in 2026 Two Asteroids To Hit Earth According To NASA JPL

a reply to: MissSmartypants



I don't wish to interrupt the dance..... but

...The starting point of where you measure does not have to be the center of the Earth. It's just that to explain how long that unit of measurement is, astronomers decided to measure it from core to core is all.
Like an apple sitting on a table in front of you. Do you shove the tape measure deep into the apple and then yourself to measure the distance from you? No. No you do not.

snippet from: eriktheawful

MissSmartypants "Oh I get it now...you're trying to be funny. Good one. "




talk about creating a distance referece....it used-to-be, that the distance between Cities/towns/villages were counted as the distance from the centrally located Post Office to the other municipality Post Office (instead of from the outskirts of the city/town....)
i guess that same 'center-of-activity' focal point of measuring is the idea behind this Lunar Distance measurement system used in Today's Astronomy
It sounds more complicated than necessary, the Eye-of-the-observer to the surface of the object being observed is the Actual distance, not some abstract location at the center of the Planet...but we are obliged to use the LD as it is practiced

"KISS"... the acronym stands for keep-it-simple-stupid

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'll go bed now. When I wake up I want to see Phage debunking you.

Did you just sick Phage on me? If I weren't right I'd be intimidated right now. Phage is my hero.

I just woke up and checked your thread again. No Phage. Sound the trumpet and see one horseman coming.

No rush to pay my debt now

If Phage were here he would scold me for listing the minimum close approach distance rather than the nominal close approach distance.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: MissSmartypants



I don't wish to interrupt the dance..... but

...The starting point of where you measure does not have to be the center of the Earth. It's just that to explain how long that unit of measurement is, astronomers decided to measure it from core to core is all.
Like an apple sitting on a table in front of you. Do you shove the tape measure deep into the apple and then yourself to measure the distance from you? No. No you do not.

snippet from: eriktheawful

MissSmartypants "Oh I get it now...you're trying to be funny. Good one. "

 

 

talk about creating a distance referece....it used-to-be, that the distance between Cities/towns/villages were counted as the distance from the centrally located Post Office to the other municipality Post Office (instead of from the outskirts of the city/town....)
i guess that same 'center-of-activity' focal point of measuring is the idea behind this Lunar Distance measurement system used in Today's Astronomy
It sounds more complicated than necessary, the Eye-of-the-observer to the surface of the object being observed is the Actual distance, not some abstract location at the center of the Planet...but we are obliged to use the LD as it is practiced

"KISS"... the acronym stands for keep-it-simple-stupid

And if Neal Adam's growing earth theory is correct then the center of the earth would be the only stable point of reference.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: MissSmartypants

If you're right, we have 7 years to build two missiles that can be sent out to the asteroids and explode. There's no shortage of nuclear bombs in Earth's inventory.

Uh...might not work in space though. Do nuclear bombs need air for detonation?

To get th emost out of one yeah you do need Atmo. otherwise it wont do much o f anything.

Then scientists need to get to work on developing Nukes that can explode without AIR and without GRAVITY. Blasting an asteroid will need to be done one day, if not 2026.

a reply to: carewemust

They explode just fine without air. But you don't get a shockwave in space, which reduces the effectiveness by orders of magnitude. Contrary to Hollyweird, a nuclear detonation in space, unless it's an impact or extremely close to whatever you're trying to hit, isn't going to do a damn thing. They don't propagate in space the way they do in atmosphere.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
You won that one MissSmartypants

she won that one ....huh!!

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Those readings are based off AU. An astronomical unit is the distance between the earth and the sun. Not the earth and the moon. Re do your calculations based off 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers. It will miss us with room to spare.

She needs better pants.

That just shows what you know...I'm not wearing any pants.
And dragonridr was wrong and needs to buy a vowel.

Thanks. I am starting to second guess my decision to sit on this metal chair though.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Sorry MSP, but your math is off.

Start with median LD value of 238,900 miles (center to center). From that figure, subtract out the earth's radius, 238,900 - 3959 = 234,941.

Now subtract the moon's radius: 234941 - 1079 = 233,862. That is surface to surface median distance. Now multiply that by the miss distance measured in LD, .01 (just move the decimal point to the right a couple places).

Final figure: 2338.62 miles miss. Your original miss distance was 2886.06 miles. Taking the radius of earth and moon into consideration only shrinks the miss by about 50 miles. What you did was to subtract miles after the LD miss was calculated. It would work if you multiplied both radii by .01 and then subtracted (10.79 + 39.59 = ~50, which is what was actually demonstrated by doing the long math).

for the doom porn effort! Had me wondering for a second!!

