It's the end of the world! Be sure to keep it in focus.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

Well, that’s the thing. If one of these rocks were headed towards Earth, there’s really nothing at all we can do about it. Blowing it up doesn’t help - we’d still have the same amount of mass headed towards us, except now it’s scattered into thousands of fragments. We’ve just been upgraded from getting shot by a pistol to blasted by a shotgun. We can’t push it out of the way. It’s too big. We don’t have any sort of a propulsion system that could move a rock that big. And, of course, we can’t evacuate the planet, because we don’t have anywhere to go. If we detect one of these rocks headed towards us, we’re screwed. End of story.

But don’t worry about it too much. You’re much more likely to be killed by the Yosemite super volcano first.

Incidentally, Phil Plait used to be a 'Doper.

22

I don’t think you understand. The chances of this happening are so infinitesimally small, there’s no point in even thinking about it.

And in the extremely unlikely event that it did happen, you, and everyone else, would just die and that’d be the end of it.

There is no point in worrying about such things, it will get you nowhere but unnecessarily stressed out.

23

As Phil Plait* has said many times, this isn’t necessarily true.

If an asteroid’s path intersects with Earth’s orbit, and the two objects are projected to occupy the same space at the same time, there are several ways to avoid catastrophe, a couple of which are fairly practical. Imagine it like two cars on intersecting streets, heading towards the intersection. Scientists in the Earth car calculate that the asteroid car is going to reach the intersection while the Earth car occupies said intersection. There is no way to change the directional course of the asteroid car, but there are two ways to change the asteroid car’s travel so that it still misses the Earth car: either speed it up (to pass through the intersection before the Earth car gets there), or slow it down (so that it passes through the intersection after Earth is already gone).

There are realistic ways to do this. You can shoot mass past the asteroid in its direction of travel to “steal” some of its momentum. Doing this repeatedly with sufficient mass will slow the thing down enough to miss the Earth. You could also sun-orbit a large mass ahead the asteroid to act as a gravitational “tractor,” increasing its momentum. Enough mass, and you can speed it up enough to miss Earth. Bearing in mind that the necessary change in speed would be something like 0.001% in either direction, the amounts of energy required to do either of these is pretty wacky, but not inconceivable.

We do not yet have the technology to do this stuff (i.e. significantly change the momentum of an asteroid), but the technology is probably only 50-100 years out. Fortunately, the technology to find and track every dangerous asteroid in the system is also 50-100 years out, so no need to stress out about it in our lifetimes.

*(I think it was Phil Plait. It was some astrophysicist on the SGU. Mighta been someone else.)

24

I felt the first frail flutterings of a smile tugging at my lips…and then you snuck this little gem in at the bottom of your heretofore charitable reassurance. Twist the knife, much? Thanks for actually cheering me up, though (and for phrasing it in such an odd, ironic way).

Makes me wonder why NASA wants to land an ambitious, young squad of astronauts with everything to prove on one of those rocks (see link in previous post(s)). Mineral origin analysis perhaps? Your guess is as good as mine.

I think I’ve learned this the hard way, but when you’re right, you’re right. I need to turn space into a metaphor for progress and mystery again. But first, I’m gonna have a good laugh at its expense (and ours) by watching some classic Futurama.

25

No doubt these practical measures will be executed by the same eggheads who can only locate “30% of said objects having exhausted 80% of funds.” But hey, some hope is better than no hope, even if it is–at minimum–a half-century down the pipeline.

Too true; let the kids handle it, the drooling money-suckers. What do I care? (Says a member of the generation saddled with the meat-and-potatoes portion of the consequences wrought by “climate change.” They should really buck up and start calling it climate destruction if they want anything enduringly significant done about it. “Change” sounds too innocuous, almost euphemistically hopeful).

26

Not a “global killer,” in the parlance of Armageddon, but an interesting account of Apophis, an asteroid that may hit us in 2036:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Death By Giant Meteor and How to Deflect a Killer Asteroid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaW4Ol3_M1o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ReuLZ2quc

27

Why should one be worried about being hit by an astroid or comet for that matter. None of us will live forever. People die every day unexpecetedly,but why live for the possibility of dying? Just live each day and make it a pleasant one for one’s self and others. We can’t do anything about a comet or astroid so let the scientists work on a way to avoid it, if it should come in the next hundred years or more,chances are we won’t be here anyway.

