Slashdot Mirror


Air Bags for Planetary Defense

Gallowglass writes "The Canadian paper, the National Post, is reporting on a plan to divert asteroids headed towards Earth. According to the story, the proposer, a Dr. Hermann Burchard, suggests deploying an inflatable mylar bag a few kilometers in size, and using it to push the projectile aside. An air bag for earth? The deployment mechanism isn't detailed in the story."

248 comments

  1. Sure, but by principio · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...who will take out the air bag and replace it with a TV?

  2. Yay!!! by Seph · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Could it be?? :S

  3. Stick shifts and.... by Mtn_Dewd · · Score: 1

    Is a giant safetybelt taking 2nd place to this idea? :)

    --



    My little sad piece of the internet: www.mtndewd
  4. What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they filled the bag with corn kernels and make the world's largest Jiffy Pop?

    1. Re:What if? by thefalconer · · Score: 1

      Jiffy pop nothing! We're talking about the ultimate whoopie coshion here! :)

  5. Ahh by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2, Funny

    So that's why Chretien's retiring.

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  6. Further research..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...shows that smaller asteroids may experience neck injuries or even death from the fast deploying air-bags.

  7. On the other hand... by thelinuxking · · Score: 1

    Due to Newton's third law, the collision between the asteroid and giant air bag will cause a giant marshmallow shaped object to come thundering down from the sky...

  8. Air bag, eh? by Radi-0-head · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The engineering required to inflate Rob Malda to several kilometers wide must be mind boggling...

    1. Re:Air bag, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But CommanderTaco is nearly big enough for this already.

    2. Re:Air bag, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taco is nothing but a little man-boy. It is his ego that can be inflated beyond belief.

    3. Re:Air bag, eh? by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      " The engineering required to inflate Rob Malda to several kilometers wide must be mind boggling..."

      Observe the results of super-secret-special project:

      Project CowboyNeal...

      graspee

      (Apologies to the real dude- he must be sick of these jokes).

    4. Re:Air bag, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malda's ass is already several kilometers wide. The question is, how do you lift his ponderous bulk into space? I doubt we have a rocket that will do it.

  9. Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by WetCat · · Score: 2

    So if this air bag hit the asteroid - the misery weight of that air bag against asteroid weight send that air bag with all constructions in it flying with very high speed, while asteroid will fly with almost unchanged path...

    --
    Newton laws are guarded by Newton Police
    (City of Newton, KS)...

    1. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by mcfiddish · · Score: 2

      The article wasn't clear on how the air bag will apply pressure to the asteroid. Maybe a slow, controlled leak?

    2. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by darkwiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the idea would be to make some attempt to match it's speed, then contact and start the engines firing to push it off course.

      Rather than think of it like a car's air bag, think about it as a way to spread out the pressure along the surface of the object. A rocket on the surface of a comet or loosely bound asteroid may just disintegrate the parts, yielding little benefit.

      Which is more comfortable to sleep on: a pillow or the blunt end of a pencil?

    3. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by soulcuttr · · Score: 1

      I've never tried it, but are you suggesting that sleeping on the blunt end of a pencil will "disintegrate the parts [of my head], yielding little benefit". That IS a sobering thought.

      -Sou|cuttr

    4. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forget the laws of inertia. A large airbag is very hard to move and without gravity and very low weights inertial forces become much more important than on earth per se

    5. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by billbaggins · · Score: 2

      I think the idea is to catch it far enough away that an "almost unchanged" path is changed just enough to miss the earth. After all You may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist's, but that's peanuts to space - the earth is actually a pretty small target, and a relatively small deflection, applied far enough out, would be enough to make a potentially deadly rock go whizzing right by.

      --
      "The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
      --Winston Churchill
    6. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by jerryasher · · Score: 2

      The air bag is subterfuge. NASA is really planning on creating a blamange and letting the Brits eat the damn thing. I saw a documentary on this a long time ago.

    7. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      I guess it depends on whether it is a rocket-propelled pencil or not. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by RallyNick · · Score: 1

      Nah, it'll be just enough to push it a wee bit to the left so it lands in friendly Chinese teritory, rather than US.

    9. Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... by Xtraneous · · Score: 1

      It is quite possible, that it will... a) Dent your head. b) brake c) if you roll a lot, the friction from the eraser just might disintegrate your hair. (well, maybe not disintegrate, but... you get the picture)

      --
      .noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
  10. Faulty air bag by amaiman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, if it's anything like the Ford Focus, the Earth will be engulfed in a giant fireball when the airbag catches fire on deployment :-)

  11. I've heard worse ideas by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    If the asteroid is small enough you could even use the airbag to skip it off the atmosphere. I have a hard time envisioning some airbag attached to a rocket motor doing much to a larger one in time.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I've heard worse ideas by geoswan · · Score: 2
      If the asteroid is small enough you could even use the airbag to skip it off the atmosphere.

      Let me see if I understand what you are suggesting here. We launch a rocket with a big balloon on board. The rocket rendevouses with the asteroid, matches trajectories, lands, and the balloon is deployed. Have I got this right so far?

      Then, when the asteroid is about to enter the Earth's atmosphere, the balloon causes it, instead, to bounce off?

      Do you know how fast NEO would strike the Earth? I looked this up this summer, when 2002 NT7, the 2 kilometer rock caused a scare when it was thought there was a remote chance it might strike Earth in 2019. It would have struck the Earth at 28 kilometers per second. The NEO that would have struck at the slowest velocity was still 5 kilometers per second.

      I don't believe your balloon would survive an impact with the upper atmosphere at 5 km / second, even if it didn't have multiple tons of asteroid behind it.

      The Tunguska event of 1908 was caused by the impact of an NEO of about 50 metres in diameter. It caused an airburst equivalent to 16 million tons of TNT. Would an asteroid that size be worth trying to divert, if we detected it with plenty of lead time?

      A rock that size would mass something like 40,000 tons.

  12. safety first by cheebie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean children under the age of twelve shouldn't be allowed in the front seat of planet earth?

  13. I had to read the article twice by 3ryon · · Score: 2, Funny

    to try and figure out how an airbag is supposed to do anything to deflect an asteroid. I eventually inferred that the airbag is like a catcher's mit, connected to huge rockets.

    The article could have been titled, "Huge rockets could deflect an asteroid" ....duh.

    I think I would still prefer nukes....they're just so much more macho.

    1. Re:I had to read the article twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but if we use nukes to blow up asteroids bruce willis has to die

    2. Re:I had to read the article twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And getting rid of Bruce once and for all would be a BAD thing???

    3. Re:I had to read the article twice by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      The idea is not to bounce it off the airbag. The idea is to use the ship/rocket to push the astroid and the catchers mit to gently hold the astroid while pushing it.

      Think of it this way. Someone using a lot of force pushing you away with a pin point hurts. Someone using the same amount of force pushing you away with a pillow is much nicer.

  14. No need to make one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Due to the size of the latest SUVs, scientists have agreed that an airbag from one such behemoth should be suitable to deflect even a small planet'

    In all seriousness, what's wrong with a few nukes?

  15. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that it's possible for large objects to not been seen by astronomers until they've already passed by us, sometimes a little too close for comfort. How do we expect to divert these when we often can't see them coming? Remember this story?

  16. never gonna work by ahecht · · Score: 1

    If you deploy the airbag in space, it will just bounce off the asteroid, since it has very little mass (it would need to have low mass in order to be launched into space). The trajectory of the asteroid wouldn't be noticably affected. If you were somehow able to prevent the airbag from bouncing off (for example, deploying it on the surface of the earth), there is still no way that a mylar bag wouldn't pop and be totally useless. Therefore, the only remaining implementation is having this airbag pushed by rockets to apply thrust to the asteroid, which is what the article suggests. However, this would be no different than just planting a rocket pointing up on the surface of the asteroid. In this scenario, the airbag is useless. This guy must've failed High School physics!

    1. Re:never gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of the airbag is to increase the surface area of the applied pressure. Putting a rocket directly on a fragile asteroid would be like trying to push a stick of soft butter with the point of a knife - it would just sink in and possibly break it into pieces. Using the mylar bag to apply the pressure would be like using the flat side of the knife to push the stick of butter. It's less likely to penetrate, and you're more likely to make it move.

    2. Re:never gonna work by balloonhead · · Score: 1
      Not only do you have to get the damn thing up there (It'll weigh a hell of a lot, regardless of material), you have to fill it. Which mean talking several kilometres cubed of earth's atmosphere, and taking it into space as well. Even if it was supercooled so a solid/liquid, that's still going to make things hard.


      Although I suppose we could put all the greenhouse gases into it...

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
  17. Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. by redhotchil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using the word "Airbag" for this idea definitely gives people the wrong idea. An airbag is used usually to reduce the impact of a fast moving object. In the case it is used as a deflection mechanism. Perhaps the word deflection ballon would be a better combination word?

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. by Radi-0-head · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps Deflection BALLOON :)

    2. Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. by redhotchil · · Score: 1

      OR perhaps a deflection of grammar NAZIS

      faggot

    3. Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. by El · · Score: 2

      More like a big baseball mitt, actually.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    4. Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      How about Outer Space Asteroid Attack Balloon? That would get some media attention.

  18. and this would work how? by TeknoTeufel · · Score: 0

    So say a giant piece of ROCK hit a giant bag full of air that is really huge. Exactly what kind of materials do we have that can possibly stop something with as much density and massive weight as an astroid made up of lots of cool metals like iron and other heavy things. And did I forget to mention that this giant piece of rock/metal will be coming at the planet at extreme high speed and will be hotter than hell because it just got superheated by entering our atmosphere??

    1. Re:and this would work how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Two Things-
      First I think the idea is to nudge the asteroid to the side and deflect its past, not get in front of it and have the asteroid bounce off.
      Second, to accomplish this the ballon needs to bedeployed while the asteroid is still far away from earth. That will give it time to gently push it into a trajectory that doesnt collide with earth.

  19. Energy shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Do you realize how many problems could be solved by energy shields? An energy shield deployed over a building would protect it from planes. An automobile energy shield would prevent car damage in an accident. A personal energy shield would protect you from bullets and other injuries.

    And, an earth wide planetary shield would protect us from asteroids!

    Scientists of tomorrow, get working on the energy shields! We need them now!

    1. Re:Energy shields! by soulcuttr · · Score: 1

      The problem with scientists of tommorrow is that they're hard to contact since they're always a day ahead of us. You'd probably have better luck contacting the scientists that are around today (especially if you need it now).

      -Sou|cuttr

    2. Re:Energy shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists of tomorrow can read what we write today, and then travel back in time.

    3. Re:Energy shields! by soulcuttr · · Score: 1

      If you wish to use the post as your frame of reference, you're still never going to get it now. :)

      -Sou|cuttr

    4. Re:Energy shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as I wrote it, a time traveler from the future appeared with an energy shield. So I got it then, when now was then, not now.

    5. Re:Energy shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what part of the movie are we in again?

    6. Re:Energy shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The previews. Did you get the popcorn?

    7. Re:Energy shields! by Arcturax · · Score: 2

      If we could make an energy shield today, the military would have them now most likely. Hey, maybe they do but only in those secret bases like you find in Fallout.

      But seriously, they ARE working on them. They just haven't figured it out yet as far was we, the public, know.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  20. Kids, try this at home! by idiotnot · · Score: 1

    Materials Req'd:

    1 Mylar Balloon (you could use the heart-shaped one that your girlfriend gave you....)
    1 Slingshot
    1 pair tongs
    1 burner (okay, so a zippo will probably work)
    1 rock/nut (something you can easily shoot with the slingshot, and will get really, really hot over the burner)

    Using the tongs to hold the rock, heat it over the burner until it is very hot. If you've got some really snazzy equipment, make it glow. (IMPORTANT: DO NOT USE A SANDSTONE ROCK!) Place balloon strategically so that it blocks something valuable (like a priceless painting on the wall). Carefully using the tongs, arm the slingshot with the rock/nut. Fire the slingshot at the balloon. See how long that plastic lasts upon encountering super-heated rock or metal, and how well the object behind fared.

    Repeat the experiment if you miss the balloon. Record and analyze your results.

    1. Re:Kids, try this at home! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Funny
      Mr. idiotnot:

      Thank you for your contribution. Now please prepare a report on why, exactly, incoming asteroids would be hot enough to glow. Be prepared to show whether or not that will be relevant at the time that the plastic hits the asteroid.


      Thank you,

      Your Fifth-Grade science teacher.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Kids, try this at home! by El · · Score: 2

      Asteroid's are NOT hot. They're out in space, they tend to be a few degrees above absolute zero (ok, so there is some solar heating of the surface). By the time that sucker heats due to friction in the atmosphere, it's WAY to late to deflect it!

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:Kids, try this at home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't bother pointing out why your argument is flawed, since that's already been done, but just out of curiosity, why would sandstone not work?

    4. Re:Kids, try this at home! by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that sandstone explodes when placed in fire.
      He obviously wouldn't want to tell kids to do anything dangerous. :)

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:Kids, try this at home! by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Entirely correct. As a matter of fact, between the moment it enters the atmosphere and the moment of impact: 1 second if it enters at 90 degrees (angle), 1.4 seconds if it enters at 45 degrees, 2 seconds if it enters at 60 degrees, etc.

      All this assuming a speed of about 50 km/s, and the thickness of the atmosphere being about 50 km. Rough assumptions, but the point should be clear.

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    6. Re:Kids, try this at home! by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Aside from the other comments people have posted, I doubt that even a white-hot rock travelling at slingshot velocities would stay in contact with the balloon long enough to damage it. It would just bounce off, and burn whatever it landed on.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:Kids, try this at home! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      The moon is 200 degreesF in the sun and -200F in the shade. If the incoming asteroid is facing the sun then it can get up to 200F assuming its not spinning at a fast rate. I do not know how strong mylex is at that maximum temperature but I assume the scientist took this into consideration. I think the previous poster was refering to the tails he see's in commets as they head towards the sun. Of course anything thats water based above 32F is going to create a trail. Its not glowing hot into it gets close to the sun.

      I think the most important issue is how to stop the rock flying towards earth at such an incredible speed. This will not work as a standard catchers mit because it would blow right through it like it wasn't there. However if the asteriod is detected early enough I suppose you could use the ballon utilizing the moon's and earth's gravitation force to closely match the speed of the asteriod and then catch it and slow it down gradually with the rockets or steer its direction. To me that would take a looong time since asteroids can travel up to 28,000 miles per hour and the fastest rockets today can only go up to 7,000 miles per hour. You would have to do many, many revolutions around the Earth and Moon to even get close to the matching speed and then use the rockets to move ahead of the asteroid and then slow it down enough to catch it. It would take years to construct and test this idea. I wonder if it would be cheaper and easier to just send nuclear rockets to detonate at the asteriods surface to steer its course. I am aware it would not destroy the asteroid but steering it may be the only solution with todays technology.

    8. Re:Kids, try this at home! by sheean.nl · · Score: 1

      And you call firing an burning rock at an precious object safe?

      --

      If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    9. Re:Kids, try this at home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A handy
      link than might help you understand.

    10. Re:Kids, try this at home! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2
      I'm fairly certain that the original poster was referring to the fact that meteors are glowing hot when they hit the earth -- and I was trying to point out that the reason for that is air friction, which isn't relevant, since if the asteroid is inside the earth's atmosphere, it's already Too Late. I just thought it rather silly that he was playing armchair scientist, and missed something that basic.


      Of course, you are correct about the temperature extremes that it will be subjected to; I'm sure that a standard mylar balloon wouldn't hold up for it. However, I'm sure that they can come up something that would work.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    11. Re:Kids, try this at home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moon is fairly close to the sun all the time though (100,000,000 miles?), which heats it up consistently. An asteroid would like come from far farther, and instead of being heated, would likely be small and encrusted with ice, if anything at all.

  21. Please cant we use Nukes ??? but I wanna use nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why cant we use one of the 30000 nukes lying round. Come one, I wanna ...

  22. Bounce by Ivop · · Score: 1

    I see, they let the asteroid bounce so it won't hit the US of A and head straight for Saddam. --Ivo

    1. Re:Bounce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh,
      why not inflate Bush and use him as an airbag ?
      he certainly isn't much use for anything else...

  23. What about... by Alari · · Score: 1

    What happened to the idea of covering the asteroid with a light or dark colored dust to alter it's course? That sounded much more likely to work.

    Alari

    --
    I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
    1. Re:What about... by foo12 · · Score: 1

      How would uneven heating affect an asteroid's trajectory? I could see for a comet, but an asteroid?

    2. Re:What about... by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Light pressure. Does not really have a lot to do with heating. The idea is that a light (colored) surface reflects more photons than a dark one, so there will be a difference in forces, ergo an alteration of trajectory. Sorta the same idea as light sails (but then a little different...).

      Whether it would work, I don't know. All depends on mass, trajectory, and light pressure from the sun.

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    3. Re:What about... by foo12 · · Score: 1

      But reflection doesn't matter --- the energy is imparted on impact of the photon, not reflection.

    4. Re:What about... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Reflection does matter. Conservation of Momentum and all.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  24. Easily misunderstood by El · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem the author is trying to solve is: How do you get a grip on an asteroid for long enough for your rocket motors to change it's path without causing the asteroid to break up. He's suggesting using a giant pillow between engine and asteroid to destribute the force.

    This is the wrong problem, in my opion; he assumes you've got massive amount of rocket fuel to wast. What we really need to do is figure out how to take some of the mass of the asteroid and accelerate it, using this as the reactant to change the path. Sort of like installing a rail gun on the asteroid, and firing off bits of asteriod like b-b's to get the asteroid to move in the opposite direction.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Easily misunderstood by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Why not just shatter the asteroid? Seems like that would take less energy than either your or his sugesstion. Let the atmosphere do the work, just break it up is chunks that are small enough to ablate down to non-threatning pieces.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Easily misunderstood by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      What we really need to do is figure out how to take some of the mass of the asteroid and accelerate it, using this as the reactant to change the path. Sort of like installing a rail gun on the asteroid, and firing off bits of asteriod like b-b's to get the asteroid to move in the opposite direction.

      Or haul a bigarsed ion drive over to it, and use charged silica vapour as the reaction mass. Bring spare ionization screens...

      I'm still in the "nuke it" camp, myself.

    3. Re:Easily misunderstood by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      Why not just shatter the asteroid? Seems like that would take less energy than either your or his sugesstion. Let the atmosphere do the work, just break it up is chunks that are small enough to ablate down to non-threatning pieces.

      The problem is that most asteroids large enough to be a problem would cause serious problems even raining down into the atmosphere as gravel. Large volcanic eruptions mess up our climate quite nicely; vapourizing a few billion tonnes of rock on re-entry would have much the same effect.

      What you really have to do is fragment the asteroid with enough force that the pieces all have local escape velocity [from the asteroid], and do it far enough back in its orbit that most of the pieces miss Earth [the hard part, as we'd need months to years of advance notice].

      This is still probably the most practical way of dealing with an Earth-threatening asteroid.

    4. Re:Easily misunderstood by istartedi · · Score: 2

      You have to be really careful about that. Do it wrong, and you send thousands of white-hot rocks down into the middle of California in the middle of July. Oops! Just kindled all the redwood forests.

      If the asteroid is big enough, you could even heat the atmosphere and/or spread enough space dust around to influence the weather in wierd ways. That's not as bad as sending a 1000-foot wave around the Pacific rim, but it's still less than optimal.

      That said, it would be nice if we had enough lead-time to send up something that could pulverize it into little chunks and disperse them widely enough to create a nice annual meteor shower.

      The question you have to ask for all this is: How long would it take us to turn a planet-killer into lots of little pebbles and scatter them widely enough?

      Also, how much energy would that take, and where would it come from? I wager the answer is "a lot" and "from nothing we have right now".

      I think the most practical answer for the time being is going to be "nuke it". Of course that won't turn it into pebbles, but hopefully the chunks will split wide enough to miss us.

      Lead time is everything. We really need as much effort as possible going into detection so we can get as much lead-time as possible. 50 years lead time and we can mine the thing. 5 days lead time and we are the next dinosaurs.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:Easily misunderstood by PleaseDontBeTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't that really the same problem? If you are bringing your own power, in whatever form, you have a finite amount of energy you can expend in whatever combination you want to change the momentum of the asteroid. Your solution sounds slightly better because after the first shot, the remaining asteroid would have ever so-slightly less mass. But when you consider the problem of mounting a rail gun on some asteroid in a stable fashion...well, the combination of rockets and the super-pillow sounds a lot easier, which counts for a lot when you are a million miles from the nearest astro-workshop and the clock is ticking.

