gbdub

June 26th, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^

Holy crap that's like two earth-radii away. "Butt-clenchingly close" is appropriate. Given that it's close but not really a threat, it would be interesting to blast it just to see if we could. But a) setting off a nuke that low in space would make a mess of several satellites and b) I doubt any of our missiles have the capability to hit the thing.

ND Sux

June 26th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^

Why are hemhorroids called hemhorroids and asteroids called asteroids? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was the other way around? Owwwwww, my asteroid! Robert Schimmel (RIP)

bluebyyou

June 26th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^

Other than the spelling, that is very good and quite astute for a Sunday morning.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a friend of mine  at Hopkins Applied Physics Lab is involved with asterod tracking policy on a national level.  I have talked with him a couple of times about the subject.  Every time we talk about asteroid strikes, he says if you really knew the truth, you wouldn't sleep quite so well.

El Jeffe

June 26th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^

I don't get all this fuss. Is it unusual to have a steroid this close to earth? I thought A-Rod had six or seven steroids in his locker right now.

/ Connery

Brimley

June 26th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^

Given its trajectory over Australia, I'm pretty sure they'd tell you that they'd just throw enough beer cans at it to reduce it to tiny bits of rubble.  And that's just the astronomers.