28

This topic wasn’t raised in blithe ignorance of mortality. I’ve raised the questions I have about this subject because I was dismayed at NASA’s apparent enthusiasm for documenting the destruction of near-Earth asteroid impact aftermath without having a contingency in place for the (admittedly limited) possibility of our planet falling victim to such destruction.

Further research into what these near-Earth asteroid threats were even more dubious (at least from my perspective). Most discouraging to me was the revelation of a manned-mission to one of these objects being slated for the future, even though multiple people have pointed out in multiple ways how there doesn’t seem to be anything to be done in the case of such a catastrophe. There was one dissenter, however, his assurances weren’t as hefty as the doom-sayers preceding and succeeding him, since the proposed solutions are deeply mired in the abstract realm of theory, to state the matter diplomatically.

Agreed. If death were wholly expected, comprehended, and habitual, there’d be nothing to worry about, I suppose. It is by our nature, really, but only in the general sense of it being unavoidable. The specifics are disconcertingly vague. It may be arrogant of me to say so, but my preferred manner of expiration doesn’t involve being holistically pulverized by a chunk of cold oblivion given density, propulsion, and potential. I don’t know if “worried” is what I’d call my response to such an occassion. “Disappointed” is probably closer to the truth, along with “frustrated,” seeing as the stacks of evidence heaped atop my questions and concerns indicate the stern futility of the situation.

A noble goal, made easier by ignoring the possibility of killer space rocks cannoning towards–oh, I don’t know–Argentina. I hate proving cliches correct, but I must admit life was more blissful when I either didn’t know about or disregarded the possibly inevitable oncoming Hell wrought by near-Earth asteroids, whether it rains down in 10 years or 100,000,000. You know, maybe the dinosaurs were on to something; stomp around, make a lot of noise, devour your neighbor, your neighborhood (or both), and when the end falls out of the sky, leave a good mystery behind.

29

I find the crazy driver on the express way,or the drive by shooter more worrisome, but I am not about to spend my life wondering or worrying about that happening. One could die in a plane crash and have a better chance, than being hit with an asteroid. I still like to fly and wouldn’t spend my time wondering if I would be in a plane crash or not. I find it better not to borrow trouble. I have already lived nearly 79 years and I am not about to be worried if I make it to 100 or not!

30

Apparently not.

31

I don’t see how the two are connected. We don’t have the technology to stop a giant asteroid from slamming into Earth, so we shouldn’t send any manned missions to giant asteroids? Where’s the logic in that?

If there was something that *could *be done, and we weren’t doing it, that might be cause for criticism. But it seems like you’re annoyed at NASA for failing to do the impossible.

32

As Berra said, this is deja vu all over again.

I just finished reading Moonfall by Jack McDevitt, a novel about an asteroid smashing the moon to smithereens and the impact on earth. An interesting read. I’m not sure how convincing the science is, but it felt right.

33

This is the correct attitude to take, which is the point I was trying to make, “I don’t know if “worried” is what I’d call my response to such an occassion. “Disappointed” is probably closer to the truth, along with “frustrated,” seeing as the stacks of evidence heaped atop my questions and concerns indicate the stern futility of the [possibilty of defense against an asteroid]”.

I’d certainly hope they are, as it would provide a very worthwhile justification for the paid man-hours intrinsic in the realization of the manned-mission (foremost being the conceptualization, design, testing, and iteration of the new equipment, technology, and tactics which would no doubt be required in the execution of the work). If they went through all the trouble of missions such as these only to gather rock/mineral/ice samples, I’d be pretty pissed.

There are things that can be done, referred to in other posts and links preceding your comments (see: Robot, Giant Batting). How realistic and viable they are is unknowable from our perspective, since the technology for these measures doesn’t exist yet, but the potential is there. If the manned-mission’s chief goal is to investigate possible counter-measures to near-Earth asteroid threats, then I’m all for them. Otherwise, the planned-for operations come off as little more than an excessively indulgent geology lesson.

All I can say is, I hope the article you linked to is untrue, or has been refuted since its debut in 2007.

Was there a grand solution and positive resolution presented (however implausible), saving our asses before the words ran out?

34

Do you feel the same way about the Apollo missions to the Moon? They didn’t have any immediate practical applications. (With the exception of showing off for the Russians.) Mostly what they did was “indulgent” basic scientific research.

The thing about basic research is, you never know quite what will turn out to be useful. Maybe 200 years from now when we DO have the technology to build an asteroid defense the geological information gathered from this mission will be crucially important. Or maybe it will be totally worthless. But if you only do research that has immediate, obvious practical applications you’ll miss all sorts of important information.

35

Risk management assessment:

Astronomic impact are a theoretical source of large numbers of deaths, and could be reduced, or eliminated by the development of the technology able to alter orbits, or eliminate the causes of this threat.

Any system able to accomplish this mission is, by it’s inherent nature capable of destroying any portion of the earth’s surface without warning.

Number of known casualties from orbital impacts in recorded history: 0

Number of casualties caused by new, and irresistible weapon systems in recorded history: A number somewhat larger than 0.

I say let’s let the chips fall where they may.

Tris

36

No, it’s more than that. His secret Communist-Muslim-Nazi-Antichrist plot is to destroy the earth by summoning a meteor. He had to be elected president because the White House is the only place that has been sufficiently prepared by the blood of ten thousand unbaptized infants*. Funding NASA would be quite contrary to his dark goals.

This is actually Taft’s fault. You don’t want to know the details.

37

If we went back to the moon to do the same thing we did when we landed there 40 years ago, then yeah, I would be pretty pissed. Comparing the missions requires a heavy dose of context: At the time of the Moon mission, it meant something metaphorically on every existential level to the extent that the physical demand of the Apollo missions (and the ones preceding them)–getting there and back, with something to show for it (an act miraculous in itself), is the subject least rehashed in discussions, reverences, and justifications when considering the Apollo missions, especially Apollo 11.

The manned-missions to asteroids, if they are geological in nature, have none of the symbolic or literal capital like the Apollo missions did. I believe they would gain some if NASA went with the prevention/survival angle. If you’re striving for hard, durable results contributing to a legacy of progress and accomplishment, the spirit must be served, as well as the sciences.

Agreed, but if NASA went to press with “we want to study the rocks that make up the asteroid, full stop.” They’d get no further coverage, funding, or legitimacy. Nobody would care and the missions wouldn’t happen. The same thing happened with the moon missions; we went there and back a handful of times, took some stuff, left some stuff, and…there’re no more moon missions (barring the forthcoming Moon Mcdonalds). If they tie these missions into the survival angle, they’d engage America and maybe get something done.

Heh. Adding just one more doomsday device to the pile is really so bad?

Barring all forms of life from the times of the dinosaurs, we agree completely. Ah! Known, you say. Well, recorded history once knew blacks were a mentally inferior race, women were witches to be burned at the stake, etc. etc. Evolution is just a theory, by the way.

Quite the opposite! Using his nefarious, oratorical hoodoojuju, Obama would sneakily trick NASA into thinking it was saving the Earth, when in fact it would simply be enacting the means for his chosen form of holistic obliteration. And people say socialism ain’t so bad…

38

This makes me remember something I heard awhile back. That the sun will only be around for another billion years or two.

Makes me wonder what will happen to any people here on earth when that happens. If there are still people here at that time and if they are like us…I would certainly not want to be in their shoes. The world will ultimately end that that point.

39

There won’t be. Even if we live as long as the various dinosaurs did, man will still be long extinct by the time the sun dies.

40

So will everything else in this solar system. There’s no need to pick on us like we’re the wimpy kid on the playground! :stuck_out_tongue:

Unless, you’re stating a belief focused on our predictive self-wrought extinction, which, if I’m reading your definitively macabre tone correctly, you see as inevitable.

If such is the case, at least the giant space-rocks become a non-issue. Never let it be said that I do not seek out the upside.