An Asteroid will destroy us all

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
An Asteroid will destroy us all

2007-06-19 21:38:12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6810|132 and Bush

Commie Killer wrote:
This is not one of the subjects Im well informed in at all, but seriously, if you could manage to blow a asteroid into small pieces of say 10m around then wouldnt the piece burn up in the atmosphere? Now I'm not ever sure we have the capability to do that. Actually, I think a nuclear weapon going off on the surface of a asteroid would have no effect at all. I mean whats the nuke gonna push against? On one side you have the asteroid, the other you have.....nothing. Wouldn't that just direct all of the energy towards the area with "nothing" negating the purpose of nuking the asteroid at all?

Short answer no. If that were the case thrusters would not work in space.

"Equal an opposite reaction" inertia...blah blah momentum blah blah . If need be I'll elaborate.

I am actually a long time advocate of Nuking the Moon..
http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-06-19 21:49:11

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6596

Kmarion wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
This is not one of the subjects Im well informed in at all, but seriously, if you could manage to blow a asteroid into small pieces of say 10m around then wouldnt the piece burn up in the atmosphere? Now I'm not ever sure we have the capability to do that. Actually, I think a nuclear weapon going off on the surface of a asteroid would have no effect at all. I mean whats the nuke gonna push against? On one side you have the asteroid, the other you have.....nothing. Wouldn't that just direct all of the energy towards the area with "nothing" negating the purpose of nuking the asteroid at all?
Short answer no. If that were the case thrusters would not work in space.

"Equal an opposite reaction"

Alright alright, let me try to explain what Im thinking here. Imagine a fire cracker, put it on top of a solid cement block, light it, it explodes, block is still ok, now instead drill a hole in the block, put the fire cracker in, light it, the block gets blown to hell. Now imagine a baseball and a bat, the base ball is a asteroid and the bat is a big ass hunk of something we launch at the asteroid to try to knock it off course, it doesn't explode. Now what Im saying is a nuclear explosion, or 1,000 nuclear explosions, on the front of a asteroid are not gonna slow it down. We just dont have anything that can litterally stop the asteroid in its tracks. Going along with the 1,000 nukes going off on the front of the asteroid you wouldnt see any/much of a difference if you set them off on the side. When something of a higher pressure finds something of a lower pressure it generally tries to spread out and even. So when you have a asteroid on one side, and nothing, just empty space on the other, isn't the majority of the energy from the asteroid going to go into the open area of space? What would be holding it back.

2007-06-19 21:51:28

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6853

Commie Killer wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
This is not one of the subjects Im well informed in at all, but seriously, if you could manage to blow a asteroid into small pieces of say 10m around then wouldnt the piece burn up in the atmosphere? Now I'm not ever sure we have the capability to do that. Actually, I think a nuclear weapon going off on the surface of a asteroid would have no effect at all. I mean whats the nuke gonna push against? On one side you have the asteroid, the other you have.....nothing. Wouldn't that just direct all of the energy towards the area with "nothing" negating the purpose of nuking the asteroid at all?
Short answer no. If that were the case thrusters would not work in space.

"Equal an opposite reaction"
Alright alright, let me try to explain what Im thinking here. Imagine a fire cracker, put it on top of a solid cement block, light it, it explodes, block is still ok, now instead drill a hole in the block, put the fire cracker in, light it, the block gets blown to hell. Now imagine a baseball and a bat, the base ball is a asteroid and the bat is a big ass hunk of something we launch at the asteroid to try to knock it off course, it doesn't explode. Now what Im saying is a nuclear explosion, or 1,000 nuclear explosions, on the front of a asteroid are not gonna slow it down. We just dont have anything that can litterally stop the asteroid in its tracks. Going along with the 1,000 nukes going off on the front of the asteroid you wouldnt see any/much of a difference if you set them off on the side. When something of a higher pressure finds something of a lower pressure it generally tries to spread out and even. So when you have a asteroid on one side, and nothing, just empty space on the other, isn't the majority of the energy from the asteroid going to go into the open area of space? What would be holding it back.

using good logic but, like the man said, if that were true we wouldnt be able to control movement for shit in space. shuttles and what not would be impossible

2007-06-19 21:54:43

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6810|132 and Bush

Mass/matter is still displaced in the vacuum of space.

