Scientists have used a virtual model to investigate options to save the Earth from an asteroid impact.
According to a report in , the model was developed by a team led by David Dearborn of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, which modelled the impact of a nuclear explosion on an asteroid's trajectory.
It is based on the option of gently nudging the asteroid away from Earth without breaking it apart, either by exploding a nuclear device at a distance or zapping it with high-powered lasers.
The team's virtual asteroid was 1 kilometer in diameter and made of rocky rubble loosely bound together by gravity, which is considered by many planetary scientists to be the most likely composition for small asteroids.
Thirty years before the asteroid was set to collide with Earth, a nuclear blast, equivalent to 100 kilotonnes of TNT, was set off 250 meters behind it.
The nudge from the explosion increased its velocity by 6.5 millimeters per second, a slight change but enough for it to miss us.
The technique also reduced the risk of a break-up.
Just 1 per cent of the asteroid's material was dislodged by the blast, and of that only about 1 part in a million remained on a collision course with Earth.
Should an emergency arise, we should know that the technology is available, and we should have some idea of how to properly use it...best wishes to all members.. 
^But we'd have to see it coming much more than 30 years before it would hit! (We'd have to discover it, and then build a delivery system to get the nuke that far, then wait for it to get there, all before it got within 30 years of hitting.)
Our detection of new asteroids just isn't good enough for that. We won't have enough time.
In addition to ocalhoun's notes, I'd say this depends on more on the asteroid itself. They assumed specific details about the asteroid like its size and what materials it is consisted of, and before all they had the chance to detect it. But, let's assume what happened in the movie 'Armageddon'! or just imagine if the asteroid came from behind the moon and hit the moon directly. It is a blind spot there to us and we all know how the moon affects earth's gravity and some phenomena that is related to it.
The possibilities about an asteroid hitting earth or its moon are endless. Each case has its variables as well. Thus, in the end, we can't have a clear idea about how to stop such an incident if it happens.
One final note, I guess this doesn't relate to world news section as much as it is to Science for example. I hope it can be moved to the right place.
Yea, the chances of anything we could possibly do actually working is about as slim as the chance of an asteroid actually hitting us.
Would be interesting to see what contingency plans the world has in place? Doesn't look as though much is in place:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa072702a.htm Which is why we need to get off this rock. The Human race needs a permanent, or at least semi-permanent space habitation/ship, or colonies on other planets. Putting all our stock in one planet, and our ability to scan every part of the sky for a Doomsday Rock, and our ability to stop it if we do see it... seems a bit out of reach. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when this planet will be nailed like a drunken prom date by some horny intergallactic football captain.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Which is why we need to get off this rock. The Human race needs a permanent, or at least semi-permanent space habitation/ship, or colonies on other planets. Putting all our stock in one planet, and our ability to scan every part of the sky for a Doomsday Rock, and our ability to stop it if we do see it... seems a bit out of reach. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when this planet will be nailed like a drunken prom date by some horny intergallactic football captain. |
Interesting, so if we were to follow your Plan A, who gets to be left behind when an asteroid strikes? I like your idea, sounds like a really good one, but there needs to be a good one in place for mother earth as well. I can't see how we could survive in space when we allow earth to be obliterated. Doesn't make sense. | Quote: |
| Interesting, so if we were to follow your Plan A, who gets to be left behind when an asteroid strikes? |
I'd like to think this wouldn't happen until we are capable of getting every person safely off the planet. A bit of a long shot, but the alternative of deciding who stays is difficult. I say make the Scientologists stay.
| Quote: |
| I like your idea, sounds like a really good one, but there needs to be a good one in place for mother earth as well. |
I agree. I think the ability to deflect an asteroid from Earth would develop alongside habitable ship technology.
| Quote: |
| I can't see how we could survive in space when we allow earth to be obliterated. Doesn't make sense. |
This would be possible only with enormous ships, with artificial gravity, capable of containing farms, able to travel at very high speeds, etc. Of course, when we can do all that, then we ought to be able to knock an asteroid off course too. I just think it's only a matter of time before our numbers outgrow this planet, and at least a large number of us will have to find other planets, or live in ships/stations. Just my opinion/hope. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Just my opinion/hope. |
A good one, thanks!
Perhaps we should ask Obama for a further 1-trillion? Would have thought this would be a much worthier cause than bailing out Banks 
| deanhills wrote: |
| A good one, thanks! |
Welcome.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Perhaps we should ask Obama for a further 1-trillion? Would have thought this would be a much worthier cause than bailing out Banks |
In my opinion, only a money-less society will have the ability to become a true spacefaring people. When money is involved, invariably, beaurocracy gets in the way. Especially when it's government money. Private industry may be better, but then it will be a business built by and for the elite only. In order to make it accessible to the masses, it has to be a massive endeavor, in which all people are welcome to take part. In other words, " Space Camp" should be defined more literally, among other things.
I am really shocked that the interest in space exploration is not as important, socially, as American Idol. Once people discovered they could build ships to take people to the moon and back, it seems to me that the world should have turned on their heels and focused all of our common resources to going further in that realm. Instead, it's almost become a joke to politicians. They rarely mention it, and almost never is it taken seriously on a grand scale.
To get back on topic...
Saving the world from a massive collision can only be done by becoming a true spacefaring people. This can only be done by becoming a resource based society, rather than a monetary based society, in my opinion.[quote="Solon_Poledourus"] | deanhills wrote: |
| A good one, thanks! |
Welcome.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I am really shocked that the interest in space exploration is not as important, socially, as American Idol. Once people discovered they could build ships to take people to the moon and back, it seems to me that the world should have turned on their heels and focused all of our common resources to going further in that realm. Instead, it's almost become a joke to politicians. They rarely mention it, and almost never is it taken seriously on a grand scale. |
Right on! Like Columbus with his ships, agreed we should have had a whole series of enthusiastic explorers exploring space by now. Wow wow wow.... lol, if we plan to enjoy our time in space... we need to fix up our own planet first. Artificial gravity capable of holding farms and so forth for the billions... a BIG project. Intercepting asteroids will be pretty hard, man has tried to fight mother nature hundreds of times, most attempts have failed.
If we miraculously get a project like this finished...
Who should be left behind? Only those who deserve to be.
if we change the trajectory, it might hit back sometime later 
if hit by nuclear weapon or sth, it might break and pieces might fall on earth or at least hit some satellites or the ISS 
....
attach some kind of propulsion system to the asteroid hehe and take it to Mars!!
anyway, I don't believe a rock is coming towards us to end humanity and life on earth. i dont believe god would let that happen. 
so maybe no need to worry how to stop one!
and then, maybe since we have all the knowledge and technology now god doesn't care about an asteroid tumbling towards us, he knows we will stop one anyway!
i think we better speed up the research on how to stop one, since we don't want to be too late when one arrives. i dont think we are tracking all of the space rocks. there are plenty yet to be discovered. so emergency can come anytime. | supernova1987a wrote: |
if we change the trajectory, it might hit back sometime later
if hit by nuclear weapon or sth, it might break and pieces might fall on earth or at least hit some satellites or the ISS
....
attach some kind of propulsion system to the asteroid hehe and take it to Mars!! |
A good idea, though I'd send to the sun.
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| anyway, I don't believe a rock is coming towards us to end humanity and life on earth. i dont believe god would let that happen. |
Really? Are you serious? It almost happened already in Russia a century ago. I wonder how many people in Hiroshima or Nagasaki were thinking that God wouldn't allow their entire cities to be wiped out by a nuclear explosion. Or how many Jews thought that God wouldn't allow 6 million of them to be burned alive, gassed, and otherwise slaughtered wholesale like cattle. If God ever did stop these kind of events, he stopped caring a long time ago. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when this planet will be nailed like a drunken prom date by some horny intergallactic football captain. |
lolz ^.^
The idea of separate colonies is good, but it doesn't really matter if it is a ship or another planet. Ideally, we could blur the difference between the two. The key to doing that would be self-replicating machines/organisms designed to change the planet. They must be self-replicating using only local materials because of the vast scale of the project, and they must be designed or they won't produce anything of benefit to us (except by random chance.)
As a side note, why is it important that humans survive? We might want to colonize other planets not with people, but just with simple organisms designed to make that planet life-friendly, then evolve into their own, new forms. | ocalhoun wrote: |
The key to doing that would be self-replicating machines/organisms designed to change the planet. They must be self-replicating using only local materials because of the vast scale of the project, and they must be designed or they won't produce anything of benefit to us (except by random chance.)
As a side note, why is it important that humans survive? We might want to colonize other planets not with people, but just with simple organisms designed to make that planet life-friendly, then evolve into their own, new forms. |
Amazing insight and interesting thought. Do you know whether they have been doing research into this yet, as it would make lots of sense? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| The idea of separate colonies is good, but it doesn't really matter if it is a ship or another planet. Ideally, we could blur the difference between the two. The key to doing that would be self-replicating machines/organisms designed to change the planet. They must be self-replicating using only local materials because of the vast scale of the project, and they must be designed or they won't produce anything of benefit to us (except by random chance.) |
Totally agreed. Technology must be a great deal more advanced in order to do any of these things. We have hit a bit of a plateau, technologically speaking, and need to have another huge explosion of advancement to go in this direction.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As a side note, why is it important that humans survive? We might want to colonize other planets not with people, but just with simple organisms designed to make that planet life-friendly, then evolve into their own, new forms. |
I think it's important for the Human race to survive simply because I'd hate to think that we spent our entire existence advancing to this point for nothing. That would seem pointless, and it kind of feels hopeless if that's the case.
However, I have thought about, and do like the idea of "seeding" a planet and letting the life grow on it's own. That would be a good experiment, at the very least.some of us seem to have read our heilein, asimov, clark and hamilton.
i too find it astonishing that after 50 years of space exploration we are still getting excited about mars and venus fly pasts and robot landers.
i agree that we as the human species have to spread out to make sure our survival as a race. we are the most aggressive of earths animals which is our advantage but also will be our downfall.
we have finally managed to "dominate" our fellow living beings on this planet by brute force - just now we realise there could be another way like co-existence.
it hat hypothetical asteroid is not smashing us to pieces we surely will manage it ourselves - by whichever means - war, environment, over population, we sure will find a way. it may be next week or take a long time - this is the reason why we have to think about spreading our gene stock off this planet.
just imagine the huge resources all nations on earth are spending to kill each other - that would be plenty enough for eveyone here to live qite healthily and with more to spare to spend on planning our future and not our extinction.
| icecool wrote: |
we have finally managed to "dominate" our fellow living beings on this planet by brute force - just now we realise there could be another way like co-existence.
it hat hypothetical asteroid is not smashing us to pieces we surely will manage it ourselves - by whichever means - war, environment, over population, we sure will find a way. it may be next week or take a long time - this is the reason why we have to think about spreading our gene stock off this planet. |
Although I cannot agree that we have managed to "dominate" fellow living beings on this planet (perhaps at that point it may be peace at last ) I do agree that human beings have this inherent wish for self-destruction. The will to live for example also has a wish to die in it, we both want to make peace and war at the same time, not only on others but on ourselves too. So collectively at some point in our future we may get it out of balance with not so good results. Or there could be an enormous asteroid coming our way, who knows! Everything is possible. 
| icecool wrote: |
just imagine the huge resources all nations on earth are spending to kill each other - that would be plenty enough for eveyone here to live qite healthily and with more to spare to spend on planning our future and not our extinction. |
Humans are evil creatures; they'll never cooperate 100% peacefully without substantial species-wide changes. That's why there has to be a selfish motive for space exploration in order to make it a priority. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Humans are evil creatures; they'll never cooperate 100% peacefully without substantial species-wide changes. That's why there has to be a selfish motive for space exploration in order to make it a priority. |
Agreed we are evil. And sometimes good too. But yes, perhaps it is the survival instincts of our species that has selfishness in it to survive. Space exploration is both educational, trying to understand the Universe we live in, as well as investigating ways we can survive as well.i just hope John Rambo is alive when the time comes.
Rambo WILL get the job done
