Awesome great
It will be a really good exercise to consolidate my own learning and always fun to do with real data !
I’ll review everything you’ve posted and get back to you next week.
Near-Earth objects and close calls
- Thread starter Gawan
- Start date
It will be a really good exercise to consolidate my own learning and always fun to do with real data !
I’ll review everything you’ve posted and get back to you next week.
Perhaps there are reasons why a binary system model has been so harshly rejected by the scientific community. The implications.
The easiest way to deny it is to say that if they had seen it they would have said so, and showed it to us. Just like all of the NEO's that are not supposed to be here, because "they" have not announced them.
To disagree with Uniformatarianism is to disagree with grant money. The harder the community rails against the binary model, the more it is confirmed. Once past this hurdle, one must examine what challenges a wide-orbit binary brings into the scenario, and then watch for expected effects.
Massive clouds of space debris and large bodies would be one accompaniment. Changing rate of our precession is another. Disturbances in our sun would become regular. Geomagnetic anomalys should dramatically rise. A rise in volcanism would coincide with increased electromagnetic activity. Geologic evidence of past mass upheavals would be another (Pleistocene megafauna graveyards).
Ancient tales of previous approaches are culturally ubiquitous. Glyphs and cave art seem to corroborate accompanying plasma discharges that would occur in exchanges between bodies. Dr. Robert Schoch has cornered this aspect of the past at the Great Sphinx and Gobekli Tepe. Many pieces are coming together faster now, from multiple disciplines. The advent of the internet allowed more information exchange than they wanted. Current campaigns to censor data and voices are evidence that the powers are correcting this.
Keep the eyes to the sky.
The easiest way to deny it is to say that if they had seen it they would have said so, and showed it to us. Just like all of the NEO's that are not supposed to be here, because "they" have not announced them.
To disagree with Uniformatarianism is to disagree with grant money. The harder the community rails against the binary model, the more it is confirmed. Once past this hurdle, one must examine what challenges a wide-orbit binary brings into the scenario, and then watch for expected effects.
Massive clouds of space debris and large bodies would be one accompaniment. Changing rate of our precession is another. Disturbances in our sun would become regular. Geomagnetic anomalys should dramatically rise. A rise in volcanism would coincide with increased electromagnetic activity. Geologic evidence of past mass upheavals would be another (Pleistocene megafauna graveyards).
Ancient tales of previous approaches are culturally ubiquitous. Glyphs and cave art seem to corroborate accompanying plasma discharges that would occur in exchanges between bodies. Dr. Robert Schoch has cornered this aspect of the past at the Great Sphinx and Gobekli Tepe. Many pieces are coming together faster now, from multiple disciplines. The advent of the internet allowed more information exchange than they wanted. Current campaigns to censor data and voices are evidence that the powers are correcting this.
Keep the eyes to the sky.
I could take a look at the raw data as well. One useful information would be what they mean by newly discovered objects in these surveys, if they are new detections or new identifications/characterizations. @gottathink Correlations of time series that are more or less monotonically increasing like in cumulative counts are not statistically significant but maybe if one considers "the rates of discovery" (for instance, NEO's discoveries per month vs. fireball observations per month), maybe (and maybe not) a cross-correlation (with a "time-shift") can show something.
Yeah was thinking something similar
Welcome to the forum Tethered.
As this is your first post on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.
That would be great! See below.
That is an interesting question that was puzzling me at the beginning too (and still does to some extent). As I explained a while ago, for the NEO data I had to search quite a bit to find what I hope is "the date of first discovery/observation" of any given object. I wasn't able to find that date in any of the raw data that they are providing in tables. You can find a number of dates in those raw data tables that state for example something like "first observation" but I soon noticed that this is not the date of the very first discovery/observation of an object, but rather (I think), the first date they used for calculating or in the orbit, which can be a completely different date (way back in the past for example before the object was first seen/known). Anyway, that is a bit complicated to explain. I've explained some of it here:
As far as I can see, that is what I tried to do with the data. I also came to the conclusion that the cumulative way they are mostly presenting the data in is hiding important stuff (see here), makes it hard to extract information and compare the data sets. So I extracted that data, to create the numbers and charts that are non-cumulative for the most part.
