
>	You know Joe, this is funny. You were the one who suggested this was
>how it could be done. Now you question your own thoughts. How nice.
    
    	You know, Glen, you are being a pest.  What is your purpose 
    	in this discussion?  I am not questioning my own thoughts.  I am
    	questioning your disagreement.  You take this one suggestion as if 
    	it were supposed to be THE answer.  There is no answer to the 
    	question!  So I made a suggestion.  It's not my fault that you 
    	have no creativity to consider such possibilities.
    
    	As I've said before, to me it's all a matter of faith.  You've
    	clearly demonstrated in other discussions a lack of faith in God 
    	whom you've declared you worship.  So your behavior here does
    	not surprise me.

	.112    
    
>    but then i suppose it's asking too much to expect a thumpist to think
>    instead of merely buying the party line.
    
    	In the last box I stated that you were willing to limit your 
    	view of God my human logic.  You took great exception to that.
    	Now here you are basically stating that you do.  You argue with
    	the words of Jesus that "all things are possible with God",
    	taunting his words with human dilemmas as if God is subject to 
    	the limitations of man.  You seem to consider "faith" to be 
    	"merely buying the party line".  
    
    	Can you see any other way to accept the mysteries of your religion 
    	outside of faith?  Or are you suggesting that we not accept those
    	mysteries because human reasoning cannot account for them?
    
    	Do you believe in the words of Jesus that all things are possible
    	with God?  Or are you saying that Jesus was a liar...
    
    	I think you are unable to to let go of your human pride when it
    	comes to things you cannot explain, so you choose to hide your
    	discomfort with them by belittling the acceptance of them in others
    	with deliberately-loaded terms like thumpism.
    
    	Let God be God, or admit to yourself that maybe you really don't
    	believe in this particular theology after all.

    .114
    
    > In the last box I stated that you were willing to limit your
    > view of God my human logic.
    
    and i believe i might have taken issue with that.  something along the
    lines of thumpists' limiting god by saying that the creation must have
    happened the way the bible tells it because they can't understand that
    the story might possibly have been allegorical, as so much of the rest
    of the bible is.
    
    it really is limiting god, you know, to assume that he could only have
    created things in the flash of six days.  it's stating that the limits
    of his methods are the limits of your ability to read a book and think
    upon the meaning - and the importance - of the words therein.

	 .115

	bravo.  no saner man walks the planet.

    
    you miss the point dick.  the nonsense is in the question itself.  
    the question is nonsensical presuming the ineffable power to create and
    linking it to finite human ideas of physical strength or locomotion. 
    it remains an absurd question.
    
    please temper your ad hominem attacks on "thumpists", as you call them. 
    i recall you objecting several times to such attacks which you felt
    were directed at you.  or were your objections simply smokescreens?
    
    jeff

    	.115
    
    	When I addressed you about it I was not dealing with creationism
    	at all.  I really can't recall the discussion it was in, and
    	maybe you'll agree with me that it's not worth the bother to
    	go back and investigate.  I'm willing to drop this point 
    	entirely.  I just hope that .114 gave you (and others) something 
    	to think about.
    
    	BTW, I hope you *DO* remember that we agreed in the old box 
    	that I do not take a strong position either way on creationism
    	vs evoloution, so I'd thank you to continue not lumping me with
    	either group.  I sensed from .115 that you were trying to
    	characterize me as a creationist, but I'll just assume that
    	you were speaking to creationists in general, and I'll leave
    	it at that.

    .117
    
    > the question is nonsensical...
    
    once again, jeff, let me explain something to you.  the question may be
    a paradox, in which case the answer is that there is no answer - but it
    is not nonsensical.
    
    > please temper your ad hominem attacks on "thumpists"...
    
    'smatter?  feel threatened?  tempering such an "ad hominem" attack
    would be accomplished by the simple expedient of substituting for the
    word "thumpist" some text to the following effect:  "people who believe
    blindly in the literal accuracy of documents that have been proven not
    to be literally accurate."  but that's too much to type.

    .118
    
    i was not lumping you in with hardline creationists.  it was the
    generic "you" that i meant.
    
    we can agree to drop this line of discussion.  mebbe we ought to start
    discussing asteroids or something equally off the wall...

    
    nonsensical: unintelligible, foolish, silly, absurd.
    
    paradox: a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or
    *absurd* but that may actually be true in fact.  a statement that is
    self-contradictory in fact and, hence, false.
    
    
    

    .121
    
    i really hate having to teach you english, jeff...
    
    > nonsensical: unintelligible, foolish, silly, absurd.
    
    fine, no prob.
    
    > paradox: a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or ...
                                ^^^^^
    
    that little marked word can make a BIG difference.  gene haag might
    seem harmless, but i assure you that given the right circumstances hw
    would be anything but.  appearances can be deceiving.

| <<< Note 116.113 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>


| You know, Glen, you are being a pest. What is your purpose in this discussion?
| I am not questioning my own thoughts.  

	You are, but that's ok.

| I am questioning your disagreement. 

	You made a statement Joe. You said moving everything else around it
means the rock would be in a different location, even though it didn't move. I
stated that if it didn't move, it couldn't really be in a different location.
You then asked me if everything else was moved, how could that be accomplished? 
One would think if you suggested it, you'd know how it was done. Oh well.

| You take this one suggestion as if it were supposed to be THE answer.  

	No, I was just showing you how wrong it was.

| There is no answer to the question!  

	Hell, I knew that. But you made a suggestion, and it was wrong.

| So I made a suggestion.  It's not my fault that you have no creativity to 
| consider such possibilities.

	A possibility to something you say there is no answer. That makes
perfect sense Joe, uh huh....

| As I've said before, to me it's all a matter of faith.  

	Really? How much faith have you shown when you offer an example, but
say there is no answer?

| You've clearly demonstrated in other discussions a lack of faith in God whom 
| you've declared you worship.  

	Then what have you done Joe? Remember, I stated that our minds are not
capable of knowing the answer. For us it is a paradox. (see note .89) For US 
Joe, not for God.

| So your behavior here does not surprise me.

	Uh huh... maybe if you would read everything and not jump off the
handle, you might actually be right about something. But it's hard for you to
be right when our own past words keep refuting your claims.

Glen

    	Asteroids.  OK.
    
    	Why couldn't an asteroid on a collission course with earth
    	be nuked sufficiently so that it would be broken up into
    	small enough pieces that they would all burn up upon entry
    	into the earth's atmosphere?  Sure, as a single unit enough
    	of the asteroid could survive to cause great damage upon
    	impact, but the more it can be broken up, the more surface 
    	area it will have to be burned off, and much (or all) of it
    	could be gone by the time it reaches the earth's surface.

    	Shut up, Glen.  For once just shut up.

>    	Asteroids.  OK.
>    	Why couldn't an asteroid on a collission course with earth
>    	be nuked sufficiently so that it would be broken up into
>    	small enough pieces that they would all burn up upon entry
>    	into the earth's atmosphere?

If it were "small enough" it could. The problem lies with that set of
asteroids which are larger than is practicable for this treatment to
be effective. Just as lobbing a 200MT nuke at the surface of the earth
won't vaporize the planet, neither will it do so to a large enough
asteroid.

	For you Joe? Nah.... but thanks for replying.

    
    RE: .126
    
    Joe.... You're letting the zebra get to you....

    the problem with nuking an asteroid, joe, is as i said.  they are so
    loosely agglutinated (read stuck together) that a very minor
    perturbation is sufficient to make them come apart into smaller, but
    not necessarily small enough, pieces.  so you throw a nuke at one, and
    the five-mile-sized bolide becomes several hundred pentagon-sized
    bolides.  they are going to do lots of damage.  some smaller particles,
    possibly abrams-tank-sized or volkswagen-sized or even macintosh
    computer-sized, will also be released, and some of the bery smallest
    will indeed get burned up.  but most of the bolide's original mass will
    land, and it's been shown that a thousand small bombs can do just as
    much damage as one big one - i refer you to dresden and coventry for
    examples of this principle.

    
    
    
         Someone mentioned that the U.S. dosen't have a missile that
         could achieve "escape velocity". Does anyone know what speed
         and altitude is required to achieve this? Don't missiles such
         as Trident achieve "escape velocity"? With enough notice, could
         The Shuttle be armed with a warhead?  Wouldn't be extroadinarily
         difficult to track and intercept an object traveling at 40 miles
         per second?
    
    
         Ed
    

	God speed to you Andy! 

    .131
    
    can't achieve escape velocity, not true.  we do not have a large supply
    of such vehicles, but every once in a while we launch a payload like
    magellan.  the required speed is roughly 25,000 miles per hour relative
    to an imaginary fixed point at the surface.  this is why most launch
    vehicles are aimed to the east; they gain a goodly shove from the
    rotation of the planet.
    
    the shuttle could be armed with a warhead, but the shuttle is incapable
    of achieving an altitude of more than 300-500 miles, at which distance
    its efforts would be futile.  you'd need to hit a rock somewhere way
    out there past the moon in order to have a prayer of deflecting its
    path enough that it'd miss us.
    
    difficult to track and intercept an object traveling at 40 miles per
    second?  no.  once you know its trajectory, you aim for a place way out
    ahead of it, where your missile can, for all practical purposes, be
    waiting for it.

    
    
    
        What about survival?? What if a "chunk" about 2.5 to 3.0 miles
        in diameter got through,....and let's say that the point of
        impact is somewhere around The Azores,....and you live on the
        east coast of the U.S.,.......would one have an immediate concern
        like shock wave or something?? Would one have have to head inland?
    
        What do you think our (u.s.) emergency procedures would be like?
    
        Would they work?
    
    
        Ed
    

    if a 2.5 or 3 mile bolide hits us, baby, you might as well just sit
    down, put your head between your legs, and kiss your arse goodbye.  a
    chunk that big will go sailing through the ocean and into the ocean
    floor without even noticing the water.  there will be a thermonuclear
    explosion the size of several million h-bombs, and a firestorm that
    will sweep most of the planet's surface.
    
    when all is said and done, some of us will survive - the rock that made
    the 180-mile-diameter chicxulub crater on the yucatan coast and pretty
    well brought down the curtain on the dinosaurs is estimated to have
    been perhaps 6 miles in diameter, meaning anywhere from 8 to 14 times
    the total energy delivered as would come from your 2.5 to 3 mile rock.
    but those who survive won't be having a lot of fun.

    Escape velocity from the Earth is about seven miles per second.
    
    Ballistic missiles are not designed to reach even orbital velocity
    (five mi/sec, if memory serves, but definitely 17,000 MPH).  With an
    added upper stage, they can do it.
    
    The Space Shuttle is not designed to reach escape velocity, and I don't
    think it can.
    
    However, both the military and NASA have boosters that can reach escape
    velocity.  With enough warning, either could throw together a vehicle
    that could reach the asteroid.
    
    Yes, 40 mi/sec is fast.  If we didn't detect it until it reached the
    missile early-warning system we'd be done for.  If, whoever, it was
    detected by astronomers, we might have months or even years of time to
    affect a solution.  That would be good, because a small nudge a year
    ahead of time is preferable to trying to disintegrate it the day before
    impact.

    kinda funny seeing all this talk about whether 'we' have boosters
    capable of reaching escape velocity.  when we're talking about a
    planet-wide catastrophe, I suspect we'd soon get access to some Long
    March, H2, or Proton lifters, if heavy lift capacity was deemed to be
    in short supply.
    
    DougO

    Binder> there will be a thermonuclear explosion the size of several
            million h-bombs
    
    Wrong-oh!!  Will atomic nuclei fuse?  Will atomic nuclei split??
    
    I DON'T THINK SO!!!
    
    |-{:-)
    
    PS -- I will concede the point that this is a fine distinction that
          will be, shall we say, mooted in the event; but until the bolide
          hits, lemme pick them nits!!
    

    heavy lift is not necessary.  a nuclear bomb is relatively light.

    	Does anyone have any guesses about what would be the largest 
    	object that would be burned up by the atmosphere?  (Understood 
    	that various materials would burn up at different rates.)
    	Would a 1-meter-diameter object make it to the earth's surface?
    	10-meters?
    
    	I guess what I'm curious about is how small would the large
    	asteroid have to be broken up to be rendered relatively harmless.
    
    	And I agree that it would be better to simply deflect it a year
    	ahead of time than to try to break it up at the last moment...

    .138
    
    > Wrong-oh!!  Will atomic nuclei fuse?  Will atomic nuclei split??
    
    enough energy will be released in a short enough time period and in a
    small enough volume that the answer to your question is considered by
    most physicists to be a resounding affirmative.  with fallout and all
    the other associated nukkuler horrors.

	For several previous replys discussing the impact effects of a meteor
	hitting the earth, check out "Lucifer's Hammer" by Niven and Pournel.
	Science/Social fiction about just such a catastrophy.  A very good
	read.

	Have a GREAT day!
	Pete

    Waal will wonders never cease!
    
    And Binder-san, I would very much like to see a reference on your
    credible-sounding defense.
    

    re "where did all the water go?"
    
    The poor sods in Pellucidar have been pumping ever since.
    
    Dick

    Dick!  What's got inter ya man!!??  Stand back, all!  Give 'im air!
    

>>>
>>>	116.98
>>>
>>>	    "With God, all things are possible."
>>>
>>>	    End of debate.
>>>
>>>




	There is no such thing as a god.

	End of debate.

RE: 116.135 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare"

> if a 2.5 or 3 mile bolide hits us, baby, you might as well just sit
> down, put your head between your legs, and kiss your arse goodbye.  

Not quite that that bad,  if it hits deep water.  That bad,  if it hits
land or shallow water anywhere close by.  Close meaning like a thousand 
miles away.


> a chunk that big will go sailing through the ocean and into the ocean
> floor without even noticing the water.  

Not true.  The mass of the ocean water the bolide must pass through is of
the same order of magnitude as the mass of the bolide.  In other words, 
a significant fraction of the energy will be deposited in the ocean on the
way down.


> there will be a thermonuclear explosion the size of several million 
> h-bombs, 

No.  Very little of the energy released will come from nuclear reactions. 
Pressures and temperatures,  while impressive from a human standpoint,  are 
just too low.  The total energy released _will_ be rather impressive.


> and a firestorm that will sweep most of the planet's surface.

No.  What causes a firestorm from a land impact is hot rock splashed up 
from the impact.  Deep water will capture most of this debris.

The 1000-foot tsunami estimate is the right rough order of magnitude for a
mid-Atlantic impact of this size.  However,  waves travel roughly about four 
times their height inland,  so only about a mile (plus minus an order of 
magnitude) of land on the coast would be in danger.


Phil

    oh dear
    

RE: 116.140 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca."

> Does anyone have any guesses about what would be the largest object 
> that would be burned up by the atmosphere?  

The key point isn't being "burned up by the atmosphere",  but rather one of
energy.  If a large amount of energy is deposited on (or near) the surface 
it's not good for living things.


> I guess what I'm curious about is how small would the large asteroid 
> have to be broken up to be rendered relatively harmless.

If you broke up a ten mile rock into a thousand mile diameter cloud of sand,  
it would still cause a firestorm when cloud of sand impacted the
atmosphere.  All the bits of sand would radiate heat while they burned up, 
and while each would heat the surface a tiny amount,  the total heating would 
be huge.


Phil

>    oh dear

Don't fear.    

>>    oh dear

>Don't fear.    

help is near

    >>    oh dear
    
    >Don't fear.
    
    |help is near
    
    Don't shed a tear.
    

    >>    oh dear
    
    >Don't fear.
    
    |help is near
    
    Don't shed a tear.
    
    Haag won't do deer

    
    I need a beer.

 Ain't none here

    Okay, if escape velocity for nuclear missiles is a problem, what about
    a space-based launch?  Don't tell me that there aren't all sorts of
    interesting "sattelites" roaming the earth's orbit.
    
    A space-based launch would certainly solve some of the problems
    involved in an effort to blow chunks out of an asteroid.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 116.156 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>



| Okay, if escape velocity for nuclear missiles is a problem, what about
| a space-based launch?  

	What's the air speed velocity of a hummingbird?

    .156
    
    escape velocity is still required - a space-based launch simply makes
    the process into a two-step process by providing a portion, but not
    all, of the escape velocity.

    
    
    
    When the space shuttle is orbiting the earth at 200+ miles altitude
    or so,.....hasn't it achieved "escape velocity"? I guess my question
    is,........once you've achieved orbit,....haven"t you "escaped"?
    
    
    Ed
    

    .159
    
    > once you've achieved orbit,....haven"t you "escaped"?
    
    no.  an orbit is actually a continuous fall.  the orbiting object is
    falling toward the center of the earth.  it just happens to have
    precisely the right amount of lateral velocity that it will always
    miss.  think about throwing a ball over the edge of a tall building
    when you're standing on the building's roof.  it's like that.

    re: escape velocity
    
    I guess I started this with my comments lamenting the late, great
    Saturn V, so I'll throw in another two cents here.
    
    First, "normal" orbits are closed ellipses that are essentially
    continuous "free falls" around Earth (as mentioned in an earlier
    reply), but which can never "break free" from circling around Earth. 
    The speed required for an orbit (and thus the energy required to get
    there, etc.) varies depending on the altitude of an orbit.  The typical
    low-Earth orbit like the shuttle (just high enough so that atmospheric
    drag is not a concern) is on the order of 18,000 MPH.
    
    "Escape velocity" refers to the speed necessary to attain a different
    kind of "orbit" that is actually an open-ended hyperbola that "doesn't
    come back".  The minimum escape velocity is around 25,000 MPH.
    
    But there are a couple of other factors here.  First of all, you need
    a really big booster to get a really big payload up to escape velocity.
    It's a real memory stretch, but I think that the Apollo spacecraft
    stack was around 80,000 lbs. initially.  I don't think that nuclear
    weapons are that massive, but I don't know how large they are.  So an
    existing booster like the latest Titans or whatever they use for the
    planetary spacecraft might be able to do the job.
    
    But the second issue is: note that 25,000 MPH is the *minimum*
    escape velocity.  It only needs to attain this speed for a brief
    moment, and then typically the engines shut down and it "coasts"
    along on its escape trajectory, but note that from that point on
    it is slowing down rather significantly, due to the still-existing
    pull from Earth's gravity.  For example, by the time the Apollo
    spacecraft got to the "gravitational balance point" between the
    Earth and moon, about 200,000 miles out, its speed had been reduced
    from around 25,000 to around 3,000 MPH.
    
    So, if you need the nuke to get to the asteroid fast (if we don't
    get a lot of warning time), you might want its initial speed to be
    a good deal above minimum escape velocity, which of course would
    require a more powerful booster for a given payload mass.
    
    Chris

    
    
    
     Thanks for that explanation decwin::ralto,....and you too binder.
    
     It sounds like it might be somewhat easier to stage and launch
     such a device from a future space station.
    
    
     Ed
    

.149>All the bits of sand would radiate heat while they burned up, 
>and while each would heat the surface a tiny amount,  the total heating would 
>be huge.

    	Global warming?

    re: .75
    
    Can God create a George against whom he cannot win an argument?

    .145:
    
    Ar, ar (or arf, arf, as the WSG used to say).
    
    I was beginning to worry about trench foot, ectually.
    
    Dick

    mambi pambi?  Bambi?

Group sci.astro
From: jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Asteriod Miss of Dec.9 by 105,000 Km's
Date: 12 Dec 1994 00:09:16 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, CCIT

Walter Alter (walter@netcom.com) wrote:

[ some stuff deleted regarding the near miss of 1994 XM1...]

: CNN reported the miss to be in the neighborhood of 40,000 miles.  it was
: also reported to be "the size of a house".  what sort of damage would
: this do with a staight down 90 degree flight path.  is there any other
: way to detect these objects than photography?

First, the miss was by 64,000 miles, not 40,000 miles reported by
CNN.  We estimated that it was 6-13 meters in diameter.  These size
object hit Earth as many as 10 times a year, but most of them
disintegrate high in the atmosphere.  Only the rare nickel-iron
meteorite would impact the ground mostly intact and make a small
crater, maybe 50-100 meters in diameter.  As another poster mentioned,
the impact angle makes little difference, except for the nearly
grazing objects.  These objects are much to faint and fast moving
to be detectable with traditional photographic methods.  The more
sensistive CCD's are required & so far only Spacewatch has been able
to detect and follow anything smaller than a few hundred meters
diameter.  Successfully following this object required its
recognition and immediate change in observing plans to recover it
quickly and follow it for the next 4.5 hours.  Film is not sensitive
enough to record the image in the first place and if it did leave a
detectable trail, by the time the film is processed and examined,
the object would be long gone.

BTW, from the rate at which we find these small objects, we estimate
that at any given time there are about 50 objects passing within the
distance of the Moon of Earth.

: walter

--
Jim Scotti
{jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu}
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA

>As another poster mentioned,
>the impact angle makes little difference, 
    
    	It would seem that an object entering the atmosphere at a 90-degree
    	angle to the surface of the earth would have to pass through less
    	atmosphere than one entering at any different angle.  Maybe the
    	impact itself might not be different (assuming the same mass is
    	hitting at the different angles) but the entry itself might make
    	the mass that eventually hits be quite different depending on the
    	angle of entry.
    
    	Is this a correct assumption?

    add to that was the impact in the same direction as travel for the
    Earth's orbit?  

RE: 116.168 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca."

>> As another poster mentioned,  the impact angle makes little difference,

> It would seem that an object entering the atmosphere at a 90-degree angle 
> to the surface of the earth would have to pass through less atmosphere 
> than one entering at any different angle.  

Yes.


> Maybe the impact itself might not be different 

Yes.


> but the entry itself might make the mass that eventually hits be quite 
> different depending on the angle of entry.

Yes,  for a fairly small range of masses.  Beyond that range,  a larger mass 
isn't bothered significantly by the atmosphere,  and a smaller mass isn't 
going to make it to the surface anyway.  


Phil

    
    So.  Is the Earth about to be walloped?
    
    Do we have any numbers?
    

    Is there an old fart inside the asteroid proclaiming, "For the Earth is
    Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky"    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....thud.

    
    .172

    >AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....thud.
    
    The sound of Jack falling off the top rung of his mental stepladder.
    

    
      I feel sorry for the asteroid.
    
      bb

Interesting article in Science (1-Mar-1996) about the "little" crater under
Chesapeake Bay.  About 35.5 million years old,  and about 90 kilometers in
diameter.


Phil

    oh,u remember it, Phil?   :-)

Comet C/1996 B2 Hyakutake is going to easily visible in late March,  as it
passes over the North Pole.  It's fairly close to the Earth,  about 0.1 AU
(or forty times the distance to the Moon),  so motion will be noticeable if
you watch for a few minutes.  Best period is March 23 to March 26. 

http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov


Phil

Comet was easily visible here in Merrimack NH,  last night.  There was a
fairly hazy sky,  only the brighter stars could be seen,  but a reasonably
bright fuzz ball was noticeable in the eastern sky before 10:00.  With
binoculars,  a tail was faintly visible.  With this sort of show in nasty
sky conditions,  what does this look like in a dark sky?  I've been hearing
reports,  and if we don't get a good enough sky,  I'm going to try to
travel someplace that does.  I'd hate to miss the show,  as this is the
brightest comet to pass this close to the Earth since 1770.  (There have
been brighter comets and comets coming closer to the Earth in during this
time.)

After this close passage,  this comet might fade with increasing distance
from the Earth,  OR might throw off enough dust to become as bright as
Venus.  But comets are like cats.  They both have tails and do as they
please.


Phil

    Where in the eastern sky? 

    Down low and sort of ESE, or so I was told.

    Which happens to be a horrible direction to have to look from my house.
    :-/
    
     Mebbe I'll try the golf course.

    
    isn't tonite the last nite that it should be sorta visable??  maybe
    i'll hang around work (my other job) late, cuz the view from wal*mart
    hill is pretty good...unless the lights from watchusett screws things
    up...
    
    

    Well I'm bumbed. It's completely overcast here.

    Raq, Wachusett is to the west of Wal*Mart.  hth

    
    while that is true, it still puts out a lot of light (she said,
    thankful that she now knows which way to stand while looking towards
    the sky...;> :>)
    
    of course, that means i now have to stand looking towards leominster
    and route 13, which has a lot of trees (that blocked the fireworks from
    whalom in july) and might block the view...
    
    

    Um, Raq, Leominster is south of Wal*mart.  Look towards Lunenburg.  BTW
    if you are at Wal*mart, you will not have to worry about anything but
    the Wal*Mart parking lot lights.  They will drown out any other source
    that may be getting in the way.  Actually, a good place to view from 
    would be Wachusett Mt. itself from the top and away from the lights.  
    
    Other places that would be good in your area:
    
    Mountain Rd., Princeton.  There are several areas that afford a great
    view to the East.     
    	
    Mackay School, Park hill Cemetary, The top of Blossom St., Up Rindge Rd.  
    The road that goes from 2A to Lunenburg Ctr., up the hill from the
    lake/pond.  

    
    	Just make it easy on yourself and wait for the movie.
    
    	Then you can look right at your TV.
    

    I used to play Asteroids all the time....cool game, though the graphics
    were rather simplistic.

    
    i know leominster is south of wal*mart...i said towards that
    area...shouldn't one be looking towards the southest to see the comet 
    
    i guess i could take the long way home tonite to go by one of those
    areas...
    
    

    No, from the atricle posted, it will be more easterly gradually moving
    to the Northeast.  I think you may also have to wait until later in the
    evening, like around 10 or 11 tonight.  Try for tomorrwo night when the
    weather is supposed to clear a little also.  If I can think of any
    other places that might be good for viewing, I'll drop you an e-mail.  

    .189
    
    > I used to play Asteroids all the time...
    
    I still play it occasionally, in a version called Maelstrom.  Same
    essential premise, just spiced up with some different goodies like
    cosmic CARE packages (floating canisters that give you a machine gun or
    a gun that shoots a spread of 3 bullets or more shield or retros or
    other neat stuff) and steelies (steel-ball asteroids that don't blow up
    when you shoot them, they just absorb the energy of your bullet and go
    careening off at high speed) and magnetic mines and bonus comets.  And
    some really good graphics and sounds.  (Any round where you exceed a
    bonus of 10,000, you get a "Hot DAMN!" as the round's score is
    tallied.)

    
    	And I thought I had no life.
    

    Well, yasee, Shawn, it's that or go on a murderous rampage shooting
    everyone in sight with my assault pellet rifle.

    dick, may I borrow that pellet rifle?  please?!?!?

    
      Golly, Dick's asteroid game sounds swell to me.
    
      bb

    .192
    
    That sounds much more interesting (and busy) than the old arcade game.
    If I can ever talk myself into going into debt (to buy a computer), I
    may have to check it out.  8^)

    
    I saw the comet last night!!
    

    
    	Next to the mr. clean, right where you left it?
    

Aste-roid snarf!

    
    Actually, Shawn, no; I don't have any need to touch cleaning supplies
    because I have a cleaning lady who does it for me, and a wonderful
    person she is too.
    
    {beam}
    

Last night (it is now Sunday morning) about 12 midnight, the sky
was completely clear and the Comet was close to the 'top' of the sky.
And it was incredible.

The Comet was as bright as the stars for very large...not as large
as the moon, but not a 'point'.  It clearly glowed with no defined
shape.  The best part was that the TAIL was very visible, coming back
from the Comet across the sky almost like the Milky Way.

I woke my 10 year old up for it but he barely remembers it right now.
bob

I was up at 3 AM both Sunday morning and Monday morning.  While the sky
had been fully cloudy when I went to bed both nights,  it was partly cloudy
both mornings.  View was worth the pain of getting out of bed early.

Tail was at least 30 degrees long.  Head was the size of the full Moon.  I
laid outside and just looked at it for a half an hour or so.  Amazing.


Phil

    I checked the sky again at 1:47, and you couldn't see squat.
    Disappointed doesn't even begin to cover it.

    
      I've been out twice to watch this thing, with different groups
     of folks.  It moves fast - in one day it had moved from midway
     between Arcturus and the Big Dipper, all the way over to beneath
     the Dipper.  At that rate, it'll be nearly gone over the horizon
     by the end of the week.
    
      bb

    Cloudy up here too. Oh well, guess I'll have to wait 18,000 years to
    have a look at this thing.
    
    8^/

How Comet Hyakutake B2 Was Discovered 

Gekkan Tenmon (Monthly Astronomy) 
Yuji Hyakutake 
April 1996 
(Translated to English by Masaki Okamoto) 

I searched for a comet for only 4 hours in two nights in January, because
we had a long spell of disagreeable weather here since my discovery of
1995Y1 a month ago. 

On January 30, as it was likely to clear up at dawn, I left home for my
obse rvation place. I wanted to reach there at 3:30 AM, when the Moon would
set in the west. The sky was in a nice condition when I left home, but I
found low clouds flowing from the west at the observation place. 

The zenith of the sky began to clear around 4:00 AM. I tried to turn my
binoculars to see Comet 1995Y1. When the binoculars were pointing almost
straight up, I managed to catch three objects together , M101 , NGC5474
and then 1995Y1 a little smaller than M101. My comet was about 9th
magnitude, 8' in diameter. As I made a sketch sitting in a awkward posture,
I got a pain in the neck. After sketching I began comet searching freely as
usual. 

It was about 20 minutes later when I unexpectedly came across an object
like a comet. At first I didn't know where it was because of the clouds.
Judging from the constellations sometimes glimpsed between floating clouds,
the object seemed to be in the southeast of Crow Constellation. I had
moved my binoculars to the southern part of the sky without being aware of
it. 

I was surprised when I mentally connected the stars. Unbelievable! I had
thought I already knew the pattern of these stars well! 

I was very familiar with the star map of this area because I had often
confirmed 1995Y1 there! I had completely memorized the arrangement of
stars around there. The memory was still fresh to me. Too new to forget! 

I said to myself, "I must be dreaming ." 

I left my binoculars for a while to calm myself down , and then I started
drawing the comet-like object. It was much more condensed than 1995Y1. It
was still dark but easy to see. 11th magnitude, 2.5' in diameter.

It was at 4:50 AM when I looked at my watch after marking its position.
What I had to confirm first was whether it was moving or not. At 5:40 AM
the morning twilight began. I again went back to the binoculars. I couldn't
confirm the motion of the object by comparing it with the stars around it.
At last I gave up trying to confirm. I concluded to myself that the
"possible comet" should be coming directly toward the Earth. I quit
searching when I heard the siren for 6:00 AM at the foot of the hill. 

I came back home and checked comets which had already been discovered but I
couldn't find reports referring to the comet-like object in question. So I
began to draw up a report. I copied the position of this morning's
comet-like object on page 332 on Ura nometria 2000 from the previous
sketch. I had already marked the position of 1995Y1 on the star atlas. 

I was stunned by the curious coincidence. The new object was in a very
similiar location to where1995Y1 was found . A few minutes different in R.A
and 3 degrees to the east in Dec. 

I sent the report to the New Astronomical Findings Infomation Department at
the National Observatory. I also sent a fax to Syuichi Nakano (the
Calculation Center of O.A.A) and moreover left a message in his answering
machine. 

At midnight the condition of the sky was poorer than the previous night,
and what was worse, a drizzle began to fall at 0:00 AM. Just as I had
decided to give up trying to confirm the object that morning, a fax came to
me saying that my find was confirmed. 

The fax was sent from Ikari in Otu to Nakano at 2:58 AM. And it was sent to
me from Nakano again at 3:03AM. I was so glad to be given such a quick
response because all I could do at the time was wait. I felt relaxed when I
read the fax. 

This is the second comet for me, but I can't feel pride in it. I feel
terriblly relieved that it was not a mistake. I may feel the same way even
if I find more comets. 

    I *think* I saw it on Saturday night - my yard backs on to a
    football field, so there weren't many lights to contend with, and the
    sky was pretty clear.  I was looking northeast and found a larger blob
    that seemed to be fairly bright.  I'm gonna pretend that's it, even if
    it was just a shiny cloud ;-)

My wife and I hit a star party hosted by a fellow deccie Sat. night...
naturally, the comet stole the show. The view through a 16" telescope
(stopped down to 12") was impressive. Naked eye is still the best view. I
could see 10-15 degrees of tail, my wife saw something like 30 degrees.
Really crappy skies with a thin haze last few nights.

It should be right under the Big Dipper (The Plough for you Brits) tonight,
so easy to find.

    Ursa Major for us Brits.
    
    Though right now, I can't see it as the field test of the Ronco Comet
    Remover is ongoing in Nashua.  Seems to be working fine.
     

I think I saw it around 8 when I got home tonight. An almost equilateral
triangle was formed by the star at the end of the dipper handle, the star
at the beginning of the dipper handle, and the comet - if that's what it was -
fuzzy bright spot through my binocs.

What would have been the bright object below it and slightly to the left, 
about as far away as 1/4 the length of the side of that e. triangle?

    Polaris?

Dunno. A missile be as good as a correct answer, I supppose.

   Saw it tonight, too...my son Scott and I went out to eat and when I took
 him home it was nice and dark around his mom's house and we spotted it..



 Jim

    .211, .212
    
    Not Polaris.  Looking north, is this roughly what you saw?
    
           Polaris  +              +  +
                                          Big Dipper
                                       +
                                    +
    
                                    +
    
                    Comet  O        +
    
                        x              +
                   Other object?

    Ah, Venus then.

>                        x              +
>                   Other object?

Yup. Das de one.

    .216
    
    No, Venus is far, far to the west, two or three times the full length
    of the Big Dipper away from the area in question.
    
    .217
    
    I'll try to remember to check my astronomy program when I get home
    tonight to see what it is.

The name Capella sticks in my mind as the name of that star.  More likely
I'm wrong than right.

After a late evening rain it cleared up unexpectedly and I got a real
nice view.  Very faint tail stretched across the sky.

There is another comet (Hale-Bopp) that will be by in about a year.  It was
discovered _before_ the current comet so it _may_ be larger, and a beaut.  Of
course comets are notoriously unpredictable as anyone who remembers the hype
about Kohoutek and the last visit by Halley can attest.

    In Colorado Springs, it snowed Monday and clouds clogged the skies.  
    I have never attempted to view a comet but wanted to see this one. 
    Just before dark, the skies showed some clear patches.  At 8PM, I walked 
    down my driveway, faced north into a clear sky, and there she was !  
    Quite an impressive site with or without binoculars.  After setting up 
    the tripod and camera, I took some 10-30 second exposures with a 300mm 
    lens.  The comet's motion against the stars was obvious.  

    
    
    	Couldn't see diddly in Milford........ maybe tonite.
    

    <---   I thought Bo was dead?

I dunno if he's dead, but I don't think he's _ever_ been in Milford.

    
    
    			{snicker}
    

More appropriate to this topic: {mars}.

 Bo Diddley is not dead.




 Jim

RE: 116.211 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> What would have been the bright object below it and slightly to the left, 
> about as far away as 1/4 the length of the side of that e. triangle?

Star named Kochab.  It's one of the stars in the little dipper.


Phil

    
    Saw it from Dallas, even with the light pollution.  With binoculars
    it was even more articulated.
    
    Put Halley's to shame...
    

    Beautiful conditions last evening. Stayed up until the moon set (yawn).
    It definitely got better as the moon went down. Also took in some other
    interesting sights, including a star cluster.

I took the 7 year old out and turned him loose with the telescope.  His
choice of viewing was Venus,  the Moon and Sirius.  He did look at the
comet and could see the tail,  but wasn't interested in looking at it with
the 'scope.  His choice.  I do agree that it's best seen with the naked eye.

I got up at 2AM.  Better,  and yawn.


Phil

    I joined the "comet crowd" last night walking the doggies.
    
    The mutts weren't real interested in the 'met, but thru 20x80 binocs,
    the view was *spectacular*! A bluish head surrounded by a large coma,
    with the tail wagging along behind...
    
    WOW! Interesting to think of this thing zooming by the planet - of
    course the 'met pilot's probably yawning and thinking that the blue 'n
    white planet below is such a backwater that NOBODY would want to live
    there...
    
    his/her loss.

>Star named Kochab.

That's Hebrew for "star."

    .227
    
    > Star named Kochab.
    
    According to Expert Astronomer, the LD is rather farther away from the
    Big Dipper than that.  EA shows Draco in that area, with Eta Draconis
    the star closest to Jack's location.  But Eta Draconis is far too dim
    to have been seen through the haze Sunday night.  Beta Draconis is the
    brightest star in the immediate area, but it is three or four times
    farther from where the comet was than Jack's location is.

I dragged out and dusted off the 6" Newtonian last night, set it up across
the street. We checked out the comet... neat! A perfect umbrella of dust and
gas spewing forward and wrapping back from the small, fuzzy, head. The dual
nature of the tail is obvious even to the eye. The large, diffuse tail is the
dust tail - solid particles of crud broken loose from the nucleus, somewhat
like smoke, although nothing's burning here. This tail often curves, but I
didn't notice any.  The thin, bright tail extending straight back from the
head is the ion or gas tail - gaseous material blown back directly away from
the Sun. Last night I could clearly make out both tails in 7x35 binoculars
and by eye, and this was well before Moonset!

The Moon is beginning to be a problem... As the comet approaches the Sun,
it'll brighten, but at the same time the increasing distance from Earth will
tend to dim it...

Oh yah, an amateur astronomer's trick for dim, diffuse objects: look a little
away from the object, rather than directly at it. Your ability to see dim
objects is somewhat better off center.

    >  <<< Note 116.235 by EST::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>
    
    > neat! A perfect umbrella of dust and gas spewing forward and wrapping 
    > back from the small, fuzzy, head.
    
    this sounds like a REAL GOOD description of the typical 'boxer, don't
    you think?

Good view again this evening.

If the clear forecast holds for Saturday evening this should add all sorts of
excitement to the 'bash at Mz_Debra's.

RE: 116.234 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

Oh,  and my printed calendar shows March 25 as being Monday.  Is it
different on a Mac?


Phil

>How can you ever forgive me?                                           
    
    Don't hold your breath; forgiveness does not appear to be Phil's strong
    point.

RE: 116.240 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

It's not you,  it's your Mac,  that has the error problem.  Don't feel bad,  
it's not your fault,  and you don't need apologize for Apple for being
stuck back in the 1980's.  If you would just join the rational,  preemptive
multitasked world of Windows NT all of your problems would be solved.  It's
not a matter of forgiveness,  as we all know you are just trying to cover
up for the computer you love so much.




Very many :-) needed.


Phil

    
    	Phil's using smileys in his notes.
    
    	This troubles me.
    

    
    Scarey... ain't it??
    
    He even stopped by my office and cracked a few jokes about Spring of '96
    
    
      Maybe he's been sniffing all that bootlegged CFC stuff!!!
    
     :) :)
    

    
    	He stopped by your office ?
    
    	He used to just hover over mine...
    
    

| <<< Note 116.245 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Crown Him with many crowns" >>>


| He used to just hover over mine...

	I read that as hoover the first time.... :-)

SKY & TELESCOPE NEWS BULLETIN
APRIL 27, 1996

...
    
THE EROS WATCH

The asteroid 433 Eros currently has an orbit that brings it close to --
but not across -- the Earth's orbit. However, according to new computer
simulations by dynamicists in France and Italy, Eros's orbit is likely to
evolve over the next two million years. Don't worry: the immediate threat
of a catastrophic collision is extremely small, and we appear to be safe
for at least the next 100,000 years. However, a collision is likely in
the far future: the team gives Eros a 50/50 chance of becoming an Earth-
crossing asteroid within the next million years, and one simulation
actually yielded a collision 1.14 million years from now. Such an event
would have dire consequences. Measuring 40 km long and 14 across, cigar-
shaped Eros would hit with roughly 10 times the destructive energy of the
object that devastated Earth 65 million years ago. The NEAR spacecraft,
launched in February, should reach Eros for a close look in 1999.
    
...

    REPENT! The end is.... 
    
    distant.

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	not according to Ezra.
    
    

    .247
    
    Reminds me of Revelations 8:10-11.
    
    Chernobyl. Wormwood.

...don't remember seeing Chernobyl mentioned anywhere in Revelations!

Chris.

Revelation.

nnttm.

    .251
    
    Chernobyl is the Russian word for "Wormwood".  Wormwood is a "star"
    mentioned in Revelation 8:10-11.
    
    

Miss Wormwood is Calvin's teacher.  So Calvin and Hobbs is mentioned in
Revelation.

    Hobbes.
    
    \hth

    
    <--- Calvin certainly acted like the anti-Christ.

re .255:

Yes, it helps.  I wasn't sure how it was spelled, so I guessed.  Wrong.

re Chernobyl -> Wormwood,

thanks, didn't know that (where does Wormwood Scrubs fit into this, I wonder?)

Chris.

    .250 et seq.
    
    Chernobyl is NOT the Russian word for wormwood.  The word used in the
    Greek is apsinthos, which refers to Artemisia absinthium.  The Russian
    word chernobyl refers to a related plant, Artemisia vulgaris, commonly
    known as mugwort.  Both are sources of bitter aromatic oils, but these
    oils have different properties and are used for different purposes.
    
    The word is used symbolically in Revelation to refer to the ancient
    association of wormwood with the bitterness of God's judgment on
    humanity; trying to tie it to Chernobyl is far-fetched at the very
    least.  And we wonder why thumpers don't have much credibility...

    ....quite.  What gall.

    .259
    
    > The word is used symbolically in Revelation to refer to the ancient
    > association of wormwood with the bitterness of God's judgment on
    > humanity; trying to tie it to Chernobyl is far-fetched at the very
    > least.  And we wonder why thumpers don't have much credibility...
    
    	I didn't tie it.  The Russian people did when the event at
    Chernobyl occured.  A rumor went around the country that this was
    the end of the world, and THEY referenced the verse in Revelation.
    
    BTW, I was over there (in Moscow and St. Petersburg) and that was
    a common rumor floating around.
    
    So if you have a beef, take it to Moscow.
    

English ok?

The following table is a list of potential Earth colliding asteroids.  The
numbers in the tables are the minimum orbital distances between the current
orbits of these asteroids and the planets listed.  This distance is a good
indicator of potential for future orbital change,  and the planet that
changes the orbit may not be the planet collided with.

There are very roughly 16 times as many dangerous asteroids than listed
below.  Plus very roughly about this number of comets.

================================================================================
intersections at epoch 1995 10 10
Distances are in AU. Arc is in days. Objects which have no Arc or
Number of Observations have very accurately known orbits.

Asteroid              Mercury    Venus     Earth     Mars     Jupiter       Arc     No. Obs.

 944 Hidalgo             -         -         -         -      0.29133        
1009 Sirene              -         -         -      0.04584      -           
1011 Laodamia            -         -         -      0.03394      -           
1036 Ganymed             -         -         -      0.04528      -           
1139 Atami               -         -         -      0.02850      -           
1566 Icarus              -         -      0.03566   0.04891      -           
1620 Geographos          -         -      0.03057      -         -           
1862 Apollo              -      0.00162   0.02516   0.04902      -           
1863 Antinous            -         -         -      0.00589      -           
1865 Cerberus            -         -         -      0.04774      -           
1921 Pala                -         -         -         -      0.97997        
1922 Zulu                -         -         -         -      0.62318        
1981 Midas               -         -      0.00305      -         -           
2099 Opik                -         -         -      0.04785      -           
2101 Adonis              -      0.01370   0.01221   0.00691      -           
2102 Tantalus            -         -      0.04411      -         -           
2135 Aristaeus           -         -      0.01117   0.00358      -           
2201 Oljato              -      0.00664   0.00078   0.00937      -           
2212 Hephaistos       0.00754      -         -         -         -           
2340 Hathor           0.02638      -      0.00719      -         -           
2368 Beltrovata          -         -         -      0.01353      -           
3040 Kozai               -         -         -      0.00148      -           
3122 Florence            -         -      0.04441      -         -           
3199 Nefertiti           -         -         -      0.04408      -           
3200 Phaethon            -      0.04057   0.02189      -         -           
3360 81VA                -      0.04914      -         -         -           
3361 Orpheus             -         -      0.01376   0.04720      -           
3362 Khufu               -         -      0.01390      -         -           
3552 Don Quixote         -         -         -      0.03698   0.44953        
3554 Amun                -      0.02490      -         -         -           
3671 Dionysus            -         -      0.01535      -         -           
3688 Navajo              -         -         -      0.01947   0.23531        
3757 82XB                -         -      0.03565      -         -           
3800 Karayusuf           -         -         -      0.01168      -           
3833 71SC 84SC           -         -         -      0.03605      -           
3838 Epona               -         -         -      0.04564      -           
3988 86LA                -         -         -      0.03883      -           
4015 Wilson-Harrington   -         -      0.04790   0.02863      -           
4034 86PA                -      0.03311   0.01874      -         -           
4179 Toutatis            -         -      0.00630   0.04234      -           
4183 Cuno                -         -      0.03251   0.01804      -           
4197 82TA                -         -         -      0.04205      -           
4205 David Hughes        -         -         -      0.01404      -           
4257 Ubasti              -         -         -      0.02259      -           
4401 Aditi               -         -         -      0.02201      -           
4450 Pan                 -      0.01869   0.02778   0.01699      -           
4486 Mithra              -      0.01729   0.04617   0.01950      -           
4503 Cleobulus           -         -         -      0.00707   0.99454        
4581 Asclepius           -      0.00593   0.00303      -         -           
4596 81QB                -         -         -      0.03047      -           
4660 Nereus              -         -      0.00315   0.03817      -           
4769 Castalia            -         -      0.01992      -         -           
4775 Hansen              -         -         -      0.03194      -           
4947 Ninkasi             -         -         -      0.01080      -           
4953 90MU                -      0.04545   0.02917      -         -           
4957 Brucemurray         -         -         -      0.04870      -           
5011 Ptah                -         -      0.02545   0.02960      -           
5131 90BG                -      0.00234      -      0.01206      -           
5143 Heracles            -         -         -      0.01939      -           
5189 90UQ                -         -      0.04438   0.01054      -           
5201 83XF 79FL4          -         -         -      0.00079   0.38539        
5261 Eureka              -         -         -      0.00033      -           
5335 Damocles            -         -         -      0.04646      -           
5370 Taranis             -         -         -         -      0.35344        
5381 Sekhmet             -      0.01895      -         -         -           
5587 90SB 90UV12         -         -         -      0.03961      -           
5590 90VA                -      0.00344      -         -         -           
5604 92FE                -      0.00586   0.03398      -         -           
5620 90OA                -         -         -      0.02050      -           
5621 90SG4 55ST2         -         -         -      0.03000      -           
5626 91FE 70RA           -         -         -      0.04331      -           
5641 90DJ 73GA           -         -         -      0.00415      -           
5645 90SP                -         -         -      0.00524      -           
5660 74MA 93OL           -         -         -      0.02368      -           
5693 93EA 84AJ           -      0.01363   0.00515      -         -           
5836 93MF                -         -         -      0.01497      -           
5863 Tara                -         -         -      0.01286      -           
6037 88EG                -      0.02903   0.02449   0.02334      -           
6047 91TB1               -         -         -      0.01639      -           
6050 92AE                -         -         -      0.04185      -           
6053 93BW3               -         -         -      0.01383      -           
6063 Jason               -      0.01489      -         -         -           
6130 89SL5               -         -         -      0.00466   0.77853        
6141 92YC3 83AZ2         -         -         -      0.01098      -           
6144 94EQ3 37JF          -         -         -         -      0.20822        
6172 Prokofeana          -         -         -      0.02186      -           
6178 86DA                -         -         -      0.00002   0.51824        
6239 Minos               -      0.04107   0.02648      -         -           
6322 91CQ                -         -         -      0.00948      -           
6489 91JX                -         -      0.03204      -         -           
     37UB                -      0.00483   0.00381   0.03452      -           4         5
     43DF 90FD           -         -         -      0.02537      -           
     50DA                -         -      0.04035      -         -          17        14
     51SX                -         -         -      0.02967      -          28         8
     54XA             0.01060      -      0.03599      -         -           6         5
     73SV1               -         -         -      0.02179      -          16        14
     76DC                -         -         -      0.00916      -          88        18
     77OX                -         -         -         -      0.80240        
     77QQ5               -         -         -      0.04305      -           
     78CA                -         -      0.01560      -         -          32        32
     79QB                -         -         -      0.00939      -          67        10
     79XB                -         -      0.01404   0.00851      -           4        16
     81EX11              -         -         -         -      0.91654       78         9
     82YA                -         -         -         -      0.57853       27         8
     83LC                -         -      0.02329      -         -          19         8
     83VA                -         -         -         -      0.89379      189         9
     84BC                -         -         -         -      0.51547      116        12
     84QY1               -         -         -         -      0.36693        3         6
     85WA                -         -         -         -      0.88562       97        33
     86JK                -         -      0.00483   0.01333   0.53946      179        64
     87OA                -      0.03935      -      0.00563      -          30         9
     87QB                -         -         -      0.02462   0.84620      171        15
     87SF3               -         -         -      0.03430      -          51        13
     87WC                -         -         -      0.03728      -           
     88PA                -         -         -      0.03265      -          41        13
     88RO1               -         -         -      0.02383      -          76        14
     88TA                -         -      0.00638   0.04462      -          63        32
     88XB                -      0.03410   0.00681   0.01788      -           
     89DA                -         -      0.04455      -         -          89        17
     89JA                -         -      0.02017      -         -         237        44
     89NA                -         -         -      0.04159      -           
     89UP                -         -      0.00497   0.04606      -           
     89UQ 54WZ           -      0.00361   0.01399      -         -           
     89UR                -         -      0.03384      -         -          34        12
     89VB                -         -      0.01694   0.01072      -          24        12
     89WQ1               -         -         -      0.03560      -           
     90FV1               -         -         -      0.00214      -          65         7
     90HA                -         -      0.01023   0.04092   0.77432      212        34
     90KA                -         -         -      0.01019      -           
     90MF                -         -      0.01732   0.00218      -         176        38
     90OS                -         -      0.00958   0.00034      -           8        21
     90SA                -         -         -      0.00667      -          14        28
     90SM                -      0.02912   0.02021      -         -          24        11
     90TG1               -      0.04845      -         -      0.84969       14        18
     90UA                -         -      0.01232   0.00867      -           7        11
     90UN                -         -      0.02175   0.02419      -          15        22
     90UL3               -         -         -         -      0.07919       59        11
     90VB                -         -         -      0.01550      -           
     91AQ 94RD        0.04584   0.00147   0.01998   0.03836      -           
     91BA                -      0.00684   0.00028   0.04425      -           0         7
     91BN                -         -      0.02023      -         -          17        16
     91CS                -         -      0.02214      -         -          60        22
     91CB1 93BV3         -      0.04380      -         -         -           
     91DF                -         -         -      0.00123      -           2         9
     91DG                -         -      0.03826      -         -         238        30
     91EE                -         -      0.02733   0.00274      -           
     91GO                -         -      0.02180   0.04826      -           9        12
     91JR                -         -      0.04423      -         -          11        20
     91JW                -         -      0.02039      -         -           
     91NT3               -         -         -      0.00038      -          18        36
     91PM5 82OP          -         -         -      0.01309      -           
     91RB                -         -      0.03969      -         -          23        15
     91RJ2               -         -         -      0.02811      -          51        23
     91TT                -         -      0.03084      -         -           3         9
     91TU                -         -      0.00420   0.03645      -           0         4
     91TB2               -         -         -         -      0.53736        3         6
     91VA                -         -      0.00718   0.03055      -           8        14
     91VE             0.00123   0.02988      -         -         -          24        22
     91VG                -         -      0.00423      -         -          24        12
     91VH                -         -      0.02613      -         -          67        32
     91VK 91TS1          -         -      0.04739      -         -           
     91WA                -      0.00862      -         -         -           
     91XA                -         -      0.04458      -         -          12        11
     91XB                -         -         -         -      0.70218       64        28
     91YA                -         -         -      0.04726      -           
     92BC                -         -         -      0.01433      -           9        18
     92DU                -         -      0.03808      -         -           3        13
     92EB1               -         -         -      0.04510   0.86655      165        24
     92HF                -      0.01338      -         -         -          39        19
     92JD                -         -      0.01673      -         -           6        23
     92JG                -         -         -      0.00892      -         112        23
     92LR                -         -         -      0.04918      -         145       154
     92NA                -         -      0.04850      -         -           
     92QN                -         -         -      0.04629      -          46        28
     92RN1               -         -         -         -      0.63134       53         8
     92SK 85SD           -         -      0.04627   0.03287      -           
     92TB                -      0.00069      -         -         -           
     92TC                -         -         -      0.02076      -           
     92UA                -         -         -      0.01231      -           4         9
     92UY4               -         -      0.02218   0.01863      -         155        37
     92XA                -         -         -         -      0.25547       31        19
     92YD3               -         -      0.02320      -         -           0        18
     93BD3               -         -      0.03779   0.02561      -           5        14
     93BX3               -         -      0.04775   0.02892      -          51        33
     93DA                -         -      0.03405      -         -           5        18
     93DQ1               -         -      0.03219      -         -          28        22
     93FA1               -         -      0.02548      -         -           3        17
     93HD                -         -      0.00144      -         -           1         6
     93HO1               -         -         -      0.04364      -           
     93HP1               -         -      0.00556      -         -           0        28
     93KA                -         -      0.00435   0.00293      -          12        25
     93KH                -         -      0.00148      -         -         226        23
     93KA2               -      0.00049   0.00019      -         -           1        13
     93OV1               -         -         -      0.02780      -           
     93PC                -      0.04035      -      0.04047      -           
     93QP                -         -         -      0.00973      -          76        47
     93RA                -         -         -      0.00355      -          10        21
     93RR2               -         -         -      0.01897      -          47        26
     93TZ                -         -      0.00564      -         -           1        10
     93TQ2               -         -         -      0.00448      -          95        26
     93TR2               -         -         -      0.04185      -          12        12
     93TS2               -         -         -      0.03087      -          23        17
     93UA                -         -      0.00443      -         -           3        15
     93VB                -         -      0.00080      -         -         179        49
     93VD             0.02055   0.02732   0.01672      -         -           8        11
     93VW                -         -         -      0.01230      -           
     94AB1               -         -         -         -      0.88040       73        41
     94AL1               -         -         -      0.04840      -          55        16
     94AW1               -         -      0.01951      -         -         266       174
     94AH2               -      0.00981      -         -      0.66542        
     94BB                -         -         -      0.00581      -          15        14
     94CC                -         -      0.01640      -         -          43        23
     94CJ1               -         -      0.03146      -         -           9        16
     94CK1               -      0.04857      -      0.02553      -           9        15
     94CN2               -         -      0.01243   0.03261      -          76        30
     94EJ                -         -         -      0.02624      -          17        10
     94EK                -         -      0.03184   0.04480      -          16        17
     94EU                -         -      0.03038      -         -          12        16
     94ES1               -      0.03795   0.00054   0.02472      -           1        13
     94EA2               -         -         -      0.00088      -          77        26
     94FA                -         -      0.04326      -         -           4        17
     94GK                -         -      0.00275   0.04217      -           3        11
     94GL             0.01657   0.03160   0.01235      -         -           3        12
     94GV                -         -      0.00003   0.01330      -           2        14
     94GY                -         -         -         -      0.91167      157       125
     94JC                -         -         -         -      0.63547      114        35
     94JX                -         -         -         -      0.78253      137        62
     94JF1               -         -         -      0.03213      -         127        71
     94JS1               -         -         -      0.04949      -         121        25
     94LC1               -         -         -      0.03304      -         162        80
     94NE                -         -      0.01573      -         -           4        28
     94NK                -         -         -      0.00573      -          51        27
     94PC                -         -         -      0.01369      -           
     94PM                -      0.04744   0.02197      -         -         241        86
     94PC1               -         -      0.00020      -         -           
     94PR1               -         -         -         -      0.43966        2         4
     94PH28              -         -         -      0.00197      -          25        12
     94RB                -         -      0.03876      -         -           2        21
     94RC                -         -      0.04187      -         -          40        62
     94RH                -         -         -      0.02935      -           
     94RL11              -         -         -      0.04406      -          15         9
     94SA                -         -         -      0.02888      -           2         9
     94SO9               -         -         -      0.04700      -          14         9
     94TW1               -         -         -      0.00624      -           
     94TF2               -      0.00063      -         -         -         306        23
     94UG                -         -      0.00974   0.02927      -           4        13
     94US                -         -         -      0.01325      -          13        18
     94VU1               -         -         -      0.04590      -           2         9
     94WR12           0.01046   0.02590   0.00229      -         -          10        12
     94XD                -      0.00833   0.02014   0.03404      -          27        27
     94XL1               -         -      0.03586      -         -          16        58
     94XM1               -         -      0.00071      -         -           0        13
     94XZ4               -         -         -      0.00785      -          60        92
     95CR             0.01664   0.04047   0.01319   0.00996      -          20       150
     95CS                -      0.03769   0.00141   0.01691      -           3        11
     95DV1               -         -      0.04991   0.00616   0.71779        8        13
     95EK1               -         -      0.04988   0.00494      -          41       333
     95FF                -      0.00540   0.00150   0.00281      -           5        16
     95HM                -         -         -      0.04425      -          43        26
     95KG1               -         -         -         -      0.80709        8        22
     95LA                -         -      0.02010      -         -           7        45
     95LE                -         -         -      0.03037      -          65        39
     95LF                -         -         -      0.04187      -          20        12
     2717PL              -         -         -      0.03082      -          32         9
     5025PL              -      0.02182   0.04553      -         -           4         3
     6344PL              -         -      0.02930      -         -           4         4
     2202T1 93FG4        -         -         -         -      0.86978        

