Jump to content


Photo

Asteroid 2017 YZ1 seems to approach TS = 1


57 replies to this topic

#1 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 31 December 2017 - 12:26 PM

At least the PS value is increasing, currently JPL sentry has PS = -2.4 and NEODyS (last observations until 30. December not yet included) PS = -2.58 with nearly all of the risk being in June 2047.

 

Object size is more than 200 m and estimated kinetic energy about 750 MT. At least there should be enough time to react if the affair becomes a serious threat.



#2 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 31 December 2017 - 01:43 PM

Thanks for the update.  I agree, this rock needs watching!


NEODyS has PS = -2.53 (cum), -2.58 for 2047.



#3 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:13 AM

While TS is still 0 on both sites, the PS values increased on both:

JPL has now PS = -2.31 (cum) and -2.33 for 2047 alone, NEODyS has now PS = -2.46 (cum) and -2.52 for 2047 alone (last observations from today (1. January 2018) not included there yet).

Edited by Orca, 01 January 2018 - 12:09 PM.


#4 owlhoot

owlhoot

    Master of AnOWLysis & **MODERATOR!**

  • Moderators
  • 12,236 posts

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:17 AM

2047... I would be 90 years old. Not likely to be around that long, but would be interesting to see none the less.


Remembering those who served:

WITHHONOR


#5 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 01 January 2018 - 07:22 PM

250m diameter

17.83 km/s impact velcity

date 06-30-2047  prob = 2.0e-5  (1 in 48,000)

est impact = 800MT



#6 Mee_n_Mac

Mee_n_Mac

    Appropriately Attired

  • Members
  • 9,937 posts

Posted 01 January 2018 - 07:52 PM

So that places 2017 YZ1 at around Apophis scale of destruction ?


Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former.

#7 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 01 January 2018 - 08:47 PM

Yes.  But as odds are at this moment, 2017 YZ1 is four times riskier.



#8 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 02 January 2018 - 02:03 AM

Tonight NEODyS increased PS value for 2047 to -2.50 (cum. value stays at -2.46). - Indeed, the infamous Apophis, comparable in size, which orbit is much better known, has a considerably lower value currently (about -3.7).

#9 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 03:04 PM

Now it happened: JPL sentry increased the risk after three further observations from 4. January 2018 to TS = 1 with PS = -1.91, regardless if 2047 or the sum (the following possible impacts are too unlikely to change the sum). NEODyS is still calculating the consequences of the already refined orbit determination.


Edited by Orca, 05 January 2018 - 03:04 PM.


#10 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 03:17 PM

Yup!  Now that this is Torino Score = 1, it is time for me to tabulate this so it gets easy to follow.

 

2017 YZ1

JPL Sentry

risk = 4.9115537e-05  (0.0049% chance of impact)

PS cum = -1.91

PS max = -1.91

TS = 1

impact = 870 MT

date = 06-30-2047

 

JPL: Computed at 08:47 today Pacific time based on 43 observations spanning 14.827 days (2017-Dec-20.42481 to 2018-Jan-04.25204). Diameter approximately 0.260 km. from weighted mean H=20.60.



#11 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 03:28 PM

NEODyS finished now todays calculation and confirmed TS = 1 with even higher PS = -1.27. Further observations are strongly recommended.



#12 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 03:50 PM

Orca, you called this asteroid early!  :)    It is going to be a fun ride.

 

Ath3na will be very pleased today.