I understand your confusion. It's natural to think that way .

They key would be trying to deflect it very far away. The slightest change in course from a far distance can make a big difference as it gets closer.

Side note: Nukes are detonated above ground. They require little force "behind them" so to speak.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-06-19 22:08:14

irishtop: Hopscotch Champion; +11|6372|Houston, Texas

xtrem3_4c3_4 wrote:
i think it would be good for an asteroid to threaten earth because it would Unite all the major countries and they would have to help eachother to prevent it from hitting us thus bringing world peace...

i like what you think but would you risk everything that is just for world peace?

Last edited by irishtop (2007-06-19 22:10:58)

2007-06-20 00:08:50

superfly_cox: soup fly mod; +717|6991

There are strategies to protecting the earth but they require early detection.

2007-06-20 00:14:15

Deadmonkiefart: Floccinaucinihilipilificator; +177|6915

stryyker wrote:
Truth of the matter is Physics.

Its impossible to stop a 1,000,000,000 ton rock from smashing into the earth at 181,000 Miles an hour.

--All that "landing on the asteroid" Armageddon bullshit will never work

There are over 10 legitimate theories on how to stop, destroy, and move a comet or meteor so that it would not come in contact with earth. At least 3 of them involve landing on the asteroid in some way.

2007-06-20 00:25:40

mcgid1: Meh...; +129|6926|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

I'm not to worried about the asteroids, at least they have relativly predictable orbits. It's the comets that come in from beyond the edges of our solar system that scare the shit out of me, mainly because the warning time for those range from two years, to when we get hit.

As for what to do about an incoming asteroid/comet, just nudging it in a new direction would be far more simple than destroying it out right. Early warning and a nuke actualy could do the job, and there are some other fairly interesting ideas which aren't currently feasible now, but could be in the near future, such as a space or moon based monitoring and laser array. The plans involving landing on the asteroids/comets are also feasible (yes, we have done such things before), but the main problem I see with plans like that is the fact that most asteroids and comets are spinning, and any force you use would have to be applied at roughly the same point in an asteroid's rotation every time.

2007-06-20 00:33:42

twiistaaa: Member; +87|6878|mexico

Sgt_Sieg wrote:
Blow the fucker up with a couple nukes. I think the US can spare a few.

one big rock or hundreds of smaller ones. same difference.

2007-06-20 00:51:17

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6884|Canberra, AUS

Deadmonkiefart wrote:
stryyker wrote:
Truth of the matter is Physics.

Its impossible to stop a 1,000,000,000 ton rock from smashing into the earth at 181,000 Miles an hour.

--All that "landing on the asteroid" Armageddon bullshit will never work
There are over 10 legitimate theories on how to stop, destroy, and move a comet or meteor so that it would not come in contact with earth. At least 3 of them involve landing on the asteroid in some way.

Landing on an asteroid is impossible. We currently don't possess a rocket powerful enough to get humans beyond earth's orbit.

Probably the best way is to use a nuclear bomb to deflect the asteroid. Blowing it up is silly and impossible - deflecting it is a smarter option. That still leaves the problem of getting hte nuke up there safely, though.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-06-20 00:52:18

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6884|Canberra, AUS

twiistaaa wrote:
Sgt_Sieg wrote:
Blow the fucker up with a couple nukes. I think the US can spare a few.
one big rock or hundreds of smaller ones. same difference.

One big rock or hundreds of smaller, RADIOACTIVE cluster bombs.

Not the same.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-06-20 00:56:59

BVC: Member; +325|6905

Clearly, we need bigger nukes.

2007-06-20 01:00:08

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6810|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
stryyker wrote:
Truth of the matter is Physics.

Its impossible to stop a 1,000,000,000 ton rock from smashing into the earth at 181,000 Miles an hour.

