Coincidence of meteor strike and close asteroid approach at same time.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:11:29 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:23:52 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Meteors are atmospheric phenomena

...and the science studying them is called meteorology... :-)

So it should be, just as the science of studying what is beyond Earth
should be called astrology. Not much you can do when the more correct
terms are already in use elsewhere... so we have meteoritics and
astronomy.

Paul Schlyter:
...and the science studying them [meteors] is called meteorology... :-)

Chris L Peterson:
So it should be, just as the science of studying what is beyond Earth
should be called astrology. Not much you can do when the more correct
terms are already in use elsewhere... so we have meteoritics and
astronomy.

I thought that meteoritics had to do with writing or delivering sermons
or devising logical arguments, or something like that. Correction
noted. Most on-line dictionaries define meteoritics, but it is not
recognized in the Oxford American Dictionary.

If we outnumbered the astrology crowd we could seize the term from
them, but we're greatly outnumbered everywhere.

I don't much go around ranting and raving on the subject, but it
bothers me to see words either hijacked or twisted beyond use. "Gay."
I'm an advocate of civil rights and equal justice for all persons, but
I hate that that beautiful adjective has been narrowed in meaning to
the point that it is useless except for describing sexual orientation.
I know that I'm not allowed to say this, but I have observed that the
"gay" lifestyle is often tempestuous and very far from being gay, and
the word's current use strikes me as ironic. "Making love" used to mean
such things as holding hands. We'll never get that one back, either.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:09:04 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:11:29 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:23:52 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Meteors are atmospheric phenomena

...and the science studying them is called meteorology... :-)

So it should be, just as the science of studying what is beyond
Earth
should be called astrology. Not much you can do when the more
correct
terms are already in use elsewhere... so we have meteoritics and
astronomy.

The word meteor comes from the greek word "meteoros" which means
"situated in the air". And meteorologists often call rain, snow, hail
etc "hydrometeors" and dry haze "litometeors".

On Mar 2, 10:23*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:10:42 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
In other words, our USAF isn't in the business of tracking an incoming
50 Mt nuke from Russia or any other nation.

Meteors are atmospheric phenomena, lasting a few seconds. The Air
Force can and does record such events (inadvertently, as Davoud
pointed out) while monitoring for nuclear blasts and rocket launches.

What the Air Force does not currently do (because they have little
reason) is to monitor space for asteroids or meteoroids in Earth
intersecting orbits. That is a task best left to civilian agencies and
amateur astronomers, and the ability to detect smaller and smaller
objects is steadily improving.

The Air Force does monitor bodies in Earth orbit (using radar) because
those are the things most likely (by far) to damage space assets, not
sporadic meteoroids.

When the Sirius Oort cloud starts tossing an asteroid a day at us,
perhaps they'll have to start taking notice.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 15:07:28 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

When the Sirius Oort cloud starts tossing an asteroid a day at us,
perhaps they'll have to start taking notice.

I'm not going to hold my breath. And if a bunch of stuff came our way,
it would make little sense for the military to be involved. We have
much more capable civilian agencies.

On 3/3/13 4:33 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
it would make little sense for the military to be involved. We have
much more capable civilian agencies.

Identify one, please.

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
On 3/3/13 4:33 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
it would make little sense for the military to be involved. We have
much more capable civilian agencies.

Identify one, please.

Oprah Winfrey.
The Boy Scouts.
Kim Kardashian.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:03:15 -0800, lal_truckee
wrote:

On 3/3/13 4:33 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
it would make little sense for the military to be involved. We have
much more capable civilian agencies.

Identify one, please.

NASA. JPL. ESA. NSF. And dozens of universities.

On Mar 3, 9:07*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:03:15 -0800, lal_truckee

wrote:
On 3/3/13 4:33 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
it would make little sense for the military to be involved. We have
much more capable civilian agencies.

Identify one, please.

NASA. JPL. ESA. NSF. And dozens of universities.

All of those combined don't have 1% the resources nor cutting edge
technology to work with.

Chris L Peterson:
it would make little sense for the military to be involved. We have
much more capable civilian agencies.

lal_truckee:
Identify one, please.

Chris L Peterson:
NASA. JPL. ESA. NSF. And dozens of universities.

These groups have the ability to more quickly respond to a threat from
space than the military? In particular, which university is ready for
this? What department in the NSF? I posit that these groups are all
ready to form committees to /discuss/ an incoming city buster. I don't
know that the military is ready now, either, but we know that they can
track and destroy satellites and I think that they could more quickly
develop an anti-meteorite capability than any of the groups you named.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm