zapatos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#:~:text=In addition%2C an asteroid may,to gravity after being disrupted.

I have difficulty dealing with confident declarations about complex physics ("Yes, that's how it works.") based on "it just makes sense."

If you choose a career in the theater I think you would be wonderful as that bloke who lives beneath bridges and in caves.

Yeah, bad use of terms. I should have said the pieces would be dispersed. Do you have a reference for the melting and refreezing causing the mass to be fused together? My understanding was that the radiation only penetrated the exposed surface of the sides facing the radiation.

Coalesce due to gravity is a bad thing if the thing you just blew up coalesces into a single object prior to impact with earth.

Sure, I believe there are secret projects. Who doesn't? What has that got to do with these projects that are out in the open? Are you suggesting that there are even more projects that we don't know about? Wouldn't that be a good thing? It is questionable if the asteroid is a certain size rubble pile, both because the rubble pile may coalesce due to gravity or may rain down radioactive material over a large area. Also making it potentially inefficient are the impact of politics and the consideration of risk during or after launch. Using nuclear weapons when you don't have to may not be acceptable to many people and governments.

If you watch my posts you'll see I regularly ask for citations. I am not biased against you but you are acting as if you feel I am. The way this site works is that anyone can ask or comment about anything posted. That's kind of fundamental to a discussion forum. You don't get to control what others say, just as they don't get to control what you say. Just because you don't wish to talk about anymore doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it anymore. Thank you. You are not being asked to defend yourself; you are being asked to defend your comments. Nothing personal going on. That is how a science discussion forum works.

Nothing wrong with questioning science. However, if you are a true believer in what you preach, will you be kind enough to back up your contention with a bit of science? IOW, a citation supporting your contention? Otherwise it may appear that you are biased against scientists and pulling your contention out of thin air.

Who cares what you want? Did you check with the African bushmen to see what they want?

I underline propose we be realistic in our proposals.

Not likely. Is it most efficient to have one type of vehicle for ALL uses? Or one type of weapon for ALL military situations? Or one type of restaurant for ALL people wanting to go out to eat?

It was in one of the links I provided and I mentioned it again on this page. What is the purpose of your snarky attitude?

Where and when was the bird photographed?

I don't know why you think we aren't preparing. We've been talking about actions that are being undertaken for a while now, including on this page.

Is that a particularly difficult path for us? As with every other threat in life.

The impact this discussion will have on the possibility of an impact is just about zero. Fortunately the people who can have an impact have been in discussions and taking action for years. We've been searching for and tracking Near Earth and other objects since 1947. Projects are funded and tests are being conducted around the world. We successfully impacted an object in 2022. Strategies have been developed, simulations have been run, and various countries are coordinating efforts. While we'd need at least a year's warning to intercept a threat at this time, the risk of anything significant happening in the near term is also very small. Edit: No idea what is going on with the editor. Exactly. We're fine.

The impact this discussion will have on the possibility of an impact is just about zero. Fortunately the people who can have an impact have been in discussions and taking action for years.

Can you walk us through the reasoning you used to arrive at that number. Why wouldn't, say, 10 million, 500 million or 2 billion be sufficient?

I question whether or not that would that be more precise and adjustable than a gravity tractor. Center of gravity of the asteroid to center of gravity of the tractor is rather precise, as would be the ability to move the tractor relative to the asteroid.

(Note: I may be mistaken but I don't believe ChatGPT is allowed on this site for use as a citation. ) But that is neither here nor there as I agree a gravity tractor needs more time to achieve results. I am actually more interested in your claim that a gravity tractor requires more engineering and cost than exploding a nuke. While the results you'd achieve with a gravity tractor are well understood, knowing the size of a nuke to use, the altitude to explode above (or on) the asteroid, knowing the composition of the asteroid so that predictions of the result can be made, etc., may require extensive time and effort.

Seems self evident.

No. I never said we should. Citation?

Don't know.

Sperm first - 600 million years ago Eggs second - 300 million years ago Chickens third - less than 10,000 years ago

I would think they'd both be put into action at roughly the same time. That is, as soon as they arrive at the asteroid. While a direct strike vehicle wouldn't need to adjust course near the end of the trip and thus would arrive sooner, I don't know why that time would be significant. Why not? As soon as we spot the asteroid and determine it is a collision risk, don't we know rather precisely how much time we have? Only because of how it was constructed. It easily could have yielded more than 100 megatons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test