Anyway guys, what follows is all the raw data that I used to create the tables and charts so that you can have a look at it (for "Curve Shape 1" - "Curve Shape 4", that we would like to look at) + how I came up with the numbers in some cases:
Curve shape 1 = First, I fetched the raw data for this chart on the 23.01.2022 from here (I didn't download it). You can get the raw data from there too, when you push the "Print", "CSV" or "Excel" button at the end of the table (keep in mind though, that the table/raw data you will fetch NOW could have changed already since I fetched mine on the 23.01.2022). Second, I created this table out of this raw data; then I extracted/calculated the rate of Discovery of NEOs per year, which you find in column R "New NEOs". So the numbers in that column are the numbers behind the chart, and they are not cumulative anymore. I'm ASSUMING here that this should be the rate of discovery of new NEO's every year/decade.
Curve shape 2 = First, I fetched the raw data for this chart on the 30.01.2022 from here. You can get the raw data from there too, when you adjust the parameters on top of the page correctly (keep in mind though, that the raw data you will fetch NOW could have changed already since I fetched mine on the 30.01.2022). You also have to manually search every year and parameter to get the raw data. Second, I created this table out of that raw Data from the website and put in the raw Data. In column I "All Confirmed Fireballs" you find the data from the chart. So the numbers in that column are the numbers behind the chart, and they are not cumulative. I'm pretty certain here that this should be the rate of new Confirmed Fireballs every year over the USA.
Curve shape 3 = First, I fetched the raw data for this chart on the 23.01.2022 from here (and downloaded it, see attachment below). You can get the raw data from there too, when you adjust the parameters correctly and push the "Print", "CSV" or "Excel" button at the end of the table (keep in mind though, that the raw data you will fetch NOW could have changed already since I fetched mine on the 23.01.2022). Second, I created this table out of that raw Data. The data out of Column C "Close-Approach (CA) Date" is what I used in order to, third: create this table. You can find the data of the chart in cells "M39-N102". So the numbers there are behind the chart, and they are not cumulative. I'm pretty certain here that this should be the rate of close approaches of objects toward earth (closer than the moon) for each year.
Curve shape 4 = First, I fetched the raw data for this chart on the 23.01.2022 from here (and downloaded it, see attachment below). You can get the raw data from there too, when you adjust the parameters correctly and push the "Print", "CSV" or "Excel" button at the end of the table (keep in mind though, that the raw data you will fetch NOW could have changed already since I fetched mine on the 23.01.2022). Second, I created this table out of that raw Data. The data in Column B "Date Discovered" is what I used further on. You won't find that data in the raw data, since I had to manually search for it here for each object and incorporate it into my table. You can find those dates there by searching for "2021 SP" for example, and then something like this is stated "First observed at Palomar Mountain--ZTF on 2021-09-17". I'm ASSUMING kere (I'm fairly certain, though) that this should be the actual discovery/first observation of an object. Third, I created this table with the data from the last table (Column B). You can find the data of the chart in cells "P39-Q69". So the numbers there are behind the chart, and they are not cumulative. I'm ASSUMING her (I'm fairly certain, though) that this should be the rate of new NEO discoveries that have and will come closer to earth than the moon, for each year.
Hope that isn't too confusing! Feel free to ask. If you want, I can also completely unlock the tables and charts I created and linked above, in case you can't properly use/adjust them.
Last edited:
@mkrnhr, I’m pretty limited in my knowledge as just starting my third year inStats and data analysis but happy to do any analysis with r if you don’t have time. If you do then that’s cool and I’ll be very interested in the results and methods.
If you don’t have much time and would like to guide and make suggestions I could then run the analysis.
Summer school paper-Regression analysis Exam tomorrow so I’ll get back to my studying
Reflections on the 2021 fireball list from NASA
One perspective on the fireball situation is to look, at the list Fireballs
In 2021, there were 32 fireballs that made the list. I copied the estimated energy of these fireballs, measured in kilotons.
