Looks like we escaped armageddon....this time

[b0mbrman]

Woah...1.2x the distance to the moon!

[edit] Oops...Skoorb effect 🙂

How did this turn into a political debate?

 

[jjones]

<< Point 'a' false? Funny, I always thought that so-called 'nukes' were meant solely to threaten other countries with, not to actually use them. >>


Elledan, this statement really shows your years, or lack thereof. I grew up in the MAD era and believe me, there weren't too many people who thought that nukes would never be used. There are supposedly a few times when it came very close to that, the Cuban missile crisis being the most popularized. Another was during the Nixon years.

 

[Dragnov]

Wow, we have the technology to actually destory these bad boys? I highly doubt that.... sending a missile in outer space hasn't even been done yet I believe.... and haven't you seen Armageddon?! We're going to need massive amounts of nukes to even do anythign to this thing.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Point 'a' false? Funny, I always thought that so-called 'nukes' were meant solely to threaten other countries with, not to actually use them. >>


Elledan, this statement really shows your years, or lack thereof. I grew up in the MAD era and believe me, there weren't too many people who thought that nukes would never be used. There are supposedly a few times when it came very close to that, the Cuban missile crisis being the most popularized. Another was during the Nixon years. >>


Admitted, there were some close calls, but ultimately no missile was ever fired. Was ever a missile activated (i.e. pre-launch sequence)?

In the case of the US vs. the CCCP, neither party could deny the fact that a single missile fired by either side would result in the (total) destruction of both countries. This was one thing which kept both sides from using a nuke.

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< How did this turn into a political debate? >>

That is a very good question. It seems like it's only a matter of time before this thread becomes yet another homo vs. hetero, liberal vs. conservative, Demo vs. Rep, Ford vs. Chevy, Linux vs. MS, Texas vs. California rantfest.

 

[nirgis]

<< All joking aside, this is a pretty serious issue. We have the technology to destroy these things--we should cough up the dough and begin work on an asteroid defense system before it's too late (i.e. NOW).

Sadly, the nature of humanity is such that if a threat is not immediately visible to us no action will be taken. Apparently the *illusion* of safety is enough for people--the *reality* is something nobody seems inclined to hear about (9/11 is an excellent example of that). >>




Please tell me you are joking. I find it ridiculous to even suggest that this country's or the world's money could be better spent on a "global astroid shield." How about poverty, illiteracy, water shortage/ pollution, global warming, acid rain, international relations, to name a few. I'm not sure how one could think that building a shield could even be effective: We are having trouble destroying a single (moving albeit) missle when we already know its position and proximity, translating this into destroying a collosal object, moving faster than any rocket, and, having quite a high probability of surprise.

This pro-military/protection crap is just as annoying as naive liberalism. When will people learn that some factors, such as an astroid hitting the earth, are completely out of their control. Seriously, if you go to bed every night worried about an astroid hitting the earth I feel pity for you.

Have a nice day

 

[exp]

LOL, easy there killer. 🙂 I must have touched off a nerve or something...


<< Please tell me you are joking. I find it ridiculous to even suggest that this country's or the world's money could be better spent on a "global astroid shield." >>

Scoff all you like, that doesn't change the fact that eventually this planet will be hit with an extinction-level mass asteroid and civilization will be wiped out. It is INEVITABLE, do you understand? In fact, last I heard scientists estimate that the chance of a 2km object striking the earth within the next century alone is 1-in-10,000. Those are startlingly high odds and it would behoove us to at least consider our options.


<< How about poverty, illiteracy, water shortage/ pollution, global warming, acid rain, international relations, to name a few. >>

All worthwile causes, to be sure, but why do you assume that they are mutually exclusive? Americans live in a time of unprecedented prosperity and I see no reason why a few million cannot be spared for asteroid-related research grants. How anyone could rank the threat of global annihilation below "acid rain" on our list of priorities is beyond me.

