Russians to save earth from asteroid

[pendell]

Specifially, Apophis (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter)



MOSCOW – Russia is considering sending a spacecraft to a large asteroid to knock it off its path and prevent its collision with Earth — a collision NASA considers highly unlikely — the head of the country's space agency said Wednesday.

Anatoly Perminov said the space agency will hold a meeting soon to assess a mission to Apophis, telling Golos Rossii radio that it would invite NASA, the European Space Agency, the Chinese space agency and others to join the project once it is finalized.

When the 270-meter (885-foot) asteroid was first discovered in 2004, astronomers estimated the chances of it smashing into Earth in its first flyby in 2029 were as high as 1-in-37, but have since lowered their estimate.


So .. that means that if the mission get stopped, we can hold the world for ransom with this big ol' rock?

:Begins to hatch an evil plan:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Renegade Paladin]

Specifially, Apophis (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter)



So .. that means that if the mission get stopped, we can hold the world for ransom with this big ol' rock?

:Begins to hatch an evil plan:

Respectfully,

Brian P.
No, because you don't have the means to stop the rock if they pay you the ransom. :smalltongue:

[pendell]

well, obviously I'd have to A) have a means to stop the rock and B) have the ability to prevent anyone ELSE from stopping the rock. Time to put together a venture capital proposal.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Player_Zero]

Wait, only 270m? I mean, I'm not schooled in the mechanics of the matter but surely something of that size couldn't possibly cause much damage even if it does hit Earth.

Maybe it's just a way to stretch their science legs.

[Ichneumon]

I wish the Russians luck with playing a game of pool in space. I hope they succeed.

[Renegade Paladin]

well, obviously I'd have to A) have a means to stop the rock and B) have the ability to prevent anyone ELSE from stopping the rock. Time to put together a venture capital proposal.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pURJDToKA0k

:smalltongue:

[Grey Paladin]

Wait, only 270m? I mean, I'm not schooled in the mechanics of the matter but surely something of that size couldn't possibly cause much damage even if it does hit Earth.

Maybe it's just a way to stretch their science legs.

Not sure of the english terms, but force=speed*mass. A larger impact surface actually spreads the force more equally so an hypothetical tiny object with the same final force could actually cause MORE damage.

You shouldn't judge the damage something can cause by its size - bigger tends to mean more mass (and thus more force) but when discussing super-dense or super-fast objects this formula tends to fall apart.

EDIT: It can easily cause a tsunami far larger than the one we witnessed a few years ago, as well as massive earthquakes (I'm no geologist but I'd guess an earthquake of such magnitude could have implications for Earth's plates and thus volcanoes and general stability).

[Player_Zero]

Oh, right, I missed the bit where it said the asteroid was travelling faster than the speed of light.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Actually small objects will just burn up more then large objects...

[The_JJ]

It doesn't need to go the speed of light. The issue here is that an asteroid doesn't need to strip off half the mantle and give us a moon (again). All the ateroid needs to do is make life on earth untenable. A few football fields if more than enough to do some major damage. Maybe not an extintion event, but certainly enough to wipe out a city and jack our atmosphere up real good.

Edit: Just hit up Wikipedia. Impact would be something like ~900 megatons, e.g. not something you want to be under.

[Player_Zero]

EDIT: It can easily cause a tsunami far larger than the one we witnessed a few years ago, as well as massive earthquakes (I'm no geologist but I'd guess an earthquake of such magnitude could have implications for Earth's plates and thus volcanoes and general stability).

Rigorous, well-defined mathematical modelling with acceptable parameters on mass, density and velocity or it's not true.

[pendell]

Wait, only 270m? I mean, I'm not schooled in the mechanics of the matter but surely something of that size couldn't possibly cause much damage even if it does hit Earth.

Maybe it's just a way to stretch their science legs.

The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis) article says it masses 27 million metric tons. A little back of the envelope calculation (using this (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html) to get an expected terminal velocity,
applying kinetic energy 1/2 MV^2 to get impact energy in gigajoules, then
converting to megatons (http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/gigajoules-to-megatons-conversion.html) )gives me an expected impact of
673 megatons. Not a planetcracker by any means, but more powerful than being hit by dozens of hydrogen bombs all at once. You'll definitely feel it if it lands on your house.

I've probably failed physics forever. Someone want to check my logic?

Other intelligent people (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081218024755AAW94l2) come up with about 500 megatons, which is the same ballpark I arrived at.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The_JJ]

Over 4 times the damage of Krakatoa, which caused a nice tsunami.

Edit: wikipedia says that NASA says 900 megatons.

[Player_Zero]

Things.

I said rigorous! Rigorous!

You know what would be funny? If it destroyed all mankind. What a hilarious mistake on our part.

[Moff Chumley]

[John Stewart]And to the Russians, K-K-K-K-Kudos.[/John Stewart]


You know what would be funny? If it destroyed all mankind. What a hilarious mistake on our part.

Yup, that would be hilarious. =/

[Player_Zero]

Yup, that would be hilarious. =/

And there would be no one to laugh. How sad.

@\/ Quit taking things so literally. And quit capitalising words that don't need it. And get a haircut.

[Grey Paladin]

How Dark and Edgy of you. Now lets make Hitler jokes to show the world what a badass you truly are.

[Flickerdart]

I wish the Russians luck with playing a game of pool in space. I hope they succeed.
Don't Aim - Just Shoot (tm).

[Gaelbert]

Not sure of the english terms, but force=speed*mass.

Force=Mass*Acceleration
Momentum=Velocity*Mass

[pendell]

Yah. Coolgaelbert, check me on this, but in English

speed = velocity with no vector.
'velocity' = how fast something is going in a given vector.

So 'speed' is the magnitude of velocity without the directional component.

Acceleration -- in force = mass * acceleration -- is the rate of change in
velocity over time. So A = delta v / t. And velocity - V -- is the change in distance over time V = delta d/ t. Correct?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jimorian]

Actually, if they have the means to nudge it farther off course than it already is, that also means the could adjust the orbit to purposely hit the Earth instead. This is where the ransom/blackmail comes in.

Where's James Bond!? :smalleek:

[Player_Zero]

Incidentally, force isn't acceleration x mass. It's the change of momentum over time.

Since you'll most likely be dealing with high speeds you'll be wanting the relativistic momentum, see.

Take THAT, Newton!

[Johel]

well, obviously I'd have to A) have a means to stop the rock and B) have the ability to prevent anyone ELSE from stopping the rock. Time to put together a venture capital proposal.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

If you just aim for ransom and are the crazy evil genius kind of guy, you would just need the ability to prevent anyone from stopping the rock, actually.

Ask to be paid before you let any spacecraft leave Earth. They can scream all they want about how you are dooming yourself by preventing the Russians to save the world, that won't change the fact that no money, no take off :smalltongue:

Now, that would be a self-destructive move but we are talking crazy evil genius, here, aren't we ? :smallsmile:

[Jayabalard]

Rigorous, well-defined mathematical modelling with acceptable parameters on mass, density and velocity or it's not true.How about an excerpt from a hard sci-fi author, where said author has supposed done some fairly rigorous math to come up with the numbers involved?



But Luna also has energy of position; she sits at top of gravity well eleven kilometers per second deep and kept from falling in by curb only two and a half km/s high. Mike knew that curb; daily he tossed grain freighters over it, let them slide downhill to Terra.

Mike had computed what would happen if a freighter grossing 100 tonnes (or same mass of rock) falls
to Terra, unbraked.

Kinetic energy as it hits is 6.25 x 10^12 joules—over six trillion joules.

This converts in split second to heat. Explosion, big one!

Should have been obvious. Look at Luna: What you see? Thousands on thousands of craters—places where Somebody got playful throwing rocks.

Wyoh said, "Joules don’t mean much to me. How does that compare with H-bombs?"

"Uh—" I started to round off in head. Mike’s "head" works faster; he answered, "The concussion of a hundred-tonne mass on Terra approaches the yield of a two-kilotonne atomic bomb."
That's an impact of 100 tonnes at 11 km/s = 6.25 x 10^12 joules = approaches the yield of a two-kilotonne atomic bomb.

Simplistically, the energy produced should decrease lineally with the mass, and increase by the square with the velocity. So if the rock has 1/4 the mass, but is moving twice as fast, it should produce approximately the same impact energy.

[pendell]

Incidentally, force isn't acceleration x mass. It's the change of momentum over time.

Since you'll most likely be dealing with high speeds you'll be wanting the relativistic momentum, see.

Take THAT, Newton!

Eh? Why do we need to consider relativistic effects? The likely
terminal impact will not be even an appreciable fraction of c.

Newton still kicks your **** from noon to sunrise :).

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Kobold-Bard]

If you just aim for ransom and are the crazy evil genius kind of guy, you would just need the ability to prevent anyone from stopping the rock, actually.

Ask to be paid before you let any spacecraft leave Earth. They can scream all they want about how you are dooming yourself by preventing the Russians to save the world, that won't change the fact that no money, no take off :smalltongue:

Now, that would be a self-destructive move but we are talking crazy evil genius, here, aren't we ? :smallsmile:

Just set up a secret moon base. Duh :smalltongue:

[Altaria87]

I wish the Russians luck with playing a game of pool in space. I hope they succeed.
Don't you need to hit the walls or something on the first shot? That'd be kinda hard.

[FoE]

Who cares if the asteroid hits us? We're all getting eaten by zombies in 2012 anyway.

[Crimmy]

Wait, only 270m? I mean, I'm not schooled in the mechanics of the matter but surely something of that size couldn't possibly cause much damage even if it does hit Earth.

Man, the last "Large" asteroid that hit the earth did nothing but lift a lot of dust, condense it around the asteroid, and get called "Moon".

So My guess is this thing will most likely lift some dust, and that's that.
I mean, the Earth's most powerful bomb can't make more than a 500 metres deep crater. A 270 metre asteroid is gonna get through 16 kilometers of solid rock?
I.
Doubt.
It.


Who cares if the asteroid hits us? We're all getting eaten by zombies in 2012 anyway.

I love you.

[hamishspence]

An asteroid does not need to be very big to do a lot of damage.

That said, 10 km is comparable to the end-Cretaceous impactor- an asteroid a small fraction of that size (270m?), would be more comparable to a supervolcano eruption.

Which is still civilization-threatening in scope.

And what would the blast that scooped out the Arizona crater have done? The object itself was estimated at about 10 m or so, but it left a crater over a mile wide and the actual blast radius would have been far larger.

This one would be several thousand times the mass of the Arizona impactor.

and the creation of the Moon was far, far more violent than "just lifting off some dust"

[ghost_warlock]

I think Russia should just quit beating around the bush and crash the damn thing into the moon.

Maybe that would cause a satisfying impact. And, really, isn't it about time the moon got a moon of its own? The freeloader.

[Johel]

Man, the last "Large" asteroid that hit the earth did nothing but lift a lot of dust, condense it around the asteroid, and get called "Moon".

So My guess is this thing will most likely lift some dust, and that's that.
I mean, the Earth's most powerful bomb can't make more than a 500 metres deep crater. A 270 metre asteroid is gonna get through 16 kilometers of solid rock?
I.
Doubt.
It.

Depends of the speed, the mass and the density of the object, as noted by previous poster. A very dense, fast and massive object would produce a enormous amount of kinetic energy upon impact. Now, to get through 16 kilometers of dense rock, that would indeed require our 270m asteroid to be both reeeeeally fast and really dense.

Also, thank you, sir.
You made me learn something today.
Giant Impact Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis)

[Alleine]

This is ridiculous, the Earth doesn't need saving, it will be just fine if it gets hit.

We, on the other hand... :smallamused:

[Crimmy]

and the creation of the Moon was far, far more violent than "just lifting off some dust"

You really need to see beyond the screen. It was just a manner of speaking. You know, when you're just being silly, and all?

And yeah, Johel, that's quite more precise.
But the impact of that 270m asteroid is still no match for our giant rock filled with water.


This is ridiculous, the Earth doesn't need saving, it will be just fine if it gets hit.

We, on the other hand... :smallamused:

BARRUM - TZ!

[hamishspence]

sarcasm can be a little difficult to spot sometimes.

[Grey Paladin]

The Earth does not needs to be destroyed to be severely damaged. Humanity will not be wiped out, but people will.

[scsimodem]

Ok, seeing the need for some physics magic here, so here goes the engineer in me.


Oh, right, I missed the bit where it said the asteroid was travelling faster than the speed of light.

The asteroid is actually traveling at approximately 31000 m/s. The speed of light is close to 300 million m/s, meaning the asteroid is traveling somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/10,000 the speed of light.


Wait, only 270m? I mean, I'm not schooled in the mechanics of the matter but surely something of that size couldn't possibly cause much damage even if it does hit Earth.

Maybe it's just a way to stretch their science legs.

Actually, let's do the math. The kinetic energy of that asteroid is, in joules, 1/2 of its mass in kg (2.7 * 10^10) times the velocity (~31,000 m/s) squared. If I'm doing my math right, I wind up with about 12*10^18 joules, or about 12,000 petajoules (I think the previous physicists on the thread forgot to square the velocity). It takes about 4.2 petajoules to equal an atomic blast of 1 megaton, so if only half the energy is used demolishing our planet while the rest of the energy goes into bouncing the asteroid off, making a moon, and redirecting the orbit of the planet, we're still left with the equivalent of a 1.2 gigaton explosion on our planet. That's 80 times the yield of the bikini atoll or 40 times the yield of the Tunguska event, and that's assuming only half the impact energy is destructive.


Actually small objects will just burn up more then large objects...

This is an even worse scenario. If all the pieces of the asteroid burn up upon entering our atmosphere, all 12 quintillion joules would be converted to heat energy in the atmosphere. That's enough to heat 29 trillion liters (about 7.3 trillion gallons) of water 100 degrees Celsius. Honestly, it's typically better to let the asteroid hit than to try to break it up before it hits the atmosphere.

[raitalin]

This is ridiculous, the Earth doesn't need saving, it will be just fine if it gets hit.

We, on the other hand... :smallamused:

This. The Earth will be just fine in the long run. The most likely result of impact (besides you, know, the stuff that actually gets hit by it) would be a dust could or a tsunami. Even the most dire estimates put the consequences of the impact as less destructive than, say, nuclear winter, which would be a temporary inconvenience for the planet and a civilization threatening event for us.

[truemane]

well, obviously I'd have to A) have a means to stop the rock and B) have the ability to prevent anyone ELSE from stopping the rock. Time to put together a venture capital proposal.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Brian. I'm surprised at you. I thought you were a lot more devious than that.

All you need is A) the wherewithal to convince other people that you have the means to stop the rock. If there is no way, all the better, because that prevents B from being even a remote possibility.

Then you can party it up until the asteroid hits. When it does come down and destroy civilization as we know it, there'll be no court syemt left to take action against you!

[Copacetic]

I'm not so hot on the sciencey bits, but I'm pretty sure if the asteroid hit it would kill at least someone, somewhere. Which is a bad thing. So good for you, Russia.

[thubby]

how would the force of impact compare to mt st helens? that thing changed the weather 1/2 way around the world.

[hamishspence]

St Helens was miniscule compared to Krakatoa, and Krakatoa was miniscule compared to the Toba supervolcano, which was believed to have reduced the human population from millions to a few thousand, and it stayed a few thousand for a long time.

And the amount of energy released in a big asteroid impact is more Toba scale than St Helens scale.

That said, its not always how much energy is released, but how exactly it is released. Powerful earthquakes may involve an energy release comparable to an enormous atomic bomb, yet not pose the hazard to the climate that volcanoes or asteroids would.

[chiasaur11]

Of course, we all read about the strange pyramid in the Russian sky...

If Russia wasn't so hard for aliens to infiltrate, I'd be worried about ulterior motives.

[Johel]

Actually, let's do the math. The kinetic energy of that asteroid is, in joules, 1/2 of its mass in kg (2.7 * 10^10) times the velocity (~31,000 m/s) squared. If I'm doing my math right, I wind up with about 12*10^18 joules, or about 12,000 petajoules (I think the previous physicists on the thread forgot to square the velocity). It takes about 4.2 petajoules to equal an atomic blast of 1 megaton, so if only half the energy is used demolishing our planet while the rest of the energy goes into bouncing the asteroid off, making a moon, and redirecting the orbit of the planet, we're still left with the equivalent of a 1.2 gigaton explosion on our planet. That's 80 times the yield of the bikini atoll or 40 times the yield of the Tunguska event, and that's assuming only half the impact energy is destructive.

...How did you get the mass in the first place ? :smallconfused:

All you have is the size, we don't know the mass.
At most, we know the volume.
But a given volume of iron will have more mass than a given volume of, say, ice.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

So, who wants to write a cheesy sci-fi movie about this?

[Reinholdt]

So, who wants to write a cheesy sci-fi movie about this?
I know exactly what to call it too.

Russian Roulette. :smalltongue:

[Cristo Meyers]

I know exactly what to call it too.

Russian Roulette. :smalltongue:

You are evil...

[Reinholdt]

You are evil...
Thanks. I practice. :smallcool:

[Alteran]

how would the force of impact compare to mt st helens? that thing changed the weather 1/2 way around the world.

Comparisons:

The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens released approximately 24 megatons of energy, and only 7 of those were released in the blast. The rest was heat.

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa almost entirely destroyed several islands, sent tsunamis to distant coasts, and affected weather around the world. It had an estimated energy of 200 megatons.

The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history, was estimated to be (very roughly) 800 megatons.

The Koba eruption, that nearly wiped out the human population between 70,000-75,000 years ago, is estimated to have released approximately 1 gigaton of energy. However, since this happened so long ago, estimates are obviously going to be very rough.

NASA has calculated the hypothetical impact of Apophis to have a blast energy of 880 megatons.

[Exeson]

I'm not so hot on the sciencey bits, but I'm pretty sure if the asteroid hit it would kill at least someone, somewhere. Which is a bad thing. So good for you, Russia.

1 person is not worth the money and materials used to redirect it, so the science-y bits matter a lot more than you would think at first.

Also, is there a time scale? As in what is the probability it will hit in the next 100 years? 50 years etc.

[hamishspence]

NASA has calculated the hypothetical impact of Apophis to have a blast energy of 880 megatons.

Or, just under one gigaton- comparable to Toba. A little less, but not by much.

Though I'm not sure how Tambora is so close to Toba in power- considering its effects weren't nearly as devastating.

Maybe the energy involved much less ash and dust being thrown up? Toba compares well to the various Yellowstone supervolcanic eruptions, yet Yellowstone left enormous amounts of ash across a whole continent each time it erupted.

But as far as I can tell, while Tambora put quite a bit of dust into the atmosphere, it didn't put very muh on the ground around it.

[Crimmy]

...How did you get the mass in the first place ? :smallconfused:

All you have is the size, we don't know the mass.
At most, we know the volume.
But a given volume of iron will have more mass than a given volume of, say, ice.

Not to mention, that it also depends on the shape.
If it's, say, an asteroid with a pointy end, it will act as a bullet, just digging a small but precise hole, making a deep crater, but a lesser impact on it's surroundings. If it's flat or close to it, it will make a lesser crater, but the damage to the surroundings will be greater.

Also:
"It takes about 4.2 petajoules to equal an atomic blast of 1 megaton, so if only half the energy is used demolishing our planet while the rest of the energy goes into bouncing the asteroid off, making a moon, and redirecting the orbit of the planet, we're still left with the equivalent of a 1.2 gigaton explosion on our planet. That's 80 times the yield of the bikini atoll or 40 times the yield of the Tunguska event, and that's assuming only half the impact energy is destructive."

But you're assuming this will all go directly centered to the Earth. It will most likely hit in an angle, and that's assuming it will even hit. The damages will be minuscule, given the fact that the impact area will be of at least 270 meters. The effected area will, of course, be bigger. But, let's face it, the Earth has many places, and it could hit a water surface. Maybe it will hit a desert. Maybe it will hit a city.

Or maybe it will hit a dessert. Along with the people eating it.

[Ikialev]

Saving Earth? That's what we russians do daily.

[pendell]

The kinetic energy of that asteroid is, in joules, 1/2 of its mass in kg (2.7 * 10^10) times the velocity (~31,000 m/s) squared. If I'm doing my math right, I wind up with about 12*10^18 joules, or about 12,000 petajoules (I think the previous physicists on the thread forgot to square the velocity).


Negative. I had squared the velocity, but I was using a much smaller
number for the velocity than you were. You are using the asteroid's current velocity (31000 m/sec) while I was using the terminal velocity ... the fastest speed an object can be accelerated to by gravity when falling towards the earth, in this case (IIRC), 452 m/sec, as calculated from cross-section data on the wikipedia site. That's about 1% of your impact velocity, which explains why my impact was in gigajoules, rather than petajoules.

I'm at a loss to explain how a 31000 m/sec rock slows down to 452 m/sec, even accounting for atmospheric friction. But NASA's figure of 880 megatons is much closer to my figure than yours. My figure is only 30% less than theirs.

Ah! I have a possible explanation. Is the rock moving at 31000 m/sec *relative to the planet earth*?

According to Here, (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/IlanaEpstein.shtml) the earth itself is moving along at 29000 m/sec. So if the orbits of the two planets merge, you will now have two objects moving together at 29000 m/sec. So that big, scary number isn't quite so frightening. Because although the object is moving fast, the earth is moving fast, too. So the delta-v isn't nearly as great. Resulting in less KE from a collision. So the impact will probably be closer to gigajoules and hundreds of megatons, rather than petajoules and an earth-cracking event.

Actually .. come to think of it.. our numbers really aren't that far off. I'm thinking 683 megatons. Nasa says 880. You say 1200 (1.2 gigatons = 1200 megatons = twice as much as my number and about 1/3rd as much as NASA's). So we're all agreed on the order of magnitude.

Shall we start a betting pool? :) But then the asteroid will miss and none of us will collect. Because those meddling Russian kids will have averted the whole thing.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Johel]

1 person is not worth the money and materials used to redirect it, so the science-y bits matter a lot more than you would think at first.

Also, is there a time scale? As in what is the probability it will hit in the next 100 years? 50 years etc.

Really depends on the moral of the people making the decision.

You're right, mind you : I'm sure most countries would say "-Screw this !! We ain't spending billions to save a single life !!" but no politician will admit it to the media.

Just pointing out it all goes down to where one put his moral limits.

[hamishspence]

If it hits water, we've got a tsunami, and while there are lots of low-population areas on the planet, there is still the problem of material ejected.

An event of Yellowstone or Toba-type scale, would affect countries over most of the globe.

[CrimsonAngel]

Oh, I thought I was in the oots forum, I was about to tell you you were lost. :smalltongue:

[Crimmy]

If it hits water, we've got a tsunami, and while there are lots of low-population areas on the planet, there is still the problem of material ejected.

An event of Yellowstone or Toba-type scale, would affect countries over most of the globe.

But then, the biggest hit/scare would go to the water-border countries, or states, while the centermost one would have it easier (or have no effect on them at all).

[Flickerdart]

Saving Earth? That's what we russians do daily.
Saving from alcohol poisoning, perhaps. Those silly lightweights.

What are the odds that the Moon will be between Apophis and the Earth? Would that cause the Moon to crash into the Earth instead?

[hamishspence]

Most of the richest cities in the world are "water border ones".

A tsunami of that scale would be a problem in any ocean- most of the completely land-locked countries are the poorer ones.

So in general, the people who have the most to worry about from an impact, in terms of economic damage, are also the people who will have the money to, if they pool it, minimise the chance of it happening.

[Grey Paladin]

I simply can't believe the people who put any sum of money used for a purpose other than saving more lives as more important than the life of an innocent, nor those that care WHICH countries will the disaster effect, as if the worth of a life depends on the owner's nationality.

Exeson: The chance is tiny; 1 in 250,000 by 2038. Still a risk I wouldn't take..

Flickerdart: More in the direction of Mongols and Nazis :smalltongue:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I know exactly what to call it too.

Russian Roulette. :smalltongue:
Have an internet.:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Problem is, that once a risk gets sufficiently low, people will be asking:

"how many lives could have been saved or improved by investing in medicine, the economy, etc. instead of Protection From Asteroids?"

Similarly, there is the point that, for poor countries, money matters more in terms of life saving (a few million pounds can save thousands of lives from various diseases), and the amount they could directly contribute to a "Protection From Asteroids" program, is much less, hence, they would be tempted to "free ride" and hope some other group pays the money to deal with the asteroid problem.

[Tirian]

Exeson: The chance is tiny; 1 in 250,000 by 2038. Still a risk I wouldn't take..

That makes no sense to me. We're changing the orbit of something that is known to be a minuscule threat to us. But we've got no clue what we're doing, and so we don't know whether it will improve things, and there is even a chance that the experiment could create one (or more) direct threats to our existence. I don't mind if the Russians want to spend their own money on target shooting, but I'd sleep better knowing that they were practicing on an asteroid that *wasn't* in Earth's orbit.

[Grey Paladin]

If the money is directed towards another equally noble cause I have no problem with that, but more often than not it will simply go into absolutely useless projects. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance)

EDIT: Tirian: Why do you assume they haven't thought of this themselves? there is no reason to believe the minds of the forum are more competent than professionals who dedicate their lives to this area of study.

[Flickerdart]

Flickerdart: More in the direction of Mongols and Nazis :smalltongue:
You forgot Napoleon.

Although a Nazi plot to drop an asteroid on an Allied capital would make for an entertaining flick.

[Quincunx]

We might not be more competent, and certainly not better-informed, but there is a freedom among discussions where nobody's job or reputation is at risk should the wrong thing be said. Now to be better-informed myself, I'm going to go look up this 'Toba' thingamadoodle. . .

