Talk:2024 YR4
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2024 YR4. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2024 YR4 at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
2024 YR4 Torino scale 3 probability
[edit]I think the probability of Torino scale 3 is 99%. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Energy (MT) | Probability | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<0.0078% | ≥0.0078%, ≤0.0091% | >0.0091%, <0.01% | ≥0.01%, ≤0.20% | >0.20%, <0.78% | ≥0.78%, <0.91% | =0.91% (now) | >0.91%, <1% | ≥1%, <78% | ≥78%, ≤91% | >91%, <99% | ≥99% | |
MT<100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 or 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
100≤MT≤115 | 0 | 0 | 0 or 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 or 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 or 5 | 9 |
MT>115 | 0 | 0 or 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 or 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 or 5 | 5 | 9 |
Probability Evolution
[edit]December 28, 1860/1 December 29, 1044/1 December 30, 919/1 December 31, 875/1 January 1, New Year holiday January 2, 842/1 January 3, 760/1 January 4, 735/1 January 5, Sunday January 6, 710/1 January 7, 630/1 January 8, JPL on fire January 9, JPL burning January 10th 630/1 January 11th 630/1 January 12th Sunday January 13th 630/1 January 14th 630/1 January 15th 620/1 January 16th 610/1 January 17th 610/1 January 18th 610/1 January 19th Sunday January 20th 550/1 January 21st 320/1 January 22nd 190/1
文爻林夕 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- In many early screenshots, there are two collision probabilities: 2032-12-22.59 and 2032-12-22.62. Should we choose the highest one or calculate their sum? 文爻林夕 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I always mess up the form. 文爻林夕 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would not worry about earlier calculations as two virtual impactors that are only 40 minutes apart are the same generic risk scenario. We know exactly where Earth will be on 22 Dec 2032 at 14:00 UT, the only question is very minor differences in the LOV for the asteroid. The LOV is cigar shaped and is very much longer than it is wide. -- Kheider (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
1:71 ? not 1:77 ?
[edit]In any other place i find 1:77 (1.3%). Sinucep (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sinucep: The cumulative risk is 1:71. The risk for the impact in 2032 (which is by far the most likely out of the 5 possible impacts, and the only one that is noteworthy) is 1:77.[1] Renerpho (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho:Here (https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20YR4) i see that all the other impacts only increase the probability by tens of millionths.. where did you find 1:71? Sinucep (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sinucep: Click on the number 1.4e-2, to the right of "Impact Probability (cumulative)". Renerpho (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just noticed the wrong number (1:71) was still in the collapsible table. I have now removed it. Renerpho (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho:Here (https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20YR4) i see that all the other impacts only increase the probability by tens of millionths.. where did you find 1:71? Sinucep (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2024 YR4 Impact Energy
[edit]S-type (density 2.5~3.5g/cm3, albedo 0.15~0.25) diameter 43~56m, mass 1.04*108 kg ~ 3.22*108 kg, energy 3.72 Mt ~ 11.54 Mt TNT.
L-type (density 2~3g/cm3, albedo 0.05~0.15) diameter 56~96m, mass 1.84*108 kg ~ 1.39*109 kg, energy 6.60 Mt ~ 49.83 Mt TNT. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @長衫兆紫隆: I appreciate your help trying to make the article more comprehensive, but unfortunately your estimates for 2024 YR4's density, albedo, and size cannot be added to this article because there are no official and reliable sources that give this information directly. This qualifies as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sorry. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
25 Dec 24 position poor?
[edit]"The earliest known precovery (pre-discovery) observation of 2024 YR4 was on 25 December 2024, although the measured position of the asteroid in that observation is poor." Article says this, but references cited don't seem to call position measurements poor. Deen says "I personally consider the measurement and its associated uncertainty trustworthy, but I can understand others disagreeing". Clarifying this needs more information than I have. It's probably not important as it will become clearer with time and Palomar data.
The Sky & Telescope article makes an interesting point: work backwards: "one way to [determine] the possibility of impact is to find prior observations of exactly the point where the asteroid would have had to be if it were indeed on a collision course. If there were nothing there, then the asteroid couldn’t be on that course, and an impact would be ruled out."
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Pol098: Looking at the 2024 YR4 observation data from the MPC Explorer page, the astrometry in that single 25 Dec 2024 precovery has a root-mean-square error of 1.6" in RA and 0.7" in Dec. The RMS residuals of this precovery are significantly higher than almost all the other observations listed for 2024 YR4. This is presumably due to the fact that 2024 YR4 was moving quite fast on 25 Dec 2024; I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to accurately measure the position of something moving at 200"/min, which would give the object a smeared rather than a pointlike appearance. Attempting to fit that precovery with other observations in an orbit-fitting software like Find_Orb shows that the precovery observation doesn't really fit well with residuals of around ~1" (compare to the mean RMS residual of around 0.24" reported by Find_Orb), hence why that 25 Dec 2024 precovery measurement is somewhat unreliable. That's essentially what Deen (and others like me who deal with asteroid observations) have noticed with 2024 YR4. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Daniel Bamberger here. If I may comment on this, as I was involved both in Sam's adjusted impact risk estimates, and in the Sky & Telescope article: When this object's observation arc was shorter, I had doubts about the validity of the Dec. 25 observation, for several reasons:
- It is a single data point, and the final orbit very strongly depends on it. A shift of just a few tenths of an arc-second in its position leads to a very different outcome in 2032. Putting much weight on single measurements is rarely a good idea. Usually one wants at least two, ideally three to five observations per site per night, so that random errors are more likely to cancel each other out, and are more easy to spot. We don't always have that luxury, and I'm glad that this observation exists at all.
- The observation is poor in the sense described by Nrco0e, having some large uncertainty. It is not poor in the sense that something is wrong with it. In fact, it would be expected to be off by around 1" or more, based on the uncertainty that was reported by the observers. As I said, I had some doubts about it previously, but now that the arc has been extended further, I can confidently say that its residuals are within the expected range. I believe I agree with Sam on this question.
- That the uncertainties in RA and Dec are so different (1.6" vs. 0.7") is a consequence of measuring a trailed image rather than a point source. The SOLEX/EXORB software I was using to help Sam estimate his "adjusted" impact probability (among other things, like producing the risk corridor map) is very powerful, but it has difficulties dealing with observations for which RA and Dec need to be weighed differently. Sam's overall result doesn't depend on whether one includes that observation or not, and this turns out to be a minor issue in the end.
- @Pol098: I hope this clarifies things? Renerpho (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I have reworded it and added an explanatory note. I hope this helps. Renerpho (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Daniel Bamberger here. If I may comment on this, as I was involved both in Sam's adjusted impact risk estimates, and in the Sky & Telescope article: When this object's observation arc was shorter, I had doubts about the validity of the Dec. 25 observation, for several reasons:
- @Renerpho: Much better, the statement is clearer, and the footnote with reference supports it. I've changed the RMS link to Root mean square deviation, which I expect is what's meant. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, thank you! Renerpho (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- That means the impact probably will rise to 3~6%? 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you mean Sentry's risk assessment then no, that wouldn't be a valid conclusion. They are not (yet) taking negative observations of 2024 YK4 into account. Renerpho (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- That means the impact probably will rise to 3~6%? 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, thank you! Renerpho (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: Much better, the statement is clearer, and the footnote with reference supports it. I've changed the RMS link to Root mean square deviation, which I expect is what's meant. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Mention JWST's capability of detecting 2024 YR4
[edit]I'm bringing this up to the talk page by the request of an IP user who originally wanted to mention JWST on the article.
Would it be worth mentioning in the article that JWST is capable of detecting decameter-sized asteroids like 2024 YR4 at large distances up to the asteroid belt? There's been a study about this published last month, and although it doesn't directly talk about 2024 YR4, it could have applications to 2024 YR4. Particularly, JWST could observe the asteroid while it is outbound and too far to be observed by optical telescopes. I'm somewhat concerned this may fall under WP:SYNTH of Wikipedia's no original research rule (not to mention that reliable sources and news outlets have not mentioned JWST observing 2024 YR4 yet), but I'd like to hear what others think. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- This quote from the source may have some relevance to 2024 YR4 even though it isn't a direct mention of the asteroid. But I thought it's worth mentioning. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- There it directly mentions 2024YR4:
- https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/638/issues/8049 18.29.55.181 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
"The capability of JWST to observe decametre objects all the way to the main belt (including NEOs at their aphelion) while deriving tighter (that is, nearly albedo-independent) sizes highlights its unique capability to monitor and study with great precision possible future impactors detected closer to Earth by other surveys, thereby making JWST an important asset for future planetary-defence efforts."
- Great idea! Let someone propose to use JWST in this way, then mention that on Wikipedia (citing their proposal). Until then, this is WP:SYNTH. Renerpho (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- An article by Jonathan O’Callaghan in Scientific American notes that a researcher from ESA has applied for time on JWST to observe 2024 YR4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-asteroid-2024-yr24-strike-earth-in-2032/ 1.145.138.112 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- JWST is a multi-billion dollar telescope whose time is valued at an equally massive rate. The approach of 2028 is close enough that it will perturb the orbit significantly, which means that current unavoidable uncertainties in the orbit will be greately magnified ater that close approach.
- Putting all these together, it is an appallingly poor use of expensive telescope time to observe the asteroid NOW. After the 2028 close approach, IF that results in predictions of a very close approach or even a possible collision - sure. But not now. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:983:E2D8:2FEA:C9C2 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- @2001:8003:E40F:9601:983:E2D8:2FEA:C9C2 Am I wrong in thinking that if we refine the orbit now, we can predict the 2028 pertubation much more accurately?
