asteroid 2009 KK: Risk in May,Jun 2009

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hey everybody,

I have been following this thread for more than a week now and have to say that it turns out to be rather interesting.
At the moment I am working as an intern in an space lab where we try to develop a new model to estimate how an asteroid that enters the earth's atmosphere behaves (trajectory, fragmentation etc), and up to now Apophis was always the one we've been geared to.
Seems like there's a new candidate

@MW: how exactly did you estimate the Palermo scale updates?

Glad you've enjoyed the thread. Thanx again to silylene for starting it. And welcome to SDC!

As for how I estimate the change... I can't really answer that. It's a gut assessment of the change in 2022 close approach distance, change in RMS residuals, change in MOID, change in the date of the 2022 ecliptic crossing date, and change in date of the CA relative to the possible impact date of 5/29/2022 at 18:16 UT. Pretty much the details I make in my first post of the morning before I look at the PS scale incorporating the newest observations. Basically my mooshy brain absorbs all of that and comes up with an estimate. I'm sure I'll get toasted soon, but it's an interesting and fun challenge to make the (semi-educated) guess. One should not examine all the processes that make that decision, or my brain could explode. Better to just go with the flow

PS, I'd like to here more details about what you are simulating as well.

After all, I am....Meteor Wayne :lol:

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

I have to be honest with you guy's, I rather hope that this turns out to be on a collision course. I doubt anything other than a potential disaster will kick the powers that be into gear & get them to start on my pet project of "Asteroid Capture." I think this one is small enough to be able to redirect & possibly even capture into a Lagrange Point or maybe even a high GEO.
I'm sure you're right Wayne, it'll be ruled out as a potential impactor soon, but I can always hope. :twisted:

About asteroid capture. If we could do this we should do this. We could use it as a platform to perform missions to and from the inner solar system and to study the asteroid. It would also make a great platform for the space elevator concept if placed in a geo orbit..

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Just to be a pragmatist, there's no way such a mission could be ready by 2022, since no realistic or funded plans are in place yet.
But it's good to think about the future....

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

JPL has same new info now!!!

JPL Sentry 1432 June 3 2022 1 9.6e-05 -1.17 -1.17 1 Analysis based on 92 observations spanning 15.990 days (2009-May-17.25987 to 2009-Jun-02.24985). Diameter approximately 0.270 km. from mean, weighted H=20.5.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

JPL has same new info now!!!

JPL Sentry 1432 June 3 2022 1 9.6e-05 -1.17 -1.17 1 Analysis based on 92 observations spanning 15.990 days (2009-May-17.25987 to 2009-Jun-02.24985). Diameter approximately 0.270 km. from mean, weighted H=20.5.

Your post mentions weight, but I don't understand the equation. With the estimated weight we might be able to figure out how much thrust in how much time is necessary to alter it's orbit for possible capture.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

JPL
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2009kk.html

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

JPL has same new info now!!!

JPL Sentry 1432 June 3 2022 1 9.6e-05 -1.17 -1.17 1 Analysis based on 92 observations spanning 15.990 days (2009-May-17.25987 to 2009-Jun-02.24985). Diameter approximately 0.270 km. from mean, weighted H=20.5.

Your post mentions weight, but I don't understand the equation. With the estimated weight we might be able to figure out how much thrust in how much time is necessary to alter it's orbit for possible capture.

Correct! Perhaps we need to do a sample return mission first to determine matter composition.

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Slightly off topic, but I had to bring this up since I liked the article, and since Cyclone and Boris were discussing asteroid deflection. This is about a different asteroid, 1999 RQ36.... (as I said, a bit off-topic)

MW et al, here is a very interesting journal paper, about the risks of 1999 RQ36, which has a similarly probability impact in 2182, which is more than a century hence, so we usually ignore things like this. I don't know if you have read it yet: http://adams.dm.unipi.it/~milani/preprints/future_impacts_08.pdf

What I found interesting in this paper was three things:
1. Great discussion of the Yarkovsky effect, and how much influence this has on trajectory extrapolations
2. Good discussion of 'keyholes'
3. For Boris and Cyclone: go to page 23 of this document, this paper has a good discussion on "The Deflection Problem": how to plan to deflect an asteroid.

Interesting quotation from the paper, after they proved that a deflection mission must be completed in the year 2060:
The current impact monitoring covers a time span of about a century.
If this were to continue, and the asteroid 1999 RQ36 were indeed on a col-
lision course for 2182, then the warning about this would be issued only in
2082, that is at a time when the opportunity to deflect with requirements
compatible with current technology would already be expired. To extend
the predictability horizon of impact monitoring seems to us to be a bet-
ter solution, at least economically, than waiting for future and hypothetical
technological advances.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

First of all cyclonebuster, that was the JPL Sentry data that I posted. I put that here because the formatting comes out better, even though it comes out later than NEODyS. I only put out the NEODyS number because it comes out many hours earlier, and with a n object like thise, Sentry agrees with it.

Boris, you are misunderstaning the "weight" term in what was posted. Go back and look at my post, it's formatted in an easier to read way.

The exact wording is :"all above are mean values
weighted by impact probability" and refers to this part:

Vimpact 19.14 km/s
Vinfinity 15.57 km/s
H 20.5
Diameter 0.270 km
Mass 2.5e+10 kg
Energy 1.1e+03 MT

In this case, since there is only one impact, there is no "weighting" of the data involved.

Note the diameter is an estimate based on assumed albedo, and could be from 210-470 meters, and the mass estimate could be off by a factor of 10 or more depending on the actual size, and the composition of the asteroids. So it as much a WAG as an estimate.

I wouldn't go planning any missions based on that estimated mass.

 

[ginyoc]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

I don’t know how much you already know about the subject (and really want to know ) so I try to keep it informative but short.

An asteroid or meteoroid enters our atmosphere with a highly hypersonic speed -- in this case that means with velocities about 20 times the speed of sound ore more (dozens of kilometers per second; you can be sure you won't hear an asteroid before it hits you, hehe).
As one can imagine it heats up a lot (not so much by friction but by compressing the air at the bow shock that develops). This heat radiates and leads to ablation / mass loss on the surface of the meteoroid. But also the pressure rises significantly in front of the entering body and can lead to fragmentation if it exceeds its inner material strength (and to further fragmentation if the fragment’s strength is again lower than the aerodynamic pressure and so on).
In fact the atmosphere saves us pretty good from getting badly hit by cosmic bodies with these mechanisms.

All this, and what the remains just above the surface are, is what we want to simulate; and we are by far not the first who do this. It already started in the 70s, but thanks to faster computers the models are becoming more complex now. Hope I could answer your question, don’t hesitate to ask further if you like.

Concerning the tsunamis: that’s not really my topic, but nevertheless I find it pretty interesting. I don’t know if there are free accessible articles about this subject. There is the Asteroid Tsunami Project at Los Alamos by Hills and Goda (who, by the way, developed a widely known asteroid entry model in the nineties) or you might want to visit this site: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/spacegd7.html#tsunamiimpact to get an impression on what the wave height may be.
If I find something interesting I’ll keep you updated (got all the articles at work and not here at home).

As for your method to “calculate” the Palermo scale, MW: My deepest respect
You’re a natural, it seems. I’m more the kind that put’s the values and formulas in an Excel sheet to get the answer .

 

[F111F]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

MeteorWayne and Silylene; Many thanks to y'all for this thread. I've been a regular visitor to the Current Impact Risks for many years now, and was among the first alarmists when 2004 MN4 went through it's meteoric (bad pun) rise and fall. Good to see that others also regularly keep an eye out for these things. I am wondering where Buzz Aldrin is though, he's been making a lot of noise for a long time about being ready to head off an impact...

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

As for your method to “calculate” the Palermo scale, MW: My deepest respect
You’re a natural, it seems. I’m more the kind that put’s the values and formulas in an Excel sheet to get the answer .

LOL, so am I! I've got more excel spreadsheets in use than you can hit an asteroid with. Meteors, Precip, budget, utility usage, etc,etc,etc.

But in this case, I wouldn't know how to weight the changes in a useful manner. The old neuronal network seems much more adept at assigning the right value on the fly than a preprogrammed analysis could be. After all, I don't have the ephemeris programs to run all of the virtual impactors for decades into the future, so I have to estimate the overall weight to assign to each of the changes. and round up and down. And fudge a little here and there....oops and a little more there

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hello and welcome to SDC, F111F !

Please join in on the discussion and analysis as we learn more about 2009 KK, and about near earth asteroids in general. It's good to find a kindred spirit who enjoys this subject.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Slightly off topic, but I had to bring this up since I liked the article, and since Cyclone and Boris were discussing asteroid deflection. This is about a different asteroid, 1999 RQ36.... (as I said, a bit off-topic)

MW et al, here is a very interesting journal paper, about the risks of 1999 RQ36, which has a similarly probability impact in 2182, which is more than a century hence, so we usually ignore things like this. I don't know if you have read it yet: http://adams.dm.unipi.it/~milani/preprints/future_impacts_08.pdf

What I found interesting in this paper was three things:
1. Great discussion of the Yarkovsky effect, and how much influence this has on trajectory extrapolations
2. Good discussion of 'keyholes'
3. For Boris and Cyclone: go to page 23 of this document, this paper has a good discussion on "The Deflection Problem": how to plan to deflect an asteroid.

Interesting quotation from the paper, after they proved that a deflection mission must be completed in the year 2060:
The current impact monitoring covers a time span of about a century.
If this were to continue, and the asteroid 1999 RQ36 were indeed on a col-
lision course for 2182, then the warning about this would be issued only in
2082, that is at a time when the opportunity to deflect with requirements
compatible with current technology would already be expired. To extend
the predictability horizon of impact monitoring seems to us to be a bet-
ter solution, at least economically, than waiting for future and hypothetical
technological advances.

Yep Keyholes can make it get us the next time around and the Yarkovsky effect is interesting it can also alter its course.

 

[MichiganMan]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hi guys!

I've been following this thread pretty much from day one...figured I'd at least say "hi".

First time I've posted regarding what can only be described as a weird hobby...I check the jpl risk site pretty much every day... weather, traffic, and space rock forecast every morning for the past several years.

random thought:

since the Palermo scale is weighted against background risk, objects should naturally rise the scale as they get closer to an impact solution. I assume the year maxes out at 1 (IE, no fractions of a year for the Palermo scale calculation). Is that accurate? And also, for objects that have not been observed in a long time, why don't they recalculate the Palermo scale to reflect the increased relative risk because the impact solution is so much closer?

Anyhow... hello to those kindred spirits out there...

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hello MichiganMan, and welcome to SDC. I do look forward to your future participation in this thread and other astronomy related subjects.

My understanding on the palermo Scale is the same as yours. And you do bring up a very good point that the old PS calculations on some objects need to be updated. I don't know why this hasn't been done, and truthfully, I never had considered this aspect before.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hi guys!

I've been following this thread pretty much from day one...figured I'd at least say "hi".

First time I've posted regarding what can only be described as a weird hobby...I check the jpl risk site pretty much every day... weather, traffic, and space rock forecast every morning for the past several years.

random thought:

since the Palermo scale is weighted against background risk, objects should naturally rise the scale as they get closer to an impact solution. I assume the year maxes out at 1 (IE, no fractions of a year for the Palermo scale calculation). Is that accurate? And also, for objects that have not been observed in a long time, why don't they recalculate the Palermo scale to reflect the increased relative risk because the impact solution is so much closer?

Anyhow... hello to those kindred spirits out there...

Hi MichiganMan and welcome to the speaking portoin of SDC

BTW, no new observations reported today.

It is quite possible that the Palermo scale is recalculated, but the changes are too small to notice in most cases. Or just not noticed because no one keep track.

Since in most cases the number is quite large (in a negative direction) and the impacts are quite far off, the change might not be noticeable. It also takes into account the energy of the evnt, so significant changes mught only be noticed for more energetic events where the background rate is lower.

Sounds like a good experiment. I'll keep track of a few that are coming up soon with no new observations to see if it changes.

