Asteroid Flyby clip

The passage of asteroid 2005 YU55 was recorded by John Briggs and is now
available as a clip (only a small part of the total data taken) on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2a43...ature=youtu.be

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Nov 13, 1:55*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
The passage of asteroid 2005 YU55 was recorded by John Briggs and is now
available as a clip (only a small part of the total data taken) on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2a43...ature=youtu.be

--
Mike Dworetsky

YU55 is such a substantial solid that no apparent trail of its ions or
any particle trail was detected. The 3.6 LD image of YU55 is
suggesting how round and very solid looking it is. So, why not a
whole lot better 0.85 LD radar image, or was that asking for too much?

For all we know, the density of YU55 could have been a whopping 19 g/
cm3, but then no gamma spectrometry or orbital physics of this
asteroid been established for whatever it’s made of. Since uranium
and even gold, platinum, tungsten and iridium (high metallicity
asteroids usually have some amount of iridium) are common elements
along with any number of transmutation elements, as even spent-uranium
shouldn’t be all that unlikely. Seems rather odd that such a near
Earth and even nearer moon impact from such a spherical asteroid
capable of doing lethal collateral damage, still isn’t on record as to
its density.

65 million years ago is when Earth got nailed by either another
asteroid packing iridium or by an unusually high metallicity molecular/
nebula cloud containing iridium. The helium flashover demise of
Sirius(B) was a likely contributor to that same era.

The most recent imaging opportunity of YU55 was certainly a big
disappointment, even though passing 16% closer than our moon it was
only a dim and fuzzy little dot to the full optical capability of KECK
that has such limited magnification and apparently not even enough
light gathering capability for a visual spectrum.

Good thing asteroids are often much like our physically dark moon,
whereas each of these items giving off a great deal of secondary/
recoil IR is what made the fuzzy little dot via KECK materialize.
They must have been utilizing one of their very least possible
magnifications, as almost a wide-angle FOV compared to what KECK has
previously demonstrated. However, it does a very good job of
demonstrating just how physically dark items like YU55 and our moon
really are.

Perhaps those JPL radar images of 2 meter resolution will eventually
surface, as getting sufficiently stacked and resampled for their best
interpretation of YU55. Instead they give us crappy movies that cuts
their resolution potential down by a good 10:1 instead of proper frame
stacking and PhotoShop resampling, and there's still nothing of its
gamma spectrometry to speak of, as well as no better determination of
its mass, so it must be a fairly heavy sucker that we outsiders are
not supposed to know anything about.

Astronomers using Hubble optimized their spatial resolution to about
18 km per pixel of a physically dark Ceres at 2.44e8 km or 635 LD,
showing us some of its surface colors/hues, not that NIR wasn’t an
option. That would have only been at best worth 40 m/pixel of YU55,
but at least it would have given us some indications as to its surface
metallicity (especially from those UV secondary/recoil colors).

Of course this means that those Muslim ETs could just as easily hit us
with a full blown WMD of a km sized black rock of 8+ g/cm3 density,
and at best our crack JPL team and KECK plus others would only manage
to detect a little fuzzy IR imaged dot, as of 24 hours prior to its
impact. A retrograde encounter of 70+ km/sec would make is even more
interesting, and 20+ retrogrades do exist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...backwards.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rthy_asteroids

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”