      Of course if you can use external sources of energy, like solar energy (i.e. the solar sail) or asteroid itself, then you really solve one problem. But whatever your solution, if it is really to solve the problem, it also needs to have a rate of work sufficient to deflect the trajectory in the time you have remaining. If the asteroid is big enough to matter, let's hope we have lots of leadtime.

      --
      --
    6. Re:Easily misunderstood by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2
      Back when "Armageddon" was stinking up theaters nation-wide, I did a calculation in Mathematica using parameters given in the movie, e.g. "Half the distance to the moon," and "the size of Texas," etc., always giving that lovable band of roughnecks the benefit of the doubt and erring in their favor. For example I assumed that the asteroid had the density of water, that splitting the asteriod cost no energy, but separating the halves would require them to escape each other's gravity and just barely miss the Earth.

      If I remember right, the feat they achieved would require the nuclear device they implanted to yield well over 10^40 Joules. More advance notice would lower this number greatly.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    7. Re:Easily misunderstood by grazzy · · Score: 1

      "nuke it"?

      everything comes back you know. nuking a asteroid heading towards earth is bound to have debris falling our way, and radioactive ones too.

    8. Re:Easily misunderstood by thogard · · Score: 1

      Life on earth can cope with two .25km wide asteroids much better than one .5km wide one. As the parts get smaller, it becomes a trivial problem. The earth gets hit every single day.

    9. Re:Easily misunderstood by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Water is denser than a lot of rocks. Either way check your calculations again. Not sure if I have a complete grasp on how man joules that 10^40 is, but 10^32 is the daily output of the sun. I have a hardtime beliving it would require more than this. Were you perhaps looking at the need for the 2 halfs to be accelerated instananiously or was it acceleration over time of the blast. Don't know if that makes a difference. Just think somethings gotta be wrong.

    10. Re:Easily misunderstood by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      everything comes back you know. nuking a asteroid heading towards earth is bound to have debris falling our way, and radioactive ones too.

      It's far better to have 1% of the asteroid's debris cone hitting Earth than having the whole thing come raining down on us.

      The environmental impact of any residual radioactivity from the nuke used to fragment it is far, far less than the environmental impact of the original strike (in the absence of interference), and probably even of the few chunks that still hit Earth.

    11. Re:Easily misunderstood by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Aren't we talking about almost negligible gravitational forces from the asteroid itself? If escape velocity from the asteroid itself were an issue, I'd think we were screwed no matter what at that point, that thing would be really huge. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    12. Re:Easily misunderstood by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2
      I was assuming a delta impulse that pushed apart the two halves so that they would be separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the earth by the time they had traveled half of the lunar orbital radius. The biggest problem was the high speed of the asteroid (given in the film, I forget what it is) and the improbably short distance they gave, "half the distance to the moon." If you think about it, the problem amounts to instantaneously accelerating two rocks, each half of "the size of texas" to tens of thousands of miles an hour orthogonal to their path, so that it will miss the Earth in time.

      The actual energy value I forget, but you're right that it would compare to something big like the sun's output. I think the only lesson learned is that we ought to have a plan worked out far in advance of ever using it.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    13. Re:Easily misunderstood by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      Aren't we talking about almost negligible gravitational forces from the asteroid itself? If escape velocity from the asteroid itself were an issue, I'd think we were screwed no matter what at that point, that thing would be really huge. :)

      The escape velocity from asteroids is small (though non-negligeable). However, you're trying to impart it to a billion tonnes of rock. This makes the energy required significant.

      Still quite do-able. My back-of-the-envelope numbers say the equivalent of a few kT is required (plus whatever is needed to actually shatter the rock, times whatever inefficiency factor you assume for force transmission).

    14. Re:Easily misunderstood by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      ...Assuming a rock with density 5000 kg/m^3 and a volume of (1km)^3...

    15. Re:Easily misunderstood by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      It's not that hard to mount a rail gun on an asteroid. Everything is basically floating, so you just have a drilling head on your mass accelerator (mechanically or magnetically accelerated buckets are less dependent upon asteroid composition than a railgun is). Push the nose against the asteroid and start chewing out bits to feed to your mass accelerator. Smaller accelerators on the side for attitude adjustment.

      If we're in a hurry, the hard parts will be in getting a nuclear power plant (probably naval units) into orbit, and getting enough steel to orbit. If we can manage that, we can also get up there details like enough waldoes/robots (and extras, as we can build robots using standard materials but they may not last long in space) to do the assembly (we're in a hurry, so can't build space station and consumables for human workers) and the components to mount to the frame.

      I suppose if we're going to use an Orion drive we might want to launch nuclear power plants while they're still inside their aircraft carrier...

    16. Re:Easily misunderstood by lommer · · Score: 1

      "I'm still in the "nuke it" camp, myself."

      Me too, the power:cost/complexity/weight ratio is just too high to consider other alternatives...

      Unless maybe the rockets you used were nuclear powered ones ala project orion... :-)

    17. Re:Easily misunderstood by geoswan · · Score: 2
      It's not that hard to mount a rail gun on an asteroid. Everything is basically floating, so you just have a drilling head on your mass accelerator (mechanically or magnetically accelerated buckets are less dependent upon asteroid composition than a railgun is).

      And what if asteroids are just piles of rubble? If we are going to change its trajectory, aren't we going to have to pour in a huge amount of kinetic energy? Won't each bucketload of debris you fling off with your mass-driver send an asteroid-quake through your rock, or berg? A couple of years of asteroid quakes may shake your asteroid apart, so instead of having a pile of rubble, you have an uncontrollable cloud of rubble. What if it isn't a pile of rubble, what if it is an iron-nickel rock, but it has fault lines? Could enough asteroid-quakes totally fracture the asteroid into several chunks?

      Push the nose against the asteroid and start chewing out bits to feed to your mass accelerator. Smaller accelerators on the side for attitude adjustment.

      I wonder if you aren't glossing over several problems?

      All asteroids that have come close enough for us to take a look at have been spinning. It is hard to imagine that they wouldn't be spinning. Were you planning to kill the asteroid's spin before you tried guiding it anywhwere? And how did you plan to do that?

      Earth's escape velocity is 11 kilometre per second. But the escape velocity of an asteroid? Phobos is about the same size as an extinction class asteroid. Its escape velocity is about ten metres a second. This link says that is 26 miles per hour. Asteroid 2002 NT7, which caused a scare six weeks ago, will approach Earth in 2019 is 2 kilometers in diameter. If its density was the same as Phobos, and I have done my math right, its escape velocity would be just 2 meters per second.

      IANAP, but it seems to me that nuclear charges would be the best approach. IANAP, but I wonder whether an arrangement of nuclear charges arranged across one hemisphere, and exploded more of less simultaneously, would be a better approach.

      We discussed shaped charge anti-tank warheads on slashdot a couple of weeks ago. In the shaped charge warhead the shape of the explosive charge is calculated so it focuses around the non-explosive slug it is meant to accelerate.

      I've wondered whether the explosive charges would have to be in contact with the surface of the asteroid to be effective. If that wouldn't be necessary then there could be a considerable saving in rocket fuel, because you wouldn't need to match velocities upon arrival. Our existing ICBMs have their MIRV buses. We would need to lift the MIRV buses to LEO, and assemble boosters, in order to send them to intercept the asteroid. So we wouldn't have to develop new technology, like Orion rockets, ion rockets, mass drivers solar sails, or giant air cushion.

      Unfortunately I think it would be necessary for the charge to be in contact with the asteroid.

    18. Re:Easily misunderstood by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      • Yes, if an asteroid is a pile of rubble then the bumper bag would help. With a mass driver, the collection head would have to stick out...so it would be a doughnut-shaped bag.
      • If the asteroid is a pile of rubble and we shake it into a bunch of rocks... then Earth is safe. We'd have to start pushing a long way away, so there would be plenty of time for the rocks to spread out. The rocks just have to get far enough apart that if they hit Earth they enter independently, so most can burn up without shielding following rocks. A kilometer-wide bumper bag would ensure that the rocks are pushed out of a kilometer-sized hole in the middle of the asteroid. They don't have to reach escape velocity if we turn around and chew enough holes before the rocks reassemble...because we reduce escape velocity as we scatter pieces. (Technically, no. But the rocks won't eons to reassemble because they're soon passing through the Earth-Moon area.)
      • Nuclear bombs would be effective on a pile of rubble, but maybe not on a more solid surface. But if we use a nuclear shaped charge we could hit it pretty hard. If we make a big hole or a crack we can set off nukes inside and apply more thrust, particularly if we crack it into several pieces. But it takes a lot of force to crack rock -- those atomic test holes really aren't very deep but kept the explosions contained...although I don't know if we tested very powerful bombs underground.
    19. Re:Easily misunderstood by geoswan · · Score: 2
      Back when "Armageddon" was stinking up theaters nation-wide ...

      And what a stinker it was too. One of the groaners that bugged me about it was -- the un-named rock is spinning, right? So, suppose you know -- somehow -- that you could split it into two hemispheres? You are going to have to time the explosion just right, so the two hemispheres blow off normal to the Earth-striking trajectory.

      Light the fuse at the wrong moment and all you manage to do was arrange for Earth to be struck twice, at two places, a second or two apart.

  25. Nukes. by El · · Score: 2

    Nukes would tend to uncontrolably break the object up into smaller pieces; chances are some of these pieces would still strike Earth, even if the original object was going to miss. Granted, I'd rather be hit by a few 100 meter rocks than 1 big 1000 meter rock, but it's still not a satisfactory solution. Now, if you could split the object in a controllable fashion, like a diamond cutter splitting a diamond, it would be useful. Problem is, we know very little about the internal makeup of asteroids, never having been inside one.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Nukes. by Faeton · · Score: 1
      Actually, we know quite a bit about the general make-up of asteroids (there's lots of them around on earth, each worth quite a bit).

      The biggest problem is due to the immense speed that we predict one of these things will be travelling at. A nuke would have to detonate *just* as it's contacting the asteroid to have maximum impact. If you waited longer, the asteroid will just crush the nuke (no good), or if you detonated it early, the effect is lessened.

      It's almost like shooting a 18" shell with a .303. You can slow it down very slighty, or even break it up.. but one bullet is probably not going to do it for you. You have a hail of nukes, sorta like the Phalanx missle-protection system the Navy has. What you can't get in quality, get it in quantity. Throw up a wall of nukes!

    2. Re:Nukes. by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 1

      ...break the object up into smaller pieces; chances are some of these pieces would still strike Earth...

      Then just nuke the resulting pieces until there are no more bits big enough to hurt. Its not like we don't have several thousand of the darn things.

      --


      We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
    3. Re:Nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm telling you, it's as simple as NASA going to the local offshore oil refinery, enlisting Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to go up in space and drill a hole in it, and then remotely set off some nukes from inside! duh! :P

    4. Re:Nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be one of those guys that spent all his time in college playing asteriods instead of going to class, eh?

  26. Moon by suss · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...but will the Moon get a passenger airbag?

    1. Re:Moon by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      I dout it, last I checked the Moon was not married.

  27. Nuclear Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The creator intended us to discover nuclear technology to deal with this situation. I suspect that this is what it was meant to be used for.

    JC oh I mean AC

  28. Not like a car airbag. by MrFrog8552 · · Score: 1

    This idea has been around for a little while, and unlike a lot of the posts here, it's not an airbag like in a car. The idea is to have a big bag, pushed by a rocket, deflect, not reflect the object, and all random mass around it.

  29. speed issue? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2

    Most asteroids approach at speeds of several kilometers per second. To catch them without popping, the airbag would have to fly out into space, turn around, match speeds with the asteroid, deploy (possibly not in that order) and then fire its rockets the other way to deflect it.

    Wouldn't it be easier just to land on it? Or nuke it?

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    1. Re:speed issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be easier just to land on it? Or nuke it?



      Wasn't that a movie? I say speed up it's rotation so that it rips itself into smaller pieces. Like a CD. If it doesn't work, at least we'll get to see what happens when a giant violently spinning asteroid hits Earth.


  30. Also on CNN by unsinged+int · · Score: 2

    Link from my rejected story. Grr.

  31. Still need a detection meathod by jonman_d · · Score: 2

    All this talk about HOW to deflect an asteriod is wonderful, but I think many people forget that we actually have to SEE the damned thing first. Last I checked we were only monitoring a very, very, very tiny amount of the sky, and NASA's budget is still being attacked by the politicians.

    You can't defend against something that you don't know is there. And I'm also willing to bet that thing thing would take some time to be deployed, so we'd probably need to see the asteriod pretty early.

    Defence plans are great, but what we really need is to be watching more of the sky.

    1. Re:Still need a detection meathod by mhesseltine · · Score: 1
      All this talk about HOW to deflect an asteriod is wonderful, but I think many people forget that we actually have to SEE the damned thing first.

      Amen brother! How many stories have there been on /., CNN, etc. on asteroids, meteors, etc. that missed earth and we only saw them after the fact? If we're going to spend money on researching something, how about a larger scale version of NORAD?

      --
      Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
    2. Re:Still need a detection meathod by thogard · · Score: 2

      How long was it between inital spoting of NY40 and the time it could be seen by a low cost telscope? If it was going to hit, there would have been nothing we could do and some of us wouldn't have a net connection right now. I've personaly been point out to bible thumpers that NY40 might have been a warning from god to prepair and like noah, we can preapir.

    3. Re:Still need a detection meathod by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      At the beginning of "Rendezvous With Rama" is mentioned that Earth was indeed scanning space to find all asteroids.. SpaceGuard or SpaceWatch?

      Of course, this finally was set up after a chunk of Italy was wiped out by a small rock.

      I'm sure we could have a dozen orbital planetary observatories within five years if we wanted them. More and sooner if we're in a big hurry, if existing mirrors can be used in space. But the next step is to scatter observers around the system so we can see things which happen on the other side of the Sun.

  32. Defense first, then offense-- by vandelais · · Score: 2

    Goodbye Saddam!
    (just kidding, he's my neighbor)

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  33. flame me all you want, but by lingqi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    That is really, really dumb!

    right up there with the "wrap the asteroid in reflective material so that the solar wind will surely push it to a safe distance.

    i mean, just a FEW considerations here:

    * asteroid comming in will be damn hot, burn-through bag
    * inflation rate
    * leakage?
    * where you planning on putting it, if a metropolis like NYC, if it was gonna be hit?
    * make it out of what?
    * transport it how?

    that's it; if this is the best our scientists can come up with; i am starting to dig my hole and buying canned soup.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  34. Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    End-world scenarios involving massive impact seem to surface in the news more and more lately... but am I the only one who reads these summaries and gets momentarily excited at seeing phrases like "asteroids headed towards Earth"? I mean, hey, what better way for us to all bite it simultaneously? Frankly, I can hardly wait. I recognize my own mortality, and the only thing that bothers me about my death is the burden I might leave for my family... this solves that problem tidily, and the last few seconds would be SPECTACULAR. Especially if we had a few weeks warning so we could get out the lawn chairs and watch the display.

    1. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I agree 100%. We used talk about this back in high school--would you prefer to die a solitary death, say from cancer, or would you like a nuclear exchange that you would get to witness in part before your turn came? Or a planet-killer comet hurtling towards the earth, getting brighter each day as it approached? No brainer to me--bring on the comet. It would be fucking-A cool!

      So I'm ethically vapid--fuck you, too.

    2. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better still would be if we slipped out of orbit like in that old Twilight Zone episode... we'd all snuff it together with plenty of forewarning and time for mutual bye-byes, yet the Earth would go bounding off into space and remain as a sort of floating time capsule for some alien race to discover millions of years from now.

  35. Extreme Asteroid Sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about attaching a giant bungee cord to the asteroid, and tying the other end to Saturn's rings? The bungee will gradually slow the asterioid, then fling it back into the depths of space.

  36. (Air)bag? by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 2

    Assuming it's made of air and mylar, it would burst. There is about zero pressure in space. That's why astronauts have to have spacesuits, and those spacesuits are thick and expensive as h3ll. Knowing how relatively weak mylar is, the "air"bag would burst before entered space, due to the immense pressure difference.

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:(Air)bag? by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Assuming it's made of air and mylar, it would burst. There is about zero pressure in space. That's why astronauts have to have spacesuits, and those spacesuits are thick and expensive as h3ll. Knowing how relatively weak mylar is, the "air"bag would burst before entered space, due to the immense pressure difference.


      Sorry, but that does not make sense. Yes, pressure in space is zero. So what? It's the pressure difference that matters. Some bicycle tires are inflated to 6 or 7 times atmospheric pressure. The difference between doing that on earth or in space is exactly 1 times normal atmospheric pressure.

      Now, I don't exactly know how strong mylar is, but I'm sure they can make it thicker if it needs to be stronger.

      "Immense pressure difference" does not make sense. It's not like you're dividing pressures, you're subtracting them (that's why they call it difference, I guess...)

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

  37. Anyone for asteroid insurance? by mmmk · · Score: 1

    Everything considered, the chances of being killed by an asteroid are considered to be about one in 12,000, compared to the one in 10,000 possibility of being killed in an airline crash, he said.

    hrmmm I wonder what these statistics are based on.. never heard of anyone being killed by an asteroid.

    1. Re:Anyone for asteroid insurance? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      His statistics are derived from the following formula, often used in scientific research of this type.

      (Wanted Research Budget / Current Research Budget) / 200000

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Anyone for asteroid insurance? by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      I actually was killed by an asteroid. Once.
      -_-_-

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    3. Re:Anyone for asteroid insurance? by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      The idea for doing a calculation like this is

      (Expected Probability of Dying from Impactor of mass M) = (Frequency of impactor of mass M)*(Percent of People expected to Die in Impact)*(Average Human Lifetime)

      For major extinction events (like that which killed the dinosaurs), reasonable numbers are: 1/300,000,000yrs*100%*70yrs = 1/4,300,000.

      So in some sense you have a 1 in 4.3 million chance of dying the way the dinosaurs did.

      Of course that event was rare, but suppose you are a pessimist and think 60 million people (1%) will die from a rock of a size that hits Earth every 50,000 yrs, then this gives a 1 in 70,000 chance of dying in this sort of event.

      The idea is to do a sum over the entire range of impactor sizes with some presumed frequency of impact and percentage of people killed, but because these quantities are highly uncertain, you can essentially claim values that will lead to virtually any result you want.

      In any case, you should realize that the probability of dying by impact is mostly determined by the rate of major impacts, which given 2000 years of recorded history, are probably rare enough that one isn't going to jump on us even if it takes a century to figure what we would do about a asteroid on a collision course.

    4. Re:Anyone for asteroid insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok then well here's how we pay for it.

      Let us put $1 in a savings account at 4% interest.

      I'm sure that 50,000 years of compound interest will be enough to pay for any damages that may result.

    5. Re:Anyone for asteroid insurance? by Gonzoman · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that if 100% die,(or some large fraction of this), who is going to pay off the insurance and to who?

      Hmmm, sounds like a good opportunity for one of these american corporations.

  38. Really, is this important? by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2

    Movies aside, killer asteroids rank WAY down there on my list of worries. Lets see, what has a better chance of killing me:
    1. Basement Stairs
    2. Lightning
    3. Bees
    4. Falling coconuts (look it up, it really happens)
    5. Brain embolism
    6. CowboyNeal

    1. Re:Really, is this important? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      The funny thing is, if you ran this as a /. poll at least 5% of voters would choose the CowboyNeal option.

      On that basis alone, you could argue that CowboyNeal should be permanently incarcerated, as he's demonstrably a menace to society.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Really, is this important? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      We worry about less important things, like the War on Drugs. There are only a tiny amount of emergency room visits caused by most illegal drugs compared to most normal human activities (like home improvement), and yet we spend billions per year fighting this "war". People like to latch on to things that are relatively unimportant, but that have appeal because they are hyped up.
      The asteroid disaster movies are to asteroids as reefer madness is to the war on (some) drugs.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Really, is this important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only a tiny amount of emergency room visits caused by most illegal drugs compared to most normal human activities (like home improvement)

      Ummm, okay. How about some sources on that particular fun fact?

    4. Re:Really, is this important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would suck to fight a war on drugs. Why do we have to do drugs to be in this war?

    5. Re:Really, is this important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the city I live in, two years ago smack killed more people than cars.

    6. Re:Really, is this important? by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Well, if you truly only care for your own life it isn't important as falling coconuts. But falling coconuts, bees and CowboyNeal are less likely to render humans extinct than a large asteroid over the next several million years.

      Of course everybody doesn't individually need to worry about it, but it is important in the long term.

      I have no idea if meteors are the biggest long term threat, though.

    7. Re:Really, is this important? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1

      You're right - one's far more likely to die from something mundane than from a killer space rock. The killer space rocks remain (something of) a concern anyway because if there is one, it can kill a hell of a lot of people. Is there a flight of stairs or a nest of bees that can depopulate continents?

  39. Angle? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    I can only envision this working if the rock is coming it at an angle. If it is more or less strait on, then deflection would have to be almost 90 degrees. Not very likely.

    Unless, the idea is to push it toward the oceans. But larger asteroids will make a mess for all regardless of where it hits.

    1. Re:Angle? by dvanduzer · · Score: 1

      You mention the ocean, and that helps the idea of an airbag make more sense. Even if the asteroid pierces the bag, the friction of the air inside might be enough to slow the asteroid to a less catastrophic speed. Kind of like having an extra large atmosphere. Granted, in a vacuum, the air would probably dissipate rather quickly, so it might not be all that effective. Perhaps a giant water balloon?

      Granted, a better early warning system is still necessary for any such plan to be effective.

    2. Re:Angle? by Gorobei · · Score: 2

      Unless, the idea is to push it toward the oceans.

      Have you ever throw a rock in a pond? The last place you want an asteroid to hit is in an ocean! Think big waves hitting the shores (which is where most people in the world live.) For a non-trivial, non-planet-killer, you want it to hit in the middle of a big landmass (e.g. middle of the USA, middle of Asia, middle of Australia, etc.) Almost zero population in all those places, still a lot of loss of life, but way less than slapping it down in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific!

    3. Re:Angle? by Proc6 · · Score: 1

      What about the north pole? If we could get an asteroid to land on the giant snow and ice mass of the north pole, would that be better? No waves, no dust seems good.

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    4. Re:Angle? by sheean.nl · · Score: 1

      We would kill TUX!!! How dear you to think so selfish... oh, wait penguins are on the south.... ehm... any other protected species on the pole?

      --

      If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    5. Re:Angle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90 degrees? The airbag isn't supposed to be used near Earth, it's supposed to be used far out in space, where a fraction of a degree is sufficient deflection.

      If the asteroid ever gets anywhere near the Earth with any kind of intersecting trajectory, it's already too late.

    6. Re:Angle? by MyHair · · Score: 1

      any other protected species on the pole?

      Well, I don't think polar bears are protected, but they're so darn CUTE! Cuter than penguins, really.

  40. nukes are better by theoramus · · Score: 1

    Why is it that many of these plans I hear of involve some elaborate scheme which involves landing on the asteroid and using the rocket's thrust, solar sails, painting it white(yes, I've heard a "researcher" say this), or some other nonsense.
    Nuking the surface is often downplayed by these said researchers as possibly making things worse by splitting it up and having more impacts(although it's a much better bet than the other plans).
    The plan I only occasionally hear these researchers mention is detonating the nuke near it(either directly in front or slightly off-center). Doing this wouldn't split the asteroid into pieces, and it would have a much higher chance of working than the elaborate schemes

    1. Re:nukes are better by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      Or you could just end up with radioactive asteroid bits and pieces coming down all over the place.

    2. Re:nukes are better by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1

      Doing this wouldn't split the asteroid into pieces



      Maybe I misinterpreted your statement; wouldn't breaking the asteroid into pieces be better? I figure more surface area for the atmosphere to "cling to," and smaller chunks to vaporize when they enter the atmosphere. Of course, it might happen that a VERY big rock is broken into other VERY big rocks where self destruction/vaporization is not really going to happen/help.

      Think of it this way: have a friend drop a 500lb bag of sand on you from up on the roof. If the whole back is dropped: dead. If the bag is opened and the contents dropped: possibly injured and pissed, but alive. The intermediate possibility is that the 500lbs of sand was really 500lbs of gravel or roofing slate. Again: dead.


    3. Re:nukes are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, detonating a nuke near the asteroid would release very little energy in the form of pressure towards the asteroid.

      And why would you want to detonate the nuke in front of the asteroid? You want to change the trajectory, not the velocity.

    4. Re:nukes are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      detonating a nuke near the asteroid would release very little energy in the form of pressure towards the asteroid.

      Simple solution: Bigger and Bigger Mother Fluckin Nukes!

    5. Re:nukes are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Some near-earth asteroid researcher was on The Sky at Night recently (the UK's very own "space program" ... sorry) and explained that the current thinking is indeed that a nuke would be the best option. We'd need to know about it a long time in advance, i.e. years though.

      A large nuke would be exploded a short distance from the asteroid, far enough away that it wouldn't break up (yes, we'd also need to know what it was composed of) thereby vapourising a few thousand tons of it which would fly off and act as the reaction mass to deflect it. The push from the radiation wouldn't be very large, which is probably why that "back of the envelope" calculating guy further up the thread got such a high necessary nuke power. Asteroid misses, world rejoices. Academic though really since we don't have anything like the monitoring capability to see it in time, if at all.

      Bob the amazing AC

    6. Re:nukes are better by Gonzoman · · Score: 1

      Changing the velocity will change the trajectory.

  41. Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The National Post is not THE Canadian newspaper. It is A Canadian newspaper. We're not *that* small. ;)

  42. Hmm, how bout putting a nuke in it...? by dameron · · Score: 0

    Seems it might be better to make a "catcher's mitt" with the inflatable, have it move at close to the speed of the offensive material in the same direction to gently "catch" it. Then, when most of the material is pressed against the giant cushion(and by proxy against the gas that inflated the cushion) pop off a nuke or so in the middle. Gives the nuke a medium to convey kinetic energy to the offensive mass, plus we could prolly get it on CNN by that time.

    -dameron

  43. Seriously... by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

    I see so much of these "solutions", that man there should be a top-ten list just for all the crazy/wacky ways we can avoid getting hit by an asteroid.

    But this 'inflatable' airbag is the funniest of them all; even more dumber than 'zapping asteroid with a laser'. Umm, right.

    Next thing you know the stuff they use in silicon breast implants will be used to ricochet asteriods...like in pinball, get it? Personally, I think we should use a force field(like the stuff you see in star trek) to block the asteriod, then use our tractor beam to pull it away from earth and throw it somewhere else...like pluto.

    1. Re:Seriously... by Lurkingrue · · Score: 1

      "Next thing you know the stuff they use in silicon breast implants..."

      Hmmm...The stuff they use in silicone breast implants...Hmmm...You wouldn't be talking about SILICONE, would you?

      And its "silicone". Silicon breast implants would probably be there to get you a better processors speed or more mammary...er, MEMORY! I mean, "memory"!

    2. Re:Seriously... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I see so much of these "solutions", that man there should be a top-ten list just for all the crazy/wacky ways we can avoid getting hit by an asteroid.

      No, its a damn brillant ideal. You people are not thinking about this from the right direction. Its not about mass on mass, its about momentum and energy.

      Think of it like this. You take a 1 kilometer rock headed in a long orbit that will one day hit the earth. So you launch a 20 kilometer airbag in a retrograde orbit. Is retrograde the term I'm looking for here?

      Well anyway when the astroid and the airbag hit each other the airbag is going to be deformed from the impact. This impact is going to absorb energy from the astroid. The only place this energy can come from is from the momentumn of the astroid itself. Change the momentiumn, you change the orbit.

      This couldn't be a last minute defense. We would have to intercept the astroid years in advanced but it would work. I don't think we could use mylar ether. I think we would use kevlar or something.

      It's simple and that what makes it brilliant.

      Okay, its 12:30 at night here, I've had 3 hours of sleep so I don't give a damn about my spelling, grammer, or my typing speed so don't bother to correct it or even complain about it.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:Seriously... by UnphaZeD · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm going to flame you about your typing speed, comon man, I was waiting for that post for at LEAST 2 hours.
      oh, and P.S. on the guy that scores these thigs.. There were hella funny posts about the air bag that only got 1 or 2 points. come ON people; "Does this mean children under the age of twelve shouldn't be allowed in the front seat of planet earth?" is VERY funny.

      That is all.

  44. For the record. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Canadian paper, the National Post,

    For the record, the National Post is not the only Canadian newspaper.

  45. Huh? by Dunhausen · · Score: 1

    SCIENTIST 1: Ahh! Giant Asteroid! We're all gonna die!
    SCIENTIST 2: Nonsense, we'd never be able to deflect a gargantuan asteroid with just thermonuclear warheads.
    SCIENTIST 3: How about a giant bag of air then?
    SCIENTISTS IN CHORUS: YEAH! THAT'S IT!

    --
    Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to we
    1. Re:Huh? by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Scienmouse 1: Binky! Are you thinking what im thinking?
      Scienmouse 2: I think so brain! But where are we going to find 4000 square yards of Mylar?
      Scienmouse 1: No you idiot, to take...no I guess we need to save it first.
      Scienmouse 2: Narf!

  46. the ads by Highlordexecutioner · · Score: 1

    Imagine the ads for the Earth Airbag though.

    If it can save the earth from an ateroid. It can save you drunken ass when you plow into a telephone pole at 75mph.

    --
    Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?
  47. He's French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't he take his mylar bag and flatten Quebec City?

    NAPMFQ

  48. The one and only solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To save this poor asteroid, we must begin igniting nuclear bombs all over the planet so that it will disintegrate leaving a clear path for any asteroid approaching us. This way we can save the life of another asteroid that has gotten lost :(

  49. Answers previously posted story by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Funny



    Science: Most Beautiful Experiment in Physics

    Answer: Airbags for Planetary Defence

  50. OT: $199 PC from Wal*Mart with Lindows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:OT: $199 PC from Wal*Mart with Lindows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely off topic, but doesnt it seem strange that it comes with a 10/100 Mbit ethernet card instead of a modem? Surely a linux-friendly modem can be found for the price of an ethernet card?

  51. A Comedy of Engineering by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    Let's ignore the physics of a 100,000 ton rock hitting a mylar balloon for the moment. I'm more interested in how they're going to get this gas into space. I realize it can be compressed, but 3 cubic kilometers worth? Has anybody done the math here?! The only way I can see this doing a bit of good (and not really even that) is that the asteroid might be nudged off course when the bag ruptures with all it's atmosphere in a shockwave sorta thing. But then, you might as well send 50 nukes up after it... Hell, the engineering there would probably be a lot simpler... I guess, the balloon would have a certain amount elastisity to it before it bursts, giving it some impact resistance as the mylar absorbs the shock, but I have to wonder... Why even bother?

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:A Comedy of Engineering by ColaMan · · Score: 2

      All you need is enough gas to apply enough force to the inside of the bag to keep it inflated against the near vacuum of space (oh, and against your rock when you finally hit it).

      eg: a 0.1 psi pressure difference would be more than enough, considering the amount of square inches on the surface of a cubic mile bag. A cubic meter of liquified gas expands to many,many,many cubic meters of gas when you're talking an 0.1psi pressure differential between your container and the Outside.

      Notice my excellent mixture of SI and Imperial units? That's apparently very important and nearly a mandantory requirement in space R&D ;-)

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:A Comedy of Engineering by zenyu · · Score: 2

      I'm more interested in how they're going to get this gas into space. I realize it can be compressed, but 3 cubic kilometers worth?

      There is very little air pressure in space, so you don't need a lot of pressure for the ballon to inflate. You do need to keep enough pressure in it so your rocket doesn't push through the ballon and hit the asteroid. Getting a big rocket to the asteroid is beyond what we could do by next year say. (By "we" I mean Russia since they still have some big rockets, but not that big, it would have to be an international thing with the US sending up supplies, Russia supplying the big fuel tanks and engines, and Europe and Japan footing the bill.)

      One advantage of crashing into this thing with a big airbag before doing a 20-30 second big burn is that the momentum of the rocket would be fully transfered to the comet as more of a translation than a rotation. Plus landing on the comet in a place were it would just translate and not rotate would be difficult.

      It doesn't really rule out the nuclear option either. Since you only get to do that once you'd try this first, then check if you moved it enough. If not an H-Bomb isn't so heavy, you'd have brought one along. Now you just land on the comet and set it off. Hopefully enough of it is vaporized quickly enough to push the remaining fragments off the they collision path to Earth.

      Not that it will matter, we're not looking out the front windshield. Hopefully the first one to hit us in modern times won't be the big one. But I bet if Sydney disappeared one day, we'd arrest all the usual suspects and suspend free-speech immediately. Oh, and maybe do something after the an election cycle, or two.

  52. Asteroid won't be hot.... by xactoguy · · Score: 1

    The asteroid isn't going to be hot... because that only happens once it hits the atmosphere. ( mentioned a couple posts up ) If we actually let it get that close to the Earth, we'd be screwed anyway, because it is too close. Where are we going to put this massive balloon/bag? In space, obvioulsy, far enough away to deflect the asteroid away from the Earth. Transport it... some shuttle craft, with some inflation device, probably several weeks before the asteroid arrives, if we detect it soon enough.

    --


    And so we go, on with our lives
    We know the truth, but prefer lies
    Lies are simple, simple is bliss
  53. Like the rings of saturn ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'd be one helluva 'Air Bag'. Of course this could also be just some evil sinister plot to control all oxygen like in the HighLander (2?) films. Well, what with all those insane patent issues we hear of on slashdot .. don't assume thats a too far-out possibility. History dictates that SCI-FI Films will probably continue to come true.

  54. "THE" Canadian paper by YahoKa · · Score: 1
    The Canadian paper, the National Post

    We do have more than one paper you know and this one isn't like our official paper :s

    1. Re:"THE" Canadian paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is the Post different from the other 'national' paper, The Glebe and Mail?
      Or any other papers?
      Hell, most of them are owned by either
      Canwest or Peladeau (the Sun chain).

      You got to love the Canwest chain's honesty.
      Most papers try to make it seem that they are balanced (you know the myth about neutrality of the press) but ol Izzie doesnt even pretend:
      no personal criticism of PM Cretin and no negative coverage of Israel.
      I dont mind it. They all do it, at least they're not hypocrites.

      Canada's best news is found at:
      www.globalresearch.ca

  55. The REAL Answer by ZenMomentum · · Score: 1

    OK, Inject nuclear powered engines to redirect course as far as possible away from Earth. How much logic does this really take guys? --Zen

    1. Re:The REAL Answer by mobets · · Score: 1

      Thats what they are doing, they are just using the bag to spread the force out. As someone else pointed out, would you rather be pushed by: a pillow or the sharp end of a pencil?

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
  56. U R TEH SUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no M3Zz4J hear!!!!

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. Nukes for asteroid deflection by XNormal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I once did some back-of-the-envelope calculations about deflecting asteroids with a physicist friend of mine.

    Our presumed target was a 1 mile dinosaur killer that is about to hit Earth in a few months and we want to impart enough kinetic energy to change its trajectory so that by the time it reaches Earth it will miss it by a few thousand miles of safety margin.

    Well, it turns out that it takes so much energy that even the biggest thermonuclear devices barely have enough energy to do it, even assuming we could convert it efficiently to kinetic energy.

    A nuke going off in space is just a big flash. No real blast. You need some working mass to convert it to kinetic energy. Using the mass of the asteroid itself is dangerous because you don't want it to break into multiple fragments.

    Here our calculations probably become much less accurate because we took some shortcuts and made some assumptions that may be way off, but the result we got is that we needed to send some tens of thousands of tonnes of working mass (e.g. water) along with the nuke to convert its energy to momentum with reasonable efficiency.

    Needless to say, this is beyond our current launching capabilities.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    1. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by io333 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here our calculations probably become much less accurate because we took some shortcuts and made some assumptions that may be way off, but the result we got is that we needed to send some tens of thousands of tonnes of working mass (e.g. water) along with the nuke to convert its energy to momentum with reasonable efficiency.

      Needless to say, this is beyond our current launching capabilities.


      With the Orion it is not. I have a feeling that if there were a dinasaur killer on the way, an atomic powered launch vehicle would be be more politically correct.

    2. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 2
      A nuke going off in space is just a big flash. No real blast. You need some working mass to convert it to kinetic energy. Using the mass of the asteroid itself is dangerous because you don't want it to break into multiple fragments.

      Stuff and nonsense. Obviously, you haven't been keeping up with asteriod demolition research.

      I did some back-of-the-Blockbusters-receipt calculations, and came to the conclusion that one can safely split an asteroid the size of Texas into two equal halves using a nuke, with each half passing harmlessly on either side of the Earth. (Admittedly, you have to detonate the nuke at least four hours before impact for this to work.)

      The key, of course, is that you have to drill a hole into the asteroid and put the nuke inside. This will amplify the force of the explosion sufficiently to split it in half. Mind you, the hole will have to be at least 800 feet deep to make effective use of the explosive force.

      Generally speaking, NASA is not the best training grounds for deep hole-drilling technique. (Yes, there was that minor problem with the "meters vs feet" whoopsy, but that's not formal training.) Do your recruiting in the oil industry, since they've had a lot of experience with drilling. I think it's well-established that anyone can become an astronaut with about a week's worth of training, whereas there's just no way you can figure out how to drill a hole without a lifetime's worth of study.

      Hint:Harry S. Stamper is widely acknowledged as the world's foremost core driller. I'd start with him.

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    3. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by x1048576 · · Score: 1
      I once did some back-of-the-envelope calculations about deflecting asteroids with a physicist friend of mine.
      Dude, I think you'd need to accelerate your friend up to about 99% of light speed and hit the asteroid dead centre.
    4. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by bwindle2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And what is wrong with breaking it up? Say you hit the asteroid with the biggest nuke we've got, wouldn't it either a) break it up into smaller pieces that would then hit the atmosphere and burn up, or b) shatter like a clay-pigon and the pieces would miss the Earth?

    5. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      OK, so use an Orion [nuclear bomb drive] drive to get all this mass into orbit. Then there are two methods: The article apparently refers to using the bag as a cushion while gentle acceleration is applied. The other choice is to use the velocity-squared part of kinetic energy to hit hard.

      If we're pushing gently, the Orion drive lets us launch much more fuel than otherwise and to get to the asteroid quickly. Then whether we "push" with a rocket or with the Orion drive depends upon whether the bag can withstand nearby nuclear explosions and a sudden push (the bag would also get some push from direct impact of gases and radiation).

      If we're going to hit hard, we just keep accelerating during approach. The ship can accelerate without opening the bag, so there is no problem guiding the bag. When getting near, deploy bag and spray the mentioned water into the bag. So when it hits, the force of the water (vapor or frozen to bag) is spread across the whole bag rather than concentrated in the ship.
      It might be best to slow the ship a little so the bag and ship impact separately to reduce losing force due to a puncture.

    6. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A nuke going off in space is just a big flash. No real blast. You need some working mass to convert it to kinetic energy.

      Sure, there's not that much push imparted by the radiation itself, but the aim of the nuke approach is to vapourise the surface of one side of the asteroid. The superheated rock/iron vapour flying off is the reaction mass that supplies most of the deflection. I'm guessing you didn't include that in your calculations; current thinking is that with sufficient warning (admittedly we're talking years) this could be done with nukes using fairly standard ICBM type warheads.

      Bob the amazing AC

    7. Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection by XNormal · · Score: 2

      The superheated rock/iron vapour flying off is the reaction mass that supplies most of the deflection.

      It will also send fantastic shockwaves into the asteroid and break it into pieces, some of which will hit Earth. That's why I said that using the mass of the asteroid itself as reaction mass is dangerous.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  59. Air Bags by evilviper · · Score: 2
    Air Bags for Planetary Defense

    Yes, I've always thought congress should do something about the risk of asteroids.

    Oh, wait...
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  60. liability? by dirvish · · Score: 2

    What happens when the US messes up the asteroid bouncing project and they send the asteroid directly into France?

    1. Re:liability? by mypalmike · · Score: 1
      They will have accomplished their secondary objective.

      -_-_-

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    2. Re:liability? by MyHair · · Score: 1

      This helps the California wine growers. They could then call their sparkling wine "champagne" without all the whining.

      It would also cut back slightly on sappy US-produced romance films and instant coffee commercials. I see that as a benefit.

  61. Yipes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's just hope it's not a Ford airbag.

  62. Air bag, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd figure the canucks would just genetically engineer a huge Patrick Roy to make a glove save on the occasional asteroid.

  63. There is a lesson to be learned... by Scaebor · · Score: 1
    However, as we all know, seat belts do far more to protect people than do airbags. Therefore, what we really need is a giant belt around the earth.

    After all, if the asteroids already have one, why can't we?

    --
    "Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
  64. I hope they .... by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    take into account children in the front passenger seat of whatever vehicle could deploy this thing. But alas I guess thats obvious.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  65. Different scenario by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    What if the asteroid is going to miss earth (insert big sigh of relief from the scientific community) but glances the moon... Puts a little "english" on it and sends it spinning toward earth?