<< I'm not sure how one could think that building a shield could even be effective: We are having trouble destroying a single (moving albeit) missle when we already know its position and proximity, translating this into destroying a collosal object, moving faster than any rocket, and, having quite a high probability of surprise. >>

Look up "NEAR" and "Eros" on Google and you will learn all you need to know about our ability not only to hit an asteroid, but to physically land on it. At any rate, my suggestion of an "asteroid defense system" was slightly tongue-in-cheek; the simplest way to deal with an incoming object would be to nudge it off-course, or change its speed (even a fraction of a mph is enough). This could be accomplished in any number of ways, especially by landing on the asteroid and placing a propulsion device of some kind on it. Shaped charges, a solar sail, an ion drive, etc. would all do the job. At the other extreme, a stand-off nuke could provide the same level of impetus instantaneously, although the risk of breakage would be higher.


<< This pro-military/protection crap is just as annoying as naive liberalism. >>

I assume that was a general rant and not directed at me personally. I am no gung-ho military nut--nor am I a "naive liberal"--but as for being pro-"protection": guilty as charged. I would like to ensure that this world is still around for future generations to enjoy, yet somehow you manage to characterize that very reasonable position as "crap". Neat trick.


<< When will people learn that some factors, such as an astroid hitting the earth, are completely out of their control. >>

What makes you say that asteroids are beyond our control? On the contrary, even without extensive research on the subject it is already quite clear that they are entirely WITHIN our control. We can identify threats and destroy/deflect them if necessary. You are welcome to that fatalistic approach but don't expect the rest of the population to sit on its hands and follow you to the End, moaning about its own impotence all the way there.


<< Seriously, if you go to bed every night worried about an astroid hitting the earth I feel pity for you. >>

Nah, it's more like every other night. 😉

 

[nirgis]

exp:

I find it highly dubious that a astroid defence could even be realistically economical. Perhaps research could cost a few million as you suggest, but when you also consider that a missle shield (which in many ways is very similar to the proposed situation) is estimated in the range of billions if not trillions of dollars. Additionally, an astroid defence, regardless of the type would greatly outweigh any effort or money on a missle shield considering research, constant vigilance, and the great expense involved in any space engagment.

<Scoff all you like, that doesn't change the fact that eventually this planet will be hit with an extinction-level mass asteroid and civilization will be wiped out. It is INEVITABLE, do you understand? In fact, last I heard scientists estimate that the chance of a 2km object striking the earth within the next century alone is 1-in-10,000. Those are startlingly high odds and it would behoove us to at least consider our options.>

I for one doubt the 1 in 10,000 odds considering that this planet has gone 65 million years without such a trajesty. At the same time, I do not deny the enevitability of the collision of an astroid with earth in the future, whether close or distant. However, I also do not deny the existance of either my own or your mortality. Certainly, one should take safety precautions in one's life, but there is an extreme to your logic. It seems to me, that it would be far more effective to guarentee the present safety and development of the human race than to expect the worst. Precautions such as safe-driving and a healthy life-style pay off much more rewarding divedends than any global defence plan.

Leaving thought: How would you expect to defend against the astroid in this thread, which wasn't even detected by our sensors until it would have been too late?

 

[Heisenberg]

I'm not so sure that we have the technology required to stop a planet-killer sized asteroid. Even if we could detect it soon enough, nuclear weapons might not be enough. I haven't seen any numbers, but the kinetic energy of one of those rocks alone would make a nuke look like hitting a tank with a .22. Especially if the asteroid has a core like iron or some other dense metal.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

But the thing is that if you can slow the thing my 1 kilometer per hour at a long enough distance it will miss the earth by passing at the spot it was suposed to hit after. You dont have to destroy it or anything. It's not *that* hard to do this. It's just that the day a smaller rock like that 70 meter one hits us and kills 1/3 of the planet, will be the day that such a system will be deployed. Kind of like 9/11 people dont care about it untill it's too late.

 

[exp]

<< I find it highly dubious that a astroid defence could even be realistically economical. Perhaps research could cost a few million as you suggest, but when you also consider that a missle shield (which in many ways is very similar to the proposed situation) is estimated in the range of billions if not trillions of dollars. Additionally, an astroid defence, regardless of the type would greatly outweigh any effort or money on a missle shield considering research, constant vigilance, and the great expense involved in any space engagment. >>

It may prove tremendously costly over the long run, but the impact can be minimized by spreading the expense out over many decades, rather than compacting everything into a few short years as Bushy is doing with missile defense. Regardless, there is no need to rush into this without considerable research first. We need to know what defensive technique is the best and how long it will take to build and implement it if, for example, we were to detect a killer asteroid tomorrow.

<< I for one doubt the 1 in 10,000 odds considering that this planet has gone 65 million years without such a trajesty. At the same time, I do not deny the enevitability of the collision of an astroid with earth in the future, whether close or distant. >>

Yes, though there have been many smaller impacts in that time span...asteroids that would catastrophically wipe out countries if they struck today. Anyway, the exact odds really are not that important, my point is only that if astronomers are telling us that this is a real risk then we would be foolish to do nothing at all. They deserve our attention.

<< It seems to me, that it would be far more effective to guarentee the present safety and development of the human race than to expect the worst. Precautions such as safe-driving and a healthy life-style pay off much more rewarding divedends than any global defence plan. >>

Yes yes, I am not suggesting that we rush headlong into constructing some astronomically expensive asteroid-blaster at the expense of every other issue known to man. But spending, say, $5-10m per year (out of a multi-trillion dollar GDP) for the next decade would seem to me to be a prudent course of action, particularly considering that since an impact is guaranteed at some point this will definitely *not* be money wasted. Will we ever completely eradicate poverty in a capitalist world? I don't know, but I do know that an asteroid will strike Earth eventually so any money put towards preventing it will be money well spent.

<< Leaving thought: How would you expect to defend against the astroid in this thread, which wasn't even detected by our sensors until it would have been too late? >>

The fact that we did not even spot this asteroid until it was too late only emphasizes how limited our current system really is. That is an argument FOR more spending on asteroids, not against it. In fact, I would say that the very first thing that any money spent on asteroid research should be used for is upgrading our threat identification capability. For example, we clearly should develop a solution for spotting these things coming from the direction of the Sun (something that may take years to implement). It is precisely these kinds of problems that should be tackled NOW, rather than procrastinating until it is too late.



<< the kinetic energy of one of those rocks alone would make a nuke look like hitting a tank with a .22. >>

Not quite that extreme of a challenge IMHO. Most of these planet-killing asteroids are only a few miles across...compare that to the massive blast radii of modern thermonuclear devices and the huge amounts of radiation they emit (which would be the operative agent in this case from what I understand). Plus we are working in a vacuum so there is no wind resistance, friction, etc. to oppose any force we apply to the asteroid. If the asteroid is detected and landed on early enough an attached propulsive device(s) will be able to act for decades before the predicted date of impact. Most importantly of all, consider the vastness of space, even within our own solar system. Even the slightest change in angular direction (possibly on the order of an arcsecond) or speed (<1 mph) would be sufficient to prevent a collision.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

First consider that asteroids a few miles across are easy to spot. You have more time to react .What you do NOT want to do is fragment such an asteroid. If you do you have multiple incomings with the potential of unleashing far more destructive energy than all the nuclear weapons detonated together could produce. Imagine millions of high yield H-bombs being detonated over a continent. What you do in this case is push it off course with a mass reaction driver, or an immense solar sail. Other ideas exist, but these are the most popular that I am aware of. Smaller asteroids/comets (few hundred yards across) are going to be much closer when found. They are also more plentiful. I expect the technology to deal with these effectively does not exist. In a few hundred years, we may have a better way to deal with this problem, but until we have the capability to get a "space force" ship en route with a few hours warning, we are outta luck.

