If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(International Business Times)   Here comes KaBOOM: NASA's plan to stop asteroid chaos is cheaper than Armageddon film   (ibtimes.co.uk) divider line 77
    More: Interesting, Kaboom, NASA, Space Agency, Armageddon, potentially hazardous object, Asteroid-impact avoidance  
•       •       •

9750 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 3:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 04:25:37 PM  

Treygreen13: I don't recall stating that it doesn't.


I was agreeing with you.
 
2013-03-12 04:30:10 PM  
Billy Bob Thorton's character explained why better detection is needed better than anyone can:

www.wearysloth.com
Begging your pardon but it's a big-ass sky.
 
2013-03-12 04:34:11 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: Treygreen13: I don't recall stating that it doesn't.

I was agreeing with you.


Then it is settled. We must fight.
 
2013-03-12 04:37:36 PM  
Annoying: unrelated autoplaying video in the sidebar
Very annoying: with sound
WTF are you thinking: two of them at the same time
 
2013-03-12 04:57:55 PM  
cretinbob: ... A mach 3 missle can't hit a mach 30 anything

Sure it can. Like this:

www.missouriinjuryattorneysblog.com
 
2013-03-12 04:58:07 PM  
RandomRandom:A nuke might, maybe, possibly work against an asteroid, but nukes (probably) won't work against comets.  Simulations suggest a large, high speed comet's loose gathering of rock and ice would laugh off our largest nukes...

...Sure, they might break up the hunk of ice and gravel, but the mass of the comet would remain about the same, the course of most of the material would remain about the same, and most of the comet would still be moving at about 34 Miles Per Second.  Mass, speed, energy.  Nukes aren't going to do much to stop something of that mass and speed.



In "Breaking Up," a great deal of that mass is going to be deflected to a non-collision trajectory-- especially if it was hit far enough out.  And if the remainder of all of that impact energy would be spread out over a much larger area-- which would be far better (at least if nearly all the fragments were small enough to either burn up or not do much damage on impact.)

That said, I could see situations where a nuke could make the problem worse by turning a 1 gigaton bomb eq. impact site into 1,000  1 megaton bomb eq. impact sites. Oopsie Daisy.


...There are suggestions that asteroids might be equally immune to nukes.  They may just turn the big rock into lots of little rocks of mostly the same mass, at most of the same speed, mostly still moving right towards us.

I see asteroids being more resistant to nukes than comets (but again, I'm no expert.)  It would take many more megatons to either change the trajectory to miss Earth or turn the big rock into smaller, safer sized fragments to disperse the impact energy.

9 miles to 30 miles?  Yeah, we could take out a rock that size with today's level of technology, but like you said we would have to either have years of warning or build everything ahead of time and be ready to put it all together and launch in a month or two.

Of course, we would have to have multiple rockets-- can't gamble Earth's future on a single rocket failure.  And there would have to be test flights to make sure everything worked.  I can imagine NASA selecting some NEOs to blow the fark out of for practice-- Just like plinking beer cans with .22 rimshot.

Fark it.  LET'S DO THIS!!!
 
2013-03-12 05:00:31 PM  

Treygreen13: Then it is settled. We must fight.


img716.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-12 05:44:11 PM  

Riche: 4.  To protect lives, we're ultimately going to need to develop a capability to launch one or more big nukes at a dangerous meteor on relatively short notice.

Nuclear warheads will either be useless or do more harm than good.  If the asteroid* is small enough to be scattered by a nuke, it's probably small enough to be burned up in the atmoshpere. A better idea: See the asteroid far enough out so you can nudge the orbit into a safer path. Landing an engine on the asteroid. Gravitational attraction. Spraypainting the asteroid some color so the sun's rays cause the orbit to shift.

* not 'meteor', it's only called a meteor once it's in the atmosphere, unless you intentionally and correctly used the word meteor and think detonating a nuclear warhead on another explosion is going to do anyone any favors. Short answer: No.
 
2013-03-12 05:48:31 PM  

Riche: Of course, we would have to have multiple rockets-- can't gamble Earth's future on a single rocket failure. And there would have to be test flights to make sure everything worked. I can imagine NASA selecting some NEOs to blow the fark out of for practice-- Just like plinking beer cans with .22 rimshot.


And that's the problem.  All of this equipment could be built, but very little of it has been built.  Those components we do have are in very short supply.  Most of our rockets are only capable of sending payloads into Earth orbit.  There are only a handful of rockets capable of sending signification payloads completely out of Earth's gravity well.

Were a massive rock to come from the direction of the sun, where our current detectors cannot see very well, we may have only a few months of notice.  Even that might be enough notice if we had the infrastructure in place, ready to launch.  We don't, and we're not even close to having it.
 
2013-03-12 05:49:57 PM  

dletter: Scientists have been concerned that it was only picked up by high-tech equipment monitoring near-earth-objects a few days before it spectacularlycrashed to Earth.

Did I miss them announcing this, or was this basically kept quiet and only known by a few scientists?  I assume they knew it would hit earth but not where, so, it could have hit anywhere (as was mentioned, this happens every few years, but, considering 70% +of the earth is wide swaths of water or very unpopulated land, it would get little notice).... but, still seems like we should have heard 2-3 days before "Hey, same day as this other big rock is going to be near earth, a smaller one might blow up over a populated area".  Obviously, we are all to be kept in the dark about these.


It was well covered in science media, but not mainstream media.
 
2013-03-12 05:50:32 PM  

RandomRandom: Riche: Of course, we would have to have multiple rockets-- can't gamble Earth's future on a single rocket failure. And there would have to be test flights to make sure everything worked. I can imagine NASA selecting some NEOs to blow the fark out of for practice-- Just like plinking beer cans with .22 rimshot.

And that's the problem.  All of this equipment could be built, but very little of it has been built.  Those components we do have are in very short supply.  Most of our rockets are only capable of sending payloads into Earth orbit.  There are only a handful of rockets capable of sending signification payloads completely out of Earth's gravity well.

Were a massive rock to come from the direction of the sun, where our current detectors cannot see very well, we may have only a few months of notice.  Even that might be enough notice if we had the infrastructure in place, ready to launch.  We don't, and we're not even close to having it.


Or what about the scenario from Melancholia, where the object is so large that we could never have any hope of deflecting it?
 
2013-03-12 05:54:43 PM  
Good luck getting the GOP to approve the funding to prevent a disaster based on science.

Praying is way cheaper.

Besides, If one slams into a red state, we can blame it on Obama, Dems, Libs, gays, ect.  If it takes out NYC or Hollywood, its God Punishment.
 
2013-03-12 05:55:15 PM  

Riche: I see asteroids being more resistant to nukes than comets (but again, I'm no expert.)  It would take many more megatons to either change the trajectory to miss Earth or turn the big rock into smaller, safer sized fragments to disperse the impact energy.


read this again. RandomRandom:Sure, they might break up the hunk of ice and gravel, but the mass of the comet would remain about the same, the course of most of the material would remain about the same, and most of the comet would still be moving at about 34 Miles Per Second. Mass, speed, energy. Nukes aren't going to do much to stop something of that mass and speed.

Riche: 9 miles to 30 miles?  Yeah, we could take out a rock that size with today's level of technology,

No, we couldn't.
Sure, they might break up the hunk of ice and gravel, but the mass of the comet would remain about the same, the course of most of the material would remain about the same, and most of the comet would still be moving at about 34 Miles Per Second. Mass, speed, energy. Nukes aren't going to do much to stop something of that mass and speed.
 
2013-03-12 06:03:03 PM  
Should the acronym of your project really be the sound you hear when it fails ?
 
2013-03-12 06:04:13 PM  
Here's a better link without the crap that I submitted real early this morning

KaBOOM
 
2013-03-12 06:11:46 PM  

Wrencher: dletter: Scientists have been concerned that it was only picked up by high-tech equipment monitoring near-earth-objects a few days before it spectacularlycrashed to Earth.

Did I miss them announcing this, or was this basically kept quiet and only known by a few scientists?  I assume they knew it would hit earth but not where, so, it could have hit anywhere (as was mentioned, this happens every few years, but, considering 70% +of the earth is wide swaths of water or very unpopulated land, it would get little notice).... but, still seems like we should have heard 2-3 days before "Hey, same day as this other big rock is going to be near earth, a smaller one might blow up over a populated area".  Obviously, we are all to be kept in the dark about these.

It was well covered in science media, but not mainstream media.


Wait a minute. Nothing that actually hit the earth was detected beforehand...

/I can't read this site on my phone because all the ads overlap and i can't close em.
 
2013-03-12 06:24:10 PM  
Went to the computer to read the article.
Author is an idiot.
Don't get your science news from a business website.
 
2013-03-12 06:33:37 PM  

StopLurkListen: Riche: I see asteroids being more resistant to nukes than comets (but again, I'm no expert.)  It would take many more megatons to either change the trajectory to miss Earth or turn the big rock into smaller, safer sized fragments to disperse the impact energy.

read this again. RandomRandom:Sure, they might break up the hunk of ice and gravel, but the mass of the comet would remain about the same, the course of most of the material would remain about the same, and most of the comet would still be moving at about 34 Miles Per Second. Mass, speed, energy. Nukes aren't going to do much to stop something of that mass and speed.

Riche: 9 miles to 30 miles?  Yeah, we could take out a rock that size with today's level of technology,

No, we couldn't.
Sure, they might break up the hunk of ice and gravel, but the mass of the comet would remain about the same, the course of most of the material would remain about the same, and most of the comet would still be moving at about 34 Miles Per Second. Mass, speed, energy. Nukes aren't going to do much to stop something of that mass and speed.


a lot of the mass would be deflected off of the trajectory towards Earth, especially if it was hit farther out.  The rest of the mass would e spread out,  hopefully enough.
 
