Scientists plan mission to blow up an asteroid 'hurtling towards Earth'

[keystone102]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026710/Fact-following-fiction-Scientists-plan-mission-blow-asteroid-hurtling-Earth.html

[Eclipse]

Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.

...ever.

[PWK-GT]

Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.

...ever.

I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler!

[Persona non grata]

Can I be Rockhound.......

[HGjunkie]

*Cough* Am I the only one who noticed this is from the Daily Mail?  *cough*  :angel:

[titanII]

*Cough* Am I the only one who noticed this is from the Daily Mail?  *cough*  :angel:

I saw that too, proceeded to read the article, and then proceeded to shake my head and smirk. 

I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler!

Oh no, please don't remind me of that terribly scientifically inaccurate movie!!!

[MIKE]

I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler!

I volunteer to be an animal cracker.

[davidsinn]

I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler!

I volunteer to be an animal cracker.

You want to get eaten by Ben Affleck? 

[Eclipse]

Oh no, please don't remind me of that terribly scientifically inaccurate movie!!!

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!


Hey, it might have "issues" with the science, but it will kick the butt out of your 5.1 system!

[DC]

I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler!

I volunteer to be an animal cracker.

+1,000

[titanII]

Hey, it might have "issues" with the science, but it will kick the butt out of your 5.1 system!

That's true

[spacecommand]

Deep Impact followed a "tad" more believable storyline.

Of course there's a lot more science to blowing something up in space, blowing it up in space might actually make things worse.
Depends entirely on the composition, size etc of the object.

Another theory I like is, instead of blowing the thing up, pushing the object off course so it misses the Earth, though that doesn't sound as cool as blowing one up. 

Lots of research still needed.

[SarDragon]

Deep Impact followed a "tad" more believable storyline.

Of course there's a lot more science to blowing something up in space, blowing it up in space might actually make things worse.
Depends entirely on the composition, size etc of the object.

Another theory I like is, instead of blowing the thing up, pushing the object off course so it misses the Earth, though that doesn't sound as cool as blowing one up. 

Lots of research still needed.

Exactly.

Watch a video of skeet or trap shooting some time. The destroyed bird's fragments maintain the same trajectory as before, because of the differences in masses. Simply shattering it with a big explosion doesn't reduce the mass, or have a great effect on the trajectory.

[titanII]

Watch a video of skeet or trap shooting some time. The destroyed bird's fragments maintain the same trajectory as before, because of the differences in masses. Simply shattering it with a big explosion doesn't reduce the mass, or have a great effect on the trajectory.

THANK YOU! I've always tried to explain why blowing up an asteroid wouldn't work, but never could really make a good point. Permission to use this metaphor in the future?

[SarDragon]

Absolutely. 

[JeffDG]

Deep Impact followed a "tad" more believable storyline.

Of course there's a lot more science to blowing something up in space, blowing it up in space might actually make things worse.
Depends entirely on the composition, size etc of the object.

Another theory I like is, instead of blowing the thing up, pushing the object off course so it misses the Earth, though that doesn't sound as cool as blowing one up. 

Lots of research still needed.

Exactly.

Watch a video of skeet or trap shooting some time. The destroyed bird's fragments maintain the same trajectory as before, because of the differences in masses. Simply shattering it with a big explosion doesn't reduce the mass, or have a great effect on the trajectory.

This is where Deep Impact had things a bit better.  They wanted to split the object in half, each half passing on either side of Earth.  This obeys conservation of momentum, which is one of those rules you really can't ignore!  Now, the timeframe they had was wildly unrealistic and distorted to Hollywood specs, but the basic principle was not bad.

[SarDragon]

That will work.

[blackrain]

I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler!

I volunteer to be an animal cracker.

+1,000

North or South?

I think my winds are favoring a landing on runway 18 with a rollout all the way to the far end

[♠SARKID♠]

I always thought the micro-gravitational pull solution was interesting.  Send a really heavy satellite out into deep space to meet up with the object, and park it right next to it on a parallel path.  Over time, the satellite's gravity pulls the asteroid a tiny tiny fraction off heading, which over a vast distance in space amounts to pulling the object off it's collision course.

[SarDragon]

Unless the added satellite is substantially more massive than the object you're trying to divert (not a trivial task), the paths would merely converge.

[jimmydeanno]

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-star-treks-tractor-beam-possible.html

[♠SARKID♠]

Unless the added satellite is substantially more massive than the object you're trying to divert (not a trivial task), the paths would merely converge.

Unless the satellite is able to periodically use a thruster to maintain a constant distance.

[davidsinn]

Unless the added satellite is substantially more massive than the object you're trying to divert (not a trivial task), the paths would merely converge.

Unless the satellite is able to periodically use a thruster to maintain a constant distance.

The amount of energy needed to get the Δv required to lob an sufficiently massive object + fuel to an asteroid would be better spent just pushing the asteroid into a new orbit.

[tsrup]

Deep Impact followed a "tad" more believable storyline.

Of course there's a lot more science to blowing something up in space, blowing it up in space might actually make things worse.
Depends entirely on the composition, size etc of the object.

Another theory I like is, instead of blowing the thing up, pushing the object off course so it misses the Earth, though that doesn't sound as cool as blowing one up. 

Lots of research still needed.

Exactly.

Watch a video of skeet or trap shooting some time. The destroyed bird's fragments maintain the same trajectory as before, because of the differences in masses. Simply shattering it with a big explosion doesn't reduce the mass, or have a great effect on the trajectory.

This is where Deep Impact had things a bit better.  They wanted to split the object in half, each half passing on either side of Earth.  This obeys conservation of momentum, which is one of those rules you really can't ignore!  Now, the timeframe they had was wildly unrealistic and distorted to Hollywood specs, but the basic principle was not bad.

Isn't that what they wanted to do in Armageddon as well?

[MikeD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXyaTwS5N10