Nico Marquardt, "Apophis -- The Killer Asteroid" and NASA

by korzac | April 17, 2008 at 04:03 am

1652 views | 10 Recommendations | 4 comments

And what if NASA is wrong...and the asteroid Apophis, named after the ancient Egyptian god of darkness and destruction, will not "agree" with the NASA calculations and collide with Earth? Look at the new calculations of Niko Marquardt:

A 13-year-old German schoolboy corrected NASA's estimates on the chances of an asteroid colliding with Earth

Nico Marquardt used telescopic findings from the Institute of Astrophysics in Potsdam (AIP) to calculate that there was a one in 450 chance that the Apophis asteroid would collide with Earth, the Potsdamer Neuerster Nachrichten reported.

NASA had previously estimated the chances at only one in 45,000 but told its sister organisation, the European Space Agency (ESA), that the young whizz-kid had got it right. see more.

But NASA released a Statement on Student Asteroid Calculations

WASHINGTON -- The Near-Earth Object Program Office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has not changed its current estimates for the very low probability (1 in 45,000) of an Earth impact by the asteroid Apophis in 2036.

Contrary to recent press reports, NASA offices involved in near-Earth object research were not contacted and have had no correspondence with a young German student, who claims the Apophis impact probability is far higher than the current estimate.

This student's conclusion reportedly is based on the possibility of a collision with an artificial satellite during the asteroid's close approach in April 2029. However, the asteroid will not pass near the main belt of geosynchronous satellites in 2029, and the chance of a collision with a satellite is exceedingly remote.

Therefore, consideration of this satellite collision scenario does not affect the current impact probability estimate for Apophis, which remains at 1 in 45,000.

I hope that NASA is right.

We've got, alas, tons of space junk out there, too. NASA has some great websites where everything up there is tracked.

If you look at the NASA release, you'll see that the press reports are just plain fraudulent:

"Contrary to recent press reports, NASA offices involved in near-Earth object research were not contacted and have had no correspondence with a young German student, who claims the Apophis impact probability is far higher than the current estimate." I'm repeating that because it's worth it.

If the student did a good job, more power to him. But to say that he corrected NASA's figures and that NASA agreed is just plain wrong.

NASA gets tons of mail from people who think they know this and that. I've waded through diagrams of improvements for the shuttle that people sent in that mostly, made no sense at all. That wasn't in my job description, but sometimes, things just wound up on our desks.

And what art is chosen to go with an article is the function of the publication; doesn't have anything to do with NASA's calculations.

NASA has great student programs,and is very open to kids and students. I've worked with some who came in for launches, some who got to fly experiments on the shuttle (I hosted one TV program with one of the young scientists-to-be) as well as young developing journalists. Apparently, the media or someone jumped on this bandwagon and failed to note some important components-- the kid didn't contact NASA, NASA didn't chat him or ESA up.

I just tend to have this bias towards accuracy. ;}

As to the striving for accuracy I fully agree with you. But I was accurate on the fact that Nico Marquardt made the calculations, and as news per se, it was before my post, immediately published by the press (see Google with the input Nico Marquardt) and what is news for the press is also news for NowPublic. As to the truth of the news: the calculations, are they correct or not, this is another piece of news, wich indeed was immediately released by NASA's and quoted by me, stating that the student asteroid calculations where not correct.

As to the relation between art and science, this is a slippery issue because many artfully visualisations my illuminate and elaborate on scientific problems from new perspectives. Leonardo Da Vinci is a good example because he made his calculations on the same page with his drawing trying to convey their visual picture. Today his scientific drawings are considered as masterpieces of fine art. I don't know if publication considerations, from his days until our days, did affect their being on the same page.

And finally, I am not a NASA insider and I rely on you about what you tell me when you where working at NASA.

NowPublic

Tech & Biz

Nico Marquardt, "Apophis -- The Killer Asteroid" and NASA

Photos