asteroid 2009 KK: Risk in May,Jun 2009

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

I think I answered my own question... how's this: since the Palermo scale is still negative, that means the asteroid is 10 times less likely to hit us our cause a problem than the background risk (which is average every conditions). Is this right? So as long as it is below 0, then it's less likely to hit than something else on a regular day????


I would still appreciate an answer to my 2nd question about the number of observations

Thank you for your patience with a newbie. I am trying to become more science-literate....

Hey welcome. Yes you are correct about the PS, numbers below 0 are less than the background level.

As for observations this year, the asteroid will enter a period during early July where it will be too close to the sun, and too dim (because only the sun facing side will be lit, while we see the dark side) to be observed. After that there is a period of time until at least November when it should be bright enough and in a dark sky to be observed.
Wayne

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Why does it matter what the mass is in order to get its velocity? We should be able to get its velocity at any mass.
Mass should be used in order to get impact effects and effects of the solar wind and photon pressure upon the object.

Don't know where you got that idea. The mass is not required to get the velocity, I don't think anyone has ever said that. The mass is required to get the impact energy. (KE=1/2 mass times velocity squared)

MW

 

[ginyoc]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

that makes sense, in a way... if it's a near miss, it will increase slowly, then rapidly fall off once impact is eliminated

What makes you think that? Couldn't the risk be decreasing just as slowly? I thought those are just uncertainties in the calculation of the asteroid's orbit. As far as I know there's no threshold where the astronomers say: "All right, it's going to miss, let's diminish the risk". It's just mathematics.
Moreover, the PS is still higher than Apophis's (even when the absolute impact probability is inferior)

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

:lol: speaking of it: The Torino scale dropped to 0 today.
Palermo scale -2.24.
Now that was a fast descent.

that makes sense, in a way... if it's a near miss, it will increase slowly, then rapidly fall off once impact is eliminated

It's more than that though. As I described the entire orbit in 2022 looks completely different with the new observations. Some very big changes. I'll have to investigate why there was such a big change in the 2022 orbit.

Here's the currecnt osculating elements from JPL:

# obs. used (total) 105
data-arc span 23 days
first obs. used 2009-05-17
last obs. used 2009-06-09
planetary ephem. DE405
SB-pert. ephem. SB405-CPV-2
quality code 7
fit RMS .43336
data source ORB
producer Otto Matic
solution date 2009-Jun-10 00:50:06
Additional Information Earth MOID = .000644875 AU
T_jup = 4.367

e .4562924010125221 0.00058362
a 1.504551322016422 0.0013346 AU
q .8180359868469848 0.00015264 AU
i 18.25914770315803 0.020061 deg
node 68.21767615907027 0.013454 deg
peri 247.2385208542951 0.0013612 deg
M 337.8423814078388 0.038143 deg
tp 2455041.988670530990
(2009-Jul-29.48867054) 0.016225 JED
period 674.0761119717231
1.85 0.89689
0.002456 d
yr
n .5340643194534413 0.0007106 deg/d
Q 2.19106665718586 0.0019435 AU

And NEODyS

a 1.50455 0.001354 AU
e 0.456293 0.0005922
i 18.259 0.02036 deg
Ω 68.218 0.01365 deg
ω 247.239 0.001381 deg
M 337.842 0.0387 deg
Perihelion 0.818 AU
Aphelion 2.1911 AU
Orbital period 674.076 days
EMOID 0.00064476 AU

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

that makes sense, in a way... if it's a near miss, it will increase slowly, then rapidly fall off once impact is eliminated

What makes you think that? Couldn't the risk be decreasing just as slowly? I thought those are just uncertainties in the calculation of the asteroid's orbit. As far as I know there's no threshold where the astronomers say: "All right, it's going to miss, let's diminish the risk". It's just mathematics.
Moreover, the PS is still higher than Apophis's (even when the absolute impact probability is inferior)

The reason it tends to drop off quickly is that the virtual impactors that intersect the earth are the ones furthest away from the nominal orbit, so at the tail end of the distribution and lowest odds. For example, the closest approach ever predicted for the nominal orbit was a few days ago at .1844 AU or about 73 lunar distances. So only the possible orbits that varied the most from that most likely orbit (hence with the lowest odds) came close to earth. As the nominal orbit shifts further away (currently .2919 AU, or ~ 114 LD) the orbits that intersect earth are further along the tail of the even more unlikely orbits.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

NEODyS PS -2.21 impact risk 8.56 e-6 (Note the huge change)

JPL Sentry:

Analysis based on
105 observations spanning 23.097 days
(2009-May-17.25987 to 2009-Jun-09.35702)

Torino Scale (maximum) 0
Palermo Scale (maximum) -2.24
Palermo Scale (cumulative) -2.24
Impact Probability (cumulative) 7.9e-06
Number of Potential Impacts 1

Vimpact 19.14 km/s
Vinfinity 15.57 km/s
H 20.5
Diameter 0.270 km
Mass 2.6e+10 kg
Energy 1.1e+03 MT
all above are mean values
weighted by impact probability

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hello MW, ginyoc, etc...

