Earth Acquires a Quasi-Moon 258
richard_za writes "Earth has acquired a so called quasi-moon, an asteroid: 2003 YN1, which will encircle us for the next couple of years while it orbits the sun on a horse-shoe shaped path. Full story on News24. It was found by team led by Paul Chodas, an asteroid specialist at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. An orbit simulation can be seen in this Java applet."
no reg link... (Score:5, Informative)
Mike
Did we Slashdotted NASA? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Did we Slashdotted NASA? (Score:5, Funny)
"Orbit diagram page temporarily unavailable due to high server load."
Re:Did we Slashdotted NASA? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Moderators?!? (Score:2)
Re:no reg link... (Score:3, Interesting)
I need to get out more... (Score:2, Informative)
The picture on the Discovery Channel coverage [discovery.com] is not the asteroid in question. I know this means I need to get out more, but I instantly recognized that picture as 243 Ida [nineplanets.org] and its tiny satellite Dactyl.
Obligatory SW Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Crocodile Dundee Quote (Score:5, Funny)
"...this is a Moon!"
(shudders) Now dealing with mental image of naked Australian backsides...
Re:Obligatory K.I.T.H. Quote (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Crocodile Dundee Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
What if said backside belonged to Nichole Kidman, or Elle Macpherson?
Obligatory Finding Nemo Quote (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory politician quote (Score:2)
It's as if.... (Score:2, Funny)
Other Obligatory SW Quote (Score:2)
Next couple of ears? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm unfamiliar with this unit of measurement.
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:5, Funny)
Its a Biological measurement. Closely akin to the (distance/orbit^2)/r*(1 - n) mosquitos travel when they are in audible range (where r is the rate of travel and n is the number of mosquitos in any given area^3).
Thought that would help.
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:4, Funny)
Dimensional analysis be damned! This is Slashdot, I can mix units of length and time if I please.
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm unfamiliar with this unit of measurement.
Actually, to give you a better understanding heres a conversion table:
1 ear = 2 eyes
1 hand = 3 ears
5 ears = 1 feet
1 tongue = 1 ear
or even as Mike Tyson shows us...
a half ear = his teeth and mouth
Class Dismissed!!
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:2)
Re:Next couple of ears? (Score:2, Interesting)
Slashdotting java (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah I know, it's a joke. The class is just like any other static file.
Editors, wake up. (Score:5, Funny)
And exactly whose ears are we going to sacrifice to the asteroid god in order to have it here in our presence?
Re:Editors, wake up. (Score:2)
So it's not a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it's not too often you get your own asteroid orbiting, but this is still going to be a looong way away for a lot of the time. Maybe when it does get close though, we can send something up to it - beats the hell out of going out to the Oort cloud, even if you do find a few planets along the way
Simon
Re:So it's not a threat (Score:5, Informative)
Catchy, but misleading headline. Still pretty neat, though.
The moon (Luna) orbits the sun (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe that's why headline said QUASI-moon (Score:3, Insightful)
(X) confrontational attitude
(X) can recognize something neat
( ) reading skills
(X) enjoys cool applets
Re:So it's not a threat (Score:5, Informative)
From a mathematical standpoint, it would be more appropriate to say that Luna orbits the Sun, rather than that it orbits the Earth.
That said, the Earth+Luna system still has a combined center of gravity which lies beneath the Earth's surface, so in that sense at least Luna is still Earth's satelite.
I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (distributed astronomy) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
The kind that you wouldn't be able to detect (except maybe by careful monitoring of the sun with a well-filtered telescope pointed at exactly the right spot). Imagine something much smaller than the moon and even farther away passing in front of the sun. That's what this is.
To experience a solar eclipse from a temporary sattelite would be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
If it were noticeable. But temporary satellites (like the ISS) cast (highly-attenuated) shadows on the Earth every day.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
Given that it's only about 100 meters in diameter, seeing its eclipse would truly would a once-in-a-lifetime experience; in fact, your last experience. That's becuase to see a noticeable shadow you would have to be within a few kilometers of the asteroid. That would mean that it would be within a few milliseconds of impacting with multimegaton force in your gene
Applet Dying ..... (Score:5, Funny)
O o
Sun:earth:new "moon"
Not to scale. All rights reserved.
