I guess it will not be visible with the naked eye but I'll ask anyway, will it be visible with the naked eye?

Manolo I wanted to ask the same question! They didn't mention it!

Google is your friend. Less whining, please.

I was not whining but they usually mention in their stories things like that. I love this newsletter and was not whining in the least!

No, it was not visible to the naked eye, so you didn't miss anything. It was barely visible in a half meter telescope, there was no chance of you seeing it with binoculars or anything you'd have been likely to have on hand. A half meter telescope is a really big scope, not as big as some universities but we're still talking well north of a $30,000.00 instrument. Here's a used one for sale, just to give you some idea of the size scope Slooh was using to see this-

http://www.cosmotography.co...

I don't think I could have found it in my 10 inch telescope either so I didn't try. If I had been able to find it all it would have appeared as is a tiny dot of fuzzy faint light.

To get some scale for this, imagine trying to see your house from 160,000 miles away with your bare eyeballs. If you could spot a pinhead from a mile away that would still appear larger than this space rock from where you're standing on Earth.

thank you Cloak N. Dagr!! :)

3,720 to 1. (let's see who gets that)

Lol, NEVER tell me the odds!

And never listen to a cowardly protocol droid spewing astrogation data either.

Win!
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

only "between 13-46 feet across" makes this a "dwarf" asteroid ...
doesn't count then!
won't be taking photos of it!
will stay back in the kitchen washing dishes, as usual ...
;-)

Did a little research and what I found says that an asteroid that size would be a nice fireball and would burnout before it could hit the earth.

If the illustration was to scale you would'nt be able to see the asteroid, even if it was ten times the size of a house...

These things are too close for comfort.

Boy, that illustration doesn't help at all. While it is correctly marked "not to scale" (Yeah!) it is so far from scale that the majority of people who do not know the real scale will be mis-lead. Was that really necessary? And, since you did not create it, what about the editorial judgment to run with it?

There is an admission price to science. Applicants for knowledge must be willing to do some homework. If someone infers from this article that Earth might be struck by this asteroid, or is otherwise alarmed by the graphic you reference, then I'd hope that person would search for other sources of information. These short articles, written for a general audience, should be viewed as entry points into a topic. On probably any topic, one can ind online discussions or articles on forums for specialized scientists, at the most technical end of the spectrum. And, you can Google any number of credible sources at a more generalized level. That said, I'd like to thank Deborah Byrd and her colleagues who write these articles for their service.

Actually I thought the illustration did a good job representing the position relative to the earth and moon. The size is given as about the size of a house. Check google maps for your city and you should have a pretty good idea how big this thing is relative to earth. Oorrrr, just appreciate the article for the information it provides. This is the second know astroid to pass between the earth and the moon in a three week period. How many haven't been detected?

The illustration portrays the asteroid as being of continental size. Even though people read the "not to scale" warning, the pictures are worth a thousand words and drown that caveat out.
I spent 40 years teaching college chemistry and most students (close to all) had very distorted ideas regarding the scale of the parts of atoms (electrons and nuclei). I even went so far as to test students who were taking a sequence course after having taken the one just prior, from me, including my diatribe and testing on the topic by asking them to draw a scale model of an atom. Most still failed at this task because they had seen so many "illustrations" showing things ridiculously out of scale.
Showing something closer to actual scale would support words indicating that the likelihood of a collision with either the Earth or the Moon would be very small. As the illustration is, it is terrifying.

I agree with fteichert. The illustration shows the approximate location relative to earth and moon. The text gives the approximate dimensions of the object in question.

The limits of graphic design would suggest to me that if this image were to scale, the asteroid would not be visible at all. The fact that it was discovered so late suggests that it was even hard for astronomers to see. The velocity and approximate dimensions were clearly stated in the article, so the reader has the information needed to conceive if not imagine this situation accurately.

That is why you make them as small as can be rendered and then, indicate that things are shown larger than to scale. Or you use "pullouts" usually in the form of a magnifying glass to amplify the smaller dots in the illustration major. The techniques are all available, all taught in illustration classes, just not thought of when a more whiz-bang, more colorful illustration beckons.

I realize I'm way above my pay grade here, but I don't see that an illustration requiring a pullout or magnifying glass would be feasible for a brief online article. Within the constraints of this format, can the professional ideas you are describing be implemented?
.

The objective is to not try to draw to scale but to imbue a sense of scale. The atom models mentioned before: if any atom as a whole can be "seen" then its nucleus is too small to see. we just don't have the visual acuity. So the Idea is to make the Earth and Moon smaller and the asteroid much smaller. Really, look at the size of the Earth. does it need to be that big to allow one to recognize it as the Earth? Same with the moon.

OMG did you see the date at the bottom of the illustration? It's already August of 2017! How can that be Mr. Professor?

I was just talking with my wife about that same issue. We are in a time of misinformation, and an image like this one above is so far off that general public "Joe Schmo" will take the image to heart. Bummer.

What's even more appalling is that people worry about stupid people getting the wrong idea. If stupid people get the wrong idea that's too bad for them. The rest of the world doesn't need to be dumbed-down to their level just so they don't get frightened by a graphic representation that says "NOT TO SCALE".

I'd be willing to wager that 100% of the folks who have more than two brain cells to rub together understood that graphic just fine.

We interrupted natural selection for increasing intelligence when we started putting "Do Not Use This Blow Dryer In The Bath Tub" type labels on everything.

Now let's get President Trump to disclose the location and arrival date (09-23-17) of the "newly" discovered Planet 9 - Nikê https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

oh come on, some people have nothing better to do than complain about a great information service??? Get a life!!!

Well we can now breath again, it missed as forecast. In fact I remember reading LAST YEAR that this was coming. A man had seen it on the NASA website, so why is it a surprise?

Good article and illustration. So what is up with this Planet X we keep hearing about? Is there anything to this actual Planet X?

These things seem to becoming closer, only discovered days ago,when will our luck run out?

It would be helpful to know the magnitude.