It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
We got a few options.
1. Shoot a bunch of nukes at an object traveling at thousands of miles per hour with unknown composition.
Sheesh y'all watch way too many movies..........
originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: swanne
So what would you recommend for negating any asteroid threat?
Realize that most other methods of pushing or moving an asteroid so that it's orbit does not threaten Earth, requires literally years and years of advanced knowledge that it is a threat to Earth, and that same amount of time to move said thread with all other very low impulse devices.
originally posted by: swanne
NASA, in association with NNSA and several other departments, have just announced an official governmental plan to use nuclear heads to "protect against asteroids". They are citing Bennu, an asteroid that has a possible (but highly improbable) chance of hitting Earth in September 2135, as support to build a spacecraft capable of delivering nuclear explosions at any point in space.
on Sept. 21, 2135, there is a 1 in 2,700 chance that it will hit us. What would we do?
Government scientists now have an official plan, just in case: They’ve designed a spacecraft to hit any large oncoming asteroids with a nuclear explosion.
The Hypervelocity Asteroid Mitigation Mission for Emergency Response (HAMMER) spacecraft — a collaboration between the National Nuclear Security Administration, NASA, and two Energy Department weapons labs — would either steer its 8.8-ton bulk (called an “impactor”) into a small asteroid, or carry a nuclear device to deflect a big one.
NASA plans to use nukes to deflect asteroids
This has me rather very concerned. I can understand the eventual need to possibly deflect an asteroid, but I was hoping mankind to start working on denuclearization, and to stop producing radioactive waste for various reasons.
Radioactive waste aside, the creation of a spacecraft capable of delivering nuclear heads at any point in space sounds alot like something that could be weaponised, and used against other nations or even against future off world colonies.
Although a bigger bomb would be better, current US nuclear warhead sizes would be sufficient to deflect a very large asteroid that comes out of nowhere
So basically, an excuse to keep nuclear warheads and possibly even produce more.
I wonder which is truly the most likely Apocalyptic scenario - Earth getting hit by an asteroid, or humans suddenly deciding to use its nukes (ironically made to "protect" against "asteroid") against one another?
I wonder which truly is the most imminent threat to Earth?
originally posted by: neo96
We got a few options.
1. Shoot a bunch of nukes at an object traveling at thousands of miles per hour with unknown composition.
2. Launch Team Bruce Willis to fly to one and drill baby drill and detonate one from inside.
3. Create solar powerd rail gun satellites and blow them suckers to smithernes.
4. Meet at the worlds end for a snip load of drinks.
You must choose, but choose wisely.
originally posted by: neo96
We got a few options.
1. Shoot a bunch of nukes at an object traveling at thousands of miles per hour with unknown composition.
2. Launch Team Bruce Willis to fly to one and drill baby drill and detonate one from inside.
3. Create solar powerd rail gun satellites and blow them suckers to smithernes.
4. Meet at the worlds end for a snip load of drinks.
You must choose, but choose wisely.
Just because these plans now exist does not mean the spacecraft will ever get built. NASA scientists declined to give a cost estimate for a mission, citing the sensitivity of pricing information