An asteroid animation can show a dramatic flyby without showing a collision prediction. Before sharing a warning, separate three questions: which object is being shown, how close its predicted encounter is, and whether an official impact-monitoring system identifies a possible collision.
NASA’s Eyes on Asteroids is useful for exploring encounters. CNEOS close-approach tables and Sentry answer different, more specific questions. This guide explains how to move between those tools and avoid turning a visualization into a claim its data does not support.
Evidence basis: CoreSecTech checked NASA/JPL documentation on October 7, 2026. This is a documentation-based interpretation guide, not an independent orbit calculation, telescope observation or validation of NASA’s prediction software. It does not assess a particular asteroid’s current threat level.
What changed in NASA Eyes on Asteroids
NASA’s October 5 release notes describe a September 30, 2026 update. A new Impact tab and Watch control replay past impacts. A separate Watch control shows close approaches within 0.05 au, approximately 7.48 million kilometers. NASA says the 3D view extends only ten years into the future; later encounters are not shown in that view.
These are visualization features, not a new warning that every displayed object will hit Earth. JPL explains that Eyes uses CNEOS orbital data. A rendered path is a way to inspect that information, not a substitute for reading the relevant encounter or risk record.
Choose the tool that matches your question
| Question | Official tool | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|
| What does the encounter look like? | Eyes on Asteroids | Impact probability from the camera view. |
| When and how close is the predicted pass? | CNEOS Earth close-approach table | A collision warning from a distance alone. |
| Are possible future impacts being monitored? | Sentry impact-risk records | A confirmed impact from an object’s presence in the table. |
Keep these tools separate in your notes. “Listed in Eyes,” “listed in a close-approach table” and “listed in Sentry” are not interchangeable descriptions. If a report links only to an animation, the impact-risk claim still needs its own evidence.
Step 1: Identify the object and the event date
Start from the official JPL Eyes page, which links to the application. Copy the complete object designation from the record you are examining. Do not rely on a cropped label, a nickname or the date a social post appeared.
- Record the object’s full designation and the official page URL.
- Record the encounter or impact date separately from the page’s publication date.
- Check whether the event is past or future before describing it.
- Save the time you checked the record, because predictions and listings can change.
If you use Watch, inspect the displayed event time rather than assuming the animation is showing today. A clip replaying a past event can circulate as if it were a new discovery. The date in the underlying record is the useful evidence.
Step 2: Read the distance, units and uncertainty
Open the CNEOS Earth close-approach table and check its filters before looking for the object. Its column descriptions identify the nominal distance as the most likely center-to-center distance. The minimum-distance field is a separate uncertainty-related estimate, not an impact probability. The close-approach date is labeled TDB, an astronomical time scale; do not label the raw value as UTC or IST.
The table also explains that diameter may be a known value or an estimated range. Do not turn the largest end of a range into a precisely measured size. A headline can be technically misleading even when it copies a real number but drops its units, range or definition.
A distance threshold is not a risk threshold
The astronomical unit is exactly 149,597,870.7 kilometers. For scale, 0.05 au is about 7.48 million kilometers—not 0.05 kilometers. NASA’s Watch eligibility limit is an interface rule. It does not convert a flyby into a collision forecast.
CoreSecTech’s recommendation: record the field name with the number. “Nominal close-approach distance in au” is more informative than “asteroid extremely close.” Do not calculate a collision probability by dividing a distance by Earth’s radius or by comparing the drawing’s apparent sizes.
Step 3: Use Sentry for impact-risk claims
Read the Sentry introduction before interpreting a risk record. It explains that limited observations can permit multiple future trajectories, including some that intersect Earth. New observations often constrain the orbit enough for an object to be removed from the risk page. An initial listing is not a confirmed collision.
For a specific claim, follow the object’s current Sentry record and distinguish the potential impact date from the close-approach date you saw elsewhere. Quote a probability only with its event, source and checking date. If you cannot locate the supporting risk record, do not fill the gap with a screenshot of Eyes.
Sentry’s FAQ describes a 100-year impact search. That is different from the ten-year future limit of the Eyes visualization. A missing future animation therefore does not establish that NASA stopped monitoring the object.
Read hazard scales as scales, not percentages
The Torino Scale is a 0–10 public-communication scale combining impact likelihood and consequences. A value of 0 means no hazard under its definition: collision probability is zero or effectively zero, or the object falls into specified small-object cases. The number is not a percentage, and the scale does not include how much time remains before the event.
Step 4: Do not confuse “potentially hazardous” with “will impact”
CNEOS defines a potentially hazardous asteroid using a minimum orbit intersection distance of 0.05 au or less and an absolute magnitude of 22.0 or less. That classification is not the same as an impact prediction for a particular date.
The similar 0.05 au numbers can cause confusion. A minimum orbit intersection distance describes orbital geometry; a close-approach distance describes an encounter. Do not replace one with the other or use the classification alone to claim an imminent threat.
When the tools appear to disagree
| Observation | Possible explanation | Check next |
|---|---|---|
| An Impact replay is available. | The panel is describing a past impact. | Read the event date before calling it a future warning. |
| A Watch button is missing. | The encounter may be outside the documented display limits. | Check the numerical record; do not infer safety or danger from the button. |
| A close-approach number changed. | New observations may have changed the orbit solution. | Compare the same object, event and field at a new checking time. |
| An object is absent from a filtered table. | Filters or uncertainty limits may exclude the record. | Review table settings and the relevant risk source. |
| A Sentry object was removed. | Later observations may have ruled out the potential impacts. | Read the current record and any official explanation. |
CNEOS documents uncertainty limits in its close-approach tables and notes that encounter statistics can change as an orbit is updated. Absence from one display is not a universal statement about every possible future trajectory.
Before calling two sources contradictory, compare like with like: the same designation, event date, units, nominal versus uncertainty-related fields, and retrieval time. If an important discrepancy remains, leave it unresolved rather than inventing an explanation.
A practical checklist before sharing an asteroid claim
- I have the complete object designation and an official source link.
- I know whether the record describes a past event or a future encounter.
- I copied the units, field label and any size range correctly.
- I have not treated a time-scale label as a local clock time.
- I checked Sentry separately if I am discussing impact probability.
- I recorded when I checked the data and did not rely on an old screenshot.
- My wording does not convert “close approach” or “potentially hazardous” into “will hit Earth.”
For an educational post, a useful screenshot pairs the object designation with the relevant date and distance. Preserve the labels and uncertainty context. A dramatic crop of the 3D view may attract attention, but it removes the information needed to evaluate the claim.
Frequently asked questions
Does the new Impact tab mean NASA found an incoming impactor?
Not by itself. NASA documents it as a replay feature for past impacts. Check the object and event date; use the current official risk record for a future-impact claim.
Why can I see a close approach but no impact probability?
Those are different kinds of information. A distance describes an encounter. Impact-risk analysis considers orbital uncertainty and possible collision trajectories; consult Sentry rather than deriving a probability from the animation.
Does removal from Sentry mean the original calculation was fake?
No. The Sentry introduction explains that additional observations can rule out previously possible impact trajectories. A revised assessment is not evidence that the earlier uncertainty was invented.
Can I use this guide to issue an emergency warning?
No. This is a reading and verification workflow, not an alerting service or an independent scientific risk assessment. For a specific threat claim, use current official assessments and relevant public-authority guidance.
Bottom line
Use Eyes to understand the encounter, the CNEOS table to inspect its numerical description, and Sentry to investigate impact-risk claims. Keep the object, event date, units and checking time together. The most useful result is not a more dramatic warning—it is a statement whose evidence supports exactly what it says.