 

[nirgis]

I will admit that I do not know the specifics of an astroid plan, nor its subtle economics, but let us assume a fairly reasonable total cost of $1 trillion. In reality this is probably much lower than the total since we would need constant vigilance and maintanance of the delivery vehicles. At $10 million/year as exp has suggested this would require 100,000 years to complete the total cost of the project! Considering the modern world has existed for ~100 years this is obviously too long. At a completion at 100 years, one requires $10 billion/year. At 10 years, 100 billion/year. Obviously this is a substantial amount of money, one that would require considerable dedication and conviction. In the case of the missle shield, I think that most people would agree the threat of nuclear war is much higher than any astroid threat. I agree the threat exists, but there are truly more pressing and needing issues at hand.

 

[her209]

Looks like Microsoft still gets to make buggy software.

 

[Isla]

Well, at least this is an interesting thread!~

My POV:

Any number of disaster scenarios are possible in the relatively near future. Take your pick... nuclear war, asteroid impact, biological warfare, the fact that bacteria are becoming resistant to our strongest antibiotics...

So, step back from your PC and show the people in your life that you love them. If there isn't anyone in your life, go serve as a volunteer to help those in need.

We are all going to leave here sooner or later... may as well do it having known the sweetness of connecting deeply, honestly, and lovingly with others.

 

[Balthazar]

<<

<< All joking aside, this is a pretty serious issue. We have the technology to destroy these things--we should cough up the dough and begin work on an asteroid defense system before it's too late (i.e. NOW).

Sadly, the nature of humanity is such that if a threat is not immediately visible to us no action will be taken. Apparently the *illusion* of safety is enough for people--the *reality* is something nobody seems inclined to hear about (9/11 is an excellent example of that). >>


Humankind has another problem: exaggerating the minor issue, while choosing to ignore the more important issue(s).

Spending billions of dollars on a missile shield which might or might not be used, or using the same money to come up with some good ways to deal with incoming space-'junk', which varies in size from a few millimeters to many kilometers and can wipe out a whole continent if we're 'lucky'.

The latter is a) much more likely to occur and b) will be much more devastating than any missile we can think off.

But I don't think that anyone will ever choose a president who makes use of common sense. Always those irrational Humans.... *sigh* >>



Hmmm, lets say, oh, Russia, decided to nuke us, which do you think is more devastating, the loss of new york (or a similar size area) or the loss of....oh wait, 95% of the country....

Your right, far worse than any mere missle....

I'm not debating the use of the missle-defence shield, but rather your comment about which one is more likely to happen (neither one is a pressing issue at this exact moment).

 

[datalink7]

<<

<<

<< All joking aside, this is a pretty serious issue. We have the technology to destroy these things--we should cough up the dough and begin work on an asteroid defense system before it's too late (i.e. NOW).

Sadly, the nature of humanity is such that if a threat is not immediately visible to us no action will be taken. Apparently the *illusion* of safety is enough for people--the *reality* is something nobody seems inclined to hear about (9/11 is an excellent example of that). >>


Humankind has another problem: exaggerating the minor issue, while choosing to ignore the more important issue(s).

Spending billions of dollars on a missile shield which might or might not be used, or using the same money to come up with some good ways to deal with incoming space-'junk', which varies in size from a few millimeters to many kilometers and can wipe out a whole continent if we're 'lucky'.

The latter is a) much more likely to occur and b) will be much more devastating than any missile we can think off.

But I don't think that anyone will ever choose a president who makes use of common sense. Always those irrational Humans.... *sigh* >>



Hmmm, lets say, oh, Russia, decided to nuke us, which do you think is more devastating, the loss of new york (or a similar size area) or the loss of....oh wait, 95% of the country....

Your right, far worse than any mere missle....

I'm not debating the use of the missle-defence shield, but rather your comment about which one is more likely to happen (neither one is a pressing issue at this exact moment). >>



If Russia decided to launch all their nukes at us, there isn't a damn thing we could do to stop the destruction of the US even with a fully operational missle defense system. The system Bush is pushing isn't meant to stop a nuclear war with Russia or China, but instead to stop a rouge missle from a small hostile nation.