"Our" moon? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's orbiting the sun, then how can it be called "our" moon? Just because it's vaguely in our vicinity?
Re:"Our" moon? (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't it Cruithne??? (Score:4, Informative)
And this is a dupe from 4 years ago.
Earth's Second Moon [slashdot.org] 2nd Moon Orbiting Earth Discovered [slashdot.org]
Re:Isn't it Cruithne??? (Score:5, Informative)
Have the other two left already/have there been others in the past?
Re:Isn't it Cruithne??? (Score:4, Informative)
No, Cruithne is projected to be in our neighborhood for thousands of years.
"Earth has a second moon, of sorts, and could have many others, according to three astronomers who did calculations to describe orbital motions at gravitational balance points in space that temporarily pull asteroids into bizarre orbits near our planet.
"The 3-mile-wide (5-km) satellite, which takes 770 years to complete a horseshoe-shaped orbit around Earth, is called Cruithne and will remain in a suspended state around Earth for at least 5,000 years."
Space.com: More Moons Around Earth? It's Not So Loony [space.com]
Is it an EVIL moon? (Score:3, Funny)
QUASI-evil?
The Diet Coke of evil?
Ears? (Score:4, Funny)
since 1996? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:since 1996? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:since 1996? (Score:2)
Re:since 1996? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:since 1996? (Score:2)
Re:since 1996? (Score:2)
Because it's really small. It was discovered when it was very close to its point of closest approach to the Earth. Since that time, it's been tracked well enough that it's possible to project that path into the future and the past to arrive at the 10-year 'phase' statement.
Re:since 1996? (Score:2)
Because it doesn't actually spend much time around Earth. It's really orbiting the sun in a path that coincides with ours. When it nears the Earth, our gravity grabs it, swings it around, and sends it back around the sun in the opposite direction.
Horseshoe? (Score:5, Funny)
If only Isac Newton knew this...
No kidding (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Horseshoe? (Score:2, Informative)
SEND BRUCE WILLIS (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SEND BRUCE WILLIS (Score:2)
Not the first "quasi-moon" for Earth (Score:5, Informative)
This is the third asteroid we've found which has an orbit tied loosely to that of the Earth. The others are 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29. You can see pictures and applets and read about these other bodies at Paul Wiegert's web site:
http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~wiegert/ [astro.uwo.ca]
Re:Not the first "quasi-moon" for Earth (Score:2)
Suggesting that they are somehow related to Earth is basically a sign that the writers are utterly clueless. Next we're
uh wha'zat? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sticks itself in reverse to avoid making a complete loop.
But how can this be a moon of Earth if it orbits THE SUN?
Re:uh wha'zat? (Score:3, Interesting)
The old Moon's orbit is even eccentric toward the Sun when it's sunward of the earth. This new object's eccentricity toward the Sun is just much much greater.
Re:uh wha'zat? (Score:5, Interesting)
3753 Cruithne [astro.uwo.ca]
2002 AA29 [astro.uwo.ca]
Re:uh wha'zat? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:uh wha'zat? (Score:2)
Let's NAME it!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's name it --- (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Or Screwtape? (Score:2)
As predicted by Nostradamus !!! (Score:3, Funny)
Simpsons quote (Score:2, Funny)
Aussie: That ain't a planet, this IS a planet.
Bart: That no planet, thats a quasi moon.
Aussie: Alright alright, I see you've played planetry quasi moony before then.
Orbit diagram page temporarily unavailable due to (Score:3, Funny)
=
Orbit diagram page temporarily unavailable due to slashdot.org
Can't we all just take turns?
