Near-Earth objects and close calls

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thoughts on the accuracy of the data we are told about the dangers from coming large NEO flybys
It is kind of a mystery to me at this point and somewhat odd. I've two possible candidates for now; "2009 JF1" or "2019 JF1". The odd thing though is that "2009 JF1", which seems to be the one they refer to, is listed at NASA as a max of 23 Meters in diameter (as opposed to around 130 as stated in the articles). Further, 2009JF1 is not listed at the same NASA page as coming close to earth at the stated date in the article, while on ESA's NEO risk page (which I discovered today!) it is listed as a substantial risk for earth at the stated date in the article (while also being a lot smaller than stated in the article). "2009 JF1" is not listed in my table above as coming close to earth at said time, while "2019 JF1" isn't listed there at all. Notice also that ESA currently lists 990 objects in their risk list for earth compared to the around 600 or so NEA's listed in my table above that came and will come closer to earth than the moon. Something doesn't quite add up here. How close will "2009 JF1" actually come in 2022? I couldn't find that data point anywhere as of now, including in all those articles. If it is "2009 JF1" they talk about, how can it be so dangerous to earth when it is not listed anywhere to come close to earth in any shape or fashion? Meaning nowhere close to 1 LD.
Yes, it's not quite clear where the articles get their information from. I went to the risk page you found, and set Table Settings to "All available data" and downloaded the Excel file (containing information about 22730 NEOs/objects). I found several JF1 NEOs. One that passed the Earth in 1955, one in 1982, one in 2019 (Sept 16th), and one that is said to make a close approach on July 3rd, 2029, and lastly one on Sept 29th, 2046. The maximum diameter of some of these JF1s is 100. I only found one 2009 JF1 and according to their data, it made a close approach in 2009. I couldn't find a JF1 one that fits the description of the article. Perhaps it hasn't been registered yet, or estimations change(d) (?). Hope this helps.
Thank you for bringing up the inconsistency. It is hard to say what is going on in the case you mention. It could be a mistake, but it is very easy for an interested party to sell a plausible story to the public. Besides some may want to leak something that is going in the right direction without spilling all the beans, if that is not allowed due to current policy. From the "War on Terror", regime changes and "anti" campaigns around the world, accusations of chemical warfare, the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam and scandals around Ukraine, to mentions some, we know that if a question is made a political or economic issue, then often the accuracy of data that is left for the public dissipates even more and the lines between fact and fiction become blurred. Could that be what is happening?
 

Wu Wei Wu

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
@Wu Wei Wu ,
Not to alarm you but does it matter whether we now have better detection systems or does it make sense to be prepared for the worst possible scenario since it depends on the quality of what we have now as sources of accumulating data that supports possible NEOs .
It matters a lot, because if we can objectively interpret the data we can make better decisions. For example, the data we might say...
1. A cometary apocalypse coming our collective way!
2. There is a real increase in bolides/NEOs!
3. There is a real increase in bolides/NEOs visibility!

All of them necessitate action, by changing our relationship to our environment. But a misunderstanding of our environment here could have very negative consequences on people's lives and minds.

Now personally, I'm inclined to think there's something really interesting here, and I'm suggesting we do our collective utmost to find out exactly what this is, rather than assume worst case results (or assume anything at all!).

@Wu Wei Wu
If you are enamored of current scientific expert opinion then we should just all go vegan and enforce carbon taxes to prevent global warming and ignore the solar minimum and approaching ice age.
I'm not enamored with anything. I'm trying to do my own research and objectively understand this phenomena, since it has a huge effect on all of us. I'm sure you responded with the best of intentions, but your response reads like an attack on questioning/falsification of the idea and a strawmanning of my comments (if you question/try to validate this theory, why not believe everything mainstream science says!).

There's no us vs them here, just you, I, and the rest of the forum trying to figure this out together (I hope).

Back to the NEOs: I'll see what I can find out about this stuff and report back. I'll probably email some astronomers and see what they say.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Using available data about estimated total impact energy to calculate the approximate size of large fireballs and bolides
Using Fireball and Bolide Data from NASA I will try to estimate how many of those could have been on a NEO list if the limit is a size of 1.4 meters corresponding to the smallest one. If we imagine a cube of 1.4 meters it would give a volume of 2.75 m^3 had it been in the shape of a sphere, it would have been 3.66 m^3 but in the following I will stay with the idea of a cube. I admit that I will use some mathematics, but it does not go beyond grade 9 or 10. and for some countries probably less, only one should not be too scared of big numbers.

For the sake of presentation, I will use the case of an object that has been well studied, the Chelyabinsk super bolide that fell on February 15th 2013. The above table tells us that the estimated total impact energy in kiloton (kt) was 440, and that the velocity was estimated to be 18.6 km per second.

In TNT equivalent - Wikipedia one kiloton is explained as the explosive energy of a 1000 tons of TNT. Measured in joule it is 4.184E+12 joules or more than 4 terajoules. On the basis of the energy in a kiloton TNT, we can now calculate the total impact energy in joule by multiplying the value in kt by 4.184E+12 joules per kt and we get 440 kt * 4.184E+12 joules per kt is 1.841E+15 joules. That is a lot of energy.

Taking the total impact energy to mean the same as the total kinetic energy and knowing that the kinetic energy (Ekin) is calculated as half the mass times the velocity squared, i.e. 1/2m*v^2 ,one can try to move ahead. The Ekin was in joules which is the international standard (SI) unit, but a velocity v of 18.6 kilometer per second is not a SI unit, so we convert to meters per second and get 18600 meters per second.

Now that we know the kinetic energy Ekin and the velocity v, we are now down to one unknown which is the mass m. Rather than finding the whole mass of the fireball at once, we will try to just find half the mass, as Ekin=1/2mv^2 gives us that Ekin/v^2 = 1/2m
By inserting we find that (1.841E+15 J)/(18600 m/s*18600m/s)=5.321E+06 kg as half the mass. By multiplying by two we find the whole estimated mass to be 1,064E+07 kg or the same as 10,640,000 kg or close to 11,000 tons.

The problem is now to get to some idea of the size. For this we need to find a number for the density of a typical meteorite. The majority of meteorites found, around 85% are stony meteorites. By consulting the literature like Density & Specific Gravity or Meteorite Density (Densities of Meteorites by Classification) - Meteorites Australia we learn that a reasonable value of the specific density of a common story meteorite, a chondrite, is 3,35 grams per cm^3 or 3350 kg pr m^3. We can now find an estimate of the volume V for the Chelyabinsk meteorite by dividing the estimated mass in kg with the mass in kg per cubic meters for an average chondrite. This gives us 10,640,000 kg/3350 kg/m^3 which gives 3,177E+03 m^3 that is close to 3200 cubic meters. Now when we know the volume, we can find the length of the side, assuming it is a cube, by taking the cubic root of 3177 m^3. This gives us a cube with a side of 14.7 meters.

One can compare this way of using the data to the estimates of the size and the mass as mentioned in the various Wikis on the Chelyabinsk meteorite. As you will see it doesn't match completely, but on the other hand, it is not too far off. The English Chelyabinsk meteorite - Wikipedia
The asteroid had an approximate size of 18 metres (59 ft) and a mass of about 9,100 metric tons (10,000 short tons) before it entered the denser parts of Earth's atmosphere and started to ablate.[11]
And Chelyabinsk meteor - Wikipedia
With an estimated initial mass of about 12,000–13,000 tonnes[7][8][10](13,000–14,000 short tons, heavier than the Eiffel Tower), and measuring about 20 m (66 ft) in diameter,..
The correspondence between the above numbers and what we get by just using the formulas for the relationship between mass, velocity and energy as well as some idea of the density of the objects is close enough to justify continued use, but what I really did was to work the attached whole Excel sheet at once, calculating all the estimated sizes of all the fireballs in the table from NASA. Only when I discovered that the calculated results for the Chelyabinsk fireball matched reasonably with what is known from the literature, did I decide to use it as an example.

Notes to the attached Excel sheet

Since in the country I live in 4.2 is 4,3 that is a comma is used instead of a point, I don't know how the Excel sheet will work in your country. Hopefully your installation will adapt to the local standard.
One problem I had with the Excel sheet was that many fireballs were missing an estimate for velocity on impact with the atmosphere. Without that very little can be calculated including no mass and not volume. or size. To overcome this obstable, I set all the blanks at 13999 m/s or close to 14 km/s. If the real velocity was higher then the estimated size of the fireball, based on using the velocity of only 13999 m/s, will be too big, and if the speed was lower than 13999 m/s then the estimated size will be too low.

