Massive asteroid could hit Earth in 2182, warn scientists.

[sao123]

Destroy isn't an option. It still has mass, it still has kinetic energy. A big 1800 foot piece of rock broken into 1000's of smaller rocks all with the same trajectory is just as bad (if not a little worse)

About 100+ years. Sure, we have more technology. But how much has our "move asteroids" technology advanced? 50 years ago, we were on the moon. Our technology of doing hard physical work in space has not increased. In fact, it could probably be argued that we've regressed in that area - it would still be a huge undertaking. The only technological innovations in that area are more toward fine motor skills in space, not strength.

So what we really need is about 5 Saturn VIII stage 1 rockets, each paired with 4 - 5 segment SRB's and an external fuel tank, and lets push this thing out of the solar system. Or is that a little overkill?

 

[Evadman]

Paint one side white by throwing some paint cans at it and let the Yarkovsky effect handle it. Done.

 

[Eli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect

Thanks. Very interesting!

 

[Cogman]

So in summary, since we can't predict what we'll invent, we shouldn't even bother? Your argument doesn't make sense.

No, my argument is "Don't assume that in 100 years we will have uber asteroid destroying technology." If we don't have it today, there is a chance we won't have it tomorrow. In other words, just because we've advanced miles in silicon tech from 1910 to 2010, doesn't mean we've advanced by that same amount in bicycles.

 

[Rubycon]

They will befriend Gort and he will allow flight to the bogey 'roid where he will break down into his tiny automatonic fleas that will do their job. Gort will return 5x his size and land on North Korea and straighten them out.

 

[DrPizza]

So what we really need is about 5 Saturn VIII stage 1 rockets, each paired with 4 - 5 segment SRB's and an external fuel tank, and lets push this thing out of the solar system. Or is that a little overkill?

If we wait too long, that won't be anywhere near enough.

 

[Gothgar]

cool story

 

[Paladin3]

Sorry, I'm confused. Are the scientists saying we have a 999-in-1,000 chance that we will be just fine? If so I'm not quite as worried anymore.

 

[sandorski]

Land on it and Mine the shit out of it.

 

[zinfamous]

Name one technological improvement predicted in 1910 that actually came to pass.

In terms of the ability to stop an asteroid, yes we can now get into space better then we could in 1910, however, our ability to stop that asteroid is pretty much the same as if it was 1910.

Predicting "Yep, we'll be able to beam the asteroid to jupiter" Or some other malarkey is pointless. We don't know what our capabilities will be. It might be that we lose the ability to alter the asteroids course, but come out with a cool Iphone 209.

let's see, lots of people thought we would split the atom (HG Wells, for one), smack in the 19th century no less, even when all of the days top physicists claimed such was impossible.

Goddard was trying to build a rocket to the moon even before Wells was thinking about the atom. He predicted that it would happen in his lifetime. Well, it didn't...but it did happen.

ummm...saying that our ability is the same as it was in 1910 is fucking insane. We can fucking send a rocket to the moon now. We couldn't even obtain orbit in 1910. That is certainly a closer step to such a possibility.

 

[zinfamous]

No, my argument is "Don't assume that in 100 years we will have uber asteroid destroying technology." If we don't have it today, there is a chance we won't have it tomorrow. In other words, just because we've advanced miles in silicon tech from 1910 to 2010, doesn't mean we've advanced by that same amount in bicycles.

and since we haven't advanced so far in bicycles (your'e right about that), then we should assume that our space exploration would be less of an advancement than we assume it should be?

that makes no sense either.

You are right though that we should not assume that the expected rate of technological advancement should proceed on as it currently has.

But the 20th century did see a starkly exponential increase in technology across the board--and not just in silicon, compared to previous centuries--especially in the latest half-century.

You also may be discounting the necessary importance of silicon advancement as it would apply to such a technology--the type of guidance and control systems, advanced independent functions that an asteroid hunting missile/ship would depend on would be entirely dependent on silicon technology. SO it is right to look at the advancement of silicon as relevant to the progression of technology in this argument.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Sucks for those starting a 200 year sub-prime mortgage.

 

[TridenT]

I'll be dead, thus I do not care.

What you don't know can't hurt you.

 

[Sea Moose]

and since we haven't advanced so far in bicycles (your'e right about that), then we should assume that our space exploration would be less of an advancement than we assume it should be?

that makes no sense either.

You are right though that we should not assume that the expected rate of technological advancement should proceed on as it currently has.

But the 20th century did see a starkly exponential increase in technology across the board--and not just in silicon, compared to previous centuries--especially in the latest half-century.

You also may be discounting the necessary importance of silicon advancement as it would apply to such a technology--the type of guidance and control systems, advanced independent functions that an asteroid hunting missile/ship would depend on would be entirely dependent on silicon technology. SO it is right to look at the advancement of silicon as relevant to the progression of technology in this argument.

Christianity is gonna kill us all

 

[Cogman]

and since we haven't advanced so far in bicycles (your'e right about that), then we should assume that our space exploration would be less of an advancement than we assume it should be?

that makes no sense either.

You are right though that we should not assume that the expected rate of technological advancement should proceed on as it currently has.

But the 20th century did see a starkly exponential increase in technology across the board--and not just in silicon, compared to previous centuries--especially in the latest half-century.

You also may be discounting the necessary importance of silicon advancement as it would apply to such a technology--the type of guidance and control systems, advanced independent functions that an asteroid hunting missile/ship would depend on would be entirely dependent on silicon technology. SO it is right to look at the advancement of silicon as relevant to the progression of technology in this argument.

Let me put it this way. What new advancements have we seen in space exploration in the last 20 years? Heck, if anything, our ability to get to space is DECREASING.

Yes, the ability to do any calculation needed with todays silicon tech is a nice advancement, but it is only a sliver of the entire equation. There is only so much a guidance computer can do (And I would argue that we are at that point).

Silicon is intermixed with space travel. However, it isn't the everything of space travel and asteroid avoidance. Our ability to stop an asteroid is about the same as it was 20 years ago. That ability hasn't increased NEARLY as much as silicon technology has.

 

[Regs]

No, my argument is "Don't assume that in 100 years we will have uber asteroid destroying technology." If we don't have it today, there is a chance we won't have it tomorrow. In other words, just because we've advanced miles in silicon tech from 1910 to 2010, doesn't mean we've advanced by that same amount in bicycles.

It's usually when we are on the brink of destruction, conflict, or in either case, fighting for survival is when we truly progress our race.