4 ms·

I've known of the risk of blowing an asteroid up into a swarm that's potentially more dangerous already for years, how is this unexpected according to the artic

I've known of the risk of blowing an asteroid up into a swarm that's potentially more dangerous already for years, how is this unexpected according to the article?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> blowing an asteroid up into a swarm that's potentially more dangerous For starters, that is not what is suggested.
- jeroenvlek 3y ago
  It says "Smaller rocks flying off into space could create their own problems" so that's potentially more dangerous, maybe not likely, but still potentially :)
JRKrause 3y ago
The word 'unexpected' doesn't appear in the article. It's a fairly safe bet that the team of people capable of hitting a 581 foot object 6 million miles away with a 13,000 mph slug would have expected the ejection of material from the impact.
- jeroenvlek 3y ago
  You're right, I interpreted "unintended" as "unexpected", because I assumed that if you know this before you do this then you know what to expect, so it must also be intended.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  Correct. NASA knew there would be rubble put into orbit around the asteroid. The idiot author of the article has embarrassed himself, his company, his industry, and his advertisers by thinking orbiting ejecta was "unexpected."
- mannykannot 3y ago
  Certainly, but to the person who wrote the sub-heading (I suspect an editor rather than the article's author), it presents a "previously unanticipated risk." The further you get from the source...
gremlinsinc 3y ago
I don't think it's more dangerous it would just require more resources to counter. I mean day you have a3 like rock that splinters into 3x 1 mile rocks. I'm pretty sure we'll still have a bad day, especially with three impact sites but the magnitude of each impact will be less than the full impact of the fully intact 3 mile rock. Doing something is always better than nothing especially if we are facing extinction. If only to say at least we tried. it's kind of amazing we actually live in an era where we can try. I mean it's only like 60 years of is being able to send rockets into space, we made it this long without needing to, but Knowing we can at least have a fighting chance is comforting. Of course to win at this we also need to be able to detect in an early enough manner any and all disruptive size asteroids. it would suck too have the technology to save earth but not see our annihilation coming until it was too late to do anything.

I've known of the risk of blowing an asteroid up into a swarm that's potentially more dangerous already for years, how is this unexpected according to the article?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> blowing an asteroid up into a swarm that's potentially more dangerous For starters, that is not what is suggested.

jeroenvlek 3y ago
It says "Smaller rocks flying off into space could create their own problems" so that's potentially more dangerous, maybe not likely, but still potentially :)

JRKrause 3y ago

The word 'unexpected' doesn't appear in the article. It's a fairly safe bet that the team of people capable of hitting a 581 foot object 6 million miles away with a 13,000 mph slug would have expected the ejection of material from the impact.

jeroenvlek 3y ago
You're right, I interpreted "unintended" as "unexpected", because I assumed that if you know this before you do this then you know what to expect, so it must also be intended.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Correct. NASA knew there would be rubble put into orbit around the asteroid. The idiot author of the article has embarrassed himself, his company, his industry, and his advertisers by thinking orbiting ejecta was "unexpected."
mannykannot 3y ago
Certainly, but to the person who wrote the sub-heading (I suspect an editor rather than the article's author), it presents a "previously unanticipated risk." The further you get from the source...

gremlinsinc 3y ago

I don't think it's more dangerous it would just require more resources to counter. I mean day you have a3 like rock that splinters into 3x 1 mile rocks. I'm pretty sure we'll still have a bad day, especially with three impact sites but the magnitude of each impact will be less than the full impact of the fully intact 3 mile rock. Doing something is always better than nothing especially if we are facing extinction. If only to say at least we tried. it's kind of amazing we actually live in an era where we can try. I mean it's only like 60 years of is being able to send rockets into space, we made it this long without needing to, but Knowing we can at least have a fighting chance is comforting. Of course to win at this we also need to be able to detect in an early enough manner any and all disruptive size asteroids. it would suck too have the technology to save earth but not see our annihilation coming until it was too late to do anything.