Global warming? G8? Live 8? All of these pale into insignificance compared with what the guys at NASA have done. Fast on the great success of the Mars Rovers, we have the collision of a washing-machine-sized spacecraft and a comet the size of Manhattan. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-comet05.html and great pictures on the BBC webstite. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/...t0_a_mission_to_crash_into_a_comet/html/1.stm This is an astonishing achievement. What it proves is that we can, if need be, launch a thermonuclear device, intercept an asteroid or comet that is going to make an impact on the earth, and destroy it or alter its course. Because it isn't global warming, or globalisation, or genetic enginneering that will lead to mass extinction. It's having an asteroid the size of this comet smack right into the planet. The odds are long that it will happen anytime soon......but if it did happen, we're all dead, and really fast. But now, we have a chance of stopping it.
Do you need to be a rocket scientist to realize there's a thread just below this with 'comet crash' in the title?
I don't know man. Agreed, knowing we can hit one at least means we've taken a large step closer to being able to defend ourselves. But actually destroy something that big and moving that fast? Hopefully we'll never have to worry about it, but odds are on that we will eventually have to deal with a global killer. Altering its course is maybe more feasible. A nuke is a pretty powerful weapon. I do wonder what the affect of a dozen or so of them would be on something like this comet.
No, Karl's got it right this time. The other thread addresses some idiotic astrologer suing NASA over the crash.
A 20 megaton hydrogen bomb -- a device about the size of a picnic table -- would likely vaporize a manhattan sized asteroid. Cliff meets a thermonuclear weapon.
But you're leaving out one very important qualification on that ability. Time. We need to know far enough in advance that an object needs to get hit so that we can biuld and program what's necessary to hit it. Deep Impact was launched 6 months ago, and the project began 6 years ago. Granted, a lot of the time devoted to the science would be eliminated, but it's doubtful we could even have a "ready-made" device pre-built and waiting, given the potential variables (what fuel will be necessary to get to the asteroid; what yield will be necessary to deflect/destroy). We've had asteroid "near-misses" that we didn't even know about until the asteroid was passing us by. If it's coming out of the sun, we're not seeing them soon enough to launch any kind of mission in the near future (barring new missions devoted to asteroid tracking, of course).
I thought he was talking about Cliff Clavin. Incidentally, this is also an irrefutable argument against total global nuclear disarmament.
I did a quick Google search on images to give everybody the sense how big...or rather how small -- a high impact thermonuclear weapon is. So this guy Cliff -- whoever the heck he is -- posted some of his vacation pictures. This is one.
All true, but the fact that it CAN be done gives hope that if we DO need it to be done, we have the know-how to do it. I actually think we should set aside a couple of billion dollars to build such a ready-made device or devices. I am serious...start the analytical work immediately. Build a device for destruction (like I said, a 20 megaton bomb exploded next to that comet would vaporize it, and a comet that size hitting us would be REALLY bad news); and a device to deflect the course of larger objects we couldn't incinerate. Even if we never had to use them, it would be cheap at the price.
True - but with what reliability? We did it once, but does that mean we can do it again, on the first try? This proves nothing of the sort. As Norsk Troll mentioned, we need to know about it far enough out to build and launch such a mission. Plus, the earlier we interact with it, the easier it is to cause a deflection big enough to turn a hit into a miss. No, it's not. Military weapons (say, an ICBM) would be useless in this posited situation. Over a long enough time span, the probability of an object large enough to cause enormous mass extinction colliding with the earth approaches 1. But over a small time frame the odds are very very low - space is very big, and very empty. But what we need to be doing is spending more money cataloging all objects in our vicinity. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can identify candidate killers, and the sooner we can act, if action is necessary.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's hilarious, thanks. An ICBM would be, but a nuclear warhead wouldn't be. And ICBMs aren't inherently nuclear-armed (sure, it'd be pretty pointless to send an ICBM halfway aroudn the world to blow up a few buildings when a Tomahawk or B-2 would get the job done just as well adn much more cheaply, but in theory it could be done).
The idea that you need a world full of weaponized nuclear devices at the ready in order to be able to combat an incoming comet or asteroid is a false one.
True--but for this reason alone, even if there were no other arguments against nuclear disarmament (which there are), it'd be imperative to hang on to a few dozen.
Yeah, my understanding it that we'd get a nanosecond or two of warning, if that much. It's not like we're tracking even a measurable fraction of a percentage of the crap zooming around out there, even if you're talking only about the stuff that's big enough to kill us. Besides, I'm too busy worrying myself sick about the supervolcano under Yellowstone.