Space rock 'on collision course' with Earth!!!

[monolith94]

"2 km is a serious amount of mass."
It's not mass, silly, it's a length!!!

[ravagon]

Not a clue I'm afraid. Most of the tests have been either underground or airbursts, not a "groundburst" as it would be in the case of hitting an asteroid with a warhead. Assume about 40-50% of the energy goes into the asteroid?
From memory I think the underground tests vapourized over a hundred metre radius of solid "rock" (read: coral reef ) but I don't remember the warhead yields.
I think vapourizing a similar quantity of matter in a body as small as that asteroid should be enough to fracture it ... ?

[KrazyHorse]

Probably not. It would knock a chunk off it, but in my opinion would probably not shatter the whole. At best you could hope to break it in half...

If you could get to it early enough (a year in advance, say), a nice big H-bomb would easily knowck it off course.

[KrazyHorse]

A hundred metre dent runs 5% of the length (and thus occupies 0.0125% of the volume) of the whole...

[monolith94]

wouldn't you have to know height and width to be able to calculate that though?

[Lung]

The point of the above debate is, crucially, how solid is the asteriod in question. If it formed in the Kuiper belt from collated material, you would only need to get individual components moving, for them to slowly, but surely, dissipate. However, if the asteriod was broken off a large body the size of the moon, we would be in deep poo! You do realise that for a simple collection of matter 2km across, you only need to create a shockwave big enough to reach the surface (of noticable force) to dissipate it entirely. Escape velocity of mere centimetres per second only requires a small movement of the entire mass to effectively destroy it.

Considering, though, that few asteroids from the Kuiper belt could ever threaten earth, but asteroids from the asteroid belt can and do, the former is unlikely. The cause of the asteroid belt is the secret to how much of a threat these asteroids are. If they were formed from a rocky planet, they are quite a cause for concern. Then again, if it happened billions of years ago, they are likely to have a reasonably high proportion of collated material.


Mobius, this is all your fault!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Isn't it interesting...we all have our own opinions, beliefs, dogmas, hatreds, peeves, delights, agendas, each person being unique...and there is a (minute) possiblity that all of us will be wiped out in a second.

[Caesar the Great]

Originally posted by orange
what a way to go.

meh, gotta die sometime

i like your attitude

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Frogger
A hundred metre dent runs 5% of the length (and thus occupies 0.0125% of the volume) of the whole...

Then we only need 8000 nukes, and It's bye-bye meteoroid.

[Starchild]

Oh, this will just do wonders for the stock market.

[The Mad Monk]

A 2km wide asteroid isn't really much of a threat in any case. Not enough mass to serious impact the planets axial tilt or orbit (which could annihilate virtually all life) hence the major threat comes from the primary impact and the projected dust cloud fallout.

Assuming eough mass to get through the atmosphere, it's not the mass, it's the velocity (remember which part of the energy equation is cubed). According to the article, the etimated impact velocity (28 km/s) is more than enough to wipe out a continent.

I agree about having time to deal with this, but forget about "blowing it up". What we want to do is push it into a friendlier orbit -- think billiards.

[Lorizael]

Dan do you know how many nukes there are between the US and Russia? Great way to get rid of our stockpile if you ask me...

And the Soviet Union actually constructed 100 megaton warheads for taking out... mountains (Norad).

Personally I hope we are hit. The worlds needs a good shaking up.

Edit: Where did bit come from... nevermind to all who don't know what I'm talking about.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I agree about having time to deal with this, but forget about "blowing it up". What we want to do is push it into a friendlier orbit -- think billiards.

That's why we need to have a healthy Space programme in place so that if something such as this needs to be addressed, it can be done at a sufficient distance from Earth so that a deflection of a degree or two will be more than enough to miss Earth.

The idea of trying to destroy a meteor close to Earth would merely see us 'rained on' if the nukes succeeded in breaking it up - could that actually have a worse effect?

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Dan do you know how many nukes there are between the US and Russia? Great way to get rid of our stockpile if you ask me...

And the Soviet Union actually constructed 100 megaton warheads for taking out... mountains (Norad).

Personally I hope we are hit. The worlds needs a good shaking up.

Edit: Where did bit come from... nevermind to all who don't know what I'm talking about.

The US had 32,000 at one time, but they weren't all "city killers." Many were for tactical use. Personally, I don't like the Idea of nuclear weapons being launched. If we did it from geostat orbit, maybe. But just the US. We all know how safe USSR products were

[Kirnwaffen]

Last I saw, the US and Russia had about 6000 strategic nukes between us.

[Lorizael]

Actually there is some merit to that. The type of fuels they use for their ballistic missiles are the type that don't actually last very long. A good deal of their missiles aren't in firing condition.

But that can be fixed if need be...

[Dominikos]

Tunguska was the one I was thinking of. Damned lucky it hit a totally unpopulated area, it was massive!

The explosion over Tunguska was so powerful it was reported that people in London could actually read the newspaper at night, due to the brightness of the night sky for a short period of time. I can't say whether that is actually true or not.

But supposing that an asteroid 2 km in diameter missed our planet by a close few thousand kilometers, it could still have the potential to affect the climate/atmospheric conditions on earth, although not significantly.

If it did hit, it would be one major light show. Personally, I would like to see more money pumped into research on how to destroy a potential killer asteroid before it impacts the earth. Yes, Armaggeddon was a silly movie but it did present an interesting idea, although the actual planting of a nuclear device would be completed by an unmanned space vehicle rather than a crackpot team of gung-ho earthling superheroes from a drilling platform.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Lung]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
The idea of trying to destroy a meteor close to Earth would merely see us 'rained on' if the nukes succeeded in breaking it up - could that actually have a worse effect?

Surely not! Even just the greater surface area would result in more burning up on entry. Also, imagine spreading the impact of a bullet over your entire body. Entire surface bruising wouldn't do as much damage. A tennis ball withstands immense pressure per square inch, but a simple sharp object renders it useless!

A single solid chunk of rock of sufficient mass and velocity could fracture and/or shift tectonic plates. A million millionths (edit: not 1/1000000000000ths - 1000000 x 1/1000000) of the same rock spread out over a continent would not have the same effect. Of course, this is all mere speculation

[Dominikos]

Would we hit it with a missile, or plant a destructive device on it?

I take it that the missile option is the easiest route.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Mr. President]

Presumably the missile is easier, yes. You could either try and shatter it into harmless pieces with a direct hit, or set off the explosion near to but not on the asteroid to try and divert its course. Either option is difficult to get right. Carl Sagan speculated on asteroids and nuclear warheads in his book Pale Blue Dot.

[Freeze]

Here's a site with images of Shoemaker-Levy 9, the 1.5km diameter asteriod that fragmented before smacing into Jupiter.


http://www.amara.com/sl9/sl9_montage.html

http://www.amara.com/sl9/sl9.html

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Lung
Surely not! Even just the greater surface area would result in more burning up on entry. Also, imagine spreading the impact of a bullet over your entire body. Entire surface bruising wouldn't do as much damage. A tennis ball withstands immense pressure per square inch, but a simple sharp object renders it useless!

It would, true, but I'm thinking that the huge chunk would probably fracture into several large chunks still capable of punching through our atmosphere - so instead of suffering a single gun shot wound we'd be 'blasted alive' by a point blank shotgun blast.

Your tennis ball point is valid for the tennis ball, but the point is that we're the poor bastards stuck on the surface!

So, perhaps instead of intercepting the Asteroid we should just build gigantic underground bunkers to protect the population? Of course with that much notice, everyone can arrange to travel to the opposite side of the planet!

A single solid chunk of rock of sufficient mass and velocity could fracture and/or shift tectonic plates. A million millionths (edit: not 1/1000000000000ths - 1000000 x 1/1000000) of the same rock spread out over a continent would not have the same effect. Of course, this is all mere speculation

I think we'd be screwed either way if it were that large!

Hence the need to be able to deflect a massive object deep in space...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by monolith94
wouldn't you have to know height and width to be able to calculate that though?

We're playing the estimation game right now.

[KrazyHorse]

velocity (remember which part of the energy equation is cubed)

Squared. Anyhow, it has neither the kinetic energy nor momentum to actually play with the orbital mechanics of any planet.

[KrazyHorse]

But supposing that an asteroid 2 km in diameter missed our planet by a close few thousand kilometers, it could still have the potential to affect the climate/atmospheric conditions on earth, although not significantly

How? Please don't say anything about gravity...

[Lung]

Originally posted by Frogger

But supposing that an asteroid 2 km in diameter missed our planet by a close few thousand kilometers, it could still have the potential to affect the climate/atmospheric conditions on earth, although not significantly

How? Please don't say anything about gravity...

Why, the really fast wind, of course!

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Frogger

velocity (remember which part of the energy equation is cubed)

Squared. Anyhow, it has neither the kinetic energy nor momentum to actually play with the orbital mechanics of any planet.

Oops -- squared is correct -- give that frog a cookie!

Orbital mechanics is irrelevent; all it needs to do is make the suface inhospitable for a period...

[KrazyHorse]

It's like saying that the lump of gravel I walked by today somehow will end up knocking me dead...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Oops -- squared is correct -- give that frog a cookie!

Orbital mechanics is irrelevent; all it needs to do is make the suface inhospitable for a period...

That as his point, though; that while it could kill a hell of a lot of people (or even, were it 10X bigger, kill everyone) it couldn't kill off all life on Earth (to do that it would actually need to play billiards with the Earth).

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, Armaggeddon was a silly movie but it did present an interesting idea, although the actual planting of a nuclear device would be completed by an unmanned space vehicle rather than a crackpot team of gung-ho earthling superheroes from a drilling platform

Armaggeddon is a good movie for illustrating just how poorly Hollywood understands or cares about science. Each time I see it, I do my own brand of MST3K.

Check out Deep Impact if you want a better view of what could happen.