ALERT: 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3-BD (Minimum Miss Distance: 0.0001 AU)

The nominal miss distance (the most likely) is 33 LD (lunar distances). However, due to uncertainity of the measurements, there is uncertainty in the minimum separation distance. Remember, this is a small fragment, and based on the label (BD) one of the most recently discovered, so I guess there isn't that much data available yet. The uncertainty in the passing distance is large enough that the minimum distance can go to zero. That doesn't guarantee a hit. It is just as likely that BD will miss the Earth by 66 LD as it is to hit. And 66 LD is 16 million miles.

0.0001 au = 14'959.8 km or 9'295.589 miles

So it wil get here anywhere from a hit to 66LD miss?
Thats just a small chance it will be a bulls eye.

a nudge here, a nudge there with a little gravity thrown in plus time= who knows?

Does anyone here use their common sense?

IT'S AN INTERMISSION ERROR!!!!!
They forgot to type in the value in the "minimal" field!!!

I know the Nasa people are smart, but that is a lot of play in the slide rule when it's only a little over a week away. Their over an under in those calculations is giving me the heebee jeebies.. Now is the time to tighten those standard deviations.

How big is this fragment? I didn't see anything on the link to indicate its mass.

Anyone know?

The smallest fragment is the size of a house.

Fear mongers at work!

"Something that is not being taken into account regarding even a small cometry fragment impacting earth and that is the electric nature of comets! Consider the impact on Jupiter - it had far greater effects than was calculated from the size of the fragments. Then you consider deep impact recently. Again, they got it wrong! Not only what a comet is made of but also the way it reacted to the impact was again far greater that was expected! So even if only a small piece got through - just remember - it's NOT a meteorite, neither is it a small asteroid! It's a piece of comet!!"

From an earlier post.

Makes sense to me!

One thing in our favor is the smaller the mass, the less gravity will affect their calculations.

there ain't no small mass, buddy

Dilatoriness,

What is an "INTERMISSION ERROR"?

"They forgot to type in the value in the "minimal" field!!!"

There is no "minimal" field, what are you talking about? There is a "Miss Distance Minimum" field and it has the value of "0.0001 AU". [link to neo.jpl.nasa.gov]

"Sorry but the first is the only one where nominal an minimum differ by a factor of 1/900, all others differ by a fraction of that only."

Yes, but your missing the error factor, 3-BD is the only one to have such a low sigma of "3".
[link to neo.jpl.nasa.gov]

Look what NASA provides is the nominal distance, and the minimum distance (which is the minimum distance between the 3-sigma Earth target-plane error ellipse and the Earth's surface). Do you understand now?

81507, are you saying all the fragments are the same mass?

HX57 IS NOW WITHIN 700,000 MILES OF HITTING.

OK but I still claim it's just an error.

What an exciting place to work, REDDAWN. Thanks for the advice.

if the data was left off, why does AU still indicate .0001? it should say 0.

Maybe it forbids a zero by software, but any error is possible.

Can the fragment datas not be compared with different calculations from other sources?

H says n/a, but legend says that comets don't generate H data well. Also says that smaller H means larger chunk.

Why would they enter it if data was incomplete ?

Why wouldn't the default be like 1000 -

Never saw this anomoly before have you ?

I want to know viewing locations !

Dil, I think I understand what you are saying, but how likely is it that they would leave a blank space in that form. Until they issue a new run or a correction, wouldn't it be best not to second guess them?

Is there not a way to figure out its mass in conjunction with the force of earths pull? visa vis coming up with some sort of reasonable estimates???

Z

I think that ratio from Minimum to Minimum Nominal of almost 1/900 is an impossibilty.

Don't know maybe we could email them and ask for a confirmation or a correction.

I just emailed them.

Will let you know.

It seems the data is listed closest to furthest. Seems like chart is accurate.

I'll admit I know basically jacksh*t about space ect however I'm learning.
But as I said before if you can figure out the mass of this mofo couldn't there be away to figure out if earths pull would drag it in?? Going on the assumption that we know what strenght that pull field has??
Bloody hell these are the thoughts that kept me outta all the really good schools !

Email them ?


For Conformation or Correction ?

Thanks for making me laugh - No - Really

Can I see this with the naked eye?

where should I look?

" t seems the data is listed closest to furthest. "

Yeah of course the computer uses the available data and cannot see if wrong or right.