Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nukes Against Earth-Impacting Asteroids

Posted by kdawson on from the armageddon-outta-here dept.

TopSpin writes "Flight International reports that scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center have developed designs for an array of asteroid interceptors wielding 1.2-megaton B83 nuclear warheads. The hypothetical mission for these designs is based on an Apophis-sized Earth impactor 2 to 5 years out. According to NASA, 'Nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more effective [at deflection] than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed in this study." On April 13, 2029, Apophis will pass closer to earth than geosynchronous satellites orbit.

12 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. what if they miss hteir shot by old+and+new+again · · Score: 0, Troll

    and kill everyone with atmospheric radiations?

    --
    Live Electronic Music
  2. Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    This program is just a smokescreen for the government to spend even more $billions on Star Wars "missile defense" without admitting it.

    The chances of getting hit by an asteroid are extremely small. The chances of getting screwed by our foreign energy dependence is 100% (just look at the news already). If we were spending this money on actual threat priorities, we'd be spending it getting out of the crosshairs of foreign energy suppliers. But we're not. We're spending it on Star Wars.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you don't know the difference between the Moon as an asteroid target and the Earth with our atmosphere, what business do you have arguing this scientific subject?

      You realize nothing but baseless fear. Star Wars scams and our government's support for our energy slavery are perfect for you.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course I'm serious. Show me the trajectory of that 17 mile wide rock coming at the Earth, and we can talk.

      Are you scared of a black hole swallowing the Sun, because you've seen that happen to other suns on TV, too?

      Get back to me when you've got a serious attitude about actual risks worth spending more $billions on. When this has nothing to do with asteroids, and everything to do with more covert Star Wars missile defense funding.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Most of Earth is totally unpopulated. So it's not "sheer luck" that the Tunguska impact wasn't deadly.

      And the natural resurfacing that covers up the occasional impacts across all Earth's history is an indication of how rarely it happens. This fear is paranoia dressed up in statistical ignorance.

      Meanwhile, how vehemently are you demanding we spend those $billions on getting the US off imported energy? Not very, right?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Anonymous insane Coward daydreams about my sex life. I guess that's what you need to keep your mind off getting scammed by your favorite Republicans with cool names like "Star Wars", to match your doll collection.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      There's plenty of evidence. And plenty of logic, as I've already mentioned in the priorities comparison.

      The Earth's atmosphere is entirely relevant to the kinds of objects hitting it all day long, every day. The kinds of large objects you're afraid of are not headed to hit the Earth.

      So where is your evidence of these large objects that justify this defense budget? Does it compare to the mountains of evidence that the Pentagon will use any excuse to spend more $billions on Star Wars?

      I thought not. Stop arguing your imaginary subjects. Your irrational fears are no basis for national spending priorities, or judging anyone else's mind.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      We are not mining asteroids.

      Got any more SF scenarios to justify spending more $billions we don't have on Star Wars?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Star Wars Fakeout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, I leave Tunguska as fodder for coincidence theorists like you.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. Re:Yes by MrNaz · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can you please explain to me what similarities there are between the hydrodynamic motion of a shark and the beating wings of a bumblebee? I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    --
    I hate printers.
  4. Lots more effective! by mickq · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am sure the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would agree that "nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more effective than the non-nuclear alternatives".....

  5. Re:S.T.U.P.I.D. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0, Troll

    Togo

    Tojo. Togo was the Russo-Japanese War, not WW2.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"