Yes, this gets interesting. As a scientist, whenever I see a big jump in the result trendlines, my antenna go up to seek out whether there is a possibility that a very recently introduced systematic error might be affecting the data. Well, there is one change I found.

As I dug deeper into the data, and it seems that the last six datapoints which rather drastically affected the orbital calaculations all come from a new source, the Haleakala-Faulkes Telescope North. This is the first time that this observatory has reported data for 2009 KK. All the prior data came from about ten other observatories, with the Charleston IL observatory being the most frequent data contributor. All the prior data fit the prior orbital trajectory, and when the new data from the HFTN telescope is included, all the sudden, there is a new, significantly changed orbital trajectory.

I am suggesting that perhaps the HFTN observatory has a calibration accuracy mismatch with the other observatories? Or maybe not, and everything is accurate? As a scientist, I would very much like to see new data added in to the calculation from other observatories, including the Charleston observatory - - and then recalcuate the orbital arcs with and without the HFTN data. Hopefully the wise people at JPL and NASA are considering this. I have no reason to suspect that the HFTN data is miscalibrated other than this odd jump in the orbital trajectory calculations of 2009 KK, so please don't yell at me for accusing them. I would just like to see this checked out thoroughly. I am also curious to know how often the telescopes which participate in LEO surveying are certified as calibrated.

The HFTN scope is a 2m scope, here is a description: http://lcogt.net/en/network/2m/faulkes-telescope-north

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hi silylene,
It's actually the last 7 observations from Haleakala-Faulkes Telescope North, # 99 to 105.

The previous observations had come from 16 other observatories, with almost a third coming from the Craleston Illinois observatory.

Another interesting experiment would be to run all the obs without that large chunk of observations from that one source.

I guess we will just watch it as new observations are added, there's another week or two before it becomes very difficult due to the illuminaation angle and sun angle. We'll see if observations from elsewhere crank things back.

I recall reading somewhere about the QA process on the data...but it all comes down to the residuals...and they did decrease to the lowest level since I've been following along. So the new data increased the confidence slightly in the overall orbit. BTW, there's only a very small change in the orbit for this close approach in 2009; CA went from .2021 AU to .2018 AU. All the big changes are downstream in 2022. This implies there are large effects in the orbit by 2022 from the other perterbing bodies, most likely the earth on this close approach.

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Hi silylene,
It's actually the last 7 observations from Haleakala-Faulkes Telescope North, # 99 to 105.

The previous observations had come from 16 other observatories, with almost a third coming from the Craleston Illinois observatory.

Another interesting experiment would be to run all the obs without that large chunk of observations from that one source.

.....

Yes, that is exactly my point, which is why I mentioned the large amount of data from the Charleston facility, and the latest data block from the HFTN. I would like to see calculations run sequentially with and without both the Charleston and the HFTN data included. This would be a very interesting experiment ! Often when I am doing a least -squares multivariable surface fit, I check exactly that way, re-running the calaculation with and without certain data blocks (different equipment, operators, or time sequences), just to see whether one of the data blocks has an apparent systematic error. Then if there does seem to be a systematic error, that data block is examined in detail to discern if there is a real cause, or if there isn't a systematic error.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Well with today's results, we already know how the with and without HTFN experiment turns out

It is interesting that the RMS residuals went down, so that implies that the data was not out of line and improved the fit of the overall observations.

Also, the point I made earlier is important. The current osculating elemnts had a very small change, with little effect this year. The big change was in how the orbit evolves between now and 2022.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

Can the hubble get us more accurate data?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

It might in a few cases, but that's not what it's designed for, and that's not the best use of it's capabilities.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

It might in a few cases, but that's not what it's designed for, and that's not the best use of it's capabilities.

What about a lunar impact?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

No, the moon is too bright. It would damage the Hubble's eyesight.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

No, the moon is too bright. It would damage the Hubble's eyesight.

What about a Lunar impact by 2009KK?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What part of "The moon is too bright, it would damage the telescope" and "That's not what it's designed to do" are you failing to understand?

Besides, any lunar impact (very unlikely) of 2009 KK would be much better observed from dozens of observatories on earth with a far wider range of instruments. What this obsession with the Hubble Space Telescope and asteroids. Let it do the science it was desgned to do during it's remaining years.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What part of "The moon is too bright, it would damage the telescope" and "That's not what it's designed to do" are you failing to understand?

Besides, any lunar impact (very unlikely) of 2009 KK would be much better observed from dozens of observatories on earth with a far wider range of instruments. What this obsession with the Hubble Space Telescope and asteroids. Let it do the science it was desgned to do during it's remaining years.

What are the odds of a lunar impact by 2009KK?

 

[icemanmd]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What part of "The moon is too bright, it would damage the telescope" and "That's not what it's designed to do" are you failing to understand?

