Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 22    Average: 2.4/5]
23 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 10611
Rating: 2.4
Category: Science
Date: 02/10/12 03:33 PM

23 Responses to Asteroid Killer – Nuking An Earth-Killing Asteroid

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8033 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    Link: Asteroid Killer - Nuking An Earth-Killing Asteroid - Los Alamos National Laboratory use a 32,000-processor rig to simulate a nuclear attack against an incoming asteroid.
  2. Profile photo of Buzzard250
    Buzzard250 Male 18-29
    342 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    so instead of 1 conglomerate of asteroids you end up with 1000 of smaller city destroying asteroids.
  3. Profile photo of skypirate
    skypirate Male 18-29
    2346 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    32K huh? bet that`ll be in the iphone 100
  4. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2423 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    But what if it`s one big chunk of rock left over from a moon or a planet? If a nuke can`t destroy it can it at least nudge it out of the way?
  5. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    Makes my i7 look like crap. Too bad I can`t afford nor would have any use for such a supercomputer.
  6. Profile photo of sjaakwortel
    sjaakwortel Male 18-29
    358 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    dont forget that the increased surface means more air resistance. So more of it will burn in the atmosphere.
  7. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    "so instead of 1 conglomerate of asteroids you end up with 1000 of smaller city destroying asteroids."

    They aren`t specific in this video, but most of the asteroid mitigation ideas out there are more about redirecting the trajectory. If he says "mitigation," then he likely took your thought into account.
  8. Profile photo of TheShgn2
    TheShgn2 Male 13-17
    626 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 4:08 pm
    "so instead of 1 conglomerate of asteroids you end up with 1000 of smaller city destroying asteroids."
    A few million people dead is a lot better than a few billion or even advanced life on earth ceasing to exist.
  9. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    Still leaves one huge chunk.
  10. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm
    at the start he says that the asteroid would be discovered on a very short notice, so redirecting the trajectory would no longer be possible.
  11. Profile photo of fps_will
    fps_will Male 18-29
    102 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm
    except we would use a 50 megaton bomb
  12. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    I just want to know one thing: Are Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck taken into account in these simulations?
  13. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 10:43 pm
    "at the start he says that the asteroid would be discovered on a very short notice, so redirecting the trajectory would no longer be possible. "

    It is a small asteroid, less than a mile long and less than a quarter mile thick. So yes actually we could nearly vaporize such a rock with one small nuclear weapon. Congratulations earth, a small asteroid is no longer a threat to us, but what about one the size of texas? Hell, what about rhode island even? Those are still threats.
  14. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 10:45 pm
    ""so instead of 1 conglomerate of asteroids you end up with 1000 of smaller city destroying asteroids." "

    If it is broken up into small enough pieces, then the asteroids will do no damage to earth. Either the small pieces are moving too fast to survive the atmosphere, or they are moving too slow to do any threatening damage.
  15. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 10:46 pm
    Canaos, i now realize that your post is most likely in response to FoolsPrussia`s post, though one can not know this for sure.
  16. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 10:50 pm
    "But what if it`s one big chunk of rock left over from a moon or a planet? If a nuke can`t destroy it can it at least nudge it out of the way?"

    I`m not a physicist, but logically i do believe a large nuke would be able to produce enough energy to nudge a very large mass that is not in orbit of anything. However, we would have to detect the thing much sooner than a few months. Also another option is just sending a satellite to sit next to the object, close enough that its own gravity modifies the trajectory of the mass. Granted this would require much more foresight than a few months.
  17. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 11:07 pm
    Congratulations earth, a small asteroid is no longer a threat to us, but what about one the size of texas? Hell, what about rhode island even? Those are still threats.

    Yes, but any progress is useful. Larger asteroids are much more rarely a threat to Earth, so any increase in the size we can deal with is a good thing.

    We do need to work on something to deal with the bigger ones though, because we know that they have occasionally hit Earth in the past and therefore one might well do so in the future. Probably not any time soon, but "probably" isn`t something to rely on when you`re talking about something that could destroy human civilisation, maybe even make humans extinct.
  18. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    February 10, 2012 at 11:14 pm
    But what if it`s one big chunk of rock left over from a moon or a planet? If a nuke can`t destroy it can it at least nudge it out of the way?

    Yes, if you can detect it soon enough and get a nuke to it soon enough. Even a nuke won`t move a really big asteroid very much, so you have to hit it far enough out for a slight nudge to become a distance of hundreds of thousands of miles by the time it gets here.

    The problem is that a rock is damned hard to detect in space. A rock a few miles wide might seem enormous, but in space it`s a miniscule speck. In space, *Earth* is a miniscule speck.

    Also, rock generally doesn`t reflect light very well. So you`ve got an almost black miniscule speck on a black background, and we`re not even looking at most of that background most of the time.
  19. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3275 posts
    February 11, 2012 at 7:03 am
    Cielo is the Number 6 super computer in the world as of 11/11, with about 140,000 processors. Imagine if he had the full power of the Number 1 super computer, which has just over 705,000 processors?
  20. Profile photo of daverazor
    daverazor Male 50-59
    198 posts
    February 11, 2012 at 10:26 am
    And we don`t want Iran having a nuke. Look what lives it could possibly save.
  21. Profile photo of beternal
    beternal Male 18-29
    2589 posts
    February 11, 2012 at 10:49 am
    This theory only works with a gravitationally-compacted multi-compositional asteroid... probably not on a solid lump of rock

    And his inflections sound like Ross from Friends... last words get the emphasis
  22. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    All I want to know is, If an Earth-destroying asteroid is headed our way, do I get to play with animal crackers on Liv Tyler`s naked body?
  23. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    February 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm
    learning was boring...

Leave a Reply