With the potential to miss us completely
Q: Did you see there’s a giant rock with the potential to end life on Earth?
A: This one?
Q: Yes. Are they exaggerating?
A: Depends what you mean. In a sense it does have the potential to end human life on Earth, but it would have to actually hit Earth to do that.
Q: But it’s “similar to the 1862 Apollo asteroid which was classified as a potentially hazardous object”
A: Similar except for being a lot further away. As the story says, “Potentially Hazardous Objects” approach closer than 7,402,982km, and this one is about 25 million km away at its closest.
Q: That’s an awfully precise number, 7,402,982, isn’t it? Why do they need it to the nearest kilometre?
A: They don’t. It’s 0.05 Astronomical Units, and whoever did the conversion doesn’t understand about significant digits. Wikipedia, for example, rounds it to 7.5 million km.
Q: And the other really precise numbers? It says the asteroid is moving at 64,374km/hr, but surely the speed will change more than 1km/hr because, you know, gravity and physics and stuff?
A: That’s 40,000 miles per hour. Again, looks like one significant digit in the original.
Q: So how far away is this asteroid compared to, say, the moon?
A: To one significant figure, 100 times further away.
Q: That’s quite a lot. Why is NASA making a fuss about this asteroid?
A: They aren’t. They issued a press release about asteroid rumours in August, headlined “There is no asteroid threatening Earth“. The NASA @asteroidwatch twitterwallah is getting a bit tetchy about the whole thing.
Q: Does the asteroid have something to do with the “blood moon” we had recently?
A: Only in the sense that they were both completely unsurprising and harmless astronomical events.
(h/t @philiplyth)
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »