The Social Difficulty of Saving Earth From an Asteroid 391
mantis2009 writes "When it comes to stopping a cataclysmic Earth vs. asteroid event, social science and international political leaders have more difficult questions yet unanswered than physicists do, according to report delivered at this week's American Geophysical Union meeting. Wired has a discussion of an analysis authored by former astronaut Rusty Schweickart, who worries that the international community is nowhere near ready to begin the complex and inevitably controversial task of deflecting an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. Among the questions to be answered is whether to modify the Partial Test Ban Treaty to allow nuclear weapons in outer space. Another possibility to avoid the destruction of civilization would require the international community to choose an area on the globe where an asteroid might be 'aimed.' Who would decide which nations get placed in the asteroid's crosshairs?"
Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Funny)
What's your least favorite country: Italy or France?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
France.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. No one ever says Italy.
That's because they have good food, good wine (better than France I would say), hot women and a great culture. I've been all over Europe and Italy is the only country that I would seriously consider leaving the US to live in. Yeah, their Government has all the stability of Windows ME and your typical 12 year old boy has a 52% of serving as Prime Minister at some point in his life, but still....... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:4, Funny)
As long as the Americans are in charge, there's an 80% chance the asteroid'll land smack in the middle of Vienna.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Informative)
Its all about timing. You aren't going to blow up an asteroid of any size worth worrying about. But due to there being no friction in space, we could adjust its trajectory by providing a force on it. Basically just build giant engines on it and burn them for long enough it would be pushed out of the way. The trick is to find the asteroid that would hit earth in time- the earlier you set this up, the longer your force has to work.
Re: (Score:2)
While that might work, given how every government on this planet can' plan for more than 5 years out that seems unlikely. Given how most people can't plan more than five minuets out that seems unlikely. More than likely any plan would be thrown together in the last few months while we cursed that we didn't do anything sooner.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The trick is to find the asteroid that would hit earth in time
I doubt this is a problem. I'm sure we can deflect some asteroids so they'll hit Earth. That neatly deals with your problem here. Then we can deflect them back to their original trajectory and save the world!
Re: (Score:2)
praying to a nonexistent god
A great dilemma for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With His Noodly Appendage he could gently push the asteroid aside and save the believers, but he would also be saving the non-believers, reinforcing their belief in their phony-balony god.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem will be the Asteroid Denier Coalition. Based on scientific evidence found on the books of Michael Crichton, they will defend the alternative theory of the non-existence of asteroids and claim the scientists are only pushing their own evil, obscure agenda.
This movement will be lead by James L. Bunk, an accountancy clerk who didn't finish high school but is an absolute authority in physics, astronomy, medicine and bonsai gardening, so much that he knows better than all the so-called "scientists" that study those issues for decades.
Dr. Bunk started his career successfully denying Darwin's evolution and in 2015 he will convince President Palin to approve mandatory teaching of Creationism in public schools, starting from the first grade, unlike English, History and Math that will be taught only in college. More recently he campaigned against vaccines and he will be successful in making the President ban all vaccines in 2013, because vaccines don't protect against disease but cause autism, alzheimer, cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, ass pimples, hairy hands, masturbation, abortion and homosexuality and, worst of all, evolutionism. Everybody knows the scientists are only pushing that evolution, vaccines and global warming crap because of their evil, hidden agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, unlike Italy and France, they don't have famous wines
Well there's Wolf Blass and Jacob's Creek for starters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Makes me think "What's the most famous w(h)ine from Australia"...
"It's too f**king hot mate".
Re: (Score:2)
As a Frenchman, I protest! I'll never let that happen to my... ok I give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir! (Score:2, Funny)
Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a teen I read lots of sci-fi, but then I grew up. One of the recurrent themes was the Earth was doomed for some reason so we'd all have to build a fleet of ships and go off and colonise another world. Even as a 13-year-old I was highly skeptical of those stories, not because of the technology or the distances or any of the practical difficulties, but because I knew that politics would never function to the point where a decision could have been reached, let alone acted upon.
If global warming is truly in need of a rapid, urgent and above all united effort to combat (and whether it is or not is your first argument, right there), then quite honestly, we're doomed. Perhaps one reason we've never detected an advanced civilisation out there is because they all go through this stage, or fail to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The comparison is faulty.
An asteroid on a collision course for Earth would be a pretty obvious threat. Climate change is:
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area!)
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem)
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable.
A large enough asteroid strike that would truly be a global disaster, instead of just one that kills a couple of million people would get a re
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:4, Insightful)
Asteroid is:
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area! When "enemies" will get hit the worst)
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem; the window between detection and action (when it's possible) will be huge...and anyways, it's a semi-constant occurrence on Earth, we'll be fine (when it comes to impactors we have a hope of deflecting at all))
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable. Impacts are happening all the time. We hardly even noticed Tunguska.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the window between detection and action (when it's possible) will be huge
Erm, no.. It doesn't have to be.
There are still loads of asteroids which are unknown to us and possibly with earth in their trajectory.
A few months ago we also had a "near" miss of a asteroid that came out of the blue (black?). And we only knew a few days in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I wrote "(when it's possible)" there. We can't do anything about impactors that sneak up on us, so they are somehow beyond the scope of this discussion...
And anyway, my previous post was mostly tongue-in-cheek in response to unsubstantiated, IMHO, claims of parent poster. Even directly paraphrasing them, without touching all subtleties of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but the point is, action wouldn't have been possible, given current technology.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, it's estimated that there are up to a billion asteroids in our solar system, of which an estimated 100 million are larger than 10 metres across and likely to cross Earth's orbit at some point.
It's also worthy to note that even a small asteroid (i.e. about the size of a house) is enough to destroy a city, and a larger one could wreak havoc globally, regardless of where it lands.
Also, to quote Bill Bryson, "the number of people who in the world who are actively searching for asteroids is fewer than t
Re: (Score:2)
Generations are generally averaged out to be approximately 25 years - that's still within the lifetime of a lot of people and not that much different to 10 years in the grand scheme of things!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area! When "enemies" will get hit the worst)
Then it is not an asteroid but a meteor(it) or a small comet.
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem; the window between detection and action (when it's possible) will be huge...and anyways, it's a semi-constant occurrence on Earth, we'll be fine (when it comes to impactors we have a hope of deflecting at all))
The current wind
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"An asteroid on a collision course for Earth would be a pretty obvious threat. Climate change is:
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area!)
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem)
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable."
I completely agree with the grandparent. The current climate change summit is an excellent case study of what response to a global threat looks like.
I'm sure if some
Re: (Score:2)
The current climate change summit is an excellent case study of what response to a global threat looks like.
Yes, but not for the reasons you elucidate. I think the most likely non-hysterical reactions will be:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Once we run out of living space for all of us, there will be war.
The cynic in my is thinking that's EXACTLY what some of the feet-draggers are hoping for.
Re: (Score:2)
For the first, dcollins is quoting that, not affirming that. Second, places exist (central Sahara, McMurdo in Antarctica) that can only get better in practical terms for humans.
Third, the argument isn't really that things will get better for some, but that some people will be stupid enough to believe it.
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:4, Interesting)
If an asteroid were to hit Afganistan in 3 years time and there's no deflection method for the size or speed, are you willing to take in the refugees. Are any country willing to, and how many. This decision easily takes 3 years with our current state of mind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a teen I read lots of sci-fi, but then I grew up.
Thanks for clarifying that you are able to age. I was wondering whether or not to rule out this syndrome [whatdoesitmean.com].
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with global warming is that everyone has something to gain by cheating on any agreement that might be made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
When the crunch comes, and the number of available options has shrunk down to very few, then we collectively are quite good at making difficult decisions and doing what needs to be done. Look at the process of various allied countries coming together to fight the Nazis in WWII for example. Many did not want to, but eventually when the choice became a) fight the Nazis or b) let Hitler become a major world player, they came on board and threw everything they had into the effort.
The trouble with global warming
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew that politics would never function to the point where a decision could have been reached, let alone acted upon
Unless each country tries to save itself without trying to save the rest of the world. Then you'd have canadian spaceships, united statian spaceships, chinese spaceships, etc.
The different countries could target different places to land too you know?
I believe that such a scenario would be quite realistic.
Not really (Score:2)
The problem that we have here
Re: (Score:2)
For sci-fi that is not immediately discreditable, read Alastair Reynolds.
In his book Chasm City, he relates (among other things) the story of humanity's first and last generational fleet. The story behind it's launch, the difficulties it faced (which made it the last generational fleet), and the centuries-long war that engulfed the resulting colony all provide for a really compelling story that is also wholly believable. It was hard to launch, hard to fly, failed to make a peaceful colony, so we never tried
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even as a 13-year-old I was highly skeptical of those stories, not because of the technology or the distances or any of the practical difficulties, but because I knew that politics would never function to the point where a decision could have been reached, let alone acted upon.
That's not skepticism, that's cynicism. And if you thought that way when you were 13, you must have had a horrible childhood.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that it doesn't threaten everybody equally. For example, if the asteroid will hit Earth in two decades, a sixty-year old politician will be far less threatened than a twenty-something. And even discounting that,
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, if we as a species ever come across a crisis that requires us all to co-operate to survive, we're as good as dead.
Yes. If you watch what's going on in Copenhagen right now, it's a pretty good example of how an asteroid impact event will be handled, only more so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not if you put a heavy lid on the saucepan.
Dose of Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dose of Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
"Just look at the US after the 11/9 attacks. The trick is to ensure that you have a leader who can listen to scientific advice and make the right decision based on that"
Err... WTF are you smoking? Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism, and every intelligence agency AND the IAEA said that Iraq had no WMDs. Both have been proved true.
If going by the 9/11 reaction is how you measure the response by Earth's leaders, then I expect the US to respond to a potential asteroid hit on Earth by contracting some politically tied corporation to manufacture umbrellas.
Re: (Score:2)
then I expect the US to respond to a potential asteroid hit on Earth by contracting some politically tied corporation to manufacture umbrellas.
The way things are going, this may very well happen (the corporation part, not the umbrellas). Private companies seem to be doing a lot better getting into space than our government is.
Which is kind of weird, in a way. In the 60s, the US space program was amazing and efficient, and no private company in the world could have come close to doing what it did. Now it is an overweighted organization with no clear direction. So from this we can see in a single organization that sometimes government does work
Re: (Score:2)
contracting some politically tied corporation to manufacture umbrellas
Hopefully, not The Umbrella Corporation [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole world is sinking (ok, the water is rising)
It is? Well, yes, at about 0.7mm a year for a long time, with the most dramatic rising happening between 8 000 and 6 000 years ago. The common perception is that sea level increase should have accelerated in the 20th century but no such acceleration has been measured. Some people work with the number 1.8mm/year but that is the upper bound, not the average rise.
For the record, I am not one of those global warming deniers, just trying to keep the records straight.
The areas of the earth where people are most p
I don't understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there such a focus on asteroids? Do the USA need to justify their nuclear arsenal in the current post-cold-war situation? (yes, "Armageddon", I'm looking at you).
Asteroids are not rare, Asteroids capable of destroying humanity are. It is very unlikely that one will hit us in next 100 years, and after that, we'll probably have completely different means available for trying to avert incoming asteroids.
I'm not saying that research in this area is wrong, but it should be low priority and the risks must not be overestimated.
We already have something threatening human (and animal) existence on earth, it's called global warming. Unlike asteroids, it wont happen by chance, it is happening and will continue to happen, even if we cease to pollute right now (which we nevertheless should strive after to minimize effects by global warming). This is a much more serious threat to our existence than Asteroids.
Who gets to decide where it's targeted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Guaranteed there would be a dozen conspiracy theories about how the US purposefully conjured up the asteroid, and with their high technology guided it directly towards its target. Almost as if with a Wii remote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no. The *asteroid* 99942 Apophis is 200-300 meters in diameter and is well understood to be a threat of regional destruction, not world-wide devastation.
The real problem I see with this analysis is simply that our ability to track doesn't tell you where its going to hit, it will simply tell you theres a 25% of it hitting the Earth at all, and that one spot might be at the peak of the probability distribution (bell curve). To be sure it wouldn't hit you have to move it by many Earth-radii anyway,
Obvious... (Score:2)
Who would decide which nations get placed in the asteroid's crosshairs?
The ones doing the job of deflection, naturally.
And there will another complicating factor - expect quite a bit of people actually working against the efforts, with their expectation of incoming Rupture/Ragnarok/punishment from gods/whatever. Especially if the impact site seems to target their "enemies", though probably also when it targets them..."punishment from allowing the world to fall"/etc.
Quite a bit of unrest generally, on top of
Re: (Score:2)
The Rupture [wikipedia.org] as opposed to the Rapture.
doesn't seem to really understand how things work (Score:5, Insightful)
His argument seems to pretty grossly overestimate the extent to which international law and institutions are really law and institutions in the sense they are within countries, versus looser arrangements that, when push comes to shove, get overriden by realpolitik.
For example, he assumes that a single country (or, presumably, group of countries) can't just go and deflect an asteroid using nuclear weapons, because of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Really? If it seemed like the best option, everyone would just stop and not do it for fear of violating the Test Ban Treaty? Surely someone, the US or China or Russia or whoever had the capacity to do so, would simply ignore the treaty. And it probably wouldn't even come to that, because a handful of powerful countries would hash out a backroom deal. This sort of thing happens all the time already. It violated international law to invade Kosovo, for example, but hey look, Kosovo got invaded, and now is de-facto independent of Serbia. Didn't seem to stop anyone.
Then he suggests something about bringing options to the UN General Assembly. Well, yes, if the General Assembly is your idea of international cooperation, then we're doomed, because nothing will get done. Fortunately, however, the General Assembly has no power, and doesn't really matter. Real decisions get made at the Security Council, which is more or less a formalization of the de-facto handful of powerful countries hashing out a backroom deal.
Mostly, it seems like he thinks that a major obstacle to deflecting asteroids is some sort of international apparatus that has never in practice been an obstacle to anything.
Re:doesn't seem to really understand how things wo (Score:2)
Of course. "Sorry, we have a treaty against that,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who said the damage is caused by energy directly? The one that killed the dinosaurs [based on one theory, and we don't really know what happened] didn't kill much on impact, but threw particles in the air that blocked the sun. It was the blocked sun changing the climate and starving the plants that wiped out all large an
Re: (Score:2)
... Mostly, it seems like he thinks that a major obstacle to deflecting asteroids is some sort of international apparatus that has never in practice been an obstacle to anything.
Doesn't that depend immensely on your highly context-sensitive definitions of almost any of those key words in your "never" claim? I'd think it's especially so for "apparatus","obstacle", && "anything".
Additionally, even assuming your seemingly unqualifiable claim correct does not *necessarily* imply "deflecting asteroids" (or any other comprehensibly critical endeavor to deserve global coordination) will remain practical for a single nation (or small group) to dispatch or mitigate effectively forev
Asteroid != Climate Change (Score:2, Insightful)
And the target is.... (Score:5, Funny)
-Can't be USA -- I'm writing this from there.
-Can't be Antartica -- We all love them Penguins
-Can't be the Artic -- Ditto for the polar bears
-Can't be France -- too obvious
-Can't be the Middle East -- Our oil comes from there.
-Can't be China -- We'd all die from the toxic dust cloud stirred up from the impact.
So, that pretty much leaves:
Quebec
I mean, sure, we all love Canada. Great comedy, good place for NFL up-and-coming players to practice (CFL for those who don't get it), and also home to many polar bears (See Antartic above).
But face it: even CANADA doesn't like Quebec!
I mean, what do they have? Good baseball? Nope. Good football team? Nope. Good comedy? Do Quebecois even HAVE comedy?
And best of all:
Quebec doesn't have UN veto power.
Problem solved!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Religious Armaggedon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: who gets placed in the asteroid's crosshairs? (Score:2)
Why, the nearest available ocean of course, most likely the Pacific. Don't forget the earth's surface is mostly uninhabited, especially since 70% of it is covered in water. Sorry Polynesia...
Re: who gets placed in the asteroid's crosshairs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I like the idea of an ocean impact. While there is an ass-load of people along any coast, the over-all effets are minimal. Yes, immense flooding and a billion people will die. But the important thing is the atmosphere will be loaded with water and will recover in days.
Meanwhile an impact on land would send dirt particles up, blocking light for weeks or months, killing plants, freezing the entire planet. We would have a much harder time (as a planet) surviving a land impact than a water one.
Don't make waves, please? (Score:2)
If you have your way, I'm finally gonna have to learn how to surf, dammit!
Aim it for my back yard, please. (Score:2)
I want the mineral rights. Please do kindly tell me when it's due to impact, though, so I can be sure to be on vacation at the time.
The Allies would just do it. (Score:2)
If an asteroid were about to hit the earth, the USA would probably, in consultation with its NATO allies, and Russia, launch everything it had it. Anything else would really be just a matter of luck. The third world might get pissed off at not being included, but really, for something like this, the technological nations would just have to take a best shot at it.
Re:The Allies would just do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
the USA would probably, in consultation with its NATO allies, and Russia, launch everything it had it.
If you mean nuke armed ICBMs, then let the words ring in your mind: inter continal ballistic missile.
Supposed we had a bomb (or a combination of several hundred bombs) that can deflect an asteroid about 1 million miles away (3 times the distacne of our moon) ... we had nothing to deliver those bombs over that distance.
Our missiles have enough power to run with their build in engines about 2000 km ... the rest of the trip they do in free fall, back to their destination on earth (that is why they a re called "ballistic") the total range of them is far below 20,000 km. In other words, they can not even make 10% of the distance to the moon.
So sending atomic bombs (which would be more or less useless against an asteroid anyway ... but that is a different story) is completely out of scope due to the lack of missiles/rockets/launch vehicles to deliver them.
With lack of vehicles I don't mean: we need to build a few, no I mean: we can't currently build anything like this! It is Sci Fi! To deflect an asteroid we need to meet it around the distance of Mars and have some (magical) device to do the actual deflecting.
That means we need the time to fly a vehicle so far, which is roughly 1 year to 3 years depending on technology and actual position of the asteroid and earth. That means we have to realize it will hit us about 10 years in advance, just to plan the travel of the vehicle.
As we all know how to travel that distance, land on the asteroid, stop its rotation perhaps, plant the deflecting device I leave the construction of the actual device as an exercise to the reader.
angel'o'spheree
Re: (Score:3)
So sending atomic bombs (which would be more or less useless against an asteroid anyway ... but that is a different story)
It was my understanding that the radiation (heat and nuclear) from a blast near an asteroid would cause rapid ablation of the surface material, enough to change its trajectory. It might take several blasts to achieve a safe heading for the asteroid but it is possible.
I don't think actually attempting to 'blow up' an asteroid has ever been an option.
-b
The answer! (Score:2)
at the axes of evil! (Score:3, Funny)
Cartesian coordinates (0,0) on the axes of evil of course.
Sales Job (Score:5, Interesting)
Rusty Schweickart is not, in this instance, an ex-astronaut, he is the CEO of B612 Foundation, dedicated to promoting their gravity tractor design for asteroid deflection. This design solves the 'problems' which are here hung around the necks of politicians. B612 has been 'solving' these same problems in the same way for over 20 years now. The situations where this design fails are still the same also, most notably short notice. This is no objective analysis of solutions to social and other problems that might arise --- this is a sales job for one of several designs that would need to be developed in order to meet the many possible problems. Yet this and the other designs with potential business backing, do not present themselves are inadequate alone, a social problem itself, in that these 'experts' are not pounding home the truth that no one an tell ahead of time which of these would be needed and/or would work if tried, so several different esigns would be required to be available. Also, these are large scale interplanetary programs, with a good chance of technical failure preventing successful completion, thus making it necessary to have more than one of each design available. Figure the odds of getting funding for more than one copy of one design. Yeah, until the impact table comes out with our names on it.
"Dear world we violated the treaty... (Score:4, Insightful)
...to save all of you ungrateful fucks from a planet killing asteroid. Would you like to thank us or try and penalize us. Remember we only sent ONE of our nukes up."
Help me out here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, the issues with using a nuclear weapon are political, not social. Then again I'm more concerned about the physics of that solution.