I don't know if someone still follow this thread. Anyway, this thread made me remember something I posted before. Maybe kind of creepy. Just go through that thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: MissSmartypants
Do you really think our creators did so much work to keep us alive just to let us go down by de first common asteroid ? (in this case the two little ones are just peanuts.)
Of course not. There is a base on the moon with sophisticated rockets to divert incoming comets. Reason why mr Musk will never reach the moon. Top Secret.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Sorry MSP, but your math is off.

Start with median LD value of 238,900 miles (center to center). From that figure, subtract out the earth's radius, 238,900 - 3959 = 234,941.

Now subtract the moon's radius: 234941 - 1079 = 233,862. That is surface to surface median distance. Now multiply that by the miss distance measured in LD, .01 (just move the decimal point to the right a couple places).

Final figure: 2338.62 miles miss. Your original miss distance was 2886.06 miles. Taking the radius of earth and moon into consideration only shrinks the miss by about 50 miles. What you did was to subtract miles after the LD miss was calculated. It would work if you multiplied both radii by .01 and then subtracted (10.79 + 39.59 = ~50, which is what was actually demonstrated by doing the long math).

for the doom porn effort! Had me wondering for a second!!

That's still pretty damn close, especially given the speed of the Earth, depending on how it misses us, direction wise.

a reply to: AlexanderM

They're also pretty small. They're smaller than previous ones that entered the atmosphere with very little damage.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AlexanderM

They're also pretty small. They're smaller than previous ones that entered the atmosphere with very little damage.

Tunguska was 60-190m by the estimates I've seen, so these are just below the low end at 33m and 45m, of course it depends on composition.

a reply to: AlexanderM

And that did relatively little damage on a planetary scale. It wasn't even close to a major event. Yeah, these can do some damage if they hit, but unless they're really dense and come down in a populated area, the odds are against any kind of damage.

Not asking for me, asking for a Fed... Friend, asking for a friend...

Could these asteroids be militarized?

Aka, could they purposely have their orbits altered to strike strategic impact zones?...

originally posted by: Archivalist
Not asking for me, asking for a Fed... Friend, asking for a friend...

Could these asteroids be militarized?

Aka, could they purposely have their orbits altered to strike strategic impact zones?...

Not yet though we need to find a way to move them if needed if only to protect our selves from extinction.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Those readings are based off AU. An astronomical unit is the distance between the earth and the sun. Not the earth and the moon. Re do your calculations based off 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers. It will miss us with room to spare.

She needs better pants.

That just shows what you know...I'm not wearing any pants.

Hello MissSmarty.

I see you post in style, hehe.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: MissSmartypants

If you're right, we have 7 years to build two missiles that can be sent out to the asteroids and explode. There's no shortage of nuclear bombs in Earth's inventory.

Uh...might not work in space though. Do nuclear bombs need air for detonation?

No, nuclear warheads do not need air to detonate.

However, if your idea is to vaporize the asteroid with a nuke, remember that in the vacuum of space, heat cannot be effectively conducted and the overpressure that is the prime destructive force of a nuke, is the result of air pressure, which does not exist in space.

You might succeed in breaking up the asteroid with a nuke, but then you would have essentially the same mass as the asteroid, heading in the same general direction as the original asteroid, but now broken into somewhat smaller pieces striking a wider area of the Earth.

Rifle bullet, or shotgun blast, which would you prefer to be hit with?

And that's exactly why you don't do that, it's not how to use a nuke against an asteroid. If you had an iron asteroid (heaviest and most dangerous) the right thing to do is to detonate a warhead precisely at the right time at some distance away from the asteroid, and design it to maximize x-ray flux. The warhead used in the Spartan missile is an example. The x-rays heat the surface of the asteroid (metal absorbing them well) and boil off a thin layer, which imparts a momentum in the other direction. You do not want to break up the asteroid in any way---you want to deflect it whole.

This would be a last resort sort of scenario---much better if you had the time is to match speed and position and land something on the asteroid. Land a small nuclear reactor (they have been made for space duty before) and run an ion engine for a few months & years. That would give you better control and assurance.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Good website

A/CC's Consolidated Risk Tables
Earth Impact Risk Ratings Posted in the Last 31 Days

www.hohmanntransfer.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: carewemust

They explode just fine without air. But you don't get a shockwave in space, which reduces the effectiveness by orders of magnitude. Contrary to Hollyweird, a nuclear detonation in space, unless it's an impact or extremely close to whatever you're trying to hit, isn't going to do a damn thing. They don't propagate in space the way they do in atmosphere.

True, no mechanical blast. But the energy release is the same.

The physics of this has been known for a long time. You need to make x-rays which ablate the surface, and create a reaction force in the other direction. Quantitative physics + Safeguard missiles.