Here's the JPL page on it, in case you haven't seen it before.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/doc/palermo.html

"How exactly is the Palermo Scale value computed?
The Palermo Scale is the base-10 logarithm of the relative risk.
PS = log10 R.
The relative risk R is given by
R = PI / (fB × DT),
where PI is the impact probability of the event in question and DT is the time until the potential event, measured in years. The annual background impact frequency,
fB = 0.03 × E-4/5
is the annual probability of an impact event with energy (E, in megatons of TNT) at least as large as the event in question. "


Heres the abstract of the original paper:

The Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale is described in the following article:

Quantifying the risk posed by potential Earth impacts
Steven R. Chesley (JPL), Paul W. Chodas (JPL), Andrea Milani (Univ. Pisa), Giovanni B. Valsecchi (IASF-CNR) and Donald K. Yeomans (JPL)
Icarus 159, 423-432 (2002)


ABSTRACT
Predictions of future potential Earth impacts by Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) have become commonplace in recent years, and the rate of these detections is likely to accelerate as asteroid survey efforts continue to mature. In order to conveniently compare and categorize the numerous potential impact solutions being discovered we propose a new hazard scale that will describe the risk posed by a particular potential impact in both absolute and relative terms. To this end we measure each event in two ways, first without any consideration of the event's time proximity or its significance relative to the so-called background threat, and then in the context of the expected risk from other objects over the intervening years until the impact. This approach is designed principally to facilitate communication among astronomers, and it is not intended for public communication of impact risks. The scale characterizes impacts across all impact energies, probabilities and dates, and it is useful, in particular, when dealing with those cases which fall below the threshold of public interest. The scale also reflects the urgency of the situation in a natural way, and thus can guide specialists in assessing the computational and observational effort appropriate for a given situation. In this paper we describe the metrics introduced, and we give numerous examples of their application. This enables us to establish in rough terms the levels at which events become interesting to various parties

MW

 

[ginyoc]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

I did a little research on the net (wikipedia and JPL's FAQ) and I found pretty much the same as MW did, but:
The background risk of the Palermo scale doesn't change; it is defined by fB=0.03*E^-0.8, where E is the energy of the meteoroid in question in megatons of TNT.
The actual value on the Palermo scale is calculated by

PS = log10 ( PI / (fB * T) ),

with PI being the impact probability and T the time from now until the impact in years (so the value does change for each meteoroid, but only with time or new estimates of the impact probability and mass/velocity)

In the case of 2009 KK the formula calculates

PS = log10 ( (9.6*10^(-0.5)) / ( (0.03*1.1*10^(3-0.8)) * ( 2022 - 2009 ) ) ) = -1.35

For the moment I'll leave it to someone else to shed some light on why there is a difference of 0.18 between my calculations and the official ones. Maybe I overlooked something. Or maybe it's MeteorWayne's incredible brain that influences the guys at NEODyS on mysterious ways? Who knows...

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Just a thought, perhaps you should be using (2022-2010) in the last term since the impact date has passed?
How does that effect the number?

I'll do some research. I wish I subscribed to Icarus, but it's way out of my budget

 

[ginyoc]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Nope, that gives -1.32
When I have the time I will read the article.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

I think this term might be formatted incorrectly

( (0.03*1.1*10^(3-0.8))

Shouldn't it be

( ((0.03*(1.1*10^3)^-0.8))

?

 

[ginyoc]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Yep, you're entirely right. Unfortunatelly the result then is 3.32 . :?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Yeah, that's what I got as well...but I'm not sure everything was entered properly in my excel sheet. All those bloody parentheses!!

I'll set up an easier to handle calculator, so it will automatically recalculate as I change the values.

That will make it easier to figure out what's going on. Thanx for the challenge

Wayne

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Aha, found it.
In the first term, you have ^-0.5; it's actually ^-5.0

That comes out to -1.18...I think the remaining -0.01 difference is due to precision of some of the data.

For example, from NEODyS the first term is actually 9.55, not 9.6, and the energy is 1.06 not 1.1;

LOL, that only makes it worse, -1.19. But we're in the ballpark. There must be some other precision not expanded out far enough somewhere in there.

Edit:

OK, if I change it to 2022-2010 it's -1.16, if I change it to 2022-2009.5 it comes out to -1.17.

I guess we have to know the precise details of how the "T" is calculated to get that accurate.

MW

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Just fooling around with some minor tweaks. I noticed that JPL Sentry is using 1.11*10^3MT for the enrgy.
Using that and 2022-2009, I get -1.17.