- It also gives 1. significantly more time to prepare a DART-type redirection mission, which would take potentially > 4yrs to plan; and 2. some interesting new data on near-Earth objects, which AFAIK haven't been observed with JWST before ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I saw some discussion on X about whether the SOFIA Observatory can be resumed and photograph the asteroid. 文爻林夕 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- We have the JWST! https://bsky.app/profile/asrivkin.bsky.social/post/3lhhka3gx522s Sinucep (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- After June 2025, the SEL (angle between the asteroid and the Sun) will be too small for even Webb to observe it. 文爻林夕 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is important to also list the time periods that the Webb telescope cannot observe. 文爻林夕 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it is important to also list the time periods that the Webb telescope cannot observe
- Why? Renerpho (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)- From early April 2025 until June 2028, 2024 YR4 will be too distant for ground-based telescopes to observe. Space-based infrared telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will monitor the asteroid during this period.
- but 2024YR4 will be invisible to Webb for most of the future. 文爻林夕 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho This is speculation rather than fact (I am not familiar enough with the specific orbit of YR4). But JWST, as an infrared telescope, is very very sensitive to temperature. It MUST be kept pointed away from the Sun at all times.
- As such, it can only image the outer Solar System. When the asteroid gets closer to the Sun, pointing JWST in that direction would destroy the instruments. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: JWST can detect objects the size of 2024 YR4 in the asteroid belt. Please see the Nature paper I linked above.
- @ElectronicsForDogs: WP:NOTFORUM, this is no place for idle speculation about the subject. Anyways, JWST will only be used for when 2024 YR4 is moving away from Earth (such that it is at high solar elongations where the Sun won't be in the way); this is why JWST observations of 2024 YR4 are scheduled to take place in March and May 2025. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- JWST can observe objects in the asteroid belt as small as 100 meters, but first it must enter its observation range. The article now reminds readers that JWST can observe all the time from April 2025 to June 2028. And about JWST's observation documents, 2024YR4 entered JWST's observation range in early March. (2024 YR4 enters the JWST observing window in March 2025 and MIRI observations will enable the only size measurements that will be possible
- I think it is important to also list the time periods that the Webb telescope cannot observe. 文爻林夕 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
until 2028) 文爻林夕 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- There will be opportunities to observe in the first half of 2026 and the first half of 2027. 文爻林夕 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @ElectronicsForDogs and 文爻林夕: The only thing that matters is whether we have a reliable source that says that 2024 YR4 can't be imaged by JWST after, say, June, and if there's a source that says it can be observed in 2026/2027. It's not hard to check if those claims are true, the question is whether they're notable. And for that, we need sources. Renerpho (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- 2024 YR4 will come to opposition on 2026-Apr-21 when it will be 4 AU from the Sun and 3 AU from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- And my birthday is in April, too. How is that notable, and who said it's relevant? Renerpho (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- 2024 YR4 will come to opposition on 2026-Apr-21 when it will be 4 AU from the Sun and 3 AU from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @ElectronicsForDogs and Renerpho: The time when 2024YR4 could not be observed, and the time when it could be observed, are important enough to be mentioned in this article.文爻林夕 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: Okay, maybe, but what's the source that says the times when JWST can observe it are important, and specifies those times? Renerpho (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The article now reminds readers that JWST can observe all the time from April 2025 to June 2028
-- Where does the article say that? Renerpho (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)- The last two sentences of the introduction 文爻林夕 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: The source [2] used for that has a section "Infrared eyes are on the horizon". Reading it, I don't see anything that supports this claim. It doesn't even mention Nancy Grace. This looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Renerpho (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- (In May 2025, JWST will observe it.) I think that's enough. 文爻林夕 (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- That part is fine. Renerpho (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- It may be proposed for observation when it enters the JWST observation range again in the first half of 2026 or the first half of 2027, or it may be proposed earlier. Is it appropriate to write it in the introduction now? This is questionable. 文爻林夕 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to write it in the introduction now?
