Announcement

**KrazyHorse** · July 24, 2002, 22:56

Doc,

From its brightness astronomers estimate it is about 2km wide, large enough to cause continent-wide devastation on Earth

**KrazyHorse** · July 24, 2002, 22:57

Originally posted by Fez
I disagree with jimmy, we already have something. And there called nuclear bombs. I say launch thirty of them and the asteroid will be vaporized.

No it wouldn't be.

**KrazyHorse** · July 24, 2002, 22:59

Originally posted by Fez
You bet we are.

No we aren't. Space missions are custom designed. Somebody would have to build and program the package from scratch. It couldn't be done overnight.

**KrazyHorse** · July 24, 2002, 23:01

Originally posted by Fez
NUKES I TELL YOU WILL DO THE JOB. A big comes launch a thousand... ought to do the trick.

A thousand nukes? We don't have the capabilities to launch that much mass into solar orbit in less than 5 years, assuming we flew every booster we have as fast as we can turn them out.

**Giancarlo** · July 24, 2002, 23:15

Originally posted by Frogger
That's only if we pay attention to the maxim that a stitch in time saves nine. Wait until a month before impact and I don't know if we'd be able to do much to save ourselves...

I am going to live that long and don't care what some say. Or at least I will try to.

FROGGER SHUT UP FOR ONCE AND STOP CHALLANGING EVERY DAMN POST I POST. If the asteroid isn't vaporized maybe it will be deflected big time.

**ravagon** · July 24, 2002, 23:33

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I just saw on the news that there could be as much as a 10% chance that this asteroid could hit Earth!!!

That may be true according to present calculations but that 10% chance has a margin of error of (and I am guessing again but I don't think its too far off) several hundred thousand percent.
ie: Its basically a load of complete baldurdash and it was utterly irresponsible for the group that released the article to allow the press any leeway whatsoever to interpret it as going to collide.
Or maybe they were just bucking for a boost in funding ...

Current rocket boosters don't have the capability to intercept a target far enough out with the desired accuracy - nor are the guidance packages able to intercept a target moving at that velocity. This could of course change fairly quickly given sufficient need.

**KrazyHorse** · July 24, 2002, 23:45

I am going to live that long and don't care what some say. Or at least I will try to.

FROGGER SHUT UP FOR ONCE AND STOP CHALLANGING EVERY DAMN POST I POST. If the asteroid isn't vaporized maybe it will be deflected big time

I've challenged every post in this thread that has been demonstrably incorrect. Unfortunately, all of your posts appear to have fallen into that category.

On a more serious note, you have no idea what you're talking about. First you think we should hit the thing with a thousand warheads. Next it's thirty. One of those is far too high for us to be able to do it, the other is far too low to vaporize a 2 kilometer lump of rock. Get some idea of scale. Dealing with something like this is not easy, and it's not an off-the-shelf solution either. We don't have hundreds of (or even dozens of-or even one) single-stage-to-solar-orbit booster lying around ready to be fired at the push of a button.

**Giancarlo** · July 25, 2002, 00:13

I DON'T CARE WHAT I AM SAYING... this is the off topic area I am not trying to be serious... and with this avatar I can't be.

So stop being a smart ass and let me be.

**Lung** · July 25, 2002, 00:47

How can anyone take you seriously with an avatar like that?

As long as we have a few years or so, if it was a matter of life or death, we could do it. All the combined resources of humanity could do it, as long as we have sufficient time. This asteroid will have a known specific trajectory within months. If, horror of horrors, it turns out to have a 90% chance of hitting earth, we would have multiple plans, plus contingency plans to move it off-course in action within 17 years

With an upper limit of 2.5 miles in diameter, it would be feasible. If it was 100 miles across, we couldn't do enough in just 17 years, even with that much notice

**KrazyHorse** · July 25, 2002, 00:49

If it was a hundred miles across I'd be voting that we put all of our resources into mineshafts...

on the moon.

**Lung** · July 25, 2002, 00:58

Mate, if it's 100 miles across, i'd start packing!

**Caesar the Great** · July 25, 2002, 01:02

if it were 100 miles across our best hope would be that it would collide with the moon

**faded glory** · July 25, 2002, 01:04

If its 100 miles across a nuke is like shooting a BB gun at an oncoming train. Dont let Hollywood movies like Independence day and armaggeddon cluttered your mind with BS. The fact is, an asteroid the size of texas could not get blown up like it was. Have you ever heard of a Nuke that could BLOW up an entire surface area of texas?

Holy crap btw. Isnt that the year the Mayan's said the world would end?

**faded glory** · July 25, 2002, 01:06

"if it were 100 miles across our best hope would be that it would collide with the moon"

Actually, this does considerably more damage. If its 100 miles across. And the moon is about 2,500. It might just *bump* the moon out of orbit or into us

**Caesar the Great** · July 25, 2002, 01:07

This is definitely the wake up call we need to kickstart the colonisation of Mars, to pull up our space technology to enable us to avoid the possibility of being hit and even have a 'back up planet' if for some reason we cannot avoid a collision...

maybe this planet was another civilization's 'back up planet'

Announcement

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

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment