Slashdot Mirror


UN Mounts Asteroid Defense Plan Following Chelyabinsk Meteor

Philip Ross writes "Astronomers have warned that our planet is long overdue for a defense plan against catastrophic asteroid collisions. When it comes to deflecting Earth-obliterating celestial bodies, short of a superhero capable of punching the approaching rock back into outer space, there is no single force dedicated to stopping cosmic bullies from striking our little blue planet straight in the eye. That's why the United Nations said it will establish an International Asteroid Warning Group to intercept and divert dangerous asteroids."

163 comments

  1. Deflection by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because nothing is as effective at deflecting tons of rock coming towards Earth at extremely high speeds as... a committee.

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

      release ... the ... minutes!!!!

      (for great justice)

    2. Re:Deflection by isorox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because nothing is as effective at deflecting tons of rock coming towards Earth at extremely high speeds as... a committee.

      If you fire them out of a barrel fast enough, it might work..

    3. Re:Deflection by crutchy · · Score: 0

      if we could fire all committees on earth towards an oncoming meteor, the combined mass of all their fat asses might actually work

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

      Someone needs to do he calculations for this!

    5. Re:Deflection by isorox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone needs to do he calculations for this!

      Or we could just use trial an error. It's not like we'll run out of committees

    6. Re:Deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on who's on the committee.

    7. Re:Deflection by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't work. I know because I tried that in Kerbal.

    8. Re:Deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      compared to... a bunch of tangentially related committees, all fighting for authority?

    9. Re:Deflection by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Funny

      You jest, but a roof that opens to direct a massive blast of hot air at the asteroid is probably as effective as anything else we've got.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to American solution which would be what, invading Mars?

    11. Re:Deflection by game+kid · · Score: 2

      Raiden: "You got enough?"

      Snake: "Absolutely." *points to bandana* "Infinite ammo!"

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    12. Re:Deflection by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Well if we launch the UN in to the asteroid early enough, their bureaucracy may have enough mass to deflect it.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    13. Re:Deflection by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      If you fire them out of a barrel fast enough, it might work..

      Can we use a 3D printed cannon just for the added slash dot trolling action?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    14. Re:Deflection by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      But how would we know if we won't at some time pass a point of "peak committee"? Better appoint a new committee to determine that.

    15. Re:Deflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can get a mining fleet together and erase them.

      See, EvE Online is useful in the real world! :)

  2. Fool me by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    Hit Earth with a massive asteroid once; shame on me.

    Hit Earth with a massive asteroid twice; shame on the few surviving cockroaches.

    1. Re:Fool me by VortexCortex · · Score: 0

      Protip: You just called yourself a cockroach.

    2. Re:Fool me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a shameful one at that.

    3. Re:Fool me by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Protip: You just called yourself a cockroach.

      I just called you a nigger. Yer point?

      My point is that the moon exists, and the dinosaurs are extinct. Therefore, the poster I replied to just called us all cockroaches. I shouldn't have to explain this, but I feel sorry for moronic moderators and bigoted A.C.'s alike.

  3. Put your hats on people by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

    Cue American sovereignty tinfoilers in 3...2...

    1. Re:Put your hats on people by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      ... Because...the UN has it's HQ in NY?

      I don't see the link here. The tinfoil must be weak in me.

    2. Re:Put your hats on people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows that there are -secret- UN death camps in the US... you know, for the true patriots who pay top dime for all sorts of survival gear and training just so they can evade the Great Global Taxation Plan of 2020.

    3. Re:Put your hats on people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's one of them, he's wearing that UN approved tinfoil

      As an American, I refuse to wear UN sanctioned tinfoil.

      Also that there asteroid aint gunna take my guns

      pew... pew

    4. Re:Put your hats on people by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be funny if this bullshit was not coming from the most powerful organisation on the planet, the US government. Recently the majority of republicans voted against ratifying this treaty. A treaty that takes poppa Bush's (bipartisan) disability act of the early 90's and promotes it as a global minimum standard with 150+ countries on board. The bat-shit crazy faction of the republicans wouldn't sign it, those miserable cunts knocked it back because of an ideological aversion to international cooperation and rationalised their actions as protecting US sovereignty - WTF the entire treaty is founded on spreading Poppa Bush's good idea to the rest of the world.

      To an non-American all this is just too fucking bizzare to be real, it's just as bat-shit crazy and "mean spirited" as the nutty General in Burma who suddenly decided the entire economy should be based on the number '3', unsurprisingly the Burmese economy fell into an open sewer and drowned at that very same moment.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Put your hats on people by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "... Because...the UN has it's HQ in NY?

      I don't see the link here. The tinfoil must be weak in me."

      No, because Ted Turner will have to pay for your part.
      Again.

    6. Re:Put your hats on people by nbauman · · Score: 1

      To an non-American all this is just too fucking bizzare to be real, it's just as bat-shit crazy and "mean spirited" as the nutty General in Burma who suddenly decided the entire economy should be based on the number '3', unsurprisingly the Burmese economy fell into an open sewer and drowned at that very same moment.