    Is there any kind of plan in effect to deflect the moon from us?

    1. Re:Different scenario by Colin+Bayer · · Score: 1

      Tiny umbrellas.

      --
      Want Linux games? HERE.
    2. Re:Different scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's big enough to provide the moon with significant inertia, it's going to be a huge problem no matter what.

      Note that the moon is currently slowly moving away from the Earth.

    3. Re:Different scenario by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Tiny umbrellas.

      Whew! I feel much better now. :)

  66. Cnadian papers by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

    This seems like kind of a dumb idea. $10 says I can deliver a thousand times the newtons an asteroid with a nuke. Oh, and what's with the 'Canada's newspaper' quip? Canada has TWO newspapers.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  67. Mylar? by 3Suns · · Score: 2

    Why use mylar airbags when we've got plenty of used-up old conservatives lying around? Lets' throw Rush Limbaugh out there to protect us from asteroids...

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  68. An alternate solution by paul248 · · Score: 1

    There are reports that NASA is working on a solution to this problem. They're developing a small white triangular spacecraft that fires white projectiles at an oncoming asteroid, causing it to break up into smaller pieces. Then the smaller pieces are then targeted and detroyed. This continues until the fragments cease to exist. Unfortunately, seconds after the asteroid is completely destroyed, dozens more appear out of nowhere.

    1. Re:An alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean I was a BETA tester for NASA when I was in year 7? Sounds like "Enders Game".

      I guess the good news is I am also qualified to jump a buggy over potholes and those pesky land mines on the moon. :)

  69. Paper Empires by flux4 · · Score: 1

    The Canadian paper, the National Post, is reporting on a plan...

    "The" Canadian Paper? Our country does have more than one, you know. Conrad Black wasn't quite that successful.

  70. Deployment Method Detailed !!! by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    I think the National Post intends to deploy the air bag themselves. All they have to do is get their editorial staff to open their mouths and BOOM, an inexhaustible supply of hot air. Better yet they can deploy the bag twice as fast if everyone bends over and contributes their "idea chute" as well.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  71. done and done by prockcore · · Score: 2

    Good thing Earth already has a built in air bag, it's called "the atmosphere".

  72. Haven't I seen this before... by Spunk · · Score: 1

    ... in a Yahoo! commercial?

  73. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about Pamela Andersons airbags?

  74. How about.... by Mercury2k · · Score: 1

    Wouldnt it be a good idea to go out and "retrieve" other close by "rocks" and sling them in orbit around Earth. They could then be equiped with proper rockets and perhaps trimmed down to the needed size to shoot back off at new astroids in a game of intergalatic pool?

    All Tthat I'm suggesting is that we try keep these big rocks that fly by. They are massive objects which simply need some "redirection". Heck, I say we fight fire with fire by slinging them at each other. :)

  75. Grammar Nazi by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    The Canadian paper, the National Post, is reporting...

    The phrase "the National Post" should not be a parenthetical expresson here because Canada does, in fact, have more than one news paper.

  76. Side pocket by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Funny

    suggests deploying an inflatable mylar bag a few kilometers in size, and using it to push the projectile aside

    No, what we should do is build a giant pool-cue stick and knock another asteroid into the first asteroid, deflecting it into the side pocket.

  77. A Fuck is a Fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YEAH NIGGA! 2 motherfuckin' Live is back in this raggedy motherfucker, you know what I'm sayin'! We are the undisputed originators of this X-rated rap game, you know what I'm sayin'! I got my man Kid Ice to myright, I got Marquis to my left, I got Luke over her to the side, you knowwhat I'm sayin'? Hey, yo, man, hey, kick that shit!

    Bitches on the dick 'cause of who I am Yeah! The Fresh Kid Ice, the Chinaman Movin' from the bottom straight to the top Fool! And I'm out for mine just to get one nut Yeah. Splackin' every day, always wearin' the glove A bitch must be stupid to fall in love Ha! 'Cause the Kid love pussy, and nothin' but the pussy Yeah! So bitch, if you want to fuck with me, Take a number Fool! and don't keep fronitn' I got plenty many bitches to Move Somethin' Yeah! I gots no time for silly games Only real bitches, not sorry lames Ha ha! So it's up to you, either hang on or stroll on! My man ain't got no time for no motherfuckin' woman! If that's what you want, you're shit out of luck I'm out for the pussy 'cause a fuck is a fuck! Fool!

    A fuck is a fuck, NIGGA! A fuck is a fuck, HOE! A fuck is a fuck, NIGGA! Yo, Marquis, kick that shit!

    F-U-C-K-I-N-G, Yeah! I'm fuckin' you and you're suckin' me Fuck relationships; motherfuck love Ha ha! 'Cause makin' money is all I'm thinkin' of True! And when the bitches see me they start to holler, "Marquis want some head and $500?" Ha ha ... 'Cause I'm a three-piece nigga, bitch, I don't play I want the pussy, the pay and a place to stay! Fool! And the head, booty and cock, well, that's mandantory Yeah! BITCH, gimme mine as I complete the story There are plenty of bitches out in the street Yeah. And you'll fuck another if you don't fuck me True dat! One I go fishin', I'm on a mission Yeah! And when I hook 'em, you know I overlook 'em Ha ha! Had plans goin' subtle and you're shit out of luck Yeah! A head for a head and a fuck for a fuck

    A fuck is a fuck, NIGGA! Yo, Kid Ice, kick that shit!

    Bitches know what's up 'bout the one-night stand Yeah! Make a nigga wait with his dick in his hand But True. they wanna fuck just like we do Right. So hoe, stop frontin', drop your draws, let's screw! You wanna be a hoe, so act like one Just open your legs and let the Ice-man cum Ha ha ... Put your legs up high, straight to the buck Yeah! Like I said before, a fuck is a fuck!

    Some girls do and some girls don't True. Some girls will and some girls won't Yeah. Some girls fuck and some girls cry Yeah. Some girls suck and some girls lie Triflin' hoes, it's you I salute Yeah! 'Cause a bitch is gonna fuck who she wants to True dat! And if you're lookin' for love, you're outta place 'Cause you'll only get a fuck and some nut in your face! Yeah!

    A fuck is a fuck, NIGGA! Yo, break this shit down, my nigga!

    Now, the example of a fuck is just a fuck. But let it be known that it's onlya fuck. See, some of y'all niggas get caught up in ... fuckin' a woman, and thinkin' that's your woman, when it's just a fuck. And some of y'all ladies just get caught up with men, when they might be somebody else's men ... that's just a fuck! So a fuck is just a fuck!

    So there you have it, you know what I'm sayin'! 2 Live is back in this motherfucker, you know what I'm sayin'! We goin' for motherfuckin' Number five on the motherfuckin' wall, fool! We are the originators, you know what I'm sayin'! Can't nobody fuck with us in this X-rated rap game, and anybody that tries that fuck shit, know what's up for real!

    1. Re:A Fuck is a Fuck by NECTROLL · · Score: 1

      It looks like I have found my volunteer......

  78. asteroid approaching - gimme funding proposal #813 by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 1

    The more and more I hear about meteor showers, ways in which to bounce asteroids out of earth's path the more I believe that these ideas come to exist to milk some funding out of some sucker or to sell who knows which book. This is all schumacher levy 9's fault.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  79. Heat, inflation, etc by forkboy · · Score: 2

    Not for nothin' but wouldn't the heat of the asteroid (from passing through atmospheric re-entry) smoke a hole in this airbag before it had a chance to absorb much force from it?

    And what would they plan on inflating it with? Part of the protection of an airbag is the force of it inflating as your momentum carries you forward. It's an azide compound that generates a bunch of nitrogen gas that rapidly inflates it. It would be a hell of a chemical reaction to generate enough gas to fill a several km wide cushion. Maybe I should think of it more as one of those airbags the fire dept. uses to keep jumpers from smacking pavement?

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  80. Tests. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2
    Tests on Crash Dummies show that Airbags save lives.

    Therefore, an Airbag for the planet earth will save the lives of 6 billion dummies :)

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  81. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuclear missiles are now being used to clear any cars that happen to be on a collision course with yours

  82. Hmmmm by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 0

    You know what kind of mental image I am getting from this - A hung of rock hurtles towards Earth. Suddenly a continent blows itself off the Earth as a huge airbag pops out and quickly inflates to provide a cusioning for the rock. My main problem with this is where are they going to get the materials/$$$ for such a project. The good thing about shooting up a nuke is that we already got plenty of those lying around (good ol' arms races).

  83. I can move the earth with a big lever by thogard · · Score: 2

    1) F=ma
    2) ????
    3) Profit!

    whats the airbag going to push aginst?

    More great science from Okie State!
    Its sad but I spent some time there till i figured out I could leave....

  84. Giant air bag not enough by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    I think a giant air bag would be much more effective if used in conjunction with a planetary seat belt.

    We could install planetary windshield wipers for the small asteroids. I mean there is no sense is wasting a perfectly good air bag on the small stuff. I think a planetary shoulder harness would be good also but I'm not sure where to fasten it. I figure that my town is the anus of the earth so that would put the shoulder somewhere in eastern Canada I figure.

    If Bush is determined to go to war with Iraq we could use that area as our planetary ash tray.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  85. Re:asteroid approaching - gimme funding proposal # by foniksonik · · Score: 2

    funny, cause I just watched Apollo 13 again and they repeated repeatedly the fact that the reentry vehicle had to approach the earth on a very specific vector or else they would burn up or bounce off the atmosphere... most likely meteors have the same approach and entry window as man-made detritus.

    In the end of course it only takes one large asteroid to do it right and kill us all...

    carpe diem I guess...
    \

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  86. What we really need... by Arcturax · · Score: 2

    Is a huge board with a nail in it!

    We just have to be careful that we don't build a board with a nail that is so big, we destroy ourselves!

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  87. Slight adjustment by Arcturax · · Score: 2

    Insert "Pusher robot" above "Basement Stairs".

    Or should that be the "Shover robot?"

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  88. Echo One by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    early US satelite.
    They called it echo becasue it was a pasive radar reflector. It was 500 ft in diameter.
    What was it made of you ask?
    How did they get somethig 500' in diameter into orbit you ask?

    Try aluminumized mylar.
    It inflated after release from the booster (probably a Redstone - I don't remember)

    It took very little to inflate it in space - just a few grams of gas was sufficient.

