Muzman on 24/2/2007 at 04:31
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
The sentence "...then use the spacecraft’s gravitational pull to shift the asteroid’s course..." implies they want to move the asteroid simply by positioning the spacecraft nearby and letting its mass and thus gravity change the path of the asteroid. Kinda like the moon changed and stabilized earth's orbit over millions of years. Only I didn't know we had such heavy spacecraft that can actually exert any noticeable gravity field. :p
It's outer space dude, everything is relative. A grain of sand has mass and therefore exerts gravitational force on things around it.
Send a 5 ton ship to a big asteroid far enough out and you will affect its path with gravity. And even if it's .000001 of a degree, it probably means the thing misses us by a few million miles now.
(i'll probably get slapped for my terminology somewhere, but the principle is sound I think. And it's true its not the most confidence inspiring plan)
Dia on 24/2/2007 at 13:43
The biggest problem for any treaty as Schweickart sees it is the inherently altruistic nature of anwering the problem - by funding a global plan nations would have to accept individual sacrifices for the good of the whole of planet. Familiarity with the toothless Kyoto Protocol on climate change is instructive on how difficult that can be to achieve.
That scares me more than the damned asteroid. They'll be debating this for the next two and a half decades during which they'll decide about 5 times that there is no asteroid and it's all a scheme to slow the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative (sorry wrong treaty), worry how their opinion will affect their re-election, recant their previous opinions, recant their recants, then one week before the thing hits earth they'll say they were in favor of the treaty in the first place and it's not their fault.
I say send Willis, et al, up again.
Wait; didn't he die blowing up the last rock headed for Earth?
Nevermind.
Fingernail on 24/2/2007 at 14:01
I'm sure what would actually happen is if the UN failed to coordinate a response to this kind of thing, the US would basically do it, probably with the support of its allies.
But then, can you imagine a world where the US can claim to have saved humanity from extinction? Talk about ego boosting.
fett on 24/2/2007 at 14:04
Quote Posted by Fingernail
But then, can you imagine a world where the US can claim to have saved humanity from extinction? Talk about ego boosting.
We have already done this by exporting to you our pop music culture, and stunningly brilliant day time TV programs.
WE JUST GIVE AND GIVE AND GIVE...:mad:
Kolya on 24/2/2007 at 14:39
I want to see democracy rule on Apophis.
zombe on 24/2/2007 at 22:30
hm. Theoretical question: given that an asteroid (something on the dino-killer scale) got too near to earth for us to change its course enough for the thing to miss earth. what could be done to lessen the threat? also, what would be the worst/best from the following:
1) it hits the earth without us doing anything.
2) it gets nuked and all the pices hit earth - so, all of the impact energy gets relased to atmosphere.
3) it gets nuked and it only breaks apart. resulting up to dozen pices (big enough to survive entry to atmosphere) hiting earth (all the pices) at various locations.
Add to 2 and 3 the possibility that space around earth gets to some degree polluted with asteroid debirs.
What would be less disasterous?
Bjossi on 24/2/2007 at 22:53
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
The sentence "...then use the spacecraft’s gravitational pull to shift the asteroid’s course..." implies they want to move the asteroid simply by positioning the spacecraft nearby and letting its mass and thus gravity change the path of the asteroid. Kinda like the moon changed and stabilized earth's orbit over millions of years. Only I didn't know we had such heavy spacecraft that can actually exert any noticeable gravity field. :p
Looks like the Von Braun may be built sooner than expected. :sly::p
st.patrick on 24/2/2007 at 22:54
Option 1: WE R DAID D00D
Option 2: We lose some satellites n shit, CIA + KGB + weather reporters etc. are BUST, possibly radioactive rainfall
Option 3: Not as shitty as 1 cos there ain't no Ubertsunami but a dozen smaller ones (kinda like 2004)
I'd go for 2
P.S.: Optional solution: Let's launch SD into orbit, he'll crush the rock between his MASSIVE THIGHS like nothing
Aerothorn on 24/2/2007 at 23:08
Anyone read the part where it said the chance of hitting earth was one in 45,000?
I'm not saying we should ignore it, but it's hardly "OMG WE'RE DOOMED". There is a very, very high chance that the proper course of action is to ignore it. The question is whether we want to risk that.
Printer's Devil on 24/2/2007 at 23:15
In case anyone bothered to check, December 21st, 2012 is where it's at. The Mayans predicted when, but not how. Geo-scientists are claiming the magnetic field is weakening as a prelude to a pole shift, which will expose us to the radiation of the next solar maximum, which, by all predictions is going to be furious with deadly flares. Or something like that.
