http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026710/Fact-following-fiction-Scientists-plan-mission-blow-asteroid-hurtling-Earth.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2026710/Fact-following-fiction-Scientists-plan-mission-blow-asteroid-hurtling-Earth.html)
Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.
...ever.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2011, 04:43:58 PM
Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.
...ever.
I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler! ;D
Can I be Rockhound.......
*Cough* Am I the only one who noticed this is from the Daily Mail? *cough* :angel:
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 18, 2011, 01:09:11 AM
*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. ;D
Quote from: PWK-GT on August 17, 2011, 05:18:59 PM
I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler! ;D
Oh no, please don't remind me of that terribly scientifically inaccurate movie!!! ::)
;D
Quote from: PWK-GT on August 17, 2011, 05:18:59 PM
I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler! ;D
I volunteer to be an animal cracker.
Quote from: MIKE on August 18, 2011, 01:27:42 AM
Quote from: PWK-GT on August 17, 2011, 05:18:59 PM
I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler! ;D
I volunteer to be an animal cracker.
You want to get eaten by Ben Affleck? >:D
Quote from: titanII on August 18, 2011, 01:11:52 AM
Oh no, please don't remind me of that terribly scientifically inaccurate movie!!!
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/16/article-2026710-0027A11500000258-750_468x318.jpg)
Hey, it might have "issues" with the science, but it will kick the butt out of your 5.1 system!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 01:39:39 AM
Hey, it might have "issues" with the science, but it will kick the butt out of your 5.1 system!
;D That's true
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.
Quote from: spacecommand on August 19, 2011, 09:50:31 PM
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.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 19, 2011, 09:59:22 PM
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?
Absolutely. 8)
Quote from: SarDragon on August 19, 2011, 09:59:22 PM
Quote from: spacecommand on August 19, 2011, 09:50:31 PM
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.
That will work.
Quote from: DC on August 18, 2011, 01:41:54 AM
Quote from: MIKE on August 18, 2011, 01:27:42 AM
Quote from: PWK-GT on August 17, 2011, 05:18:59 PM
I volunteer to guard Liv Tyler! ;D
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 >:D
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.
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.
http://news.discovery.com/space/is-star-treks-tractor-beam-possible.html
Quote from: SarDragon on September 12, 2011, 04:10:53 AM
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.
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on September 12, 2011, 05:21:48 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on September 12, 2011, 04:10:53 AM
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.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 19, 2011, 10:25:46 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on August 19, 2011, 09:59:22 PM
Quote from: spacecommand on August 19, 2011, 09:50:31 PM
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXyaTwS5N10