No, that's WP:CRYSTAL. It can be added when it gets proposed to be observed. Renerpho (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- (In May 2025, JWST will observe it.) I think that's enough. 文爻林夕 (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: The source [2] used for that has a section "Infrared eyes are on the horizon". Reading it, I don't see anything that supports this claim. It doesn't even mention Nancy Grace. This looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Renerpho (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- The last two sentences of the introduction 文爻林夕 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: Okay, maybe, but what's the source that says the times when JWST can observe it are important, and specifies those times? Renerpho (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @ElectronicsForDogs and 文爻林夕: The only thing that matters is whether we have a reliable source that says that 2024 YR4 can't be imaged by JWST after, say, June, and if there's a source that says it can be observed in 2026/2027. It's not hard to check if those claims are true, the question is whether they're notable. And for that, we need sources. Renerpho (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- There will be opportunities to observe in the first half of 2026 and the first half of 2027. 文爻林夕 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Monte Carlo Impact Probability
[edit]According to JPL, the impact probability will be 1.64% (1 in 61) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
According to JPL, the impact probability will be 1.77% (1 in 56) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- It ended up being 1/63 and 1/59, respectively. Renerpho (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just simulated the impact probability on python, and I always show the probability to hundredth of the percent. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to the simulation code, by any chance? BertieStubbins (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You can simulate on python. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The impact range of 2024 YR4 is from -1.31 Re to 1.31 Re. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes I can’t update if the simulation time is later than 08:00 (UTC-8), by the way, I am from Taiwan (UTC+8). 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The impact range of 2024 YR4 is from -1.31 Re to 1.31 Re. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You can simulate on python. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to the simulation code, by any chance? BertieStubbins (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just simulated the impact probability on python, and I always show the probability to hundredth of the percent. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probably will be 1.4% (1 in 71) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probably will be 1.53% (1 in 65.4) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probability will be 1.61% (1 in 62.1) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probability will be 1.89% (1 in 52.9) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probability will be 2.32% (1 in 43.1) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probability will be 2.28% (1 in 43.9) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probability will be 2.45%(1 in 40.8) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to JPL, the impact probability will be 2.21%(1 in 45.2) 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Occultation
[edit]An occultation on Feb 6 of a mag 11 star lasting 0.14 seconds detected by multiple reliable telescopes would refine the trajectory greatly, but would tell us basically nothing about the size that we do not already know. 98943 Torifune (2001 CC21) mentioned in the edit summary is nearly 500 meters in diameter and was only 0.13 AU from Earth on 5 March 2023. By Feb 6th, YR4 will be 0.39 AU from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- The duration of the occultation gives information about the magnitude. If it really was a 0.14 second dip in brightness, that would be even longer than (98943), 12h46m47.s252 ± 0.s003UT and12h46m47.s346±0.s003 UT. 文爻林夕 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, current occultation technology and star catalogs are not suitable for occultation of asteroids of this size. It is very likely that there will be no occultation as you said. But as long as there is a reliable decrease in brightness, sub-second milliseconds can provide help in terms of size. 文爻林夕 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mind you that Dave Herald user a diameter of 100 meters for his 2024 YR4 occultation prediction. Given 2024 YR4's spectral type, it's most likely half that size, which means the occultation duration will be half the 0.14 second value reported by Herald. Such a short dip will make it more prone to being drowned out by Fresnel diffraction.
- Sam Deen brings a similar argument in the IOTA occultations mailing list, though he mentions an interesting possibility of ruling out virtual impactors via occultation. Interesting, but that cannot be added to the Wikipedia article until more reliable sources (news articles, etc.) start talking about observing 2024 YR4 via occultations. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait for the occultation result on the 6th. I also think there is a high probability that it will miss. It is too small. 文爻林夕 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know their telescope arrangements for the American occultation on February 6. The occultation across the Indian Ocean and China on February 8, with a 1-sigma width of 6.6 km, requires 48 telescopes to ensure coverage of the occultation (penumbra 140 m).文爻林夕 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- As Fresnel allows its occultation to cover larger and larger areas, the brightness decreases lower and lower. We may encounter the same problem with 1I/'Oumuamua, and by the time we understand its nature, diffraction will have ruled out a successful occultation. 文爻林夕 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- In order to ensure the success of this occultation passing through Xiamen, 48 telescopes are needed, and only a few have been assembled so far. 文爻林夕 (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Last night's occultation observation also failed. 文爻林夕 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know their telescope arrangements for the American occultation on February 6. The occultation across the Indian Ocean and China on February 8, with a 1-sigma width of 6.6 km, requires 48 telescopes to ensure coverage of the occultation (penumbra 140 m).文爻林夕 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait for the occultation result on the 6th. I also think there is a high probability that it will miss. It is too small. 文爻林夕 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- HiPERCAM can take a thousand pictures per second, and 0.1 seconds is enough to take 100 pictures. It helped scientists discover the very faint Rings of Quaoar. Of course, we can't expect the occultation track of 2024YR4 to pass through the Gran Telescopio Canarias. 文爻林夕 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
@文爻林夕: Since you keep insisting to mention the 6 Feb 2025 occultation in this article, we need to talk this out because I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I feel like the occultation-related stuff you're adding to the article has too much detail (especially for something that probably won't be observed and is not talked about by news reports) and would be confusing to a layman reader. This is only the second paragraph of the article introduction, and introductions are supposed to be clear and simple without too many technical concepts.
I think we should create a new section that talks about 2024 YR4 observations and its discovery, since this article doesn't really talk much about them. We can then put all the occultation details in that section instead of the introduction. Does that sound good to you? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Change it to say that after the asteroid is no longer observable with most telescopes, there is still a chance to observe it through occultation. Then move the rest of the chapter to the back as a chapter on occultation observation? There will no longer be a change that interrupts other chapters while I am editing. . . I think this is better too. I apologize for the interruption just now.文爻林夕 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Until any occultations are observed it should not take up much, if any of the lede. And we need to be careful of WP:SYNTH. -- Kheider (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Search in archival images.
[edit]The issue of searching in archival images from 2020 for precise orbit calculation has not been addressed. Is it not planned because the asteroid was too far away and not visible at that time? Or is it planned but has not yet been carried out? Perhaps, in both cases, it would be advisable to mention this in this article? Voproshatel (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- We already mention Sam Deen's search through some images in 2016 in the second paragraph of the Observation opportunities section. -- Kheider (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- The asteroid was not positioned well in 2020. There are searches for archival images from 2016, like the one mentioned by Kheider. My post at MPML about coincidental precoveries in images of 2016 QC45 is another example. Many more are happening behind the scenes. Renerpho (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- A preliminary search has revealed potential detections of 2024 YR4 in COIAS data from 2016/8/6 (near tract-9705, g and r bands) and 2016/8/9 (y band). While the development team is also investigating, citizen scientists are likely to find it faster. 文爻林夕 (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: This sounds interesting. That's what the COIAS Twitter account is saying, correct? By any chance, do you know someone at COIAS who knows more about this? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- yes,I don't know many more members of the COIAS recovery pre-discovery team. 文爻林夕 (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: This sounds interesting. That's what the COIAS Twitter account is saying, correct? By any chance, do you know someone at COIAS who knows more about this? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The asteroid had a very favourable opposition in August-September 2016, V-20.7, ephemeris uncertainty ±2°.
Other fainter opportunities happened in August 2012 (V-23.0, ±1°) and September 2020 (V-23.5, ±10').
Surveys and missions checked their archives:
Catalina inspected an excellent set of images from G96, including the VI counterimage. No candidates found.
Pan-STARRS identified a few fields in 2012, 2016 and 2020. No candidates found, 2012 and 2020 are too shallow.
P. Tanga checked possible detections by Gain, but it was never within the FoV.
J. Bauer checked the NEOWISE data
D. Woods checked the US SST telescope data.
J. de Wit searched TESS and other exoplanet surveys.
Multiple people checked datasets currently indexed by the CADC SSOIS service. In particular:
A set of images from the Blanco DECam imager in August 2016. No moving objects matching.
A single DEGam image includes the VI counterimage, no sources unmatched with static sky sources are visible on the LoV.
Some frames from Subaru in August 2016, reportedly inspected by various people on MPML
ESA INCLA文爻林夕 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kheider:The data in this PPT is very useful, but it has not been successfully recovered. Is it worth writing it in? 文爻林夕 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
As the months change, a larger telescope is needed to observe.
[edit]Will a telescope larger than two meters be needed to observe after February? 文爻林夕 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Observing it will require larger and larger telescopes over the coming weeks, yes. I don't know what exactly will be required by early March; >2 meters sounds plausible. By late March, only the very largest telescopes on Earth will be able to see it. Renerpho (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- We also have the JWST now: https://bsky.app/profile/asrivkin.bsky.social/post/3lhhka3gx522s Sinucep (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- https://iawn.net/documents/20250204_20th_Vienna/ESA-S2P-PD-HO-0261_1_0_2024_YR4_Astrometry_at_IAWN.pdf 文爻林夕 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- After mid-February, a 2-meter or higher altitude is required. After March 4, a 4-meter or higher altitude is required. After April 1, a 8-meter or higher altitude is required. After May 20, even JWST and HST will not be able to observe. 文爻林夕 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Gif not working on my screen
[edit]Is it just me, or does the GIF in the infobox not show/is nonexistent? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Some IP user vandalized the gif name, which is why it didn't show up. I've fixed it. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
2032 closest approach by Horion#46
[edit]@Kheider: According to the Horizon #46, the closest distance from the Earth is 0.00058675937744 AU (88,000 km; 0.23 LD) on 22 December 2032 at 12:18 not 14:02.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 14:02 is the predicted time of impact (if an impact occurs). Right now the closest approach is predicted to happen a bit earlier than that. There's still the possibility that it misses the Earth with a close approach shortly after 14:02. Renerpho (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Probability approximation
[edit]Does it make sense to add a note that the impact probability is approximately [3] (giving 2.21% as of today), where n and m are the nominal and maximum close approach distance in Re (Earth radii) per JPL, respectively, and c and d are the impact cross section and distance per NEODyS? This is just an approximation as a normal distribution, taking an integral across the section that intersects Earth.
There's a discussion at Talk:Torino scale#Normal distribution, and a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apophis ellipse.svg, with one of the main arguments being that the diagram doesn't properly indicate that the particles in the uncertainty ellipse follow a normal distribution. Maybe it would help to make it explicit by adding a note with that formula. Renerpho (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kheider: Regarding your edit [4] ("
and as long as the newest nominal orbit for the asteroid stays near the center of the previous uncertainty region, and does not veer notably outwards from Earth, the odds of a collision will increase as the uncertainty decreases
"), which I reverted because it was unreferenced: At a current nominal close approach distance of about 25 Earth radii, this is not actually true; compare this chart, which compares several different scenarios (close approaches at 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 Earth radii) with that of a hypothetical impact. If the CA stays where it's now then we may have "maxed out". We're at the point where shrinking the uncertainty no longer necessarily increases the odds of impact. Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)- And no, that's not supposed to be stated in the article either, because it's as much WP:OR as yours. Renerpho (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: By "CA" do you mean the nominal position of "closest approach"? I don't think we can assume that that will stay where it is, at all. Actually, if we think of the locus of possible locations at closest approach is a long line, and if observations in 2028 reduce the line to, say, half as long, then the probability will either double or go to near zero. In other words, it's quite likely that the estimated probability will go up in the future, but will probably go to zero eventually. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, and yes. Of course we cannot assume that the currently nominal close approach (CA) will be the true one. But if we do (as Kheider does, see how their sentence started) then their conclusion that the probability will go up isn't correct. Renerpho (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: By "CA" do you mean the nominal position of "closest approach"? I don't think we can assume that that will stay where it is, at all. Actually, if we think of the locus of possible locations at closest approach is a long line, and if observations in 2028 reduce the line to, say, half as long, then the probability will either double or go to near zero. In other words, it's quite likely that the estimated probability will go up in the future, but will probably go to zero eventually. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: Today they're sayin' the probability is now 3.1%. On the BBC they said, "but experts say there's no cause for alarm as the probability is likely to drop to zero as it nears". (They may be referring to this, in which case they're misquoting the expert.) I think that's unjustified confidence. There certainly is cause for concern. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Eric Kvaalen: It's a matter of "what" and "how much". It deserves attention, but it's no reason to lose your sleep over.
- There's a very high chance that the probability drops to zero eventually. For example, while it was 3.1% yesterday, it fell to 1.5% today.[5] For perspective, the chance that some unknown asteroid of the same size hits the Earth before 2032 is about 4%, and that's arguably more dangerous because it would hit us unprepared. The fact that we know exactly when and exactly which asteroid doesn't suddenly make it a bigger threat. Once the impact chance grows considerably above that background threat, say above 10%, that starts to change. Until then, this is exciting but not a big deal. Renerpho (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: Today they're sayin' the probability is now 3.1%. On the BBC they said, "but experts say there's no cause for alarm as the probability is likely to drop to zero as it nears". (They may be referring to this, in which case they're misquoting the expert.) I think that's unjustified confidence. There certainly is cause for concern. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: I didn't realize that there was a 4% chance of that. But still, "we" have to decide what to do about this one, which is something we don't have to do for the unknown ones. I've just added a section to the article summarizing the Scientific American article that was cited (and which quotes you!). As someone says there, if we want to do something we have to start now, before we know whether the risk is high. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd put it differently. When we're dealing with a known threat, we get the opportunity to decide what to do about it, which arguably makes it less dangerous, by being more of a concern to us. Renerpho (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- And yes, there are ideas already what to do about something like this, which are currently being fleshed out -- just in case we have to start build something. Renerpho (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho: I didn't realize that there was a 4% chance of that. But still, "we" have to decide what to do about this one, which is something we don't have to do for the unknown ones. I've just added a section to the article summarizing the Scientific American article that was cited (and which quotes you!). As someone says there, if we want to do something we have to start now, before we know whether the risk is high. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
"all available telescopes" ?
[edit]With https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=1272876584, @Renerpho: added, "The discovery has triggered the first step in planetary defense responses, in which all available telescopes are asked to gather data about the object." (My emphasis.) Seems a bit melodramatic. I find no support in either citation you added for "all available" (Guardian or NYTimes). The second states, “However, given this is a special case, members of the community have requested (and received) time on some of the larger and more capable facilities,” which suggests a more focused effort. Needs better sourcing or dialing back a bit. Perhaps 'numerous' or 'several major' would be better? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have no objections to either. Renerpho (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Name Means?
[edit]Why is it called "2024 YR4"? I can guess that 2024 is the year of its discovery, but "YR4" needs explaining. As does the the subscripting of "4," something I haven't seen any other web site do. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Isaac Rabinovitch: It means it is the 117th minor planet discovered between 16-31 December 2024. See Provisional designation in astronomy#Minor planets. Brainiac242 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't tell me, edit the page. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Isaac Rabinovitch: No need for the snootiness, please. Anyways, I've added the provisional designation info. Hope that helps. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't tell me, edit the page. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Position relative to moon
[edit]I note the recent addition of As of 13 February 2025, the asteroid is about 30 degrees away from the nearly full moon
. I fail to see the point of this sentence unless it is accompanied by an explanation of the implications: does this affect observability, for example? Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- It does, yes (it is the main reason why 2024 YR4 has not been observed since February 8), but our source JPL Horizons does not establish that (it merely proves the fact, not that it's notable). Renerpho (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- There's https://x.com/StevearenoBR/status/1889306675372339257, retweeted by https://x.com/2024YR4/status/1889408561454916015 (from February 11, quote:
During some days new measurements of 2024 YR4 will be difficult because the full moon and position of #2024YR4. New UPDATES will have to waits. Probably in 10 days.
), but whether that counts as a reliable source is questionable. Renerpho (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC) - https://iawn.net/meetings/20-steering-cmte.shtml 文爻林夕 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: Good link, thanks! Quote:
In early March, the full Moon will come and things will get harder as the object will cross into magnitude 26, so the largest telescopes on Earth will be needed to continue observations
-- that works for the problems that the Moon will cause in early March. Do we accept it as a source for the same at this time (mid-February), or is that WP:SYNTH? 2024 YR4 is far from magnitude 26 at the moment. Renerpho (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)- Read "Webb Telescope to Weigh in on Impact Odds for Asteroid 2024 YR4"
- By: David L. Chandler February 13, 2025, https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/webb-telescope-to-weigh-in-on-impact-odds-for-asteroid-2024-yr4/ "But for the next few days, the asteroid will be obscured by the full moon, and as it gets farther and farther away, it is becoming much fainter and harder to observe. " ---- Bayoustarwatch (talk) Bayoustarwatch (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @文爻林夕: Good link, thanks! Quote:
World cities in the impact corridor
[edit]I think it would possibly be informative to list a couple of world cities that lie near to the probable impact corridor – such as Mumbai – but I personally can't find any source that doesn't feel clickbaity that lists those cities. Does anyone else a) think inclusion would be informative, and b) have a source that lists those cities? Sceptre (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- As of today(2025-02-14) any risk to any one city that lie near or on the probable impact corridor would very low, there are other more likely disaster (natural and human made) that "could" happen before 2032-12-22 --- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that would be good content. There's probably a reason why the only sources that list particular cities feel clickbaity. That content is by its very nature clickbait. Renerpho (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- We will have a clear impact corridor by the end of 2028 if an impact isn't ruled out by then. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
2028 observation section issues
[edit]I think the date and distance at opposition is irrelevant for the observability of 2024 YR4. The distance at closest approach and trajectory relative to the Earth and Sun around that time are the main determining factors. I will search for references to support my assertion and update the text accordingly if I find something. Nick the engineer (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- As the 2028 opposition occurs FIVE months earlier in July and closest approach is not until December, opposition observations in 2028 are important as they will greatly reduce uncertainties in the known orbit at that time. -- Kheider (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is one of the rare cases where opposition and closest approach are very different. Both are important. Renerpho (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kheider and Renerpho: I doubt that observations at the opposition in July 2028 will help much because YR4 will still be quite far away at that time. I think we won't know much more until December 2028. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Eric Kvaalen: The position uncertainty near opposition will be a few arcminutes. Observing it at that time would reduce that to below an arc-second. That'd be enough to pin down the approximate location of an impact, or (more likely) say by how much exactly it will miss the Earth. Renerpho (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kheider and Renerpho: I doubt that observations at the opposition in July 2028 will help much because YR4 will still be quite far away at that time. I think we won't know much more until December 2028. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kheider, Renerpho, and Nick the engineer: Well, the question is whether it will be close enough to be observable. Apparently it will be, from June. But in any case it will get closer and closer during all of 2028, so there's nothing special about the moment of opposition. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would say a 5 month lead time is useful (perhaps even significant) for planning purposes. -- Kheider (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Mid-2034
[edit]@Kheider: I appreciate adding a note about increasing uncertainty after the 2032 close approach. Are you sure though about the specifics as stated here: By mid-2034, the uncertainty in the asteroid's position will be greater than ±1 AU, and 1 AU (150 million km) is defined as the distance between Earth and the Sun.[6]
?
The problem I see is that the uncertainty as given by JPL Horizons becomes meaningless after the 2032 close approach, because it includes perturbations due to approaches as close as a few hundred km from the center of the Earth (i.e., impacting solutions), which are obviously unphysical. What you'd need to do instead is compare two solutions that just barely miss Earth on either side, and look how far they have diverged from each other. Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wanted to avoid wp:synth/wp:or, so I felt this was the best way to do it? Besides this number will also shrink as the uncertainties for the 2032 approach shrink. If the asteroid passes on one side of Earth, the orbit will be shortened. If it passes on the other side, it will be lengthened. I also think giving readers a sense of the order of magnitude is useful. -- Kheider (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Gravitational Keyhole
[edit]Is anyone know where is the keyhole in 2028 or 2032? 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @長衫兆紫隆: What keyholes? It doesn't have to go through any keyhole in order to hit us in 2032. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Observations down
[edit]Re the 2032 potential impact, can anyone explain why JPL #53 is based on only 346 observations when JPL #51 looked at 348 observations? Thanks in advance. Wavehunter (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- It just means JPL #53 discarded a few observations as a bad fit to the curve at the time. For example, the MPC shows 386 observations, but JPL #55 is based on 363 of those observations. -- Kheider (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Lunar impact
[edit]Hi, I just added a Moon subsection on the impact effect section showing the probability with which the asteroid could hit the moon. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Accuratelibrarian: In [7] from February 10th, David Rankin quotes me on the possible visibility from Earth (
And Rankin reports that his colleague, astronomer Daniel Bamberger at Northolt Branch Observatories in London said, “The impact could be brighter than the full moon. Safe to say it would be visible with the unaided eye.”
). I'm not going to add it to the article, out of WP:COI concerns about citing myself; but if it's determined to fit, feel free to add it. Renerpho (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)- Sure, the info you provide is valuable. I will also add the estimated diameter for the impact crater as well as the estimated impact velocity. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Do you know if there is any impact corridor map for the Moon? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Accuratelibrarian: Yes, there is. Bill Gray (author of Find_Orb) computed one.[8] Renerpho (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will reach out to him and ask him for permission to upload it. By the way, I don't see Mare Crisium on the map, is it beyond Mare Nectaris? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Do you know the date for potential lunar impact? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Same date as for an Earth impact (22 December 2025). The times are in the image.