As for dragging the asteroid so it will miss... the supposed social concern is that there will be times between when you start changing the path and when you've got it fully deflected, where it would (if you stop pushing) hit a place on Earth that it would not have hit before. Two things:
1) TFA mentions that you would start this mission decades before a possible impact. You wouldn't know for sure that it would impact yet. Much less would you know where the impact would occur. Hence, you wouldn't know where the "corridor of risk" would be. Nobody would have to choose which countries to "put at risk", because nobody would be able to make such a choice if they wanted to.
2) If the asteroid's initial trajectory is going to hit the Earth, then there's a 70% chance (roughly) that it will hit water. Even the people in any given country are probably at equal or less risk if the asteroid is momentarily pointed at their country's land mass, than if it is left to hit the ocean in their hemisphere. In other words, the "corridor of risk" wouldn't be at elevated risk - it would be at slightly less decreased risk than other locations on Earth.
It seems to me that if you want to drag the asteroid, picking the direction should be easy. Estimate its current trajectory as best you can. On the very unlikley chance that trajectory hits the center of the Earth, I guess you have to choose randomly; but in the vastly more likely case that it passes relatively near the center of the Earth (such that it would hit the Earth), wouldn't you drag it in the opposite direction (i.e. draw an arrow from the center of the earth to the line of the trajectory where it passes the center; push it the direction the arrow points)? Minimum energy and maximum chance of success...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
to know that there is going to be an impact, you need to have the asteroid and the Earth within (to a first approximation, for the description not for the calculation) 6360km of each other AT THE SAME TIME.
The Earth's orbital velocity is around 100000km/hour ; to get Earth and asteroid in the same place at the same tim
water (Score:3, Insightful)
Waiter covers 70% of the Earth's surface. Now, if we exclude areas that would cause catastrophic flooding the number gets smaller, but I'll bet we could find someplace out in the middle of the ocean to deflect it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote a movie:
"and turn one dangerous falling object into many"...
Nuking the thing isn't at all sensible but it's all we can really do. It's like ants trying to spit at the shoe that's heading towards them though... chances are we'll make things worse but at that point, we're dead anyway. Worrying about an international treaty at that point is like worrying about the lawsuit when the mugger pulls out a gun.
The radiation is hardly a concern at all. More important is how the hell do you survive the 200-
Re: (Score:2)
Current single nukes probably wouldn't help much. What we need is more like the Earth-launched shuttles and linked multi-nukes in Stratos 4 [wikipedia.org]! Even that isn't fool-proof, though, and they did lose at least one city when it went wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yea, you are dead on with the radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Split one object into 10... each of which with 5% of the destructive potential due to higher surface area to volume ratio, causing more of it to burn up. And if it's far enough, half of the pieces won't even hurt the Earth at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe Isaac Newton worked out the laws of motion and gravity three hundred years ago, and his equations have served astronomers well enough to correctly work out the orbits of every object in space that they could observe. Celestial mechanics is a mature branch of science, and it will doubtless work for determining whether an as
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An ocean? Antartica? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An ocean? Antartica? (Score:5, Funny)
Antarctica? That'd be one hell of a curve shot to whip it underneath the Earth and up! Don't you know from all of those SciFi shows that asteroids come in perfectly horizontal and that the whole universe is like a plate. That's why ships can't avoid each other by flying higher or on a different plane - because there is only one plane that everything flies along!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are aware that local space IS pretty two dimensional, at least where it counts? Nearly all of the objects in the near solar system are on the ecliptic, so they generally WOULD come "straight in".
That being said, the earth IS tilted, and for about half the year the Antarctic is pointing "out".
Besides which, those penguin movies were starting to get pretty damned irritating.
Re:An ocean? Antartica? (Score:4, Informative)
If you could aim it towards eastern Antarctica, that might be ok - but I'd rather you didn't, as I'm currently living there!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your lack of confidence in the nuclear option is... misguided.
http://www.aere.iastate.edu/no_cache/events-seminars/article/article/2806/2506.html [iastate.edu]
When scientists talk about using nukes to move asteroids, they are usually talking about using the enormous heat and other radiation from the blast to ablate one side of the asteroid; this will cause the asteroid to move in the opposite direction (per newton's third law).
-b