"What a beautiful night, look at the moon." (Score:4, Funny)
Two drunks are walking along. One drunk says to the other, "What a beautiful night, look at the moon." The other drunk stops and looks at his drunk friend. "You're wrong, that's not the moon, that's the sun." They began to argue when they come upon another drunk. They asked, "Sir, could you please help settle our argument? Tell us what that thing is up in the sky that's shining. Is it the moon or the sun?" The third drunk looked at the sky and said, "Sorry, I don't live around here."
has anyone claimed this new moon yet? (Score:2, Funny)
Why not capture the thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are at least 3 known small (a few kilometers in diameter) rocks that are close enough to send out a robot "tug" with a large amount of propellant, some good-sized solar arrays (or a nuclear battery) to power an ion drive. All the tug needs to do is match orbits with the asteroid, position itself, make contact and gently push it in the right direction. It would take a long time to put the asteroid into one of the L4/L5 points, but as tugs expire, new ones can be sent (or send additional tugs to speed up the process) at a very minimal cost, with a very simple trade-off of time vs money.
I would expect that by the time we get multiple asteroids in close proximity to each other in one of the stable Lagrange points, we would be able to send much more capable robotic workers to either tie the asteroids together with titanium I-beams, or better yet, tether them together with carbon fiber cables and put some spin on the assemblage to keep them under tension. Initially, we could construct living spaces inside the rocks, but as capabilities increase, and more material is placed into the mix, it would be possible to create a poor man's RingWorld with considerable acreage. It's a great place to harvest solar power, base elaborate interplanetary communications facilities and astronomical observatories.
The costs of maintaining an effort like this are very small, and it has the benefit of collecting wandering rocks that might one day drop in on us and put them to good use. Far better than programs to blow them up with nukes, and Bruce Willis won't be around to save us forever.
Re:Why not capture the thing? (Score:2)
Re:Why not capture the thing? (Score:3, Funny)
Until COBRA COMMANDER hijacks the asteroid base and holds the entire EARTH for ransom!
Betcha hadn't thought of THAT, had you?
"easy" is relative (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, the US, one of the richest nations, doesn't even seem to be able to pay for health care or secondary education, but we are willing to pay hundreds of billions to have our shoes x-rayed in order to guard against an infinitesimal chance of getting killed by terrorists. So, you see, the problems aren't technical, they are psychological, social, and political.
(Besides, you really don't want the "oh, that was kilometers" kinds of errors with such a project.)
Re:Why not capture the thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's a stupid idea. A 1-km asteroid weighs a few trillion kg. If you get your rocket data from NASA rather than Niven, you can run numbers on your idea instead of saying 'it's simple' out of your ass. If a VASIMR [space.com] drive can hypothetically get 20 tonnes to Mars in 40 days, how long does it take to move 10^9 tonnes? Think about it. (Put a few dozen engines up there, be creative. Be optimis
Does the applet have correct orbits? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does the applet have correct orbits? (Score:4, Informative)
You're very likely looking at a projection from above. Pluto's orbit is tilted about 30 degrees, so, from above, it will look closer than Neptune, but if you ran a tape measure out in a 3d universe, you'd see it was farther.
I hereby claim this moon.... (Score:2, Funny)
P.S. Don't tell bush, but I think there may be oil up there and I would like to avoid invasion for now.
er, one question here, (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, wouldn't it be easier to fly an elliptical orbit?
Research opportunities in 2007 and 2020? (Score:3, Interesting)
In January of 2007, for instance, the asteroid will be trailing Earth by about 0.5 AU. In November of 2020, Earth will be trailing the asteroid by a hair's breadth (in cosmic terms) of 0.1 AU.
Now, four light-minutes (or even 0.75 light-minutes) isn't exactly spitting distance, but how often do we have asteroids within such close proximity to Earth, in such convenient orbits? I imagine it would be fairly cheap to launch a probe to match orbits with the asteroid, rendezvous with it and do some science. A return mission in 2020 would be a distinct possibility (if it were useful, which I'm not sure it would be).
Now, the budgetary and planning requirements for a 2007 mission are probably unmanageable at this late date, especially given NASA's (or ESA's) current budgets. But we've got 16 years to plan for a 2020 mission. What manner of experiments might we be able to devise in the intervening years? What possibilities can you think of?
1) Establish an unmanned observatory on the asteroid
2) Land a power source and construct a propulsion system (using a linear accelerator to eject the asteroid's own mass?) and try to change the asteroid's orbit. Depending on the composition of that baby, it might be worth a pretty penny if we could put it into near Earth orbit for mining.