- Mare Crisium is way beyond Nectaris. You won't have trouble finding it on a map. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Accuratelibrarian: Yes, there is. Bill Gray (author of Find_Orb) computed one.[8] Renerpho (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Impact probability early access
[edit]According to JPL, the impact probability will be 3.07% (1 in 32.6) on February 18th 2025. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Over the impact probability of Apophis in December 2004. 長衫兆紫隆 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, could you explain what is JPL? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Accuratelibrarian: JPL is NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; it maintains the CNEOS-Sentry website where it lists the impact probability, and also the JPL Small Body Database where you can find the computed orbit and close approaches of asteroids. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
A couple things
[edit]- about 367 of the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki,
I personally would prefer comparing it to the Hiroshima bomb. It was smaller yield, but more ... well-known. Also, given the uncertainty in the mass, three significant figures seems too many. How about "about 500 of the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima"?
- [lunar] impact zone extends from just below Mare Crisium, ...
"below" means 'south of', as seen from Earth's northern hemisphere?
Presumably it's going to get a real name; any idea when, or who gets to choose?
—WWoods (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Wwoods: That sounds reasonable to me, though I'll admit I don't really have a preference. I'll wait for others to pitch in.
- Regarding the meaning of "below", it is referring to south on the Moon's surface (and yes, that means as seen from Earth's northern hemisphere). If it is unclear, see Bill Gray's image of the 2024 YR4 impact corridor on the Moon, which was linked by User:Renerpho earlier in this talk page.
- 2024 YR4 is currently not eligible for a name because its orbit is too poorly known and has not been observed long enough. According to the Minor Planet Center, minor planets must be observed for at least 4 years/oppositions before it can receive a permanent minor planet number, after which it can then receive a name from its discovery team (the people who work on ATLAS). Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Nrco0e: An exception can be made in some cases. For example, 99942 Apophis (2004 MN4) was discovered on June 19, 2004, and numbered on June 24, 2005. It was named less than a month later. If 2024 YR4 still has a significant impact threat after May 2025, I think there's a good chance it will receive a number, and a name. Renerpho (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm trying to replicate the map to add it to the article, I requested @Renerpho's assistance. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Accuratelibrarian: I don't know how to create the lunar map. Did you try to reach Bill Gray? Renerpho (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I sent him an email. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Accuratelibrarian: I don't know how to create the lunar map. Did you try to reach Bill Gray? Renerpho (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Highest odds ever?
[edit]Is it worth mentioning somewhere that this is the highest impact odds ever of a NEO? See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/science/asteroid-2024-yr4-impact.html Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250218-city-killer-asteroid-now-has-3-1-chance-of-hitting-earth-nasa - another source. NYT only has mention of "higher than Apophis" but no "highest ever". Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't have "the highest odds ever". Check out 2020 VV, for example, which peaked at 4.4%; or 2010 RF12, which is on the Sentry risk list right now, with an impact probability of 10% in 2095. Both of these are small objects, and never posed any threat. What's different about 2024 YR4 and Apophis is that these are large enough to be dangerous. And indeed, the 3.1% risk from 2024 YR4 is the highest ever by an object that's deemed large enough to be a threat - a record previously held by Apophis (2.7%).
- I don't like that the threat is reduced to a simple probability in those media reports. Apophis is still far ahead in terms of the actual threat that its 2.7% risk posed, because Apophis is so much larger than 2024 YR4. It peaked at +1.10 on the Palermo scale, whereas 2024 YR4 is only at -0.18 right now. That this value is negative means that the risk that an unknown asteroid of the same size hits us before 2032 is still higher (about 4.7%). Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- All impactors were near 100%. 2024 YR4's best claim is second highest rating on the Torino rating, which is the less useful scale that the public follows. -- Kheider (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- 2nd highest ever on the Torino scale, and 4th highest ever on the Palermo scale (after Apophis, 2002 NT7 and 1950 DA), excluding impactors. Renerpho (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Highest odds by an object larger than 50 meters in diameter (generally accepted threshold for a NEO to be ranked higher than 0 on the Torino scale) since the invention of the Torino scale. Ryanisbetter (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
2034 uncertainty
[edit]The orbit section currently states By mid-2034, the 3-sigma uncertainty in the asteroid's position [...] will be greater than 50 million km
. This doesn't seem logical to me; surely by 2034 (assuming that it doesn't impact us first!) we will have refined the trajectory and reduced the uncertainty significantly. I'm tempted to rewrite it as "As of February 2025, the 3-sigma uncertainty in the asteroid's mid-2034 position is greater than 50 million km" but I'd prefer confirmation from those who understand the subject better than I do. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion.
Done -- Kheider (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, currently its range of possible courses overlaps the Earth. As long as that remains the case, a close pass to the left of the planet versus a close pass to the right will put it in very different orbits because of the gravity assist.
- —WWoods (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)