        Last updated 12 Feb 1996
      Go (Back) to Lowell Observatory's Home Page  

    
    	Don't we already have a bang list in note 81?
    

>     94GV                -         -      0.00003   0.01330      -           2        14
                                           ^^^^^^^

I think I felt this one go by.

    >     94GV                -         -      0.00003   0.01330
    
    This minimum distance is roughly 1,200 miles INSIDE the Earth.  I do
    not want to be around if we and that asteroid happen to be at the
    relevant points in our respective orbits simultaneously.

How about the "thing" that streaked across the sky of the Pacific Northwest
area in the 70s?  Is it named?  Is its orbit known?

Oh,  and most of these are 1 km or larger,  or regional scale disasters. 

There are another roughly 100,000 more that are between 100 meters and 1
km.  Or the energy of middle sized H-bombs.


Phil

    big flying rock in space snarf.

    
    	RE: -1
    
    	Yup, if you see 1 of those things coming at you you might as
    	well stick your head between her legs and kiss her *ss good-
    	bye.
    

| <<< Note 116.270 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Erotic Nightmares" >>>


| Yup, if you see 1 of those things coming at you you might as
| well stick your head between her legs and kiss her *ss good-bye.

	And hope she is facing the correct way to do that!

    
    	ewww.
    
    

This list is from the minor planet center.  I've edited out the Julian
dates,  the reference,  and the redundant name columns to make this fit in
80 columns.  And opp==opposition.

Minor planet center is at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/mpc.html
===============================================================================
                        Close Approaches To The Earth

The following table lists the minor-planet and comet encounters to within
0.2 AU of the earth during the next twenty years.  Objects with very uncertain
orbits are excluded from this listing.
    
 Object (and name)         Date of 
                           encounter (TT)    Distance        Orbit arc
                           Calendar          (AU)

