If an asteroid was coming would you want to know?

[divito]

1 hour ago, Moonzy said:

An asteroid with 22-33 times the energy of the hiroshima atomic bomb went undetected until it entered the atmosphere, therefore I disagree

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

1. That was only 20m across.

2. Most of the energy was absorbed by the atmosphere.

OP is talking about an "end of world" scenario, which would call for a significantly larger, and more detectable-type asteroid. 

[Sarra]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

No, no we wouldn't.

 

No, we don't have anything against planet killers.

 

 

Hollywood science around asteroids is all BS, people need to stop believing what they see in movies and TV shows , it's entertainment, not science.

 

Technically, there's a chance we would know about a planet killer ahead of time. Apophis, for example, we know about, and it could lead to a mass extinction if it were to hit, and we will know in the next few years if it's going to hit us or not. If it were to hit us, we could launch a rocket up into space, position it on the asteroid, and give it a very slight nudge, and bump it just enough that it won't hit us 12 years later.

 

Do we have the technology to do this now? Yes. Would it be immeasurably expensive? Probably not.

 

What would we have to do to keep it from hitting Earth? Nudge it by just a few meters per second.

 

As for massive, planet obliterators, no, we don't really have the technology to defeat those yet. The best method to defeat them would be to alter their trajectory to miss us, and absolute best case scenario, send them into Jupiter. Having years or decades of lead time would be required, until we get real inter-system capabilities.

 

Blowing up an asteroid is not really an option, all it does is spread the damage out over a wider area.

[WkdPaul]

26 minutes ago, Sarra said:

Technically, there's a chance we would know about a planet killer ahead of time.

Totally, we're technically able to detect and predicts trajectories of 10km+ objects, but anything smaller is harder to detect, so we could possibly miss a country or city killer, and something like this can have very large effects, if not planet wise (not killing the planet, but it could trigger a year-long winter for exemple, and with that comes crops and live stock issues, etc...).

 

26 minutes ago, Sarra said:

we could launch a rocket up into space, position it on the asteroid, and give it a very slight nudge, and bump it just enough that it won't hit us 12 years later.

 

Do we have the technology to do this now? Yes. Would it be immeasurably expensive? Probably not.

We don't have the technology for this, no, check the video I posted and forward to 13:30. If you think we have anything that could help us with that, it's Hollywood movie / TV BS science or stuff people say to make themselves feel better, but in truth, IRL, there's nothing we can do against asteroids, except hoping they burn up in the atmosphere.

 

 

Planet killers, we will know in advance, yes, but that's not what I meant in my post (sorry if it wasn't clear).

[Sauron]

18 hours ago, whm1974 said:

A massive enough asteroid to cause mass extinction we will know well in advance.  

That entirely depends on which direction it would be coming from.

[WkdPaul]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That entirely depends on which direction it would be coming from.

Wait, you're telling me Armageddon isn't a documentary ???

 

*press x to doubt*

[Sarra]

12 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

We don't have the technology for this, no, check the video I posted and forward to 13:30. If you think we have anything that could help us with that, it's Hollywood movie / TV BS science or stuff people say to make themselves feel better, but in truth, IRL, there's nothing we can do against asteroids, except hoping they burn up in the atmosphere.

Please stop parroting the same 'hollywood' line. None of the information I've posted is based on movies.

[WkdPaul]

2 minutes ago, Sarra said:

Please stop parroting the same 'hollywood' line. None of the information I've posted is based on movies.

Except it is, we DO NOT have any technologies to push asteroids away ... if you know more than scientists that are on panels to work out a solution for this (again, see the video I posted), then please, you're welcome to share it with them, I'm sure they would love to hear about it.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Wait, you're telling me Armageddon isn't a documentary ???

Oh no that one's real, after all if Bruce Willis didn't stop that asteroid how come we're still alive?

[Sarra]

2 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Except it is, we DO NOT have any technologies to push asteroids away ... if you know more than scientists that are on panels to work out a solution for this (again, see the video I posted), then please, you're welcome to share it with them, I'm sure they would love to hear about it.

 

[WkdPaul]

8 minutes ago, Sarra said:

 

You do realize all the stuff he's presenting is theoretical, right?

 

Then he says (about the nuke, impactor, and tractor) "we could put those together tomorrow" ... wait, what? Sorry, but he lost me with that !

 

With urgency, I'm sure governments and agencies would throw something together, but as of now, it's all on paper, we never built or tested any of the technology he's talking about.

 

Tractor ; this was never built nor tested, it works in theory but would be VERY slow, so now sure how we could put it together tomorrow ...

Nuke ; as of today, we never detonated a nuke in space and have a treaty against it, it works in theory but not very well against some asteroids

Impactor ; again, only theoretical, there's a project in place, but we'll only know the efficiency in 2022 (the DART mission is set to be launched this summer). And that's only for test purposes, we don't have anything ready for an impactor against a kilometer wide asteroid.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance

 

 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

You do realize all the stuff he's presenting is theoretical, right?

 

Then he says (about the nuke, impactor, and tractor) "we could put those together tomorrow" ... wait, what? Sorry, but he lost me with that !

 

With urgency, I'm sure governments and agencies would throw something together, but as of now, it's all on paper, we never built or tested any of the technology he's talking about.

 

Tractor ; this was never built nor tested, it works in theory but would be VERY slow, so now sure how we could put it together tomorrow ...

Nuke ; as of today, we never detonated a nuke in space and have a treaty against it, it works in theory but not very well against some asteroids

Impactor ; again, only theoretical, there's a project in place, but we'll only know the efficiency in 2022 (the DART mission is set to be launched this summer). And that's only for test purposes, we don't have anything ready for an impactor against a kilometer wide asteroid.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance

 

 

I feel like you're confusing two different statements. You said we don't have the tech to avoid asteroids. He posted a link, and you said it's all theoretical.

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive things though. Theoretical just means nobody has put it into practice.

 

I think we do have the tech, given enough time before impact. It will definitely involve some innovation and overcoming engineering problems, but the theoretical tech required are all within our current understanding of science and engineering.

[Guest]

If it's a planet killer large sized asteroid, there's very little we can do to stop it. 

Our Nukes are too small, Lazers bounce off, landing and drilling is next to impossible.

 

If it comes to and end, I would like to stay on the topic and know it was coming. Then I can hold my family when we get blasted to particles.

[Senzelian]

Nah, wouldn't want to know.

 

3 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Our Nukes are too small

Nah, we're capeable of building nukes that can split the earth into two. The question is just how to transport it.

[dizmo]

I'd want to know. No reason not to, really. It gives you time to say your goodbyes, your apologies, and do things you might not have otherwise done.

Let's be real though, it's pretty unlikely that we'd have something that large coming towards earth without us knowing.

 

On 1/19/2021 at 4:00 PM, Donut417 said:

Yes. Id go to the store and buy as much candy as I could. Id buy a few pizza's and other foods. Id eat like a king. At least I'll die happy . 

That's so simplistic it's adorable.

On 1/20/2021 at 8:02 AM, wkdpaul said:

Would love to, but it's very possible that we would only know when the asteroid hit us.

 

Was going to mention something, but I don't want to spoil a currently airing TV show ... 

Psh you wouldn't be ruining anything, who watches TV?

5 hours ago, Moonzy said:

An asteroid with 22-33 times the energy of the hiroshima atomic bomb went undetected until it entered the atmosphere, therefore I disagree

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

Yeahhh that's not really that big though. At least not on the scale that the OP is talking.

Russia, for example, has tested bombs with more than 1,570 times the force of both of the bombs dropped on Japan.

[Sarra]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I feel like you're confusing two different statements. You said we don't have the tech to avoid asteroids. He posted a link, and you said it's all theoretical.

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive things though. Theoretical just means nobody has put it into practice.

Thank you. I was getting kind of frustrated, so I stepped away, but you put into words what I was thinking.

[WkdPaul]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I feel like you're confusing two different statements. You said we don't have the tech to avoid asteroids. He posted a link, and you said it's all theoretical.

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive things though. Theoretical just means nobody has put it into practice.

 

I think we do have the tech, given enough time before impact. It will definitely involve some innovation and overcoming engineering problems, but the theoretical tech required are all within our current understanding of science and engineering.

It may be pedantic, or it may be a language thing (remember English isn't my first language), but "we have the technology to do it" and "we have the theoretical understanding of XYZ and a path to do it" are entirely different. Yes, we do have tech that could be applied to the theories explained (in both videos), but until it's actually done, it's still theoretical.

 

In the video he linked to, the host said we could "put something together tomorrow", while somewhat true, what we could possibly 'throw together' might not work at all. My point is ; understanding how something works (theory) doesn't mean we can have something working tomorrow morning. Having the tech, and putting it to work are absolutely different things.

 

A good exemple of what I'm trying to say would be Intel's 7nm process ... I'm sure Intel has the theory figured out, and we do have the tech do to it, and yet, here we are.