    It didn't stay in orbit too long as it also provided proof of concept for solar sails.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  89. Odds of dying by mghiggins · · Score: 1

    Everything considered, the chances of being killed by an asteroid are considered to be about one in 12,000, compared to the one in 10,000 possibility of being killed in an airline crash, he said.

    Errr... wtf? The odds of my dying in an airline crash are much less than 1 in 10,000, thank you very much. Ditto for being whacked by an asteroid.

    Seems like they're off by a bunch of orders of magnitude.

    According to this the odds are about one in four *million*.

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are not my own; I haven't had free will since last year when aliens ate my brain.
  90. Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a marvelous idea...

    Why not use princeton's fusion reacter assembly to power a massive railgun. Use a small thermonuclear device as the slug and just peg the thing.... it only takes 2 weeks for the gyros that power the reacter to charge up anyways. Thats a great turnout don't you think? You could even mate it to a fission reactor, but i don't think it can put out the energy that a railgun theoretically requires.

    Seems more logical than using a balloon to deflect an asteroid. Not to mention that the balloon would have to be real close to earth, it would have to be in a PERFECT trajectory to catch the asteroid and be in a position to distrobute the millions of joules of energy it will transfer...

    Canadian physicists are lawbreakers, particularly those of common sense and sometimes newtons.

  91. Dr. Hermann Burchard is an.. by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Dr. Hermann Burchard should know better..

    Air pressure changes as you get higher in attitude..it gets lower.. thus at thge height of deployment the amount of air and air pressure is not enough to do what he sets out to do..

    Maybe he should re-take physics?

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  92. Why use Mylar Airbags by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 1

    All we need to do is send up all the Politicans. They are all airbags to being with. If that fails, we can send the lawyers and sue the damn thing into submission.

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
  93. Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, I saw this on Armageddon. At least we know where they are getting research ideas now.

  94. sucker punched by sbillard · · Score: 0

    Don't bring tinfoil to a fist fight.

  95. Dueling Airbags by lildogie · · Score: 2

    As any Batman reader knows, a mad scientist bent on planetary vengeance could use the same pillow/sail technology to push an asteroid _into_ earth's path.

    The proverbial sword cuts both ways.

  96. Canadian Air Bags Galour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like the ideal use for some of the politicians involved in the Canadian leadership race.

  97. deployment mechanism? by digidave · · Score: 3, Funny

    And exactly how do they intend on getting a giant steering wheel into space?

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
  98. Cheaper solution by Stinky+Boy · · Score: 1

    Put two or three Tahoes up there. When the asteroid runs into them, the airbags will inflate.

    We've got a few in the US we can spare, I'm sure.

    Oh, and needless to say, we can take the stereos and leather seats out first.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  99. Bungie cords, of course. by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    As long as we're talking improbable ideas, I suggest we fire an orion booster equipped with a several mile long bungie cord. No, no... i know what your thinking-- Another hair-brained ballon scheme, but wait! Our chief problem is landing the booster safely on the 'roid. Fixed rockets will kill as much intercept velocity as possible and upon the astroids flyby of the booster will fire* several kilometer long bungie cords that will anchor* themselves onto the astroids surface. The lines will hopefully soak up enough of the velocity as to impart some of it to the booster, being jettisoned before the full snap back occurs (or the line(s) simply break). The booster should then be able to edge up to the 'roid, place itself and blow it off course.

    *Engineering uncertain, use your imagination, sport

    Hell, if he can get funding for balloons, I should get funding for this! ;)

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  100. parachute / sail by Parsec · · Score: 1

    On that note, maybe we could also net the thing and attach a massive parachute or parasail to it and bring the thing down in a controlled manner for study.

  101. LAUNCH KATZ INTO SPACE!!!!!11!!1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is the biggest air bag to ever post his techno-vomit on the internet. I am sure that the asteroid will avoid contact with Katz, just like every human with an IQ in double digits does.

  102. idea ignores the spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This air bag idea ignores the fact that asteroids spin. There's no way a mylar bag can be pushed up against a asteroid that's spinning (or at least not for time periods of similar length to the spin period). The rock would just eat right through the bag like a drill bit.

    mark

  103. Hmm, a little late if you ask me.... by wdavies · · Score: 2

    Given I submitted this three days ago:

    2002-08-28 19:40:21 Asteroids and The Giant Airbag (articles,news) (rejected)

    However, here's the link to the New Scienctist Article that got the scoop.

  104. Getting ahead of ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We shouldn't move against the asteroid until we're sure it has aquired weapons of mass destruction.

  105. Let us test this.... by NECTROLL · · Score: 1

    The test:

    Looking for one volunteer to stand at the end of an indoor shooting range while holding a mylar baloon in front of thier face at arms length. We will test this theory by firing a round from my SKS to see if the mylar baloon will deflect the round and keep it from hitting the volunteers face.

    Why not just use the ever so famous slashdot response... hit it with the tesla death ray, or a large directed enery weapon.

    Or we could just fling Rosie O'Donell at it!

  106. skydivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice. This idea is great. I was just thinking skydivers should have airbags too. I volunteer Dr. Hermann Burchard to be the first person to test the new system.

  107. With apologies to Berke Breathed by greylouser · · Score: 1
    Step 1: Collect $100 billion in small bills

    Step 2: Sew bills into giant asteroid net circling globe.

  108. Re:Please cant we use Nukes ??? but I wanna use nu by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Because it would take 20,000 of the nukes to get the rest out of the atmosphere?

    Well, we could mine an asteroid and get the fissionables while they're already in space...

  109. Shave it off! by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    What happened to the , just change the mass theory. Not that long ago I remember NASA proposed a method of just taking an intense laser and trimming a few once off the mass of the asteroid, thus changing its trajectory. It seems more feasible than giant air bags.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  110. You Could Just Speed the Asteroid Up by Uggy · · Score: 2

    It's not like the earth is just sitting there waiting for something to hit it. If you detect a collision course, both speeding up the asteroid or slowing it down might mean the difference of several hundred thousand miles. Remember the earth is moving in orbit around the sun, so speeding up the asteroid by just a tad might make all the difference.

    Like others have mentioned, what is really needed is to have a earlier forcast of where the things are headed. What's Deep Blue doing these days? Couldn't it see God's chess moves several thousand iterations into the future?

    --
    Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
  111. Nukes in space won't impart any force. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but Orion won't work! For the exact same reason expounded above. Firing a nuke behind a spacecraft will merely serve to frazzle the occupants, it won't impart any motive force to speak of.

    In the StarTrek universe, space is not a vacuum, but rather some kind of thin goo, that can propagate shock waves and which will slow a spacecraft down when the engines are switched off.

    In our universe, that is not the case however. We have vacuum out there...

  112. Small meteors burn up. by DavidOster · · Score: 1
    Meteor defense always seemed simple to me:

    Small meteors burn up in the upper atmosphere.

    Therefore, the problem isn't deflecting a meteor, but converting a big one into lots of small ones.

    This seems like a perfect use for a nuclear bomb.

    If the meteor is a dust swarm, then it will already burn up, and we don't need to do anything.

    How am I wrong?

  113. Falling coconuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truth about falling coconuts:

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020719.html

    The key quote:

    "OK, getting hit by a coconut is no laughing matter. But nowhere does Barss say that 150 people get killed by coconuts each year...Conclusion: Somebody pulled the figure about 150 deaths due to coconuts out of thin air. Take that, shark lovers."

  114. Inflatable Technology by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

    Was I the only one who thought of Sluggy Freelance's Dr. Schlock and his futuristic "inflatable technology"?

    Maybe there's something to that, after all...

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  115. Heat... by Squidgee · · Score: 1
    To everyone who keeps saying that the kevlar will melt due to the rock's being hot..

    It only gets hot once it hits the atomosphere. And the kevlar will hit before that.

    I -had- to clear that up. =)

  116. 1 chance in 10,000 by geoswan · · Score: 2
    Life on earth can cope with two .25km wide asteroids much better than one .5km wide one. As the parts get smaller, it becomes a trivial problem. The earth gets hit every single day.

    A number of respondents have said more or less the same thing -- that Earth is struck by small space rubble every day, with no apparent adverse effects. I have trouble with this idea.

    But first, to be pedantic. If you split a .5 km berg into .25 km pieces, you get eight pieces, not two pieces. Volume increases as the cube of the radius -- you know, height, width, depth...

    Here is a link I found in an earlier slashdot discussion to an article classifying the destruction from different sizes of impacting rocks. This passage discusses the difference in destructive effect of a rock large enough to pierce through the atmosphere, and strike the surface, and those smaller or less solid bergs that fragment in an airburst.

    The total area of destruction is not, however, necessarily greater than in the case of atmospheric disruption of somewhat smaller objects, because much of the energy of the impactor is absorbed by the ground during crater formation. Thus the effects of small crater-forming events are still chiefly local.

    This suggests to me that 8 x 100 megaton airbursts would be worse than one 8,000 megaton groundburst.

    The article says a 10 meter rock releases a blast equivalent of 100 kiloton of TNT -- about 6 or 7 x Hiroshima. The 1908 Tunguska event, the airburst of a berg about 50 meters in diameter, released the blast effect of a 16 million tons of TNT. The fireball to seen to streak across Pennsylvania this summer was less than a meter in diameter.

    A 500 meter rock, massing something like 4*10^7 tons, would not wipe the Earth of life. Nor would being struck by by 40*10^7 tons of rubble. I contend it would be a mistake to shrug off either one as trivial however.

    Here is a final quote:

    ...Indeed, during our lifetime, there is a small but non-zero chance (very roughly 1 in 10,000) that the Earth will be struck by an object large enough to destroy food crops on a global scale and possibly end civilization as we know it (Shoemaker and others 1990).
    1. Re:1 chance in 10,000 by geoswan · · Score: 2
      Here is another quote suggesting that the effect of airbursts are not trivial. The dust generated is more disruptive than the impact itself, if there was an impact. So, breaking the rock into pieces small enough they don't penetrate all the way to the surface may be worse than doing nothing...
      What is the range of impactor sizes that might lead to ... global catastrophe? ... the most frequently discussed estimate of the threshold impactor diameter for globally catstrphic effects was about 2 km. ... Of the various enviromental effects of a large impact, Toon [Brian Toon of NASA Ames] believes that the greatest harm would be done by the sub-micrometer dust launced into the stratosphere. The very fine dust has a long residence time, and global climate modeling studies by Covey and others (1990) imply significant drops in global temperature that would threaten agriculture worldwide.