3) Same as #2, only turn the asteroid into a long-term habitat. Free giant space station, anyone?
OK, so these ideas are a bit far-fetched, possibly venturing into the realm of science fiction. But dreams have to start somewhere...
Re:Research opportunities in 2007 and 2020? (Score:2)
IIRC the applet uses two body math. Theres no 'will be' about it; its just conjecture.
Re:Research opportunities in 2007 and 2020? (Score:2)
Correct simulator link & other links (Score:3, Informative)
The simulator link is incorrect. It points to 2004 YN1. The correct link [nasa.gov]. For a good view in the simulator, tilt the 3D view to straight down, center on earth and zoom in all the way.
New Scientist has an interesting article [newscientist.com] in their latest issue.
For a more technical explanation, read the paper [usra.edu] presented at the Lunary Planetary Science Conference [usra.edu] last week.
my question is: (Score:2)
Re:First... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:space station (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:space station (Score:2, Offtopic)
Probably just enough to trigger the "No nukes in space!" protesters.
Re:space station (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar sail time? (Score:2)
Re:space station (Score:4, Informative)
It works like this: picture a bucket on a recirculating rail. The rail is pretty long, hundreds of feet at least. The bucket meglevs along the rail.
There would be at least three railguns on the asteroid, pointing away from the asteroid in opposing directions. Actual orientation is not that important, what is important is that the rails point away.
In operation, the "bucket" stops at a point along the rail on the surface of the asteroid. Some mechanism plonks a pound or so of rock into the bucket. The bucket locks the material down.
The bucket now electromagnetically moves away to the railgun run. On reaching it, it accelerates. At an approprate time, it releases the payload. The bucket slows down, and returns to the loading point.
The process changes the the path of both the payload (reaction mass) and to the asteroid itself. Repeat this process millions of times, and you alter the asteroid's orbit.
The beauty part of a mass driver is that it has no moving parts in contact. You just need something to shovel in the reaction mass, and electricity to run the linear accelerators.
Asteroids can be moved in this manner. Rockets won't hack it, nor ion engines, nor nuclear explosions. Lack of control, or raw power.
We could shape the orbits of these Earth grazers to bring them a little closer to home so that we can exploit them for raw materials to build habitats, build ships, build elevators.
Space elevator projects require a large mass at the opposite end of the tether from the surface to anchor the cable. Asteroids have been suggested for the necessary mass. Mass drivers are the way to go if you want to get that mass.
Re:space station (Score:2)
Actually, I hate to break it to you, but it actually takes more delta-v to land something on the surface of the moon from LEO than to launch straight to Mars (6.0 km/s for the Moon vs. 4.5 km/s for Mars). While this seems counterintuitive at first, it makes sense once you realize that you need a bunch of delta-v to brake onto the Moon, which has no atmosphere, whereas you can aerobrake onto Mars.
You might want to check out my web site, www.marsfaqs. [marsfaqs.info]
Re:space station (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting idea, but we have no idea of what the consequences are of rearranging the momenta of the solar system, or any other "environmental" impacts. How would you make such a decision without adequate knowledge of the impacts?
(Turns out that this body is scheduled to intercept an Asteroid, but because we messed with it, Bruce Willis dies in Armageddon).
Re:space station (Score:2)
Sure we do. The equations have already been figured out and are available from most university-level physics textbooks. It's not hard to calculate what the impact would be. However, after performing the calculations you'd likely find that the affect on the rest of the solar sy
Re:Is it visible? (Score:5, Informative)
It is essentially invisible unless you have a decent research telescope.
More info on the astronomical magnitude scale can be found here
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/icq/MagScale.html
Re:Is it visible? (Score:2, Informative)
With a little more specificity, if this object is m=24, then it's about (24-7)=17 magnitudes fainter than the *best* that the human eye can do. To put that into perspective, given that five magnitudes of difference is about 100x difference in actual brightness (~2.5^5), a difference of 17 magni
Re:What's up with all the asteroids? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's up with all the asteroids? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where has nasa.gov gone? (Score:2)
My guess is just wait and the DNS situation will rectify itself.