Archaeologica.org

IF it were to survive passage through the Earth's atmosphere, then possibly so, but such survival would be much less than a thousand tonne's survival chance as ablation takes into account surface area.

Roy.

Digit wrote:IF it were to survive passage through the Earth's atmosphere, then possibly so, but such survival would be much less than a thousand tonne's survival chance as ablation takes into account surface area.

It was baseball size when it entered the atmosphere. It's worn down/been consumed to a grain of sand by the time it's reached your front door... and then it explodes!

OR the baseball sized rock explodes in an airburst 300 feet over your roof. And flattens the entire neighbourhood.

Argue it how you like RS but two 300 ft tsunami strinking a coast are likely to be less damaging than one 600ft one.

Roy.

smaller impacts must be less dangerous.

but more numerous.

So which would you prefer Min, a shower of cometary particles or a cometary impact?

Roy.

Digit wrote:Argue it how you like RS but two 300 ft tsunami strinking a coast are likely to be less damaging than one 600ft one.

Either way, you croak.
Do you really think it will feel any different being hit by a 300 ft wave than it does being hit by a 600 ft wave?

Minimalist wrote:

smaller impacts must be less dangerous.

but more numerous.

Guess why they developed cluster bombs! Not because they're less damaging than one-big-bang-bombs, but because they're more damaging than one-big-bang-bombs!

Cluster bombs are are not for that purpose at all RS.
I'll give you a choice.
One thousand one pound explosives going off at random all over your neighbourhood or a single 1000 pound explosive at one spot, chose!
The RAF started WW2 with a 250 pound bomb as its largest air dropped weapon, they finished with a 22000 pound weapon 'cos a big bang is worse than a lot of little ones.
Your 1000 one pound bombs might kill and maim by blast but no one would die from falling buildings etc, but they damn well would from the 1000 pounder!

Roy.

A 10 pound bomb kills you just as dead as a 1,000 pound bomb does if it has your name on it, mister.

Hardly the point of the discussion RS, poison will as well, but not the point.
Lots of little bangs are preferable to one big one.

Roy.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: IF a really big rock is going to hit earth, say before the middle of this century, there is nothing effective we can do about it. We don't have the technology.
Shooting it with rockets with bombs, nuclear or otherwise, is probably the stupidest thing we could do, because if that rock breaks into several pieces, that 'breaking up' will be with the force of humongous explosions, forcing all those pieces into just as many different, totally unpredictable trajectories, all with different points of impact. Can you imagine twenty 100 megaton bombs randomly hitting Earth's surface?

Where did you get that particular bit of BS, RS? Did you come up with it all yourself?

This BS started with Alan Harris in the early 1980's, who is very worried about nuclear weapons, and has been endlessly parroted by manned Mars flight nuts ever since.

This problem has been examined by many, many nuclear physicists, and none of them agree with you or him.

You don't seem to understand, RS. WE ALREADY ARE LOOKING AT A SHOTGUN BLAST, unless it all turns into magic comet dust, in which case there will be effects on the weather, the severity of which is currently unknown and unestimated.

In the case of SW3, the fragments are not likely to be that large. Conventional explosive bunker busters are likely to be capable of handling them, and up to 50 megaton Tsar bomba charges could be made available if need be, which is unlikely.

The key is early detection. Then you can also use conventional methods to alter a potential impactor's course.

E.P. Grondine wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote: IF a really big rock is going to hit earth, say before the middle of this century, there is nothing effective we can do about it. We don't have the technology.
Shooting it with rockets with bombs, nuclear or otherwise, is probably the stupidest thing we could do, because if that rock breaks into several pieces, that 'breaking up' will be with the force of humongous explosions, forcing all those pieces into just as many different, totally unpredictable trajectories, all with different points of impact. Can you imagine twenty 100 megaton bombs randomly hitting Earth's surface?

Where did you get that particular bit of BS, RS? Did you come up with it all yourself?

Do you really think that patronizing and condescending tone endears you, E.P.?

WE ALREADY ARE LOOKING AT A SHOTGUN BLAST

Of course we are. The images of comet Shoemaker-Levy being torn apart in the space of hours by Jupiter's gravity field and split up in at least two dozen BIG chunks (and who knows how many 'small' rocks...), each causing Earth-sized explosions on impact are difficult to ignore!
And you want to make that process even more unpredictable and unmanageable by blasting it with rockets? Are you crazy? You are a sorcerer's apprentice, looking to open Pandora's Box.

However, I am prepared to discuss flying an ion motor, or something similar, to a really big rock that is deadsure to be going to hit us, landing and attaching that propulsion device on/to the rock, and use it to push the rock into a different trajectory. In short: controlled redirection.

The problem with that scenario is: if that rock doesn't hit Earth then, what does it do? Where does it go? We could be pushing it into a trajectory that would make it pick up a lot of sling-shot energy from other planetary flybys, and return to hit Earth a couple decades later at such incredible speeds that there's no response time left!

It's the same problem as science faces with hurricanes. They can redirect hurricanes if they really want now. But nobody's got the guts to do it, because if, say, New Orleans could be saved that way, that hurricane would instead raze across Florida and every Floridian would sue every scientist and politician in sight for billions of damages!

Rokcet Scientist wrote: Do you really think that patronizing and condescending tone endears you, E.P.?

You repeating the same BS over and over and over is irritating. The last time you brought this up I linked to an article by a nuclear physicist speaking on the problem, the best statement of the current analysis PUBLICLY available.

You keep on repeating the same BS, and it is a waste of everyone's time, including mine.
Did you bring up 1999 RQ36 here at archaeologica just so that you could repeat that same BS again?

WE ALREADY ARE LOOKING AT A POSSIBLE SHOTGUN BLAST IN 2022.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: Of course we are.

Then why are you wasting my and everyone else's time with your ignorance?

Rokcet Scientist wrote: And you want to make that process even more unpredictable and unmanageable by blasting it with rockets? Are you crazy? You are a sorcerer's apprentice, looking to open Pandora's Box.

Look, its bad news, but why are you trying to kill the messengers, when all they're doing is trying to give you a warning?

There was a lot of speculation as to what would happen when an impactor was found heading our way, but your reaction was not among those contemplated. I hope others don't follow your example.

No, I don't want to make that process even more unpredictable and unmanageable.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: However, I am prepared to discuss flying an ion motor, or something similar, to a really big rock that is deadsure to be going to hit us, landing and attaching that propulsion device on/to the rock, and use it to push the rock into a different trajectory. In short: controlled redirection.

Controlled redirection can be accomplished with kinetic impact, reaction motors, laser ablation motors, stand off conventional explosions, or stand off nuclear explosions, depending on size and warning time. The earlier the better. Those are the options. Chinese scientists are examining your option.

The other is pulverization to dust, which could work with some impactors, depending on their composition. This can be accomplished by different means, including re-direction into another body.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: The problem with that scenario is: if that rock doesn't hit Earth then, what does it do? Where does it go? We could be pushing it into a trajectory that would make it pick up a lot of sling-shot energy from other planetary flybys, and return to hit Earth a couple decades later at such incredible speeds that there's no response time left!

Once found, the results of any redirection will be tracked out.

There is also fragmentation and pulverization to consider.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: It's the same problem as science faces with hurricanes. They can redirect hurricanes if they really want now. But nobody's got the guts to do it, because if, say, New Orleans could be saved that way, that hurricane would instead raze across Florida and every Floridian would sue every scientist and politician in sight for billions of damages!

The problems of a failure of a redirection attempt are being discussed internationally by qualified people.

RS, aside from the time involved, I have problems typing, which makes responding even more difficult. If this occurs again in the future, I may just type two letters: "BS". Or one:"F".

E.P. Grondine wrote:I have problems typing, which makes responding even more difficult. If this occurs again in the future, I may just type two letters: "BS". Or one:"F".

If you cannot partake in a public debate without becoming abrasive, insulting, condescending, and patronizing, I suggest you don't.

I think you, least of all, are in a position to complain about someone repeating an opinion again and again.
Something about a pot and a kettle.
How many copies of that book of yours were printed? Talk about repeating an opinion...

Wow! What was it you said to me RS? Began with an F didn't it?

Roy.