Personally, I think its important that we invest in the technology needed to stop these things from hitting us. The truth of the matter is that we don't really have all of the asteroids mapped out yet, and these things do pose a threat and they seem to be pretty common. I think this research is also beneficial to us as a species because of the fact that it goes hand in hand with current ambitions to mine asteroids. In other words finding these things have multiple benefits, one of which might be protecting our species lol.
On March 14 2013 10:11 furymonkey wrote: IMO preventing asteroids from hitting is pointless if it cannot be done in a cost efficient manner, however ramping up detection make sense, if you can see it coming, you could evacuate the population from impact zone.
what does cost efficient mean under these circumstances? If we discover an asteroid heading towards us that can annihilate a portion of the planet or something, and it's going to hit us in 20 years...im willing to bet that the world would fund a project to prevent it from hitting us no matter what the cost. It would be the number one priority and cost would be irrelevant.
I bet we weaponzie astroids the second we have the capability to. First thing we did once the atom was split was drop a bomb so it only makes sence that once we can deflect them away from earth we will try and bring small ones towards it as a weapon.
On March 14 2013 08:36 Mortal wrote: While I believe having the ability to prevent such disasters is a good idea, I don't know if I agree with the fact that we need to plan/have something ready for every minuscule eventuality. Seems like just pissing resources away on a roll of a massive die that has to land on the same side 100x in a row for something devastating to happen.
For everyone with this attitude, I'd recommend looking something up called Long Term Capital Management. It was a company run by several people with Nobel Prizes in economics that failed completely and went under because of this exact same idea. They thought the chance of the Soviet Union collapsing and failing was quite small, and thus did not incorporate the risks of it happening into their models.
Mathematically, it's difficult, but you absolutely do need to take into account rare and unlikely events with catastrophic consequences.
If the consequences of failing to prepare for a specific event are something on the scale of millions or billions dying (or the entire human race), then can you really afford NOT to prepare for it?
More importantly, the amount of money required to put a system into place to prevent this type of disaster is actually miniscule when compared to the scale of something like the U.S. budget.
On March 14 2013 14:02 Orcasgt24 wrote: I bet we weaponzie astroids the second we have the capability to. First thing we did once the atom was split was drop a bomb so it only makes sence that once we can deflect them away from earth we will try and bring small ones towards it as a weapon.
I hope to god I am wrong
I know Carl Sagan tried to make this point on at least one occasion, but I never saw it hashed out that much. I think the problem with it is nuclear stockpiles as they exist are as destructive and precise as you need weapons to be. Coming up with something more destructive than H-bombs, like weaponized asteroids or antimatter bombs, would fit right into the existing frameworks that stop us from using nuclear weapons. It's not viable politically, economically (due to all the ways countries depend on each other today), or by common sense (retaliation).
The thing is having the capability to alter their trajectories is basically immediately the same as weaponization. Just like having the ability to launch something into orbit gives you the ability to launch missiles (although not necessarily with rocket-sized nuclear warheads atop).
Evolution is a race to develop technology to protect against asteroids. Life is limited in space because intelligent civilizations get hit by asteroids.
It's actually Reapers lol. (I mean the ones from Mass Effect)
I think it's good that the Russians are taking the initiative start on this kind of thing. They put a huge amount of emphasis on air defense and ballistic missile defense, more than any country by far. Personally I'm surprised their existing technologies are totally insufficient. I guess intercepting an asteroid is magnitudes harder than an ICBM. It's bad though that most other countries, including the US, seem to not give a care about a very real threat.
That's Barringer crater correct? The flow of the post looks like you were saying that was the result of the Tunguska impact (which was smaller).
Also blowing it up isn't a good idea. Most of the fragments will keep their momentum and hit anyway...and we'd have less idea where they were going to land.
aside from detection/deflection of asteroids. this technology could ADVANCE i repeat ADVANCE our technology. it is the smart way in investing for the future of mankind.
On March 14 2013 15:34 sheaRZerg wrote: That's Barringer crater correct? The flow of the post looks like you were saying that was the result of the Tunguska impact (which was smaller).
Also blowing it up isn't a good idea. Most of the fragments will keep their momentum and hit anyway...and we'd have less idea where they were going to land.
Other than that I agree.
Wouldn't separating it into smaller pieces, causing greater surface area, mean that more of it burns off once it enters the atmosphere? Provided the pieces are acceptably small, it probably is a good idea to blow up an asteroid.
On March 14 2013 15:34 sheaRZerg wrote: That's Barringer crater correct? The flow of the post looks like you were saying that was the result of the Tunguska impact (which was smaller).
Also blowing it up isn't a good idea. Most of the fragments will keep their momentum and hit anyway...and we'd have less idea where they were going to land.
Other than that I agree.
Wouldn't separating it into smaller pieces, causing greater surface area, mean that more of it burns off once it enters the atmosphere? Provided the pieces are acceptably small, it probably is a good idea to blow up an asteroid.
If you blew it up far enough away from the planet ya. In the sky is too close. The atmosphere can burn small sized astroids down to nothing quite easily. We acctually get pelted by small rocks from space quite regularly but 99.9% of them burn into oblivion. The ones that do get through are usally not destructive at all.
The russian astroid was about 10,00 tonnes and 55feet wide according to guesstimates by scientists
On March 14 2013 15:34 sheaRZerg wrote: That's Barringer crater correct? The flow of the post looks like you were saying that was the result of the Tunguska impact (which was smaller).
Also blowing it up isn't a good idea. Most of the fragments will keep their momentum and hit anyway...and we'd have less idea where they were going to land.
Other than that I agree.
Wouldn't separating it into smaller pieces, causing greater surface area, mean that more of it burns off once it enters the atmosphere? Provided the pieces are acceptably small, it probably is a good idea to blow up an asteroid.
If you blew it up far enough away from the planet ya. In the sky is too close. The atmosphere can burn small sized astroids down to nothing quite easily. We acctually get pelted by small rocks from space quite regularly but 99.9% of them burn into oblivion. The ones that do get through are usally not destructive at all.
The russian astroid was about 10,00 tonnes and 55feet wide according to guesstimates by scientists
I know, I wasn't really thinking of hitting it after it entered the atmosphere.
Meh, I think that a defense against meteors that are a threat to all life on earth is a good idea, but investing billions just so a comet won't destroy a small city is over the top for me. Cities get destroyed all the time by earthquakes, fires, water, whatever, and almost never by comets/asteroids. So investing billions in such a low probability/low impact event would not be my highest priority.
The article mentions that Russia admits it will not be able to handle such a project by themselves, although much of their planning has already been completed since they started work about a month ago
Yes. Planning a project this size is that easy.
On a more sincere note: People are susceptible to fear for these large risk/low probability events. I am all for pumping large amounts of money in space-technology. However I have a larger fear for fossil fuels running out during my lifetime. So, in Starcraft lingo, we need to expand to somewhere first to acquire additional gas, rather than build tons of photon cannons around our base that's running out of gas . (Granted, the main base should be protected in this analogy as well. However, you wouldn't invest in cannons if the odds of something attacking your base are very low). Establishing a moon base (I don't know if there's something valuable we can mine there) > asteroid shield, imho.
The article mentions that Russia admits it will not be able to handle such a project by themselves, although much of their planning has already been completed since they started work about a month ago
Yes. Planning a project this size is that easy.
On a more sincere note: People are susceptible to fear for these large risk/low probability events. I am all for pumping large amounts of money in space-technology. However I have a larger fear for fossil fuels running out during my lifetime. So, in Starcraft lingo, we need to expand to somewhere first to acquire additional gas, rather than build tons of photon cannons around our base that's running out of gas . (Granted, the main base should be protected in this analogy as well. However, you wouldn't invest in cannons if the odds of something attacking your base are very low). Establishing a moon base (I don't know if there's something valuable we can mine there) > asteroid shield, imho.
This is part of that evolution though, and an improvement on asteroid detection will give the current asteroid mining corporation plans a boost as detection and means of capturing asteroids will get easier. To expand on your analogy. It's like upgrading your command center to an orbital command. Giving you access to mules and orbital scans and nothing like rushing turrets.
The article mentions that Russia admits it will not be able to handle such a project by themselves, although much of their planning has already been completed since they started work about a month ago
Yes. Planning a project this size is that easy.
On a more sincere note: People are susceptible to fear for these large risk/low probability events. I am all for pumping large amounts of money in space-technology. However I have a larger fear for fossil fuels running out during my lifetime. So, in Starcraft lingo, we need to expand to somewhere first to acquire additional gas, rather than build tons of photon cannons around our base that's running out of gas . (Granted, the main base should be protected in this analogy as well. However, you wouldn't invest in cannons if the odds of something attacking your base are very low). Establishing a moon base (I don't know if there's something valuable we can mine there) > asteroid shield, imho.
There's plenty of valuable stuff to mine on the moon (thorium, Helium-3) but I think it's still far too big of an investment to be worth it. We need cheaper ways to get into space (space elevators, come on damnit) before we can really focus on colonizing off-world since even if there's valuable stuff to mine, the logistics will be far too expensive.
EPT
. (Granted, the main base should be protected in this analogy as well. However, you wouldn't invest in cannons if the odds of something attacking your base are very low). Establishing a moon base (I don't know if there's something valuable we can mine there) > asteroid shield, imho.