The Wiki
What would be great would be to have an archive with footage linked to more of the fireballs in the NASA list. Then when something happens, we can try to estimate the size from the visual impression and other effects of the new fireball when compared with those we have in the archive. It would not be very accurate, of course, but better than nothing.
In a sense, we should be happy that 2021 did not turn out a lot of kt. The big stuff can come soon enough, and at the moment the Earth is ruled by such a level of "give it a name" that it can make up for quite a few Chelyabinsk size impacts, with the difference being that people still have a chance to observe the results of their own choices, rather than observing Nature reacting in the grand unmistakable way which it perhaps is doing anyway with weather being erratic and the volcanoes blowing out some steam.
Another way of looking at fireballs and other stuff coming from cosmic space is to consider dust deposited in the inner solar system increasing electrical conductivity, or dust captured by the upper atmosphere, or fireballs that don't burn much, but then might be able to preserve life coded proteins and viruses much better.
In January, there was a fireball with an energy of 2.9 kt or about ten times the average for 2021. Let us see what 2022 will bring
One perspective on the fireball situation is to look, at the list Fireballs
In 2021, there were 32 fireballs that made the list. I copied the estimated energy of these fireballs, measured in kilotons.
0.073 |
0.076 |
0.11 |
0.16 |
0.13 |
0.086 |
0.11 |
0.1 |
0.13 |
0.19 |
0.073 |
0.4 |
0.11 |
0.42 |
0.13 |
0.11 |
1.8 |
0.082 |
0.13 |
0.076 |
0.089 |
0.076 |
0.4 |
0.41 |
0.13 |
0.098 |
0.1 |
0.11 |
0.72 |
0.24 |
0.23 |
0.2 |
Sum: 7.299 |
The Wiki
The largest is 1.8 kt, the sum is 7.3 kt, and the average is less than 0.3 kt. One can discuss if their measurements are accurate, and how many they have caught and missed. Although there were many small videos here and there, in terms of kt, there was not much, unless something was seriously suppressed.
What would be great would be to have an archive with footage linked to more of the fireballs in the NASA list. Then when something happens, we can try to estimate the size from the visual impression and other effects of the new fireball when compared with those we have in the archive. It would not be very accurate, of course, but better than nothing.
In a sense, we should be happy that 2021 did not turn out a lot of kt. The big stuff can come soon enough, and at the moment the Earth is ruled by such a level of "give it a name" that it can make up for quite a few Chelyabinsk size impacts, with the difference being that people still have a chance to observe the results of their own choices, rather than observing Nature reacting in the grand unmistakable way which it perhaps is doing anyway with weather being erratic and the volcanoes blowing out some steam.
Another way of looking at fireballs and other stuff coming from cosmic space is to consider dust deposited in the inner solar system increasing electrical conductivity, or dust captured by the upper atmosphere, or fireballs that don't burn much, but then might be able to preserve life coded proteins and viruses much better.
In January, there was a fireball with an energy of 2.9 kt or about ten times the average for 2021. Let us see what 2022 will bring
Yes, after the exams. Regression is fun! I hate R (yes I know, I must be among the very few) but you can start the analysis and then we compare ideas.@mkrnhr, I’m pretty limited in my knowledge as just starting my third year inStats and data analysis but happy to do any analysis with r if you don’t have time. If you do then that’s cool and I’ll be very interested in the results and methods.
If you don’t have much time and would like to guide and make suggestions I could then run the analysis.
Summer school paper-Regression analysis Exam tomorrow so I’ll get back to my studying
Space Weather reports that SpaceX announced yesterday that a minor geomagnetic storm on Feb 4th has knocked 40 Star link satellites from low Earth orbit and they're now falling from the sky. They were launched into orbit just a day before, apparently just after another minor geomagnetic storm.
SpaceX claim that the sateliites are designed to burn up on reentry so that nothing will impact the ground; and i guess we'll see about that.
Wasn't the possibility of this kind of thing happening discussed or commented on in a session? I thought there was some discussion related to the weakening magnetosphere or something similar. I had a quick look but couldn't find anything.
Added: A video of space debris thought to be one of the satellites that was in the original SW post.