13999m/s is probably a low estimate anyway, when the range is from 9800m/s to 49000m/s. This means that the estimated sizes of these fireballs over all will tend to be too big. The reason I used the number 13999 m/s and not 14000 m/s is because it will be easy for anyone to see where I have made a guess. At the same time I have coloured the estimated sizes for these fireballs in orange.


Sheet 1 is the reworked and expanded NASA sheet. I have frozen the first line and expanded the sheet to include all the values I need to get to what I wanted step by step. Some of these steps could have been skipped, but I wanted to make sure I could follow the process and pick up any errors on the way. Sheet 2 is just some data I collected to prepare for working sheet 1, but I left it to make the process transparent for anyone.

In Sheet1 I inserted a column A and numbered the cells from 0 at the top. This is habit I have when playing with data, and I often begin with this extra column, because it insures I later, after having made all kinds of searches and orderings of other columns can be sure I again end up where I began by simply ordering the reference column, which I then, if I wish can delete. It is true I could also use the date column for the same purpose, but for me the simple numbers work to get an easy confirmation. Also in Sheet1 I decided to hide the NASA columns between L and K, because I did not need them for what I was doing.

How many unnoticed flybys per day?
In the beginning of the post, I began with saying that the smallest NEO has a size of about 1.4 m. If one looks at the table of fireballs there are 374 fireballs that can be estimated to be larger. And if we move up the NEO list that Pashalis linked to then the next in line was 2.1 m at the maximum. In the table there are 107 that are larger than a cube with the side of 2.1 m and there are 51 with an estimated side larger than 2.8 m. Being interested to find out what the statistics were for these bigger ones, I decided to hide all the fireballs with an estimated initial size less than 2.8 m and then order the large ones using column A. This shows the following situation with just one month left of 2019:
2019: 3
2018: 3
2017: 1
2016: 1
2015: 1
2014: 2
2013: 5
2012: 0
2011: 1
2010: 3
2009: 5
2008: 0
2007: 0
2006: 5
2005: 0
2004: 4
2003: 1
2002: 3
2001: 2
2000: 4
1999: 1
1998: 0
1997: 1
1996: 0
1995: 0
1994: 3
1993: 0
1992: 0
1991: 1
1990: 1
1988: 1
In the above list all the ones before 2003 had estimated speeds, thus more inaccurate with regard to size.

One could now try to calculate how many NEOs with a side of 2.8 m and greater fly by the Earth without being detected, but first there is:
A: You have long been aware of the cataclysmic nature of cosmic transitions, why get nervous now that it is at the door?

Q: (Perceval) Stage fright! (L) Yes, stage fright. Okay, going along our list of questions... Along the same line: What percentage of fireballs or other celestial visitors actually come to our attention?

A: 43 percent.

Q: (L) What is the percentage increase observed or otherwise in fireballs over this time last year?

A: 26 percent.
When looking in the previous list there is little doubt 2013 (5) was better than 2012 (1).
If we factor in that about half are missed, then rather than 3 in 2019 and 2018 it is more like 6, but then to find the number of flybys out to one Lunar distance we should multiply with 200,000, if the model I used in earlier posts is acceptable. This means that there in 2019 is more than a million flybys. Per day that translates into between 2000-4000 flybys of meteoroids larger than 2.8 meter moving in and out of the space around the Earth, but still within the equivalent of the distance to the Moon. Of these we notice only a fraction. But then they also don't stay in the space for a long time. Let't try to find out for how long. The slowest fireball in the NASA list was crawling along at 9800m/s, let us say 10,000 m/s that is 36,000 km/hour. The distance to the Moon is on average 386,000 km. In 11 hour that journey is covered if one travels at 10 km per second. Now, if our meteoroid was very close to Earth it might have to travel a whole diameter, twice the Lunar distance or about 772,000 km and that would take our slow moving cosmic stone close to 22 hours, but most cover a similar distance much faster.