 

[Dragnov]

THis asteroid defense thing would require a lot of international effort. Since its more of a global issue instead of a national issue, it would be very difficult to divide whose going to foot how much of the bill.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Who cares? If one hits Earth, I hope it lands right on top of my head. Same thing with a nuclear weapon. It's nothing to worry about.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Bah im sure if we would be in such a state of near extinction the government would use some of the covered up technology. It's weird that there have not been any major new scientific theories since relativity. Im pretty sure some of the stuff discovered was far too dangerous for use(apparently tesla made things invisible with magnitic fields or somethig) and was hidden away. I mean come on if science would ave kept on evolving as fast as in the 1800's-early 1900's we would probably have more destructive weapons than whats required to destroy the planet. I mean weve been adapting and inventing new things but their all based on long discovered science.

 

[Heisenberg]

<< Bah im sure if we would be in such a state of near extinction the government would use some of the covered up technology. It's weird that there have not been any major new scientific theories since relativity. Im pretty sure some of the stuff discovered was far too dangerous for use(apparently tesla made things invisible with magnitic fields or somethig) and was hidden away. I mean come on if science would ave kept on evolving as fast as in the 1800's-early 1900's we would probably have more destructive weapons than whats required to destroy the planet. I mean weve been adapting and inventing new things but their all based on long discovered science. >>



No new theories?! Quantum gravity ring a bell? 😕

 

[N8Magic]

Gotta love the picture at the top of the article.

An asteroid that size would VAPORIZE the earth, let alone kill the dinosaurs. 😀

 

[ElFenix]

<< Ford vs. Chevy >>

nissan!



and ummm.. elledan... you're completely ignoring the fact that the gov'ts/orgs that are likely to fire missles at us care not a whim for their populations, so MAD doesn't stop them...

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< And that's exactly because both sides knew that their enemy has the willpower to destroy them. Had either side thought that the other side wouldn't fire back, we wouldn't be here talking. Both sides were ready to destroy the other, that's what kept the peace (MAD-principle). Had one side lacked the will to back their threats up, they would have gone up in smoke. >>


But are you implying that the US does not have the willpower to destroy who ever fires a nuke at them? >>



Huh? No, I'm not implying of that sort. During the cold war they were prepared to destroy the eastern-block. Just as soviets were prepared to destoy the west. And both sides knew it, and that's why they didn't carry out their threats.

Threatening someone doesn't mean that you have to carry out your threat. If the other side knows that you have what it takes to do so, they will back out.

 

[Nefrodite]

lol, gotta love the people that think its so impossible!! it is nothing like shooting down a missle, missles are fast and come from very very short distances(relatively). to create a decent astroid def you first need a tracking system, since we don't really have much of one at all right now. Thats why we get blind sided by these big hunks all the time. build a bunch of telescopes with nice fast computers to track the entire sky. astroids don't come from no where.. once you figure out which ones are probably gonna be a problem then you can figure out ways to solve the problem😛 if you don't try, well, the price can be high😛 whats fighting poverty gonna do if u get smacked by an astroid during your reform. for the first time in earth history, we have the potential to protect ourselves from this kinda %@#.

i dunno, maybe if people were less religiously convinced the world is gonna come to an end soon anyways we'd have more support😛






I will admit that I do not know the specifics of an astroid plan, nor its subtle economics, but let us assume a fairly reasonable total cost of $1 trillion. In reality this is probably much lower than the total since we would need constant vigilance and maintanance of the delivery vehicles. At $10 million/year as exp has suggested this would require 100,000 years to complete the total cost of the project! Considering the modern world has existed for ~100 years this is obviously too long. At a completion at 100 years, one requires $10 billion/year. At 10 years, 100 billion/year. Obviously this is a substantial amount of money, one that would require considerable dedication and conviction. In the case of the missle shield, I think that most people would agree the threat of nuclear war is much higher than any astroid threat. I agree the threat exists, but there are truly more pressing and needing issues at hand.




did you just pull numbers and years out of your ass? we already have tracking tech for heavenly bodies, but we dont' use it for that purpose, or have enough to cover the sky. it wouldn't take 100 years to complete😛 and even at 100 years.. well that doesn't sound that bad.