Post by Luke on Nov 22, 2013 10:34:09 GMT -8
Things like this always make me laugh:
www.npr.org/2013/11/03/242353389/space-agencies-of-the-world-unite-the-u-n-s-asteroid-defense-plan
"An international group, formed from discussions at the U.N., would test a strategy to deflect an incoming asteroid by using "a fleet of robot spacecraft to slam into the asteroids," says veteran NASA astronaut Tom Jones. These kamikaze robots would change the direction of the incoming asteroid so it doesn't crash into the Earth."
This little bit alone is evidence enough of how seriously misled our leaders, and unfortunately the scientists advising them, are.
Assuming the asteroids mentioned have a density of 1, at 450 feet in diameter, they would have a rough volume of 214.7 million feet, and a rough weight of 13,403,804,940 pounds. That's 13.4 Billion pounds. To suggest that a spacecraft, weighing at most a couple tons, could move such an object is ludicrous. To actually be considering trying it Hundreds of times over, at the undoubted cost of trillions of US dollars, is beyond stupid. And that is assuming it has a density of 1, if its density was 7 or 8, that would mean Hundreds of billions of pounds...
The majority of asteroids in the solar system are, roughly, the consistency of a compacted snowball, others are little more than pebbles clustered together. Very few are solidified rock, and only a few thousand of them contain any significant amount of metal, which usually presents at the core of a much larger object. Larger objects are easier to detect, and rarely found in unstable orbits.
Here comes in the further ludicrousness of all this: we have had the technology to handle an asteroid for very nearly Half a century now. A thermonuclear device, attached to a delivery satellite which can maneuver the device into the proper trajectory, would not only Vaporize most of an asteroid with a density around 1, but any solid material inside the asteroid would be propelled by the kinetic energy of the vaporized material, onto a trajectory that would move it clear of the Earth.
Further, the majority of near-Earth asteroids are on elliptical Solar orbits of their own, which happen to cross the orbit of the Earth. This presents us with a phenomenal opportunity: simply identify an asteroid which may hit the planet, target it with a nuke to hit it right as it passed close to the sun, and any solid debris will spiral into the gravity well.
Ever since the movies, such as Deep Impact and Armageddon, experts have Denounced the nuke option religiously. Now, lets examine what has been considered the nuke option given in those movies: drill a hole in the asteroid, blow it up from the inside. Well, if that is how you approach the problem, then yes, they are correct, its a bad idea. In those options, the explosive force of the nuke is used to shatter the asteroid, sending chunks in every direction imaginable. Now, here is the rub. Most of those approaches follow the selfsame words used by one of the actors in Armageddon: "You light a firecracker on your palm; your hand is burned. But if you close your hand." This involves a common misconception regarding just exactly what space IS. On Earth, sure, your hand would be burned, but in space, your hand would be burned, and it would act as a platform for a large gaseous release, which would send you spinning wildly. It is that second aspect which is the value here: burning the surface, creates Thrust, and Thrust can be created in such a means to control the asteroid, and save the planet.
This entire situation is simply evidence of the backwards logic that has been taking over both the scientific community, And the political community at large. They aren't choosing the most logical, Functional option, they are just spinning moonbeams to spin moonbeams and act like they are doing something. That is all.
www.npr.org/2013/11/03/242353389/space-agencies-of-the-world-unite-the-u-n-s-asteroid-defense-plan
"An international group, formed from discussions at the U.N., would test a strategy to deflect an incoming asteroid by using "a fleet of robot spacecraft to slam into the asteroids," says veteran NASA astronaut Tom Jones. These kamikaze robots would change the direction of the incoming asteroid so it doesn't crash into the Earth."
This little bit alone is evidence enough of how seriously misled our leaders, and unfortunately the scientists advising them, are.
Assuming the asteroids mentioned have a density of 1, at 450 feet in diameter, they would have a rough volume of 214.7 million feet, and a rough weight of 13,403,804,940 pounds. That's 13.4 Billion pounds. To suggest that a spacecraft, weighing at most a couple tons, could move such an object is ludicrous. To actually be considering trying it Hundreds of times over, at the undoubted cost of trillions of US dollars, is beyond stupid. And that is assuming it has a density of 1, if its density was 7 or 8, that would mean Hundreds of billions of pounds...
The majority of asteroids in the solar system are, roughly, the consistency of a compacted snowball, others are little more than pebbles clustered together. Very few are solidified rock, and only a few thousand of them contain any significant amount of metal, which usually presents at the core of a much larger object. Larger objects are easier to detect, and rarely found in unstable orbits.
Here comes in the further ludicrousness of all this: we have had the technology to handle an asteroid for very nearly Half a century now. A thermonuclear device, attached to a delivery satellite which can maneuver the device into the proper trajectory, would not only Vaporize most of an asteroid with a density around 1, but any solid material inside the asteroid would be propelled by the kinetic energy of the vaporized material, onto a trajectory that would move it clear of the Earth.
Further, the majority of near-Earth asteroids are on elliptical Solar orbits of their own, which happen to cross the orbit of the Earth. This presents us with a phenomenal opportunity: simply identify an asteroid which may hit the planet, target it with a nuke to hit it right as it passed close to the sun, and any solid debris will spiral into the gravity well.
Ever since the movies, such as Deep Impact and Armageddon, experts have Denounced the nuke option religiously. Now, lets examine what has been considered the nuke option given in those movies: drill a hole in the asteroid, blow it up from the inside. Well, if that is how you approach the problem, then yes, they are correct, its a bad idea. In those options, the explosive force of the nuke is used to shatter the asteroid, sending chunks in every direction imaginable. Now, here is the rub. Most of those approaches follow the selfsame words used by one of the actors in Armageddon: "You light a firecracker on your palm; your hand is burned. But if you close your hand." This involves a common misconception regarding just exactly what space IS. On Earth, sure, your hand would be burned, but in space, your hand would be burned, and it would act as a platform for a large gaseous release, which would send you spinning wildly. It is that second aspect which is the value here: burning the surface, creates Thrust, and Thrust can be created in such a means to control the asteroid, and save the planet.
This entire situation is simply evidence of the backwards logic that has been taking over both the scientific community, And the political community at large. They aren't choosing the most logical, Functional option, they are just spinning moonbeams to spin moonbeams and act like they are doing something. That is all.