8 ms·
Now.we.know why we need meteor defense. If this rock ( that is.actually small ) ended hitting a 10 millions people city filled with glassy skyscrapers, what wou
by speeder 14y ago
Now.we.know why we need meteor defense. If this rock ( that is.actually small ) ended hitting a 10 millions people city filled with glassy skyscrapers, what would happen? How many people.dead or in hospitals?
- jug6ernaut 14y agoNot to mention the infrastructure damage(not that i am belittling human damage). It would take years and billions of dollars to repair. Imagine every window in New York blowing out? The secondary damage would be much worse then primary.
- erickhill 14y ago> Imagine every window in New York blowing out? Something like this actually happened in Ft. Worth back in 2000. It was caused by a tornado. Walking along the sidewalks afterwards was terrifying, as you never knew if a shard of glass might come swooshing down towards your head. They did, however, create several wooden structures like painter's scaffolding that you could walk under for protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Fort_Worth_tornado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Fort_Worth_tornado It caused half a billion dollars in damage. But you really couldn't have prevented it. Minimized damage, debatable.
- jug6ernaut 14y agoWow! thats amazing/horrifying. Though i would have to imagine a meteor over New York(same strength earlier today) would be much worse, probably even a worse case scenario?(again for same strength). Meteors of this size your probably right, no easy way to prevent them. But i would not say that its impossible.
- etcet 14y agoIf this happened during the winter I imagine many would die of exposure.
- ImprovedSilence 14y agoYup. And it's winter in Russia these days too!
- aw3c2 14y agoThousands of people could get employment. Money would flow. It would be good for the economy.
- erikpukinskis 14y agoNo, meteor defense can get in line behind heart disease, automobiles, suicide, gun violence, war, police, and all the other things astronomically (heh) more likely to kill people, therefore more deserving of our attention.
- jug6ernaut 14y agoAlways love how people throw out "gun violence" as if "gun violence"(as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence".
- dfxm12 14y agoThere is such a thing as gun violence. It is distinguished as violence involving at least one gun.
- jug6ernaut 14y ago"There is such a thing as gun violence" I'm not convinced. "It is distinguished as violence involving at least one gun." re-read my post, i said >> "so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence"" I'm not saying that it cant be distinguished (as others describe it), I am saying is there a big enough difference that we should focus on it over violence in general. IN MY OPINION! focusing on "gun violence" takes away from the more important discussion on "violence" in general and diverts the discussion to matters non conducive to stowing violence in general. BUT this is not what this post is about.
- dfxm12 14y agoI reread your post. It was the same as the first time I read it. It said "Always love how people throw out "gun violence" (as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence"." Based on the bit I emphasized, you are implying "gun violence" is not a real concept, or doesn't exist, or something along those lines. Gun violence is real. Further, OP is clearly not commenting on the prevalence of gun violence vs other violence. OP is commenting on things more likely to cause damage than a meteor strike.
- ars 14y agoHow would you defend against it? I don't think we have anything that could do that. Meteor defense relies on early detection, but we are unable to spot these until after they already hit (and by then it's too late).
- cryptoz 14y agoWe defend against it by improving early detection. If you detect early enough, deflection is very easy.
- jholman 14y agoCitation needed. My understanding is that all existing plans for deflection are wild-and-crazy and completely untested. We'd be okay if we had 30 years of warning, because that's long enough to try multiple insane strategies, each of which takes half a decade to get working.
- cryptoz 14y agoThey're not all insane. Personally, I'm partial to the slow but effective gravity tow: send a small, 1-ton spacecraft and have it sit right next to the asteroid, without impact. If you place it correctly you can alter the orbit however you like. Of course, the danger is that this could be used for evil, too. But it's not that crazy, and it would most definitely work.
- Daniel_Newby 14y agoWe routinely land impactors, robots, and even sample return missions on other bodies in the Solar System. It does not seem to be a stretch to land a small rocket on a meteor and give it a push. If you do it a few years in advance, it would not even take much of a rocket.
- chakalakasp 14y agoWhen the mass you are trying to move is a billion metric tons, you're gonna need a lot of advance warning. We can land on asteroids, changing their trajectory enough to avoid a planet strike is uncharted and entirely unpracticed territory. Part of me thinks that NASA's recent foray into asteroids is just that, practice.
- thesis 14y agoWouldn't the real problem with this be special interests? The country who develops it will not want to give it up to the rest of the world for obvious reasons.