--All that "landing on the asteroid" Armageddon bullshit will never work
There are over 10 legitimate theories on how to stop, destroy, and move a comet or meteor so that it would not come in contact with earth. At least 3 of them involve landing on the asteroid in some way.
Landing on an asteroid is impossible. We currently don't possess a rocket powerful enough to get humans beyond earth's orbit.

Probably the best way is to use a nuclear bomb to deflect the asteroid. Blowing it up is silly and impossible - deflecting it is a smarter option. That still leaves the problem of getting hte nuke up there safely, though.

Of course we do. Sustaining life is a different matter. But we certainly have the power to send rockets out of earths orbit. Once it escapes it would not lose speed. How do you think we got this cool picture of Jupiter?

Voyager(1) launched in 1977 and is still traveling at 38,400 miles per hour.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-06-20 01:22:10

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6884|Canberra, AUS

Kmarion wrote:
Spark wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:

There are over 10 legitimate theories on how to stop, destroy, and move a comet or meteor so that it would not come in contact with earth. At least 3 of them involve landing on the asteroid in some way.
Landing on an asteroid is impossible. We currently don't possess a rocket powerful enough to get humans beyond earth's orbit.

Probably the best way is to use a nuclear bomb to deflect the asteroid. Blowing it up is silly and impossible - deflecting it is a smarter option. That still leaves the problem of getting hte nuke up there safely, though.
Of course we do. Sustaining life is a different matter. But we certainly have the power to send rockets out of earths orbit. Once it escapes it would not lose speed. How do you think we got this cool picture of Jupiter?

Voyager(1) launched in 1977 and is still traveling at 38,400 miles per hour.

Well, yes, but a nuclear bomb is inherently dangerous and requires a helluva lot of weight. Plus, if it blows on the launchpad...

Then there's the problem of certain types of asteroids not being deflected at all by a nuclear explosion nearby...

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-06-20 07:14:59

phil-12-12: Banned; +21|6392|c-c-c-Canada

phil-12-12 wrote:
when is all this going to happen?

i repeat

when is this all going to happen?

Last edited by phil-12-12 (2007-06-20 07:15:22)

2007-06-20 09:30:48

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6810|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Spark wrote:
Landing on an asteroid is impossible. We currently don't possess a rocket powerful enough to get humans beyond earth's orbit.

Probably the best way is to use a nuclear bomb to deflect the asteroid. Blowing it up is silly and impossible - deflecting it is a smarter option. That still leaves the problem of getting hte nuke up there safely, though.
Of course we do. Sustaining life is a different matter. But we certainly have the power to send rockets out of earths orbit. Once it escapes it would not lose speed. How do you think we got this cool picture of Jupiter?

Voyager(1) launched in 1977 and is still traveling at 38,400 miles per hour.
Well, yes, but a nuclear bomb is inherently dangerous and requires a helluva lot of weight. Plus, if it blows on the launchpad...

Then there's the problem of certain types of asteroids not being deflected at all by a nuclear explosion nearby...

That would be our luck.. exploding on the launchpad. I know the Space Shuttle can take over 30 tons out at 3 million pounds of thrust. I don't think getting it off would be the problem. Intercepting and detonating at the proper time would be the challenge.

The Nuclear scenario most likely won't stop an asteroid like the dinosaur ending one. Although if exploded far enough out it may change the degree shift slightly enough. A slight change over a far enough distance would be ideal. However a smaller object might have a more likely chance of being diverted. If the Tunguska object had came in a couple hours later London could have been wiped out completely.

Phil this is hypothetical.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-06-20 09:40:52

suomalainen_äijä: Member; +64|6375

sorry did I interrupt something?

What is the year when the asteroid comes and destroys us all?

name the year, that's all I want to know

seriously tell the truth, no joking

2007-06-20 09:45:51

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6656|Chicago, IL

suomalainen_äijä wrote:
sorry did I interrupt something?