Besides, any lunar impact (very unlikely) of 2009 KK would be much better observed from dozens of observatories on earth with a far wider range of instruments. What this obsession with the Hubble Space Telescope and asteroids. Let it do the science it was desgned to do during it's remaining years.

I've been lurking at space.com since the beginning and never address very much but seriously I had to this time.

Man Wayne he is asking you a simple question and you got to jump down his throat? May I suggest you read the questions fully, and fully comprehend them before you rant off?

He was asking about observing 2009 KK with Hubble.
Then he was asking about the chances of a impact with the moon.

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What are the odds of a lunar impact by 2009KK?

At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth.

(Assuming the earth and moon are approximately equally within the error bar of the object's trajectory - which is correct, since the most likely close approach path is about 50+ lunar distances away - and given the relative radii of the earth and moon, the cross-section of the moon is about 7.4% of the earth.)

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What are the odds of a lunar impact by 2009KK?

At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth.

(Assuming the earth and moon are approximately equally within the error bar of the object's trajectory - which is correct, since the most likely close approach path is about 50+ lunar distances away - and given the relative radii of the earth and moon, the cross-section of the moon is about 7.4% of the earth.)

I don't get it. How can it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth when the chances are 99.9% it will miss the Earth? Are the Earth and Moon impact odds the same?

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What are the odds of a lunar impact by 2009KK?

At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth.

(Assuming the earth and moon are approximately equally within the error bar of the object's trajectory - which is correct, since the most likely close approach path is about 50+ lunar distances away - and given the relative radii of the earth and moon, the cross-section of the moon is about 7.4% of the earth.)

I don't get it. How can it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth when the chances are 99.9% it will miss the Earth? Are the Earth and Moon impact odds the same?

Cyclone, read my words carefully please, "At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth."

Whatever the chance it has to hit the earth, the chance to hit the moon would be 7.4% of that chance. In other words, if the chance of hitting the earth was 0.0001, then the chance of hitting the moon would be 0.07 * 0.0001

I hope that is clear.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

"Cyclone, read my words carefully please, "At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth."

Whatever the chance it has to hit the earth, the chance to hit the moon would be 7.4% of that chance. In other words, if the chance of hitting the earth was 0.0001, then the chance of hitting the moon would be 0.07 * 0.0001

I hope that is clear."

I get the moon part now 7.4% of the Earths 7.4% impact chance. Thanks silylene. But I don't get the impact probabilities for Earth yet. How can it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth when the chances are 99.9% it will miss the Earth?

 

[silylene]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

"Cyclone, read my words carefully please, "At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth."

Whatever the chance it has to hit the earth, the chance to hit the moon would be 7.4% of that chance. In other words, if the chance of hitting the earth was 0.0001, then the chance of hitting the moon would be 0.07 * 0.0001

I hope that is clear."

I get the moon part now 7.4% of the Earths 7.4% impact chance. Thanks silylene. But I don't get the impact probabilities for Earth yet. How can it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth when the chances are 99.9% it will miss the Earth?

Cyclone, I give up, as I have lost patience trying to explain. Either english is not your first language (I don't think this is the issue), or you are intentionally being a troll, or absolutely unable to understand anything mathematical.

Please show me where I said "it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth "? I didn't.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

What part of "The moon is too bright, it would damage the telescope" and "That's not what it's designed to do" are you failing to understand?

Besides, any lunar impact (very unlikely) of 2009 KK would be much better observed from dozens of observatories on earth with a far wider range of instruments. What this obsession with the Hubble Space Telescope and asteroids. Let it do the science it was desgned to do during it's remaining years.

I've been lurking at space.com since the beginning and never address very much but seriously I had to this time.

Man Wayne he is asking you a simple question and you got to jump down his throat? May I suggest you read the questions fully, and fully comprehend them before you rant off?

He was asking about observing 2009 KK with Hubble.
Then he was asking about the chances of a impact with the moon.

Actually if you read through the exchange, you will see that I understand and am answering his questions, the problem is the he does not understand the answers. silylene had exactly the same problem with him. And it's not like the answers are hard to understand if you read them .


We'll go over the odds again after today's results.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Re: asteroid 2009 KK May 29 2022

"Cyclone, read my words carefully please, "At this stage, about 7.4% of the chance it would hit the earth."

Whatever the chance it has to hit the earth, the chance to hit the moon would be 7.4% of that chance. In other words, if the chance of hitting the earth was 0.0001, then the chance of hitting the moon would be 0.07 * 0.0001

I hope that is clear."

I get the moon part now 7.4% of the Earths 7.4% impact chance. Thanks silylene. But I don't get the impact probabilities for Earth yet. How can it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth when the chances are 99.9% it will miss the Earth?

Cyclone, I give up, as I have lost patience trying to explain. Either english is not your first language (I don't think this is the issue), or you are intentionally being a troll, or absolutely unable to understand anything mathematical.

Please show me where I said "it have a 7.4% chance of hitting Earth "? I didn't.

Ok I see it now I must of missed reading the words "of the". Sorry my bad! No need to lash out like that!