        1996 AE2           1996 Jan. 16.30   0.1332  1-opp, arc =  32 days  
        1992 QN            1996 Jan. 18.53   0.1588     2 opps, 1992-1996   
        1996 FO3           1996 Jan. 28.06   0.0981  1-opp, arc =  34 days  
   45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova
                           1996 Feb.  4.68   0.1688                         
        1993 QA            1996 Feb.  6.55   0.0708     2 opps, 1993-1996   
     C/1996 B2 (Hyakutake) 1996 Mar. 25.29   0.1017                         
 (2063) Bacchus            1996 Mar. 31.67   0.0678     7 opps, 1977-1996   
 (1566) Icarus             1996 June 11.32   0.1012    14 opps, 1949-1982   
 (3103) Eger               1996 Aug.  6.10   0.1151     4 opps, 1982-1987   
        1991 CS            1996 Aug. 28.84   0.0508     2 opps, 1991-1996   
        1994 PC            1996 Sept. 9.41   0.1706     3 opps, 1982-1995   
        1996 EN            1996 Sept.14.48   0.1467  1-opp, arc =  41 days  
        1989 RS1           1996 Sept.16.08   0.1950  1-opp, arc = 145 days  
        1989 UQ            1996 Oct. 22.96   0.1505     3 opps, 1954-1995   
 (4197) 1982 TA            1996 Oct. 25.64   0.0846     4 opps, 1982-1989   
 (3908) 1980 PA            1996 Oct. 27.86   0.0613     2 opps, 1980-1988   
 (4179) Toutatis           1996 Nov. 29.96   0.0354     4 opps, 1934-1992   
        1994 WR12          1996 Dec. 25.61   0.0978  1-opp, arc =  35 days  
        1991 VK            1997 Jan. 10.70   0.0749     4 opps, 1981-1993   
        1994 PC1           1997 Jan. 21.00   0.0651     4 opps, 1974-1994   
    2P/Encke               1997 July  4.84   0.1901                         
 (3671) Dionysus           1997 July  6.90   0.1144     3 opps, 1984-1994   
        1988 XB            1997 July  8.69   0.1080     4 opps, 1988-1996   
 (2100) Ra-Shalom          1997 Sept.26.98   0.1705     8 opps, 1975-1994   
        1992 BF            1997 Dec. 20.11   0.1721  1-opp, arc =  37 days  
 (2102) Tantalus           1997 Dec. 21.84   0.1378     5 opps, 1975-1994   
 (3361) Orpheus            1998 Feb. 12.78   0.1668     4 opps, 1982-1990   
 (6037) 1988 EG            1998 Feb. 28.91   0.0318     3 opps, 1988-1994   
        1994 AH2           1998 June 17.56   0.1930     3 opps, 1981-1994   
        1987 OA            1998 Aug. 15.88   0.0986  1-opp, arc =  34 days  
 (1865) Cerberus           1998 Nov. 24.75   0.1634     7 opps, 1971-1989   
        1989 UR            1998 Nov. 28.69   0.0800  1-opp, arc =  34 days  
        1994 WR12          1999 Jan. 17.61   0.1277  1-opp, arc =  35 days  
 (6047) 1991 TB1           1999 Mar. 18.52   0.1632     3 opps, 1985-1994   
        1992 SK            1999 Mar. 26.26   0.0559     4 opps, 1953-1996   
 (1863) Antinous           1999 Apr.  1.62   0.1894     6 opps, 1948-1986   
 (6489) Golevka            1999 June  2.81   0.0500     2 opps, 1991-1995   
        1989 VA            1999 Nov. 21.89   0.1938     3 opps, 1989-1996   
        1991 DB            2000 Mar. 18.67   0.1017  1-opp, arc = 147 days  
        1986 JK            2000 July  3.29   0.1143  1-opp, arc = 179 days  
        1991 BB            2000 July 27.18   0.1662     3 opps, 1991-1996   
 (4486) Mithra             2000 Aug. 14.37   0.0466     4 opps, 1974-1994   
 (2100) Ra-Shalom          2000 Sept. 6.04   0.1896     8 opps, 1975-1994   
 (2340) Hathor             2000 Oct. 25.25   0.1970     3 opps, 1976-1983   
 (4179) Toutatis           2000 Oct. 31.19   0.0739     4 opps, 1934-1992   
        1992 HF            2000 Nov. 28.78   0.1429  1-opp, arc =  39 days  
 (4183) Cuno               2000 Dec. 22.79   0.1427     6 opps, 1959-1994   
 (4688) 1980 WF            2001 Jan.  3.61   0.1701     2 opps, 1980-1991   
 (4034) 1986 PA            2001 Apr.  3.05   0.1465     3 opps, 1986-1988   
 (3103) Eger               2001 Aug.  6.31   0.1161     4 opps, 1982-1987   
        1987 QB            2001 Aug. 16.74   0.1629  1-opp, arc = 171 days  
 (3362) Khufu              2001 Dec. 29.46   0.1597     8 opps, 1984-1995   
        1991 VK            2002 Jan. 16.50   0.0718     4 opps, 1981-1993   
 (4660) Nereus             2002 Jan. 22.52   0.0290     4 opps, 1981-1993   
 (3361) Orpheus            2002 Jan. 27.86   0.1695     4 opps, 1982-1990   
 (5604) 1992 FE            2002 June 22.26   0.0768     4 opps, 1976-1993   
 (2101) Adonis             2002 June 29.74   0.1610     4 opps, 1936-1995   
        1989 VA            2002 Oct. 25.39   0.1771     3 opps, 1989-1996   
 (3362) Khufu              2002 Dec. 25.09   0.1498     8 opps, 1984-1995   
        1992 SY            2003 Feb. 12.85   0.1052     2 opps, 1980-1992   
 (5381) Sekhmet            2003 May  17.70   0.1285     4 opps, 1991-1995   
 (6489) Golevka            2003 May  20.67   0.0923     2 opps, 1991-1995   
        1994 PM            2003 Aug. 16.65   0.0245     2 opps, 1994-1995   
 (2100) Ra-Shalom          2003 Aug. 17.60   0.1745     8 opps, 1975-1994   
        1989 RS1           2003 Sept.16.89   0.1917  1-opp, arc = 145 days  
 (2063) Bacchus            2003 Sept.26.17   0.1217     7 opps, 1977-1996   
 (4197) 1982 TA            2003 Oct. 18.74   0.1866     4 opps, 1982-1989   
        1989 UQ            2003 Oct. 24.57   0.1496     3 opps, 1954-1995   
 (3362) Khufu              2003 Dec. 20.88   0.1946     8 opps, 1984-1995   
 (6239) Minos              2004 Feb.  2.89   0.0564     3 opps, 1989-1994   
        1993 KH            2004 June 14.04   0.1315  1-opp, arc = 226 days  
        1992 CC1           2004 Sept.15.54   0.1367     3 opps, 1992-1996   
 (4179) Toutatis           2004 Sept.29.57   0.0104     4 opps, 1934-1992   
 (3908) 1980 PA            2004 Nov. 14.95   0.1394     2 opps, 1980-1988   
        1988 XB            2004 Nov. 21.96   0.0729     4 opps, 1988-1996   
        1993 VA            2005 Feb.  2.35   0.1427     2 opps, 1986-1994   
        1992 BF            2005 Mar.  3.69   0.0630  1-opp, arc =  37 days  
 (6611) 1993 VW            2005 Apr. 24.90   0.0862     4 opps, 1982-1995   
 (4544) Xanthus            2005 May  10.25   0.1938     2 opps, 1989-1990   
 (5660) 1974 MA            2005 Aug.  1.00   0.1874     4 opps, 1974-1995   
        1992 UY4           2005 Aug.  8.42   0.0402  1-opp, arc = 155 days  
        1977 VA            2005 Oct. 28.49   0.1362  1-opp, arc =  93 days  
 (1862) Apollo             2005 Nov.  6.80   0.0752     6 opps, 1932-1982   
 (3361) Orpheus            2006 Jan. 11.56   0.1597     4 opps, 1982-1990   
 (5797) 1980 AA            2006 Feb.  2.13   0.1899     2 opps, 1980-1993   
        1992 SK            2006 Mar. 15.19   0.1099     4 opps, 1953-1996   
   73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3
                           2006 May  12.00   0.0816                         
 (3103) Eger               2006 Aug.  5.91   0.1284     4 opps, 1982-1987   
 (4450) Pan                2006 Sept. 8.94   0.1464     5 opps, 1987-1994   
 (5011) Ptah               2007 Jan. 21.97   0.1982     5 opps, 1960-1995   
        1993 HC            2007 Apr.  5.97   0.1619  1-opp, arc =  37 days  
 (1862) Apollo             2007 May   8.64   0.0714     6 opps, 1932-1982   
 (2340) Hathor             2007 Oct. 22.24   0.0600     3 opps, 1976-1983   
        1989 VA            2007 Oct. 29.56   0.1552     3 opps, 1989-1996   
        1989 UR            2007 Nov. 26.36   0.0406  1-opp, arc =  34 days  
 (3200) Phaethon           2007 Dec. 10.91   0.1044     5 opps, 1983-1995   
 (4450) Pan                2008 Feb. 19.93   0.0408     5 opps, 1987-1994   
 (6037) 1988 EG            2008 Mar.  7.61   0.1667     3 opps, 1988-1994   
 (1620) Geographos         2008 Mar. 17.49   0.1251    19 opps, 1951-1994   
        1991 DG            2008 Aug.  2.25   0.1753     3 opps, 1991-1996   
        1991 VH            2008 Aug. 15.54   0.0458     2 opps, 1991-1996   
 (4179) Toutatis           2008 Nov.  9.50   0.0503     4 opps, 1934-1992   
        1993 KH            2008 Nov. 22.33   0.0992  1-opp, arc = 226 days  
        1991 DB            2009 Mar. 15.43   0.1168  1-opp, arc = 147 days  
        1991 JW            2009 May  23.96   0.0813     3 opps, 1991-1992   
        1994 CC            2009 June 10.31   0.0169     2 opps, 1994-1996   
        1996 EN            2009 Aug. 28.47   0.1938  1-opp, arc =  41 days  
 (3361) Orpheus            2009 Dec. 25.78   0.1384     4 opps, 1982-1990   
 (4486) Mithra             2010 Mar. 12.64   0.1878     4 opps, 1974-1994   
        1994 CB            2010 July 31.68   0.0906  1-opp, arc = 211 days  
 (6239) Minos              2010 Aug. 10.88   0.0985     3 opps, 1989-1994   
  103P/Hartley 2           2010 Oct. 20.05   0.1259                         
        1989 UQ            2010 Oct. 21.28   0.1533     3 opps, 1954-1995   
 (3838) Epona              2010 Nov.  7.31   0.1973     4 opps, 1986-1994   
        1991 JW            2010 Nov. 28.92   0.0953     3 opps, 1991-1992   
        1990 SS            2011 Mar. 17.38   0.0994  1-opp, arc = 205 days  
 (3988) 1986 LA            2011 June 27.38   0.1853     3 opps, 1986-1990   
 (3103) Eger               2011 Aug.  4.97   0.1528     4 opps, 1982-1987   
   45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova
                           2011 Aug. 15.40   0.0601                         
        1994 WR12          2011 Nov. 22.56   0.0777  1-opp, arc =  35 days  
        1991 VK            2012 Jan. 26.00   0.0650     4 opps, 1981-1993   
  (433) Eros               2012 Jan. 31.46   0.1787    42 opps, 1893-1993   
 (4183) Cuno               2012 May  20.80   0.1218     6 opps, 1959-1994   
        1994 NK            2012 May  26.93   0.1138  1-opp, arc =  51 days  
        1994 PM            2012 Aug. 12.53   0.0907     2 opps, 1994-1995   
 (4581) Asclepius          2012 Aug. 16.37   0.1079     2 opps, 1989-1990   
 (4769) Castalia           2012 Aug. 28.71   0.1135     4 opps, 1989-1995   
        1989 VA            2012 Nov.  4.40   0.1644     3 opps, 1989-1996   
 (4179) Toutatis           2012 Dec. 12.27   0.0462     4 opps, 1934-1992   
 (3752) Camillo            2013 Feb. 12.25   0.1478     5 opps, 1985-1995   
        1993 UC            2013 Mar. 20.07   0.1260     2 opps, 1989-1994   
 (4034) 1986 PA            2013 Apr.  1.97   0.1528     3 opps, 1986-1988   
        1988 TA            2013 May   8.36   0.0511  1-opp, arc =  63 days  
        1988 XB            2013 July 10.56   0.1183     4 opps, 1988-1996   
 (6037) 1988 EG            2013 Aug. 12.17   0.1847     3 opps, 1988-1994   
 (4581) Asclepius          2013 Aug. 25.63   0.1188     2 opps, 1989-1990   
        1992 SL            2013 Sept.23.43   0.1798     3 opps, 1992-1996   
 (6063) Jason              2013 Nov. 11.55   0.0790     4 opps, 1984-1995   
 (3361) Orpheus            2013 Dec.  7.01   0.1032     4 opps, 1982-1990   
        1994 WR12          2013 Dec.  9.66   0.0793  1-opp, arc =  35 days  
 (2062) Aten               2014 Jan.  8.41   0.1463     6 opps, 1955-1995   
 (2340) Hathor             2014 Oct. 21.89   0.0482     3 opps, 1976-1983   
        1987 WC            2014 Nov.  3.73   0.1249     2 opps, 1987-1995   
 (2063) Bacchus            2015 Apr.  7.80   0.1952     7 opps, 1977-1996   
 (5381) Sekhmet            2015 May  17.36   0.1613     4 opps, 1991-1995   
        1992 HF            2015 May  22.82   0.1214  1-opp, arc =  39 days  
 (1566) Icarus             2015 June 16.68   0.0545    14 opps, 1949-1982   
        1994 AW1           2015 July 15.60   0.0650  1-opp, arc = 269 days  
        1991 CS            2015 Sept. 4.98   0.1596     2 opps, 1991-1996   
        1993 HA            2015 Dec.  2.78   0.1752  1-opp, arc =  61 days  
 (1685) Toro               2016 Jan. 22.30   0.1566    18 opps, 1948-1992   
        1991 CS            2016 Feb. 23.26   0.1683     2 opps, 1991-1996   
        1993 VA            2016 Mar. 23.26   0.1533     2 opps, 1986-1994   
 (3103) Eger               2016 Aug.  2.56   0.1894     4 opps, 1982-1987   
 (2100) Ra-Shalom          2016 Oct.  9.59   0.1499     8 opps, 1975-1994   
        1991 VG            2016 Oct. 26.50   0.1682  1-opp, arc = 173 days  
        1992 BF            2016 Nov. 17.91   0.1329  1-opp, arc =  37 days  
        1989 UR            2016 Nov. 20.48   0.1620  1-opp, arc =  34 days  
 (5143) Heracles           2016 Nov. 28.98   0.1470     3 opps, 1962-1992   
 (2102) Tantalus           2016 Dec. 30.61   0.1375     5 opps, 1975-1994   

