3 ms·
Ridiculous to assume that US/NASA are only one with the capability, EU/China/Japan/Russia/India/SpaceX could very well launch an interceptor and ride the popula
by thowawaygbuk 7y ago
Ridiculous to assume that US/NASA are only one with the capability, EU/China/Japan/Russia/India/SpaceX could very well launch an interceptor and ride the popularity. If anything I expect multiple independent efforts competing to become the first one to take it out and saving humanity.
- isostatic 7y agoThey mentioned ESA, but yes, Musk could fulfill his Iron Man dream and save the world single handedly, Bezos would no doubt fund his own version -- not only would it be a tax writeof, but it would be good for business (well better than an asteroid wiping out half your customers)
- ChuckMcM 7y agoThe cynic in me thinks Elon would first buy up all the property around the impact zone for pennies through a bunch of shell companies, then send up a BFR or FH with a W84 warhead (designed for a cruise missile so it would be extremely light relative to the lift capacity), rig it with an impact detonator that could be activated post liftoff, and then drive it into the asteroid. Save the day, collect the gratitude of a grateful nation, and then sell off all the property at an obscene profit to make back all the costs.
- godelski 7y agoI wouldn't take Armageddon as an instruction guide of how to safely get rid of asteroids. In fact, detonating it would likely lead to a shotgun effect. Lots of smaller pieces. Sure, these wouldn't do as much damage to a single city but they could damage many cities and many objects in orbit. Beyond that you now have to contend with the political ramifications of causing the destruction of someone else's property. Tldr: asteroid defense is quite hard. Currently we are not adequately equipped to do so it safely.
- ChuckMcM 7y agoOk seriously, you read the article right? And its really just a summary of the work of fiction that is coming out in book form, and in that fiction the people in the story all agree that using a nuclear weapon on the remaining shard is their last and only option. To be clear, I didn't write the book, I was suggesting (what appears to be a way to cynical :-) a coda where a billionaire with a penchant for making money in unconventional ways, exploits the situation. He thus saves the world according to what the book postulates is the best strategy and he makes a ton of money. That said, I agree with you, its stupid to blow up an incoming asteroid so that it can basically shred all of the satellites in orbit and cause a Kessler cascade and make it difficult if not impossible to put things in orbit for decades. But in defense of my comment, you have to work within the confines of the story, that is the rule of improv.
- jandrese 7y agoBreaking up the asteroid means more of the mass burns up in the atmosphere thanks to increased surface area. The real tricky part is delivering the energy to the asteroid in a way that causes it to actually break up. The nuke needs to be drilled down below the surface of the asteroid so it doesn't just heat up the surface, potentially fusing it into a more solid chunk. Of course the actual effects are hard to predict. Maybe we should be flying around right now blowing up random asteroids? First job for Trump's Space Force?