 

 

EDIT ; BTW, for planet killers, if we have centuries to prepare, then yeah, I'm sure we'll figure something out as there will be enough time, obviously. As I said in one of my reply, my statement was about the tech to stop smaller asteroids (city / state killers) that while not big enough to be a planet killer, would be enough to screw with the whole planet (look up 'year without a summer'), those we have a harder time to spot, and it's totally possible we can miss one until it's too late.

 

For THOSE we don't have anything technology wise that could help us ; we have no gravity tractors, we don't have much on impactors and it wouldn't work if it's a cluster, plus with those, mass is important so depending on the size and time we have, it's possible there's nothing we could do, IMO nuke is one of the most compelling one ; we do have powerful nukes, and we have the needed tech to launch one towards an asteroid, I'm sure it could be done relatively quickly, but the efficacy is still completely unknown ... so even if we can launch one and detonate it, doesn't mean it'll work (again, here I'm talking about smaller city/state killers that could be detected with very little time before it hit us, if at all). In the video he referenced, the host implied we're ready and could launch something tomorrow, that is very much not the case, for any size asteroid.

Edited January 24, 2021 by wkdpaul

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Nah, wouldn't want to know.

 

Nah, we're capeable of building nukes that can split the earth into two. The question is just how to transport it.

Split the earth in two? 

 

Almost all nukes detonate above ground.  We use the fallout to eliminate humans and buildings. They are not designed to split planets in half. Lol.

 

Change Asteroid trajectory. That would be the most sensible option to use Nukes. 

 

Making a large asteroid smaller may not save any lives. 

[514_AppleGuy]

Absolutely, I would want to know. I would just head to the Winchester, grab a pint, and wait until it just blows over.

[whm1974]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

EDIT ; BTW, for planet killers, if we have centuries to prepare, then yeah, I'm sure we'll figure something out as there will be enough time, obviously. As I said in one of my reply, my statement was about the tech to stop smaller asteroids (city / state killers) that while not big enough to be a planet killer, would be enough to screw with the whole planet (look up 'year without a summer'), those we have a harder time to spot, and it's totally possible we can miss one until it's too late.

Come to think of it, the smaller asteroids might be one the most dangerous since they are they are the most common and the hardest to spot.

 

[Senzelian]

7 hours ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Split the earth in two? 

 

Almost all nukes detonate above ground.

I meant it more as a demonstration of power, not as literally splitting the planet into two.

[whm1974]

8 hours ago, Senzelian said:

I meant it more as a demonstration of power, not as literally splitting the planet into two.

If you don't want People to take what you said Literally, then perhaps you shouldn't write in such a manner... Even the Soviet Union's Tsar Nuke wasn't that powerful.

[Senzelian]

3 hours ago, whm1974 said:

If you don't want People to take what you said Literally, then perhaps you shouldn't write in such a manner... Even the Soviet Union's Tsar Nuke wasn't that powerful.

I can't believe that I thought people would be smart enough to figure out, that splitting a planet into exactly two pieces wasn't a realistic scenario. 

 

Btw. The AN602 was designed to deliver a 100MT explosion. It was cut down to roughly half (~57MT) during testing.

Currently all nuclear warheads on earth have a explosive power of ~3000MT. (Take that number with a grain of salt. It's from 2019 and is of course always changing + some countries are not exactly very accurate with their numbers) The only reason we don't have more, is because that's enough to get rid of all human life on earth.

[whm1974]

1 minute ago, Senzelian said:

I can't believe that I thought people would be smart enough to figure out, that splitting a planet into exactly two pieces wasn't a realistic scenario. 

 

Btw. The AN602 was designed to deliver a 100MT explosion. It was cut down to roughly half (~57MT) during testing.

Currently all nuclear warheads on earth have a explosive power of ~3000MT. (Take that number with a grain of salt. It's from 2019 and is of course always changing + some countries are not exactly very accurate with their numbers) The only reason we don't have more, is because that's enough to get rid of all human life on earth.

Don't overestimate Human Smartness.... There are only two things that are Possibly Eternal. The Universe itself, and Human Stupidity. I am not too Sure about the Former...

 

There have been more then enough Nukes in the US alone, to wipe out Humanity multiple times over, since the 70's if not not before.

[Dundee]

Personally, no. My reasoning is that I don’t want to know when I will die, and if I do die, I just hope it’s instant. No pain.

[Giganthrax]

Yes I would. I'd want to spend my last days doing the things I love and sharing good times with my friends and family. I'd want to call a certain person I haven't seen in years and tell them I'm sorry.

 

Also, I'd love to eat whatever I wanted, smoke shisha every day, blow all of my money on booze and coke, and party like there's no tomorrow.