Apocolypse narrowly averted last night

It's not that a soul here doesn't want something done if a giant-rock-hurtling-through-space-the-final-frontier's projected impact is over a land mass.

If it isn't going to hit, why do anything?
___

<Karl Malden - Original American Express Card Commercial Revisited>

You're in a car, driving.

A 1/4 mile ahead, you see a car start a left turn which is nearly complete - the car ahead has not changed it's speed nor stopped and is harmlessly on it's way.

Options:
A] Flip driver off
B] Flip safety off, let the long-distance drive-by shooting begin
C] Bazooka
D] Keep driving
E] All of the above

What will you do? What Will you do?

</Karl Malden - Original American Express Card Commercial Revisited>

 

William, don't sweat all the naysayers. They laughed at Columbus too.

Dale

 

I think just some of us, asteroid or no.
And Dale, you're telling me it isn't?
I like the flexible time space distortion idea, so we can flatten it out so it misses us, then re-expand it again.
And Wax, I pick bazooka(50mm hood cannon not an option, nor was flipping off AND weaponry...safe drivers don't fire and drive at same time)
And Korr,"You got the money, you got the mouth. Do the math." YFF, coffee out the nose again.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Lots of alarmists posting on this thread.

The reality of the situation is that an asteroid impact is VERY VERY VERY unlikely. The chances of it happenning in any given year are tens of millions to one. Yet we should spend untold resources on this? Why?

Some suggest that instead of spending money on defense, we should spend it on programs to avoid an asteroid impact. That's idiocy. Theres a MUCH higher chance that a hostile power would attempt to harm us militarily than an asteroid came crashing down.

Furthermore, we don't have the technology to do anything about a major asteroid hurtling towards us. In 100 or 200 years, we probably will be MUCH better equipped from a technology standpoint to do something about it. And the chances we will get hit within that timeframe are millions to one.

You put your resources where they are most effective. Building some anti-asteroid defense system would be the dumbest waste of money, because we're not equipped to handle such a project and we would do so at the expense of many other things. But mostly, it would be a lot of effort for no results since the chances of needing it are tiny. We may as well also start a defense program to protect us from the sun blowing up (which WILL happen and end all life here).

We're doing the best thing for now - which is to track these objects and at least have an informed decision making process. The folks championing countermeasures are not informed or don't understand the reality of this situation.

The terms used by the experts are also somewhat loose if not misleading. "Near miss" makes someone think it was like a pro golfer missing his putt on the green by a few inches. Reality is these "near misses" are more akin to a golfer landing in the rough and saying it was "near miss" to a hole-in-one. IMO we haven't had a "near miss" in our lifetime, just thats the term the scientists have used and its very loosely applied.

 

Yep, I hear he's goosestepping @ VW or DC headquarters now.
And those NASA guys really know how to hire subcontractors. Foam + duct tape= launch away. It's only 6-7 guys, ya know.
Mars is just a few years away. After we're done with the middle east and NK.
Should be plenty money left for project. Or at least environmental impact consultant studies.
BTW, it is apocalypse, can a mod spellcheck the title please
And Hubb is busy with near Ms. all the time...why you worry?

 

Correct.

BUT - Despite impacts on land in 1908 or over sea in 2002 - we're f-chatting away.

IF trajectory is projected over population center, then we've got a problem that warrants a solution.
__

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1736080.stm
"The Earth's atmosphere protects against objects smaller than about 50 metres (160 feet) in diameter.

"Objects above 50 metres in diameter may survive passage through the atmosphere but will impact the Earth less than once every hundred years on average."
__

http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/simple_template.cfm?code=home_intro
Near Earth Object (NEO) Information Centre
In the early hours of Monday morning an asteroid will travel past the Earth at a distance similar to that of the Moon. The asteroid, which could be up to 820 metres wide, will pose no threat to Earth.
__

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
Current Impact Risks - 103 NEAs: Last Updated Jul 01, 2006
All score 0 or 1 on Scale of 0-10 - Majority of asteroids not recently observed (64/96) would disintegrate at Earth's Atmosphere as they are 50 metres in diameter or less. 32/96 of asteroids not recently observed are larger and pose zero threat.

Recently Observed Objects
(within past 60 days)
2 score a 1 on the 1-10 scale
2 score a zero
3 are smaller than 50 metres in diameter - the earth's atmosphere is a more effective bug repellent than RAID
__

To give an idea of just how often this occurs - look at this table.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/

Often?

Yes

Scary?

No.

What I DO recommend is scaring some wimmenfolk into having sex with you on each of these dates. Sometimes, thrice daily.

 

who said anything about spending untold resources? So you say we do nothing now, and than all of a sudden the technology to deal with this problem will just appear overnight in 200 or so years? Simply divert a little cash and energy now to plan for the future, its not that hard and i know people are already doing this.

 

See, now you're talking.

You're preaching to the wrong choir.

Wimmenfolk is your target audience.

 

<sigh>

You didn't read my post - I said it was very UNLIKELY. It is absolutely not guaranteed. The longer we go, the greater chance that we will suffer an asteroid impact, but it is not guaranteed.

You make it sound like there are tons of asteroids just waiting to crash into earth and any day now could be d-day. That is just alarmist BS. We do not have the technology to do anything about a 2km wide asteroid heading towards us at 20kmi/hr. You make it sound like we just fly up there and attach some solar sails and we're good to go - poppycock.

We are doing a reasonable job of tracking the objects in space. We know enough about our orbit and the objects' orbit to be able to predict if we're in danger of an impact. You make it sound like there's a 75% chance that in the next 100 years we'll be hit with "the big one". That is quite simply untrue.

It IS something we should be considering, but not something we should make our #1 goal. By the time we are about to take a hit, we should be able to easily do something about it. Right now is the time to watch, track, plan and organize, not the time to be out building some huge rocket that will carry your fantasy solar-sails and a herd of robots to some asteroid on short notice.

And considering that we are tracking most of the rocks that pose a threat, what do you suggest we do with this system you propose? Just let it sit there in case our calculations were wrong? I mean, most likely we will have lots and lots of advance notice of an incoming strike and as our technology improves we can predict them farther out. I'm still not getting the point.

 

You said a mouthful.

"its not that hard and people are already doing this". Exactly.

The point of the original poster was that we're woefully unprepared and any day an asteroid could come by that would kill all life. Thats simply untrue and presents a very misinformed view of the subject.

I am all for progress in technology and space flight. I do not think an asteroid strike presents enough of a clear and present danger that we need to radically change our current R&D path. By the time such a strike occurred, we will very likely be prepared to handle it.

Some (see above) like to suggest that we're on the verge of another strike and that any day could see a big asteroid barrelling towards us with no time to react. This is an uninformed and uneducated view of the situation. As others have pointed out, the correct course of action is to monitor the situation, work on our monitoring so we have the most notice possible, accept and understand that the odds of something like this happenning are millions and millions to one in any given year (read: it will probably not happen in our lifetime, or our kids, or their kids, or for 100's of generations). Then we just keep doing our existing R&D on space flight and put the same level of thought as we do now into how we'd handle an incoming asteroid.

To jump up and claim its our biggest threat and we should immediately fund it to whatever extent is necessary and that its more important than military funding (not saying you said this, William H did) is just idiocy.

 

just make sure its a very dense rock lol...

 

Disgusting -.-

I don't like the idea of some big rock killing half of humanity so I don't care if we spend billions on trying to find a solution. You other people? "Oh not in the next million years." Well, what if you're wrong? what if this happens next year? Who knows... maybe 100 years but still, think about all the other people that would suffer.

 

See, I only met you for about 4 mintues and said hi and then you walked away... But that is a very cool thing to do.

 

Or a very dense crew!

Actually, they wouldn't suffer. Most would vaporize when the body landed on their heads, as well as the flame trail that followed, surrounded it. The rest would enjoy the earthquakes and darkness from the dust.
Earth needs a good enema every millenia or so, and man shouldn't screw with that. Earth has been here longer than we have, and we are merely parasites on it's surface. Hell, sharks are likely older than we are. More efficient and easier on the environment, and if they want something dead, it's dead, and they eat it. Honest.
What if we can't get Ferrari parts 100 years from now? What if we never find Osama? What if Hubb can't get a date? I'd try to change what we can and need to NOW than piss money away on futile endeavors, like theoretically stopping an asteroid, or bringing democracy to people who don't want it? Like immunizing all children in US, making great schools so if an asteroid is in the future, someone is smart enough to deal with it then( and be able to make change at a drive-thru for that matter). And maybe bring sanity and our civil liberties back, which seem to be lost (perhaps the point of terrorism?).
Think universally, act locally. Obsess quietly.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Just one great reason. As for the other, we should stop tearing this place apart.

 

There are 6B on this planet and we wouldn't take them all. We leave the very poor nations, the sick, the old, the criminals, the Honda Element driving, the drug addics, the mean, the ones with bad genes, the ones who ALWAYS smell bad even though they say they shower every day, the fair skinned, the red heads and the Americans {let's face it, you're the damn problem here! There's no need to carry THAT drama! Kidding of course!}

 

I like idea number 2, it seems more "human like".

 

I live day to day too! Ive always thought it was dumb to plan for the future....

 

Don't forget about leaving those damn minorities behind.

 

I think it's pretty clear that Osama is hiding on an asteroid, upon which he has affixed an array of jet thrusters, of which he is using to steer said asteriod towards the doom of mankind.

If we find an asteriod, we will find Osama.