SpaceX claim that the sateliites are designed to burn up on reentry so that nothing will impact the ground; and i guess we'll see about that.
Wasn't the possibility of this kind of thing happening discussed or commented on in a session? I thought there was some discussion related to the weakening magnetosphere or something similar. I had a quick look but couldn't find anything.
Added: A video of space debris thought to be one of the satellites that was in the original SW post.
GEOMAGNETIC STORM BRINGS DOWN STARLINK SATELLITES:
As many as 40 Starlink satellites are currently falling out of the sky--the surprising result of a minor geomagnetic storm. SpaceX made the announcement yesterday:
"On Thursday, Feb. 3rd at 1:13 p.m. EST, Falcon 9 launched 49 Starlink satellites to low Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. ... Unfortunately, the satellites deployed on Thursday were significantly impacted by a geomagnetic storm on Friday, [Feb. 4th]."
Two days before launch a CME hit Earth's magnetic field. It was not a major space weather event. In fact, the weak impact did not at first spark any remarkable geomagnetic activity. However, as Earth passed through the CME's wake, some sputtering G1-class geomagnetic storms developed. It was one of these minor storms that caught the Starlink satellites on Feb. 4th.
Geomagnetic storms heat Earth's upper atmosphere. Diaphanous tendrils of warming air literally reached up and grabbed the Starlink satellites. According to SpaceX, onboard GPS devices detected atmospheric drag increasing "up to 50 percent higher than during previous launches."
"The Starlink team commanded the satellites into a safe-mode where they would fly edge-on (like a sheet of paper) to minimize drag," says SpaceX. "Preliminary analysis show the increased drag at the low altitudes prevented the satellites from leaving safe-mode to begin orbit raising maneuvers, and up to 40 of the satellites will reenter or already have reentered the Earth’s atmosphere."
The Sociedad de Astronomia del Caribe apparently caught one of the reentries over Puerto Rico on Feb. 7th:
SpaceX says that the deorbiting satellites "pose zero collision risk with other satellites and by design demise upon atmospheric reentry—meaning no orbital debris is created and no satellite parts hit the ground."
Keep an eye on the night sky this week. You might catch a Starlink satellite burning up overhead. Spaceweather.com Time Machine
Last edited:
Fireball caught on camera in Alta, Norway 10 february 2022
#SPMN080222 OVER CASTILLA Y LEÓN REGISTERED TODAY at 1h09m53s TUC. This was recorded by Marc Corretgé
@marccg96 from Alpicat, #Lleida . Several fragmentations can be seen that surprised the visual testimonies. More details: http://spmn.uji.es/ESP/SPMNlist.html
The First Quadruple Asteroid: Astronomers Spot a Space Rock With 3 Moons
Astronomers had already spotted two other rocks orbiting the asteroid known as 130 Elektra, and think more quadruple systems are out there.
Four views captured by the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile of the asteroid 130 Elektra and two of its satellites. Another team of astronomers say they detected a third.Credit...Yang/ESO
We already knew the asteroid 130 Elektra was special. Astronomers previously discovered it had two moons, making it a rare triple asteroid system. Now a third moon may have been found, making it even more uncommon — the first-known quadruple asteroid in the solar system.
Elektra was first discovered in 1873, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Oblong-shaped and 160 miles across on its longest side, it is a relatively large asteroid and completes an orbit of the sun every five years.
The rest of the article is in quotes below:
Original study here.
Might it be this, if one bears in mind that a strong solar storm will temporarily affect the shape and form of the magnetosphere to the extent that even our electrical grid could be affected, if it was a really large solar flare.
Session 23 May 2020
Session Date: May 23rd 2020 Laura, Andromeda, and Artemis at the board Pierre, Joe, Chu, Ark, PoB, Scottie, Niall, Noko the Wonderdog, Princess Leia Q: (L) Today is May 23, 2020. [Review of those present] So I guess we begin. Hello, is anybody out there? I feel a Pink Floyd moment coming...
cassiopaea.org
Nice find thorbiorn! That seems to be the one. It was probably just my imagination that added the part about them also falling from the sky