What one could do with the data from NASA would be to match the public recordings on Youtube or Sott Earth Changes with links to the data of size and total impact energy. In this way one could get an idea of what energetic fireballs really look like, I'm not saying this is worth the trouble, but it is possible and it could prove to be a way of estimating what is seen when other data are not available.
 

Attachments

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
What one could do with the data from NASA would be to match the public recordings on Youtube or Sott Earth Changes with links to the data of size and total impact energy. In this way one could get an idea of what energetic fireballs really look like, I'm not saying this is worth the trouble, but it is possible and it could prove to be a way of estimating what is seen when other data are not available.
I tried the above exercise for the fireballs in the list from 2019 and was moderately successful. Out of 35 sightings 22 fell in the sea, but one was undetermined so that is 22 out of 34 or around 65%. For comparison, 70 % of the surface of the Earth is ocean.
Below I have listed Youtubes for the ones I fireballs from the list that I could find according to estimated total impact energy in kt, (kiloton), but first some estimates of the rarity of large fireballs from the American Meteor Society:
... the brighter the fireball, the more rare is the event. As a general thumb rule, there are only about 1/3 as many fireballs present for each successively brighter magnitude class, following an exponential decrease. Experienced observers can expect to see only about 1 fireball of magnitude -6 or better for every 200 hours of meteor observing, while a fireball of magnitude -4 can be expected about once every 20 hours or so.
To have something to compare with next are two fireballs reported one the page of the American Meteor Society that apparently did not make the cut for the official list that NASA keeps.
Unlisted fireball with unknown total impact energy, from April 4 2019 over North and South Carolina:
Unlisted fireball with unknown total impact energy from November 11 2019 over Missouri (The video has some guitar music.)

Next is the smallest fireball I could find a video from the NASA list of fireballs in 2019. You can compare with the videos above of the two fireballs that were not listed and see if you find it reasonable that they did not make the cut for the NASA list, without knowing all the mathematics.

0.089kt over the Mediterranean Sea on August 16, 2019

0.15 kt over Evenkiysky District, Krasnojarsk kraj, Russia on March 15, 2019
See also this Russian article with the same video Думали, что ступень космической ракеты, оказалось – метеорит: в Эвенкии сняли на видео падение небесного тела

0.22 kt over Kansky District, Krasnojarsk kraj, Russia on April 6, 2019
Bright Fireball over Russia - April 6, 2019
In the next post the fireballs get much larger.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Next a few more and bigger fireballs from 2019
0.48 kt over 25885 Vester Ørsted, Germany on September 12, 2019 at 12:49:48 UTC
This was a daytime fireball and a German Red Cross rescue team in a rubber dingy on the North Sea caught it, but I don't know if it is the same.
The youtube mentions "DRK Landesverband Oldenburg E.V.📍Wangerooge, Germany" which would place the boat to the west of the fireball if it is the same.
With a description from the AMS but the videos are less good Daytime Bright Fireball over danish border on Sept. 12th 2019

0.57 kt over Horqin Zuoyi Zhongqi, Tongliao, Inner Mongolia, China on October 10, 2019
Fireball meteor streaks across NE China sky - Chinadaily.com.cn

1.4 kt over Minas de Matahambre, Cuba on February 1st, 2019

1.6 kt over Southern Australia / Indian Ocean
NASA meteor: A 'hypersonic' fireball just hit Australia with the power of a NUCLEAR bomb

6.0 kt over the Caribbean Sea on June 22, 2019
This one shows a video of a trace taken from a satellite, so it is less spectacular than the others.
 
Last edited:

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I'm not enamored with anything. I'm trying to do my own research and objectively understand this phenomena, since it has a huge effect on all of us. I'm sure you responded with the best of intentions, but your response reads like an attack on questioning/falsification of the idea and a strawmanning of my comments (if you question/try to validate this theory, why not believe everything mainstream science says!).

There's no us vs them here, just you, I, and the rest of the forum trying to figure this out together (I hope).

Back to the NEOs: I'll see what I can find out about this stuff and report back. I'll probably email some astronomers and see what they say.
@Wu Wei Wu ,

I do see how my phrasing "If you are enamored" was not a very good way to say it. I should have said, "If we are enamored". My main idea is that even if we get better at detecting the frequency of NEOs than NASA or MSM there are still so many unmeasurable events out of our view that may come into play and the NEOs are just a part of the bigger picture.

I think that you and anyone who wants to improve the accuracy is doing a service for all of us. I would not know what data to trust or not trust at this point.

Sorry for making it sound like an attack. I am really attacking the reporting by MSM being given to us as being expert scientific facts on so many issues. My problem may be more that I trust very little "mainstream science".
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Not to alarm you but does it matter whether we now have better detection systems or does it make sense to be prepared for the worst possible scenario since it depends on the quality of what we have now as sources of accumulating data that supports possible NEOs .
It isn't an either or situation goyacobol. Yes, we should prepare for the worst, but we should also make sure we are not falling into blind belief.

If you have any confidence in what the Cs have been saying for years now then you should realize it is not a matter of "proof" but that intrinsic gut feeling at times that things are heating up both earth-wise and cosmically.
Actually, the Cs have been very explicit in their suggestions that we research everything and decide what is most likely true or false based on our own research and thinking efforts.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Actually, the Cs have been very explicit in their suggestions that we research everything and decide what is most likely true or false based on our own research and thinking efforts.
Today while preparing another post in response to a discussion of the 1913 Great Meteor Procession I found that:
In this article they claim there is a class of temporarily captured orbiters, but so far they only found one
On 1913 Great Meteor Procession - Wikipedia it is mentioned that one astronomer held the view that the 1913 Great Meteor Procession was caused by one such object breaking up and entering the atmosphere, the reference is:
O'Keefe, John A. (1959). "A Probable Natural Satellite: The Meteor Procession of February 9 1913". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 53: 59. Bibcode:1959JRASC..53...59O.
1959JRASC..53...59O Page 59
A similar explanation involving a temporary captured orbiter is mentioned in the following paper from 2018.
http://article.astronomyjournal.org/pdf/10.11648.j.ajaa.20180602.11.pdf
While that was interesting, because we usually talk about new moons having been captured by the outer planets, I came along indications that we actually have come a long way.
In 1972 there was a 1972 Great Daylight Fireball - Wikipedia
Here is a clip of the 1972 events which gave rise to a book and a moive:
or
This fireball was seen by many people. Below the above videos one finds comments from people who saw it. Although this one did not impact the Earth, but was just a close flyby, the observation of it made an impact on the observers.
Later in the above Wiki it says:
The US19720810 meteoroid is described in the preface of the first chapter of Arthur C. Clarke's The Hammer of God.

The clip featuring the fireball is shown in the 1994 made-for-TV film Without Warning, in which it is described as a 1640ft (500-meter) asteroid narrowly missing the Earth by just thousands of feet.
The book by Arthur C. Clark came out in 1993 and about the movie one year late there was:
The film, which premiered on Halloween night, October 31, 1994, is presented as if it were an actual breaking news event, complete with remote reports from reporters. The executive producer was David L. Wolper, who produced a number of mockumentary-style films from the 1960s onward.
1993-1994 was the time the Cassiopaeans came on board, so something must have been in the air.

Now of course, there are also the artificial fireballs, reentering satellites and rocket pieces which in some way also help to cover up the increased frequency of the ones originating in deep space. For example, the Wiki about the Jules Verne ATV cargo rocket mentions it had a launch mass of about 20 tons, so it would be less on returning, although we don't know how much garbage from the ISS was sent back. The reentry took 12 minutes. The following was captured by scientist working with the European Space Agency
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
First stars that could significantly perturb comet motion are finally found

Posted: Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Rita Wysoczańska, Piotr A. Dybczyński, Małgorzata Królikowska

(Submitted on 5 Nov 2019)

