Asteroid near miss on June 17th ,2002

[Burning Phoenix]

I'm not sure anyone else has heard about this but here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/06/20/asteroid.miss/index.html

 

[Yodums]

Holy..

 

[Greg M]

Boy, that's what parted my hair!!!

I'm not impressed. It missed by 75,000 miles.

...and by the way (to paraphrase George Carlin)
It was a near hit. A hit is a near miss. "Oh, look. They nearly missed."

 

[jstutman]

what a gay way to name our beutiful asteroid's


2002 MN <-- a 2002 asteroid

1994 HV <-- 1994 asteroid

1975 GT <-- 1975 asteroid

boy and these are scientists ?


LOL

 

[nihili]

Boy, that's what parted my hair!!!

I'm not impressed. It missed by 75,000 miles.

...and by the way (to paraphrase George Carlin)
It was a near hit. A hit is a near miss. "Oh, look. They nearly missed."

Actually in this case "near miss" is correct. "Near" is an adjective which modifies "miss" - it says what kind of miss it was. A miss can be near or far. Near misses are nearly hits. Far misses aren't anywhere close to being a hit. "Near hit" makes no sense as the fact that something hits already entails that it is near. Because "near" functions as an adjective, any near miss is a miss. What Carlin did was to trade on the fact that "miss" and "hit" can be both nouns and verbs, and "near" can function as an adverb in certain loose or vernacular formulations. Furthermore, when "nearly" precedes it verb, it implies that the verb does not actually apply to the event. COmpare for example, "nearly missed" with "missed nearly". In the first case you did not miss, but in the second you did (although only by a little, so it was a near miss.)

Near misses miss nearly and nearly hit.

cheers,

nihili

 

[KenCo]

Actually in this case "near miss" is correct. "Near" is an adjective which modifies "miss" - it says what kind of miss it was. A miss can be near or far. Near misses are nearly hits. Far misses aren't anywhere close to being a hit. "Near hit" makes no sense as the fact that something hits already entails that it is near. Because "near" functions as an adjective, any near miss is a miss. What Carlin did was to trade on the fact that "miss" and "hit" can be both nouns and verbs, and "near" can function as an adverb in certain loose or vernacular formulations. Furthermore, when "nearly" precedes it verb, it implies that the verb does not actually apply to the event. COmpare for example, "nearly missed" with "missed nearly". In the first case you did not miss, but in the second you did (although only by a little, so it was a near miss.)

Near misses miss nearly and nearly hit.

cheers,

nihili

LMAO!!!

 

[jstutman]

umm teach. you lost me at good morning class. wow thats alot of info squeezed into one paragraph.

 

[jdmcnudgent]

wow, thank god it didnt hit.

 

[Greg M]

what a gay way to name our beutiful asteroid's

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Just shoot]

Actually in this case "near miss" is correct. "Near" is an adjective which modifies "miss" - it says what kind of miss it was. A miss can be near or far. Near misses are nearly hits. Far misses aren't anywhere close to being a hit. "Near hit" makes no sense as the fact that something hits already entails that it is near. Because "near" functions as an adjective, any near miss is a miss. What Carlin did was to trade on the fact that "miss" and "hit" can be both nouns and verbs, and "near" can function as an adverb in certain loose or vernacular formulations. Furthermore, when "nearly" precedes it verb, it implies that the verb does not actually apply to the event. COmpare for example, "nearly missed" with "missed nearly". In the first case you did not miss, but in the second you did (although only by a little, so it was a near miss.)

Near misses miss nearly and nearly hit.

cheers,

nihili

LOL, talk about a play on words.

 

[Cy]

And to think...we are "wasting" over $1million dollars a year searching for these things. Shoot, almost none of them hit us anyway.

In all seriousness, it really makes you wonder why governments refuse to fund this type of research. We've had several great examples of what will happen and they still bury their heads in the sand.

What do you call a thousand polititions in at the bottom of the sea?

A good start!

Cy

 

[Mpegger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that we had a near miss just a couple of months ago. A very large asteriod passed very close to earth and was detected only a couple of days before it passed our orbit. Yet CNN is reporting that the last near miss took place in 1994?

 

[parkan]

Hmm. In about 20 years we won't have to be botherd by such thngs at all as the amount of debri floating in orbit will make for a very good defence systsem! The Soviet's idea to destrouy satellites by launching ball baerings ionto space (I am not kidding) is fairly close to reality now, and it will only be a few years before the debri reaches "lethal velocity" and starts destroying objects in orbit.