2013-03-12 07:34:45 PM  
Yeah, ICBM's can't go far enough, we built them to go sub orbital and come back down.

Sometimes we do not detect the rocks until they zing past the Earth.

Many of the asteroids are in orbits that cannot be reached by any launch system, even those planned for the future.

So, cheer up!
 
2013-03-12 07:38:09 PM  

Riche: a lot of the mass would be deflected off of the trajectory towards Earth, especially if it was hit farther out. The rest of the mass would e spread out, hopefully enough.


If it were further out, we wouldn't need to nuke it at all.

Nearly anything found 10 years out could be lightly pushed by nearby ships with continually running ion engines or by painting one side of the rock white.  The further away an object is deflected, the smaller the deflection needed to avoid an impact.  10 years out, sunlight and paint may do the job.

The problem is that we don't have the detection tools to find everything 10 years out.  We're stuck finding many of them close in, and close in, simulations suggest nukes may not do much at all.  Everything depends on mass and velocity.  The speed some of these rocks move is almost unfathomable.  The mass of some of them is equally stunning.  Even hitting them with nukes isn't a given, as current nukes aren't designed to hit space rocks.  Entirely new systems would need to be developed.  Even after being nuked, some simulations suggest that most of the mass from a large, high speed object is going to keep going the way it was going.  Nukes have a lot of energy, some of these rocks have a lot more.

Nukes seem to be the easy, sexy answer, but they probably wouldn't work and the systems to deploy them against space rocks don't even exist.  Developing those systems in a rush would be hugely expensive.  That's why most astrophysics types believe its far more economical to put up detection array and find objects so far away that they'd need only a tiny, relatively cheap push.
 
2013-03-12 07:40:55 PM  

Wrencher: Wait a minute. Nothing that actually hit the earth was detected beforehand...

/I can't read this site on my phone because all the ads overlap and i can't close em.


That's correct.

The meteor over Russia was completely undetected prior to its half megaton explosion.
 
2013-03-12 08:23:12 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Autoplay video in link.


Subtard should be cockpunched.
 
2013-03-12 09:37:53 PM  

RandomRandom: Riche: 4. To protect lives, we're ultimately going to need to develop a capability to launch one or more big nukes at a dangerous meteor on relatively short notice. I don't know enough details to be 100% certain but I'm pretty sure our Minutemans can't do the job.

A nuke might, maybe, possibly work against an asteroid, but nukes (probably) won't work against comets.  Simulations suggest a large, high speed comet's loose gathering of rock and ice would laugh off our largest nukes.

There was a recently discovered comet that is very close to being on a collision course with Mars.  It was discovered just 20 months prior to its possible impact.  This thing is huge,  9 to 30 miles across -  and moving fast, 120,000 MPH, or 34 miles per second.  Were something that size and speed to hit Earth, we would all die.  It would also probably destroy most higher life on the planet  .http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/28/mars_impact_the_ re d_planet_may_get_hit_by_a_comet_in_october_2014.html

Here's the thing, 20 months probably isn't enough time to do anything other than hurl nukes at something like that.  Even getting nukes to it would require an Apollo program level of development.  Worse, they probably wouldn't work.  Sure, they might break up the hunk of ice and gravel, but the mass of the comet would remain about the same, the course of most of the material would remain about the same, and most of the comet would still be moving at about 34 Miles Per Second.  Mass, speed, energy.  Nukes aren't going to do much to stop something of that mass and speed.

There are suggestions that asteroids might be equally immune to nukes.  They may just turn the big rock into lots of little rocks of mostly the same mass, at most of the same speed, mostly still moving right towards us.

If we had 10 years notice, even 5 years, there are lots of mitigations possible.  20 months?  We'd do our damnedest, we'd spend every penny on altering its course, but that might not be enough ...


Now, I hear that breaking it up would be worse, but why is that?  Increased fragmentation could enhance the protective nature of the atmosphere and make multple smaller impacts less severe through burn up than one gigantic impact.  Or are the thermal consequences in heating the atmosphere over a wider area and wider impacts over a signifcant area "worse" than one giant crater?  I mean if a major event happens, it will be a bad day all around with the coresponding impact, blast wave, flash fire, tsnamis, post impact induced winter.  It just seems like getting hit center mass by say buckshot vs a large calibre bullet are both horrible outcomes but I haven't really heard the analysis on why breaking up the object is such a horrible idea when there would seemingly be some potential benefits.

Anyway, with that in mind, conduct some research:  http://www.purdue.edu/impactearth/
 
2013-03-13 12:00:01 AM  
You know, we don't need to send Bruce Willis or a nuke to deal with these things; given enough notice,a can of spray paint will do quite nicely.
 
2013-03-13 12:11:53 AM  
Really, that's all NASA could come up with is a Tarantino ripoff to stop an asteroid?

www.bonappetit.com
 
2013-03-13 12:40:25 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Autoplay video in link.


no shiat. most annoying thing ever!!!
 
2013-03-13 01:38:01 AM  
Maybe Hayabusa could helphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa
 
Displayed 27 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report