What is the year when the asteroid comes and destroys us all?

name the year, that's all I want to know

seriously tell the truth, no joking

2009, or 4356, who knows, this is a "what if?" thread. Earth has been repeatedly impacted by massive objects, and it will likely happen again.

Oh, Spark, it is possible to land on an asteroid

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/near.html

2007-06-20 09:51:42

suomalainen_äijä: Member; +64|6375

S.Lythberg wrote:
suomalainen_äijä wrote:
sorry did I interrupt something?

What is the year when the asteroid comes and destroys us all?

name the year, that's all I want to know

seriously tell the truth, no joking
2009, or 4356, who knows, this is a "what if?" thread. Earth has been repeatedly impacted by massive objects, and it will likely happen again.

Oh, Spark, it is possible to land on an asteroid

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/near.html

yeah but NASA can see those with the giant telescope, so when?

Sparky do you know?

2007-06-20 09:53:10

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6656|Chicago, IL

suomalainen_äijä wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
suomalainen_äijä wrote:
sorry did I interrupt something?

What is the year when the asteroid comes and destroys us all?

name the year, that's all I want to know

seriously tell the truth, no joking
2009, or 4356, who knows, this is a "what if?" thread. Earth has been repeatedly impacted by massive objects, and it will likely happen again.

Oh, Spark, it is possible to land on an asteroid

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/near.html
yeah but NASA can see those with the giant telescope, so when?

Sparky do you know?

Not necessarially, some comets have periods of hundreds of years, and are still undiscovered.

2007-06-20 09:58:02

Noobeater: Northern numpty; +194|6656|Boulder, CO

well i know that one of the plans for diverting an asteroid is to use large solar collectors in space that capture the suns rays and focus them into a powerfull beam, would probably just divert an asteroid or just slow it down though.

just like that solar powered weapon in the bond movie (old one with scaramanger not the newer film with koreans)

it would really just depend on the range at whhich it became certain it would hit the earth, if its far enough away they could launch alot of nukes one after the other to alter its course, whereas if it was only discovered relatively close to earth then you may not be able to do that.

2007-06-20 10:04:58

JahManRed: wank; +646|6837|IRELAND

"An Asteroid will destroy us all"
I hope so, we are a bunch of parasites eating the planet anyway.

2007-06-20 10:11:06

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6760|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

stryyker wrote:
Truth of the matter is Physics.

Its impossible to stop a 1,000,000,000 ton rock from smashing into the earth at 181,000 Miles an hour.

--All that "landing on the asteroid" Armageddon bullshit will never work

Physics tells us that sending up an object that weighed 1,000,000,001 or more that the same speed to hit it would do the job so that's not true.

2007-06-20 10:11:27

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6810|132 and Bush

JahManRed wrote:
"An Asteroid will destroy us all"
I hope so, we are a bunch of parasites eating the planet anyway.

Speak for yourself .

I used an attention giving title "An Asteroid will destroy us all". Now everybody wants the exact date..lol

http://www.space.com/adastra/070527_isdc_asteroids.html

Schweickart reported that by 2019 asteroid watchers will have on the books upwards of 10,000 objects with a non-zero probability of impacting Earth. "The bottom line," he said, "is that in the next 10 to 12 years, we are going to, in all likelihood, have to make decisions...not because one of these things is going to hit us...but because several of them look as though they might hit us."

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-06-20 10:21:32

#100

JahManRed: wank; +646|6837|IRELAND

Kmarion wrote:
JahManRed wrote:
"An Asteroid will destroy us all"
I hope so, we are a bunch of parasites eating the planet anyway.
Speak for yourself .

Make way for the primordial slime!!!!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
An Asteroid will destroy us all

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums An Asteroid will destroy us all

Commie Killer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

xtrem3_4c3_4 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Sgt_Sieg wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

stryyker wrote:

twiistaaa wrote:

Sgt_Sieg wrote:

Spark wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

phil-12-12 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

suomalainen_äijä wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

suomalainen_äijä wrote:

suomalainen_äijä wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

suomalainen_äijä wrote:

stryyker wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Board footer