zapatos

Just something I found on Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#:~:text=An object with a high,a spacecraft with the asteroid.

So now you are saying we DO have the time? Aren't many small bombs the same as one large bomb? We can use 100 small or one large. Basically the same thing I believe.

Why don't we have time? Is there some asteroid we're about to collide with that I'm unaware of? This brings up a major concern of mine; how far away is safe enough to use nukes? Despite the talk of 'fine tuning' the use of nukes in this thread, I don't believe the words 'fine tuning' and 'nuclear weapons' go together. With a gravity tractor you have a pretty good idea how the asteroid will move, and it will all move in the same direction. If you use a nuclear weapon I feel like you run the risk of pieces of the asteroid moving in unanticipated ways. Perhaps if far enough away the risk is low enough, but if a gravity tractor would work, why introduce the risk of breaking the asteroid apart?

I don't know. You made the claim, that is why I was asking. I assume that either method is incredibly complex which means there are probably thousands of factors that must be addressed, all costing time and money. I couldn't possibly guess which method would cost more without any details of all those issues. I wouldn't even want to assume you need a "180 degree course change". Frankly I'd be shocked if we launched directly toward the asteroid in a straight line.

How much is the relative cost compared to a gravity tractor?

Perhaps it is just me but I cannot see where he has been exaggerating the dangers. Can you please show a specific statement he made that was an exaggeration so that we can dive down into the details and evaluate it?

Given that you asked for the citations then asked about their relevance, you can perhaps forgive Mordred for questioning your familiarity with the subject.

You have completely misread my comments. It is no wonder we are not getting anywhere.

NO ONE here is suggesting such a thing or displaying an unhinged fear of nukes. You seem to be arguing with some boogeyman rather than anyone participating in this thread.

When the shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry the debris field covered roughly 10,000 square miles. How do you account for the plutonium being contained on only a few acres? https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1805/about-how-far-was-debris-scattered-from-the-columbia-incident#:~:text=Roughly 400km (250 miles) long,so this is an estimate.

Then it is not an example of surviving reentry. I did not claim any nukes have fallen from orbit. To the best of my knowledge no nukes have ever entered orbit. I claimed that if plutonium fell from orbit that it could hit the ground..

Did the nuke outside Charlotte NC reenter the atmosphere at 17,000 mph? Nukes falling apart during reentry DO spread plutonium all over the place.

1. the danger was almost nonexistent 2. A container can be easily designed that would prevent any wide spread contamination upon reentry

Citations for any of that?

Because of the risk of widespread distribution of plutonium in the event of a catastrophic failure. This is related to the Cassini launch in 1997... https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/97EO00257

I don't know. How big do you think it should be? Again, I am not well versed enough on the subject to say. I think we need a lot more information in order to decide. I'm unsure if we even have the capability to strike with a nuclear weapon that may hit us in the near term, or know the consequences if we did so. I also don't know that we are prepared to use other means if we detect an asteroid that would not strike us for quite a while. No.

I'm pretty sure more than 507 asteroids have struck the earth and we are still alive and well. Additionally, are my only options a nuke falling or an asteroid strike? Can't we substitute some other option besides launching nuclear weapons to avert an asteroid strike?

There is also the risk of a failure to leave orbit. We don't need nuclear weapons accidentally falling back on earth.

Lewis Thomas had the biggest impact on me and really got me interested in science.

You realize this contradicts your previous assertion, right?

Citation please?

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/raisi-iran-president-helicopter-crash/index.html

Because Israel would not do so, or because it is just more likely an accident?

Many countries have used assassination to eliminate threats and enemies. I would not be surprised to find that this was the result of either an accident or an assassination. If it is proven to be an assassination I'm afraid more bloodshed will follow.

What information would convince you?