BF2S Forums An Asteroid will destroy us all

can we round up all the suicide bombers from the middle east, put them on a rocket towards this asteroid and have them blow it up?  this would solve so many problems at one time

</kidding>

The solution in all of our ill fates is get over over death.

Here is my solution.  Rough Draft, but hey -you get the idea. I added a extendable "skewer" to the tip of the deflector cone.  I figure that way the deflector cone could also be uses as an offensive weapon by impaling other weaker planets.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

Yeah, but the force above ground is shown by the air that is being pushed. If the air isnt there to be pushed on, what is there to move or use a debris?

Commie Killer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

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.

Yeah, but the force above ground is shown by the air that is being pushed. If the air isnt there to be pushed on, what is there to move or use a debris?

What do you think the shuttles thrusters push against when it gets into space? Newtons third law (maybe the first law of inertia). It applies in space as well, "air" is not needed. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate. If an explosion were to occur in space side (a) will cause side (b) to exert force also, therefor displacing mass on side (b).

http://www.break.com/index/meteor_hits_earth.html

At work so most sites blocked including youtube so not sure if already posted here but this gives a hint what happens if a huge rock comes knocking on earth and wants in.

edit: unfortunely piss-poor quality.

Last edited by madmurre (2007-06-20 18:59:16)

phil-12-12 wrote:

When Is This Going To Happen!!!!?????

For The Third Freking Time!

Kmarion wrote:

Phil this is hypothetical.

Madmurre: http://www.youtubeunblock.com/

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...

QFT

Spark wrote:

There actually is ONE known asteroid (1950 DA) on a collision course for earth.

On March 16, 2880.

We have a long way to go.

Sky-sweeping surveys

Given sky-sweeping surveys and extrapolating into the future, by 2018 on the order of 10,000 NEOs with some risk of impact over the next 100 years are likely to be cataloged, Schweickart forecast - but there is better than an even chance that none of these 10,000 will actually hit the Earth in those 100 years.

"The important fact however, is that a substantial number of them will appear as though they may be headed for impact," Schweickart advised. Today, of the 104 currently on impact listings, "two have an elevated risk and we are watching them closely," he said.

At present, the two asteroids on that "keep an eye on them roster" are 2004 VD17 and Apophis, formerly listed as 2004 MN4.

"Extrapolating to 2018 we may have as many as 200 in a similarly elevated attention category and of growing concern to the general public," Schweickart reported today. "Therefore, it is certainly possible, if not likely, that in the timeframe of the next 12 years we--the world--may well be in a position where we need to take action to insure that we will be able to carry out a deflection mission if needed," he said.

The U.S. Congress amended the Space Act in 2005 to charge NASA with responsibility to "detect, track, catalogue, and characterize" NEOs greater than some 460 feet (140 meters) in diameter. However, it has, thus far, come up short on actually assigning the responsibility to take action should one of these objects be discovered headed for a collision, Schweickart pointed out.

There is a bit of good news forthcoming, Schweickart explained. The Congress did require NASA to provide by the end of 2006 an analysis of possible alternatives that could be employed to divert an object on a likely collision course with Earth. In response to this Congressional directive, NASA is about to announce a process for carrying out this mandate.

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_is … 60506.html

nope i shouldn't think so, if anything they'd be better as there wouldn't be any friction to slow it down.

Commie Killer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Yeah, but the force above ground is shown by the air that is being pushed. If the air isnt there to be pushed on, what is there to move or use a debris?

What do you think the shuttles thrusters push against when it gets into space? Newtons third law (maybe the first law of inertia). It applies in space as well, "air" is not needed. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate. If an explosion were to occur in space side (a) will cause side (b) to exert force also, therefor displacing mass on side (b).

Meh sorry, I've been trying to understand that, but, I just dont really understand it....but isn't it true that rockets lose a large majority of their effectiveness once they leave the atmosphere?

Nah, I just suck at explaining things..
Imagine the following situation: You are wearing a spacesuit and you are floating in space beside the space shuttle; you happen to have a baseball in your hand. If you throw the baseball, your body will react by moving in the opposite direction of the ball. The thing that controls the speed at which your body moves away is the weight of the baseball that you throw and the amount of acceleration that you apply to it. Mass multiplied by acceleration is force (f = m * a). Whatever force you apply to the baseball will be equalized by an identical reaction force applied to your body (m * a = m * a). So let's say that the baseball weighs 1 pound, and your body plus the space suit weighs 100 pounds. You throw the baseball away at a speed of 32 feet per second (21 mph). That is to say, you accelerate the 1-pound baseball with your arm so that it obtains a velocity of 21 mph. Your body reacts, but it weighs 100 times more than the baseball. Therefore, it moves away at one-hundredth the velocity of the baseball, or 0.32 feet per second (0.21 mph).

If you want to generate more thrust from your baseball, you have two options: increase the mass or increase the acceleration. You can throw a heavier baseball or throw a number of baseballs one after another (increasing the mass), or you can throw the baseball faster (increasing the acceleration on it). But that is all that you can do.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rocket.htm

Spark wrote:

There actually is ONE known asteroid (1950 DA) on a collision course for earth.

On March 16, 2880.

omg, how big is it?

Spark wrote:

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.

either way, when it smacks you on the head you wont have time to think about it lol.