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.

(Guardian)   NASA crowd-sources tools to prevent planetary destruction. This should end well   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 17
    More: Unlikely, NASA, asteroids, robotic spacecraft, lunar orbit, extinction of the dinosaurs, Spitzer Space Telescope, dinosaurs, Space Agency  
•       •       •

843 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Jun 2013 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-26 11:57:14 AM
www.thocp.net
 
2013-06-26 12:15:21 PM
When did NASA become Nasa? Is it pronounced "Naysa"?

i.qkme.me
 
2013-06-26 01:46:16 PM
Is there an analogue to RADAR or SONAR that could work in a vacuum? I would think a good scanner would work than telescopes.
 
2013-06-26 01:56:54 PM
I'll just keep an eye on the supply of Ensure.

www.buythecase.net
 
2013-06-26 02:06:29 PM

simplicimus: Is there an analogue to RADAR or SONAR that could work in a vacuum? I would think a good scanner would work than telescopes.


RADAR works in space.  It doesn't require a physical medium to work like sonar does because it's electromagnetic in nature.
 
2013-06-26 02:10:22 PM

SirTanon: simplicimus: Is there an analogue to RADAR or SONAR that could work in a vacuum? I would think a good scanner would work than telescopes.

RADAR works in space.  It doesn't require a physical medium to work like sonar does because it's electromagnetic in nature.


I didn't know that. So how about a large RADAR network in space?
 
2013-06-26 02:13:26 PM

simplicimus: SirTanon: simplicimus: Is there an analogue to RADAR or SONAR that could work in a vacuum? I would think a good scanner would work than telescopes.

RADAR works in space.  It doesn't require a physical medium to work like sonar does because it's electromagnetic in nature.

I didn't know that. So how about a large RADAR network in space?


The problem is space.  There is a lot of it out there.  You would need to build a really large array.
 
2013-06-26 02:18:54 PM

PsyLord: simplicimus: SirTanon: simplicimus: Is there an analogue to RADAR or SONAR that could work in a vacuum? I would think a good scanner would work than telescopes.

RADAR works in space.  It doesn't require a physical medium to work like sonar does because it's electromagnetic in nature.

I didn't know that. So how about a large RADAR network in space?

The problem is space.  There is a lot of it out there.  You would need to build a really large array.


Yeah, and able to probe deep enough to give us time to launch a diverting rocket if something was coming too close to us.
 
2013-06-26 03:03:42 PM

PsyLord: The problem is space. There is a lot of it out there. You would need to build a really large array.


But but but technology, 3D printing, private space and like stuff?
 
2013-06-26 03:06:03 PM
www.badassoftheweek.com

Has a Kickstarter project with precisely the opposite goal.
 
2013-06-26 03:31:08 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: PsyLord: The problem is space. There is a lot of it out there. You would need to build a really large array.

But but but technology, 3D printing, private space and like stuff?


I doubt a 3D printer has the mass necessary to change an Asteroid's trajectory, but I could be wrong. Anyway, a stationary rocket under thrust would be more reliable. I don't know about your need for private space.
 
2013-06-26 04:55:52 PM
If this is the best NASA has got, we are well and truly farked
 
2013-06-26 05:17:27 PM

keiverarrow: If this is the best NASA has got, we are well and truly farked


It's not wrong to ask for outside advice.
 
2013-06-26 05:18:03 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: When did NASA become Nasa? Is it pronounced "Naysa"?


The way the British media does that drives me nucking futs. It's a farking ACRONYM, not a farking word. But it seems their rule of thumb is, "If you can pronounce it, we treat it like a word, even if that's stupid and confusing and makes no sense as the fact remains it's an acronym.

National Security Agency = NSA
British Broadcasting Corp = BBC
Internal Revenue Service = IRS
Central Intelligence Agency = CIA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration = Nasa

WHAT THE FARK, Britain? There's just no way around how stupid that is.

Now, I know "Radar" and "Laser" and some other acronyms have become words over time, but they're not the proper-noun names of active entities on the world stage.

Good god, that bugs the snot out of me.

AAARRRGGGGHHHH.

/rant off
//headache
 
2013-06-26 05:35:46 PM
Leo Biederman found one. He was last seen heading for the mountains.

/I know, abysmal movie.
 
2013-06-26 05:48:59 PM

keiverarrow: If this is the best NASA has got, we are well and truly farked


People become highly motivated when they don't have to pay taxes... ever.
 
2013-06-27 12:45:30 AM

simplicimus: Quantum Apostrophe: PsyLord: The problem is space. There is a lot of it out there. You would need to build a really large array.

But but but technology, 3D printing, private space and like stuff?

I doubt a 3D printer has the mass necessary to change an Asteroid's trajectory, but I could be wrong. Anyway, a stationary rocket under thrust would be more reliable. I don't know about your need for private space.


3D printing is everything and anything you need it to be. Do you need more mass? 3D print it. You need a big rocket? 3D print it. You need to do this all in a total vacuum with 100% reliable technology? Private space will do it, with the glorious invisible hand pressing the print button.

If you do not believe this, you are a Luddite, and the ghost of Columbus will haunt you.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report