RE: 116.266 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

> This minimum distance is roughly 1,200 miles INSIDE the Earth.  I do
> not want to be around if we and that asteroid happen to be at the
> relevant points in our respective orbits simultaneously.

And the good news is that it's very roughly 15 meters in diameter.  In
other words,  mostly likely a big flash and bang high in the atmosphere.


Phil

Depends on what it's made of, too.  Iron meteors are more likely to survive
than stony or icy meteors (comet).

    
    	I'll bet chocolate pudding meteors don't last too long, eh?
    

              Closest Approaches to the Earth by Minor Planets

The following table lists, in order of increasing geocentric distance,
the closest known approaches to the earth by minor planets.  In order to qualify
for this listing, the approach must have occurred during an observed
apparition, although in some cases the object was not under observation
at the time of closest approach.

The dates of closest approach are given in Terrestrial Time (TT), although
at the precision of this table they can be considered to be in Universal
Time (UT).  For comparison, the mean distance of the moon is 0.0026 AU
= 384400 km = 238900 miles.  (1 AU is approximately the mean distance
of the earth from the sun = 149597870 km = 92955810 miles.)

Distance  Date (TT)       Permanent designation  Provisional  Reference      
  (AU)                                           designation               

 0.0007*  1994 Dec.  9.8                         1994 XM1     
 0.0010   1993 May  20.9                         1993 KA2     
 0.0011   1994 Mar. 15.7                         1994 ES1     
 0.0011   1991 Jan. 18.7                         1991 BA      
 0.0029   1995 Mar. 27.2                         1995 FF      
 0.0031** 1991 Dec.  5.4                         1991 VG      
 0.0046   1989 Mar. 22.9  (4581) Asclepius       1989 FC      
 0.0048   1994 Nov. 24.8                         1994 WR12    
 0.0049   1937 Oct. 30.7  (Hermes)               1937 UB      
 0.0050   1995 Oct. 17.2                         1995 UB      
 0.0067   1993 Oct. 18.8                         1993 UA      
 0.0069   1994 Apr. 12.1                         1994 GV      
 0.0071   1993 May  17.9                         1993 KA      
 0.0078   1976 Oct. 20.7  (2340) Hathor          1976 UA      
 0.0099   1988 Sept.29.0                         1988 TA      ***

Notes:

*   This approach is to within 112000 km = 70000 miles.
**  1991 VG may be a returning piece of man-made space debris.
*** The ephemeris for 1988 TA on <i>IAUC</i> 4662 was very preliminary
    and should be disregarded.

I looked these up in an asteroid database and estimated sizes based on
absolute magnitude.  

Distance  Date (TT)       Permanent designation  Provisional  Diameter
  (AU)                                           designation               

 0.0007*  1994 Dec.  9.8                         1994 XM1     <30 meters
 0.0010   1993 May  20.9                         1993 KA2     <30 meters
 0.0011   1994 Mar. 15.7                         1994 ES1     <30 meters
 0.0011   1991 Jan. 18.7                         1991 BA      <30 meters
 0.0029   1995 Mar. 27.2                         1995 FF      30 meters
 0.0031** 1991 Dec.  5.4                         1991 VG      <30 meters
 0.0046   1989 Mar. 22.9  (4581) Asclepius       1989 FC      300 meters
 0.0048   1994 Nov. 24.8                         1994 WR12    300 meters
 0.0049   1937 Oct. 30.7  (Hermes)               1937 UB      1 km
 0.0050   1995 Oct. 17.2                         1995 UB      <30 meters
 0.0067   1993 Oct. 18.8                         1993 UA      30 meters
 0.0069   1994 Apr. 12.1                         1994 GV      <30 meters
 0.0071   1993 May  17.9                         1993 KA      30 meters
 0.0078   1976 Oct. 20.7  (2340) Hathor          1976 UA      300 meters
 0.0099   1988 Sept.29.0                         1988 TA      300 meters

On Sunday, a 0.5 km diameter asteroid passed to within 280,000 miles from
Earth, or a little further than the Moon's orbit.  It is the largest asteroid
to be spotted passing this close.  It was only discovered last Wednesday.

In a few days a 1.2 km diameter asteroid will pass to about 1.9 million miles.
It, too, was only discovered recently, on May 8.

    It's all the rock music we're a playin' nowadays. It's calling them
    home.

RE: 116.281 by EVMS::MORONEY "your innocence is no defense"

> we're being bombarded!!

No more than usual.  The main difference is that there are now we have
several telescopes that can do a good job of looking for such "little"
rocks.   The key elements are a middle sized scope (1 meter +) with a good
CCD imaging system (fairly new technology) and a computer to look at all
the images for faint,  moving objects quickly so as to be able to track the
object in real time.  With 30,608 observed asteroids (some of which are
almost hopelessly lost),  we are now much more likely to know about one in
the neighborhood than we once were.

I wonder if there isn't a lot of potential good publicity from trying to
get Alpha computers to do the image processing work.  Right now, 
SpaceWatch is asking for donations.  They have the largest telescope in the
world to look at asteroids now under construction,  and they need a
computer system to match.

Once there are enough scopes to do a complete job of looking a near Earth
space,  then we will see and hear about a lot more objects like this.  We
as a world spend less on looking for possible civilization ending rocks than 
the average sales of a McDonald's restaurant.

The interesting point in time is what happens the first time one of these
objects is found to be on a collision course.  After all,  we don't have to
lie down and take it like a dinosaur.


Phil

    .283
    
    > I wonder if there isn't a lot of potential good publicity from trying to
    > get Alpha computers to do the image processing work.
    
    With no attempt whatever to play one-up games, I believe that the
    required software already exists for Macintosh.  Much of the image
    processing being done by NASA and NOAA is done on Macs.  And a Daystar
    top-end MacOS machine running four 604 PPC chips at 150 MHz is rather
    faster than a Silicon Graphics workstation.

    > They have the largest telescope in the world to look at asteroids now
    > under construction.
    
    Good move.  I say we nail the bastards who are building these
    asteroids.
    
    

RE: 116.284 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

Please leave the WindowsNT vs OldAppleOS war in the Home computing note.

I know of no asteroid watch program using Macintosh computers. IBM R/6000
and Silicon Graphics systems are what I know of being in use.

This is not the sort of image processing that NASA does.


Phil

RE: 116.285 by SMURF::WALTERS

Gack.

How about:

They have,  under construction,  what will be the largest telescope in the
world to look at asteroids.


Phil

>     <<< Note 116.287 by BOXORN::HAYS "Some things are worth dying for" >>>

>They have,  under construction,  what will be the largest telescope in the
>world to look at asteroids.

	Awkward.  B-

	Also makes it sound as though the telescope itself will be looking
	at asteroids.

    Maybe they are imbuing it with artificial intelligence?

    .286
    
    > Please leave the WizzlostNT vs MacOS war...
    
    I pointed out, correctly, that NASA and NOAA are using Macs to do image
    processing and suggested that the required software might exist for Mac
    instead of requiring a ground-up rewrite for Alpha.  You want to make a
    war out of it, that's your problem.
    
    > This is not the sort of image processing that NASA does.
    
    Oh?  Enhancing video images isn't what NASA does?  What, pray tell, are
    they doing with all those video images that they've been downloading
    from Endeavour with Macs and enhancing, also with Macs, if enhancing
    video images is not what NASA does.  It matters little what frequency
    the electromagnetic images are recorded at, so the same software could
    quite possibly work on this deep-space-looking-for-tiny-objects job. 
    
    I'm really sorry you can't accept that Macs actually do more, and
    better, image processing than Wizzlost machines.  Perhaps a few
    sessions with your therapist would help you deal with the real world.

RE: 116.291 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

> I pointed out, correctly, that NASA and NOAA are using Macs to do image
> processing

"Image processing" to find faint asteroid tracks is mostly not done on Macs
or PCs,  it's done with Silicon Graphics and IBM R/6000 systems.  As far as
I know,  there are still more film and human eyeball asteroid searchs than
the total of Mac and PC based searches.  The Russian and Chinese search
programs I don't know about,  and might make this statement wrong.


Phil

    .292
    
    > Silicon Graphics
    
    The Daystar machine I mentioned is faster than Silicon Graphics.  IBM
    is currently reimplemeting the entire R/6000 product line to use
    PowerPC in order to take advantage of the speed gain.
    
    But if the software doesn't exist for Mac, then everything I said is
    moot.

    So, are we gonna get hit or ain't we?
    
    I like to plan in advance, y'know.

    at some point, yes.