Since 1950 when Oort published his paper on the structure of the cloud of comets it is believed that stars passing near this hypothetical cometary reservoir play an important role in the dynamical evolution of long period comets and injecting them into the observability region of the Solar System. The aim of this paper is to discuss two cases in which the data obtained from observations were used and stellar perturbations (of different intensity, strong case of C/2002 A3 LINEAR and weaker case of C/2013 F3 PANSTARRS) on cometary motion were detected. Using the best available data from the Gaia DR2 catalogue and some other sources we searched for close stellar passages near the Sun. Our study took into account that some of the stars are parts of multiple systems. Over 600 stars or systems that approached or will approach the Sun closer than 4.0 pc were found. Having the list of perturbers completed we studied their influence on a sample of 277 Oort spike comets that were observed since 1901 and discovered that two comets might have their orbits fundamentally changed due to a close stellar encounter. Our results show how much different the dynamical evolution of comets would have looked when their motion was considered only in the Galactic potential. Uncertainties both in stellar and cometary data were carefully taken into account. Our analysis indicates that the occurrence of stellar perturbations on cometary motions is very rare and the uncertainties of these effects are hard to estimate.
Source.
The link to the paper.

From express.co.uk:

[...]
Research published in the online journal arXiv from a team of Polish researchers found that stars which come within a 12 light-year radius of the Oort Cloud can shove objects out of their position and send them through the solar system.

In a sample of 277 comets, only two were found to have been influenced by passing stars – of which there are 10 within a 12 light-year radius of the sun – according to the researchers.

While it is a rare phenomenon, the study confirms how our solar system is being influenced by other stellar objects.
[...]
The only star they mention is HD 7977 which is currently located (guess where) in the constellation Cassiopeia:

1576078407179.png
 
Last edited:

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Space Weather News for Jan. 13, 2020
THE SUN SWALLOWS A COMET:
Today, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory discovered the first comet of the new decade. Hours later it was gone, destroyed by the sun. Visit today's edition of Spaceweather.com for the full story and a video of the comet's death plunge.

A new comet was discovered today, and it's already history. "The first comet discovery of the decade goes to... SOHO!" reports Karl Battams of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. During the early hours of Jan. 13th, coronagraphs onboard SOHO (the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) spotted the tiny comet plunging into the sun, where it rapidly evaporated:



SOHO is the most prolific comet hunter in history. "It's actually quite unusual that it has taken 13 days for SOHO to find a comet," notes Battams. "This is the furthest we've gone into a new calendar year without a discovery since 2008. We're closing in on 3,900 comets discovered, and should comfortably pass 4,000 sometime this year!"

The doomed comet, R.I.P., was a member of the Kreutz family. Kreutz sungrazers are fragments from the breakup of a single giant comet many centuries ago. They get their name from 19th century German astronomer Heinrich Kreutz, who studied them in detail. Hundreds of Kreutz fragments pass by the sun and disintegrate every year--a fact that has helped SOHO pad its totals. In fact, the second comet of the new decade will probably be a Kreutz sungrazer, too. Stay tuned :)


Note: When SOHO discovers a comet, it always has help. A human watching coronagraph images is required to spot the sungrazer. In this case, says Battams, "The comet was noticed by Worachate Boonplod (Thailand) - one of our most successful amateur comet hunters."

A NEW KIND OF ASTEROID: Between Mars and Jupiter lies the Asteroid Belt where millions of space rocks orbit the sun. It's where asteroids are supposed to be. However, newfound asteroid 2020 AV2 is out of place: It circles the sun entirely inside the orbit of Venus. Russian amateur astronomer Filipp Romanov (Филипп Романов) photographed 2020 AV2 on Jan. 8th:



"Until 2020, no known asteroids had orbits contained within that of Venus," says Romanov. "On 4 January 2020, the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) discovered this one, and I was able to photograph it only 4 days later using a remotely-controlled iTelescope in New Mexico."

There's already a small class of asteroids called "Atiras" (named after the first one confirmed in 2003) that have orbits entirely inside Earth. Fewer than 2 dozen have been found. The discovery of 2020 AV2 takes things a step closer to the sun. Astronomers are tentatively calling its class "Vatiras"--a mashup of Venus and Atiras.


Click to view an interactive orbit of 2020 AV2 from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory:


On January 13, 2020 there were 2018 potentially hazardous asteroids.
Newfound Asteroid is 2nd Closest Known Natural Object to Sun - Animation
Jan 13, 2020
Asteroid 2020 AV2 orbits the Sun in 151 days and is the second closest known natural object to the sun. -- More on Live Science: https://www.livescience.com/asteroid-... Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech



 
Top Bottom