 

2017 YZ1

NEODyS

risk = 2.11e-4  (0.021% chance of impact)

PS cum = -1.27

PS max = -1.27

TS = 1

date = 06-30-2047

 

NEODyS: "Based on 43 optical observations (of which 4 are rejected as outliers) from 2017-12-20.426 to 2018-01-04.253."


~~~

 

 

We will need to get to about a 3e-03  (0.3%) chance of impact to get to TS = 2

648px-Torino_scale.svg.png


https://en.wikipedia...ki/Torino_scale



#13 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 02:04 AM

A main uncertainty is the (relatively?) close approach in 2024, when this one could come as close as about 9.000 km from Earths surface, while it will pass likely in much greater distance (many millions of km). You can see this encounter on NEODyS close approaches as the only one between now and the possible impact in 2047.



#14 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 03:03 PM

It had close approaches to earth in 1972 and 1998 (and maybe real close on both!).  It would be a good idea to mine historical photographs and observations to see if it were detected back then, this would give a very long observational arc.



#15 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 04:34 PM

It had close approaches to earth in 1972 and 1998 (and maybe real close on both!).  It would be a good idea to mine historical photographs and observations to see if it were detected back then, this would give a very long observational arc.

This would really help, because the asteroid moves more and more to the south in the sky and Cerro Tololo didn't capture it yesterday, so nothing new can be reported currently.



#16 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 07 January 2018 - 04:10 AM

As it can be seen on the priority list on this site

 

http://neo.ssa.esa.int/priority-list

 

the ESA estimates, that it can be observed until midth of February 2018. This gives plenty of time to refine the calculated orbit and impact as well close approach tables.



#17 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:53 PM

Two new measurements from Mt. St.Lemmons came in today at about 12 UT, but only the orbit parameters at NEODyS are updated, neither there nor at JPL sentry any outcome of collision calculations yet.



#18 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 04:15 PM

They are sure taking their time with those calculations!   Must not be good news.



#19 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:49 PM

But the precision can't be that high to assign a value of TS = 5 or higher IMHO - and make a drama of getting to TS = 2 or even TS = 4 (what I doubt heavily, the jump shouldn't be that big) is weird, I think. Anyway, at least the close approach in 2024 is not really close at all due to the recalculation by NEODyS, so it is a low-disturbed prediction now with current parameters.



#20 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 07:31 PM

The longer these calculations take, the more I think we will get a surprise, probably TS=2.  The instances of long reporting time in the past with other risky asteroids was usually followed by a significant increase in risk.  Or maybe I recall incorrectly



#21 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 08:54 PM

Your suggestion seems to be the most likely explanation.



#22 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 12:24 AM

I found this interesting document on the webz, and I think it is about 15 yrs old.  See the interesting part in red.   Maybe the delay is the IAU Working Group technical review?

 

LINK

 

Chapter 16

IMPACTS AND THE PUBLIC:
COMMUNICATING THE NATURE OF THE IMPACT HAZARD

 

 

David Morrison

NASA Ames Research Center
MS 200-7
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 USA
650-604-5094
dmorrison@arc.nasa.gov

Clark R. Chapman
Southwest Research Institute
1050 Walnut St.
Boulder, CO 80302 USA
303-546-9670
cchapman@boulder.swri.edu

Duncan Steel
Joule Physics Laboratory
University of Salford
Salford M5 4WT
United Kingdom
+44-0161-295-3981
d.i.steel@salford.ac.uk
Richard Binzel
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
54-410
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 USA
617-253-6486
rpb@mit.edu

 

....snip....

 

4. ROLE OF THE IAU WORKING GROUP ON NEOS

 

In the absence of national or intergovernmental agencies to deal with the NEO impact issues, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has assumed some of the responsibility by default. The IAU formed a Working Group on NEOs in the early 1990s to advise on coordination of NEO activities worldwide, on reporting of NEO hazards, and on research relevant to NEOs. In the wake of the media interest and widespread public confusion associated with asteroid 1997 XF11 (to be discussed in more detail below), the IAU also assumed a limited responsibility for providing authoritative information to the media and public on possible NEO impacts.

 