[scsimodem]

...How did you get the mass in the first place ? :smallconfused:

All you have is the size, we don't know the mass.
At most, we know the volume.
But a given volume of iron will have more mass than a given volume of, say, ice.

Approximate mass is listed on the asteroid's wikipedia page.

[hamishspence]

Now to be better-informed myself, I'm going to go look up this 'Toba' thingamadoodle. . .

Here is a possible place to start- though Wikipedia is occasionally unreliable, it tends to be a bit better on science and nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

[Quincunx]

I bypassed Wikipedia and took a look around the Andaman Association (http://www.andaman.org/index.htm) website itself. The Toba article was self-published and not peer-reviewed on its first pass, but seems to be grounded in good evidence at least. More to the point, it's yet another interesting development in human knowledge I missed since leaving school--thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Athaniar]

I've seen the movie. It hits Paris.

[pendell]

Saving from alcohol poisoning, perhaps. Those silly lightweights.

What are the odds that the Moon will be between Apophis and the Earth? Would that cause the Moon to crash into the Earth instead?

Doubt it. I shan't do the math right now but the amount of energy it would
take to alter the moon's orbit even slightly is a lot larger than that contained in an asteroid not even a kilometer in radius.

If the moon interposes herself between the earth and Apophis, what it means is that the moon gets itself a nice big crater, then continues on its merry way.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[GallóglachMaxim]

I've seen the movie. It hits Paris.

Was anyone else expecting to find more jokes and less physics? Come on, Apophis is headed for Earth to potentially destroy something.

[Tirian]

EDIT: Tirian: Why do you assume they haven't thought of this themselves? there is no reason to believe the minds of the forum are more competent than professionals who dedicate their lives to this area of study.

Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_sc/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter) the link to the article again. The head of the Russian space agency is only saying that he's going to schedule some meetings to work out the details, so I'm not even fully convinced that the guy HAS talked to the professionals who dedicate their lives to this area of study. Here's a money quote for you.


Without mentioning NASA's conclusions, Perminov said that he heard from a scientist that Apophis is getting closer and may hit the planet. "I don't remember exactly, but it seems to me it could hit the Earth by 2032," Perminov said.

"People's lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow us to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people," Perminov said.

Maybe this is a guy who is doing sound science, and maybe it's a politician who is trying to fuel hysteria to get a budget increase for his department. And maybe the Associated Press and Yahoo News is reporting on sound science, and maybe they're passing the hysteria on to us without fully grounding the sense of their argument. I've got my guesses, and they are taking into account that everyone involved works in the business of generating publicity as much as generating fact.

And this attitude is also being echoed elsenet by my space geek friends. These are folks who wouldn't turn down government research grants and would like to get some solid results under their belt for if our grandchildren ever needed to deflect a killer asteroid. That being said, they also respect the research that says with an astounding degree of certainty that if Aphoris' natural orbit is not a threat to anyone currently alive on Earth, but not so far that it couldn't become so. I mean, if you've got a dart with some goo on it and you don't know if it's a tranquilizer or a stimulant, you don't find out by shooting a nearby grizzly bear with it, y'know?

[Pyrian]

I simply can't believe the people who put any sum of money used for a purpose other than saving more lives as more important than the life of an innocent, nor those that care WHICH countries will the disaster effect, as if the worth of a life depends on the owner's nationality.Money is economics. A person's life can be assigned a dollar value, and all-too-frequently must be. Medical, fire, disaster, police, and so forth all have - and indeed must have - finite budgets, budgets that in virtually all cases are compromises between cost and efficacy.

Once you start talking in multiple millions of dollars, you're certainly talking in lives, whether you'd like to be or not.

[Grey Paladin]

Tirian: You make a good point. I apologize for thoughtlessly attacking you.

Pyrian: You seem to have missed the part where I said "used for a purpose other than saving more lives ". You can't save everyone but you certainly can feed the poor rather than waste funds on any of the countless useless projects adopted by the government every year.

I'd prefer such funds to go towards saving as many lives as possible, but its better for them to go into a project that will overall protect less than a more urgent one (if only out of public interest) than a politician's pocket.

[Pyrian]

You seem to have missed the part where I said "used for a purpose other than saving more lives ".That's not true at all - such distinctions do not affect my statement. The very purpose of currency is to be interchangeable - to assign a dollar value in any context is to eventually assign a dollar value in all contexts.


You can't save everyone but you certainly can feed the poor rather than waste funds on any of the countless useless projects adopted by the government every year.I am speaking of general economic facts; specific statements about real-world government policy are politics and therefore outside the scope of this board (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

[Grey Paladin]

If my purpose is to save as many lives as possible, I am in essence asking how to save the most lives for the least funds invested. By the nature of the task I would need to look at the most cost-efficient way to maximize the result - sacrifice one to save a million, so to speak.

Assigning lives a cost for one purpose does not means I must agree to keep the same value for another.

X may be worth more than a life, but that does not means I consider an investment in X moral when you can invest in saving that life. A higher numerical cost means exactly nothing.


I was not speaking of any specific real-world government so I'd think this is a safe discussion.

[Pyrian]

If my purpose is to save as many lives as possible, I am in essence asking how to save the most lives for the least funds invested.Quite. Though, you seem to be more interested in expanding such a budget, if I understand you correctly.


Assigning lives a cost for one purpose does not means I must agree to keep the same value for another.Whether you agree to it is immaterial. It is already done. That is the function of currency. If any two things are assigned a value in currency by any means, an exchange between them has functionally already occurred, even if literally it has not. To put this in context, what I'm saying is that any money spent to improve the quality of my life (such as the various costs involved in accessing this forum!) is money I could have spent to help save somebody else's life, but chose not to.


X may be worth more than a life, but that does not means I consider an investment in X moral when you can invest in saving that life.First off, this is a statement about moral allocation of resources, and not about the nature of value and currency. It does not counteract any of my above statements. Second off, it is functionally equivalent to the argument that, morally, all economic output should be shunted to keeping as many people alive as possible, no matter how miserable their condition is otherwise. (That is the necessary consequence of claiming that lives are fundamentally more important than all other possible expenditures.) I am dubious that you even really mean that; it's an extreme statement.


A higher numerical cost means exactly nothing.Relative numeric costs are hard facts and by my reckoning are more reliable than anybody's opinion of moral relatives. The expenditure of currency is the method of allocation of resources, and the claim that the scale of allocation of resources means "exactly nothing" is frankly laughable - it means almost everything. (Charlie's Rule #34: Some things are more important than money. Corollary: Most things are not more important than money.)


I was not speaking of any specific real-world government so I'd think this is a safe discussion.We are definitely treading on thin ice, here. Nevermind the fact that there was a specific real-world government involved (Russia), it's still real-world policy you're advocating. (I'm trying to stick to economic theoretics and terminology usage.)

[Grey Paladin]

Having an option and a cost associated with it does not means the option will ever be willingly used. Your will to employ the option (your own personal demand for it) is as important to its actual value to you as its actual 'market' value. In an hypothetical world where a shot to the head was considered valuable I still could refuse to accept it even for free purely because I do not want to die.

If I could sell the shot to the head and my main purpose remained the same as it was in the previous post then the value of the shot is in fact measured in the number of lives I could save using the value others place in it, not as the construct (a shot to the head). When I move my finger I pay the energy cost to do so but the finger's movement is but a dot in a line; a means to an end. I do not value moving my finger above typing this post but I must do so to reach my stated goal. The nature of value is subjective.

My opinion regarding division of resources is not that extreme, but it is one I hold for the purpose of this discussion.

(Reading this post I'm not sure if I've made my point clearly enough. If not let me know and I'll rephrase it later today when I have time; gotta run)

[Gaelbert]

Yah. Coolgaelbert, check me on this, but in English

speed = velocity with no vector.
'velocity' = how fast something is going in a given vector.

So 'speed' is the magnitude of velocity without the directional component.

Acceleration -- in force = mass * acceleration -- is the rate of change in
velocity over time. So A = delta v / t. And velocity - V -- is the change in distance over time V = delta d/ t. Correct?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

My feeble knowledge of physics can confirm this, yes.


Incidentally, force isn't acceleration x mass. It's the change of momentum over time.

Since you'll most likely be dealing with high speeds you'll be wanting the relativistic momentum, see.

Take THAT, Newton!

Would the speeds of this asteroid really be high enough to warrant that? I realize ignoring the relativistic part would give slightly inaccurate data, but it would definitely be very, very close. Although if the fate of the world rests on this one calculation I suppose being perfectly accurate wouldn't hurt.

[Vizzerdrix]

Meh. Even if it has low odds of hitting us, someone should practice for when it matters. Good Luck Russia! Knock it out of the park!

[GoC]

The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history, was estimated to be (very roughly) 800 megatons.
Looks like humanity won't be noticeably affected.


You're right, mind you : I'm sure most countries would say "-Screw this !! We ain't spending billions to save a single life !!" but no politician will admit it to the media.
Yeah... for some reason the average joe has a LOT of trouble understanding the money-lives equivalence.:smallsigh:
Though I for one haven't a clue how to educate them.:smallannoyed:


I simply can't believe the people who put any sum of money used for a purpose other than saving more lives as more important than the life of an innocent, nor those that care WHICH countries will the disaster effect, as if the worth of a life depends on the owner's nationality.
So... how much are you planning to donate to charity in your lifetime?


But we've got no clue what we're doing, and so we don't know whether it will improve things
I'm pretty sure this is false. We're quite good at calculating orbits.

[hamishspence]

Looks like humanity won't be noticeably affected.


Depends on how the energy is released.

The figure for Tambora is comparable to Toba- yet Toba involved enormous quantities of material released, and deposited over a huge area, to a huge depth.

Toba was on a slightly larger scale than the various Yellowstone eruptions- yet Yellowstone left a deep layer of ash over an entire continent each time it erupted on a massive scale.

An asteroid impact may be more a Toba-scale event (huge amounts of material being sent up) than a Tambora-scale event (earthquakes, a much lesser amount of ejecta).

And even Tambora is credited with causing "The Year Without Summer"- a worldwide famine.

That said, it is probable that a full, Toba-style "impact winter" wouldn't result- but the amount of economic damage caused by a tsunami (if it hit sea) would be pretty catastrophic- as would the damage caused by even a minor "impact winter"

[Grey Paladin]

I regulary donate to charity, but that is hardly the solution for global issues due to the men in charge. I cannot expound on this line of conversation due to forum rules.

[GoC]

I regulary donate to charity, but that is hardly the solution for global issues due to the men in charge. I cannot expound on this line of conversation due to forum rules.
:smallsigh:
Do you live in a first world country? If the answer is yes then I'll bet £20 that you could save at least one life a year by cutting down on luxuries.

[Emperor Ing]

I remember hearing about this on the News. If this thing won't burn up in the atmosphere we can just Nuke it from orbit. Or since we have 20 years until it's an actual threat we can just Laser it from the ground. :smalltongue:

[pendell]

Do you live in a first world country? If the answer is yes then I'll bet £20 that you could save at least one life a year by cutting down on luxuries.
_____________


Actually, that's probably not true.

I will point you to the book Dead Aid (http://www.dambisamoyo.com/buy.html). Transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries doesn't save lives in the long run. On the contrary, wealth transfers make it more difficult for poor countries to be self-sufficient.

Example: A big concert donates thousands of shirts to an African country. While this has a short-term effect, it also puts shirt manufacturers and sellers inside the country out of business, because they can't sell what westerners are giving people for free. Then the shirts wear out, but there's less capability to replace them. The result is more poverty, not less.

You might also consider to what extent industry in third world countries depends heavily on rich, first world people being willing to buy the goods that they sell. Where would the factories in Malaysia and China, and the software portion of India, be if there weren't westerners willing to fork over cash to buy the stuff?

Of course there's always room for short-term emergency relief and disaster relief. But I believe you will find that if westerners give a moderate amount of their wealth *intelligently* to charities, they will make more of a mark and help poor countries more than if they simply try to transfer wealth.

Back on topic ... while it's one thing to discuss money vs. lives, it's funny how people very rarely make that kind of calculations when it's their own lives at stake. Also, if a natural disaster happens (hurricane, tsunami) and people died because no preparations were made, the fact that money was spent elsewhere won't be accepted as an excuse by the grieving relatives. Any planner who made such a decision would be hung up by his figgin.

Even further back on topic ... I suspect Apophis won't hit in any case, but having the capability to intercept and divert an asteroid would be a very useful capability to have.

If anyone wants to discuss the economic aspects further, I will happily talk to you in PM.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Trixie]

But you're assuming this will all go directly centered to the Earth. It will most likely hit in an angle, and that's assuming it will even hit. The damages will be minuscule, given the fact that the impact area will be of at least 270 meters. The effected area will, of course, be bigger. But, let's face it, the Earth has many places, and it could hit a water surface.

The impact area might be 270 meters, but the crater alone will be 8 km wide. 880 MT explosion can burn people in 250+ km radius (data from NW FAQ (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html)).

Or, alternatively, how does 2-3+ km high Tsunami (if that hits the water sound? :smalltongue:

http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html - here, enter any city you wish, select "asteroid impact", click 'nuke' and watch the hit radius :smallwink:

[Dervag]

As one of the board's few resident semi-physicists:

Saving from alcohol poisoning, perhaps. Those silly lightweights.

What are the odds that the Moon will be between Apophis and the Earth? Would that cause the Moon to crash into the Earth instead?Zero.

The Moon is millions, possibly billions of times bigger and heavier than an asteroid like Apophis. If it got hit by Apophis all that would happen is that there'd be a new crater on the dark side of the moon. Its orbit might wobble a few centimeters or something, but nothing you'd notice.


Would the speeds of this asteroid really be high enough to warrant that? I realize ignoring the relativistic part would give slightly inaccurate data, but it would definitely be very, very close. Although if the fate of the world rests on this one calculation I suppose being perfectly accurate wouldn't hurt.Eh, I wouldn't worry. Asteroids have typical speeds on the order of 10 to 30 km/s; compared to the speed of light that's... about 0.01% of the speed of light or less. At that point relativistic effects drop to the one in a billion range or so, and even on the scales we're talking about they stop mattering to speak of.

For that matter, from a computational standpoint setting it up to be relativistically correct isn't all that difficult for the guys who have computers tracking astronomical bodies. For people doing back of the envelope calculations on this forum, it's another story, of course.

[Gaelbert]

As one of the board's few resident semi-physicists:
Eh, I wouldn't worry. Asteroids have typical speeds on the order of 10 to 30 km/s; compared to the speed of light that's... about 0.01% of the speed of light or less.

10-30 km/s? Srsly? That seems... exceptionally low, especially for an object in space.

[GoC]

*snip*
I direct you to this (http://www.marysmeals.org/) charity.

[Solaris]

sarcasm can be a little difficult to spot sometimes.

Common sense helps.


I direct you to this (http://www.marysmeals.org/) charity.

Speaking as someone whose job description encompasses "Do charity work in miserable hellholes", I can say that this is a worthy cause - but man does not live by bread alone. Bootstrap levitation from the bottom up is necessary for any third-world to become a second-world or first-world country.

[hamishspence]

Common sense helps.

Not spotting that this post:


Man, the last "Large" asteroid that hit the earth did nothing but lift a lot of dust, condense it around the asteroid, and get called "Moon".

So My guess is this thing will most likely lift some dust, and that's that.
I mean, the Earth's most powerful bomb can't make more than a 500 metres deep crater. A 270 metre asteroid is gonna get through 16 kilometers of solid rock?
I.
Doubt.
It.


was not intended to be serious, does not mean lack of common sense- given the sort of posts commonly seen on forums.