When someone predicts a close approach to Earth by an asteroid, a subcommittee of the IAU Working Group can be convened (if so requested) to advise the IAU on the reliability of the prediction. The IAU Technical Review Committee of international specialists offers prompt, expert review of the scientific data, computations, and results on NEOs that might present a significant danger of an impact on Earth in the foreseeable future. The use of this review process is voluntary, and researchers worldwide remain free to publish whatever results they wish in whichever way they wish, at their own responsibility. In several cases the IAU has also seen fit to post a statement on its own website <http://web.mit.edu/r...eo/Public.html>discussing the reliability of impact predictions.

 

The initial purpose of the IAU Technical Review was to encourage scientists to check each other’s data and calculations before making public statements about possible future impacts. Such a review has been invoked half-a-dozen times. However, with the advent of automated systems to calculate orbits and generate impact probabilities, the need for such human intervention has largely evaporated. In practice, if the NEODys and JPL-Sentry systems agree on a prediction, it is considered confirmed, and the IAU has no direct role to play.
            
Communication with the international scientific community and with the interested public represents an important part of the Working Group efforts. One tool for public communication is the Torino Impact Scale described above, which was endorsed by the IAU. The IAU has also encouraged the use of several websites for improved communications. These include the NASA NEO Program Office <http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov>,the NASA impact hazard website <http://impact.arc.nasa.gov>, the UK NEO Information Centre <http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk>, the Spaceguard Foundation and its on-line magazine Tumbling Stone <http://spaceguard.ias.rm.cnr.it/SGF/>, and two sites that post continuously updated orbital predictions: NEODys <http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo> and Sentry <http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/>.

The role of the IAU is limited: it deals only with the discovery of NEOs, not with mitigation, and it has limited ability to respond rapidly to new discoveries. From the IAU perspective, it remains the responsibility of the individual science teams to decide whether to release information to the public and the press on NEO discoveries or orbital calculations.



#23 silylene

silylene

    Pluto

  • Members
  • 11,835 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 12:34 AM

Interesting, there seems to be a special mechanism for communication when NEOs get hazardous.  Action Team 14 and the IAWN !

 

 

 

I also found this interesting newspaper article from 2012:

 

If an asteroid were going to hit the Earth, whose job is it? No one’s, yet.

 

LINK SJ Mercury News

 

 

....snip...

 

That may be changing. The United Nations Scientific and Technical Subcommittee has a special working group on NEOs advised by a special coalition of experts (called Action Team 14), ranging from space agencies to advocacy groups. Together, they are working to formalize an U.N. framework for coordinating an international response to potentially dangerous NEOs.

 

 

~ ~ ~

 

I also found this interesting document about Action Team 14  (from 2010) and the initiation of the Information, Warning and Analysis Network (IAWN)

 

Workshop on a Near-Earth Object Information, Warning, and Analysis Network

LINK

 

...snip...

 

A.3.2. To be more effective, the IAWN should develop a communications
strategy, using well-defined communication plans and protocols. NEO
information should be distributed in “normalized” fashion (e.g. using words easily
understood by the public and policy makers). News from the IAWN should be
accurate, timely, and aimed at responding promptly and directly to
misinformation, rumors, and media errors.This strategy should be grounded in
the science of risk communications and psychology.

A.3.3. The IAWN should investigate the communication channels and contacts
used today by other disaster warning networks to communicate with the disaster
management (DM) community.
For example, a comprehensive list of designated
DM contacts used by the I



#24 Bill Slugg

Bill Slugg

    Bill Slugg

  • Moderators
  • 7,161 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 12:43 AM

They want words "normalized" to make it easy for us to understand. The lingo of the day. I would suggest starting with a revamp of the Torino scale to use adjectives rather than numbers. We could go with "piddly" on up to "boffo" and "Super gigantous", "MegasuperGigafabulous". There is a wealth of exploration to be done here.


Edited by Bill Slugg, 10 January 2018 - 08:10 PM.

  • silylene likes this

#25 Orca

Orca

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 01:16 AM

Since there is still no current result on neither of both sites, kind of such review/communication process is likely to be running now. But this can only mean, the TS value is already higher than we expect. If they would have got TS = 9 for example, this kind of behaviour would be understandable (confirmed impact with regional devastation in absence of averting measures).


But I think the calculation groups will get already rather nervous with TS = 5, which enforces general media publication due to their own guidelines, by the way.





Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users