      We have this problem with billionaire right wingers who managed to pack the Supreme Court with judges who think it's OK for billionaires to pay politicians to do their bidding.

      It seems that if you spend enough money on TV attack ads, you can win elections. At least in America.

    7. Re:Put your hats on people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you offering to take one for the team ?

    8. Re:Put your hats on people by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It seems that if you spend enough money on TV attack ads, you can win elections. At least in America.

      We're not that far behind in OZ, we just elected the Mad Monk as PM, one of the first things he did was symbolic, he abolished the cabinet position of Science Minister and put it under the Industry portfolio.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Put your hats on people by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Tape Cutter wrote :-

      Recently the majority of republicans voted against .... ratifying ... A treaty that takes poppa Bush's (bipartisan) disability act of the early 90's and promotes it as a global minimum standard .... To an non-American all this is just too fucking bizzare to be real

      As a non-American (UK) it is the lengths gone to here in favour of the "disabled" that I find bizzare. For example, the fee for some toll bridges is waived for them (why??? they don't even to leave the car), they get reserved parking spaces even if their disability is nothing to do with their mobility (like a missing finger), and I have known small companies give up their business because they cannot afford the changes to their premises required just in case someone who cannot get up a step wants a job there. The railways here have had to spend millions on disability features - they add something like 10% to the cost of a railway carriage.

      The treaty (according to Wikipedia) requires "Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment". ALL forms? What about roofing? It's bullshit. One of those things that politicos sign because it is good PR (to some) without thinking through the implications.

    10. Re:Put your hats on people by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      We have this problem with billionaire right wingers who managed to pack the Supreme Court with judges who think it's OK for billionaires to pay politicians to do their bidding.

      Odd; it is billionaires who are more likely to be "disabled" as they usually only acquire that money later in life.

    11. Re:Put your hats on people by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Every time we sign a treaty, we lose a little more sovereignty. It's the rest of you suckers who haven't figured out the truth. That is why the US keeps insisting on trade agreements and copyright treaties. My government is busily eroding the sovereignty of all your nations with those idiot treaties. You think WE are going to be suckered into playing that game from the LOSING SIDE?

      The rules of the house are "House always wins". Why become a player, when you can write your own damned rules?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Put your hats on people by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Actually - no. I think it safe to say that most of the world's billionaires inherited huge fortunes. How many billionaires alive today started with nothing, or near to nothing? Steve ain't alive, but he's recent enough that I'll give you one for him. There's the Microsoft schmuck, and the Facebook douche - who else?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Put your hats on people by TapeCutter · · Score: 1
      Here we go, "sovereignty", you do realise any nation can officially turn around and wipe it's arse with a treaty if it so wishes. It has been law in the US for 20ys, it was put there by old school Republicans. It's the only issue Kerry and McCain enthusiastically agree on. The US loses NOTHING by signing it, again but a bit louder for clarity IT HAS BEEN US LAW FOR TWO DECADES, YOU LOSE NOTHING!

      And no, other countries do not lose their sovereignty by signing this particular treaty, not everything that comes out of the US is an evil plot to take over the planet. Sometimes the US has good ideas, that are worth spreading.

      You think WE are going to be suckered into playing that game from the LOSING SIDE?

      Thank you for confirming what I said in my original post about miserable cunts with an ideological aversion to international cooperation.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Put your hats on people by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      How many billionaires alive today started with nothing, or near to nothing? ... There's the Microsoft schmuck, and the Facebook douche - who else?

      Depends on what you mean by "started with nothing", but there is Bernie Ecclestone, Alan Greenspan, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Sean Quinn, the Ikea guy - how many more examples do you need?

    15. Re:Put your hats on people by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Miserable cunts run to their capitols every time they see something they don't like, and demand a new law be passed.

      Here, in the states, we have already addressed that particular problem. We obviously don't NEED to sign a treaty giving the UN some kind of right to intervene in our affairs.

      Funny though, that a miserable collectivist cunt who wants to be all lovey-dovey with us, should resort to name calling in an attempt to persuade us to sign a treaty. Tell me again why we would want a treaty with someone who describes us as miserable cunts?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:Put your hats on people by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      As someone with a disabled mother, trust me, the lengths gone to accommodate the disabled aren't NEARLY as excessive as you think they are. In fact I wouldn't even call them sufficient. Just because there are extra regulations that make no sense, doesn't erase how much necessary help is still missing. When you literally can't climb stairs, suddenly ramps don't seem quite as absurd. Next time you leave your home, try to pay attention to how much ISN'T handicap accessible. It's a lot more than is, and it's a lot more than you'd expect. Of course I'm also skeptical in general of people not from a minority whining that the minority receives special treatment. It's almost always caused by a complete lack of understanding.

    17. Re:Put your hats on people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve ain't alive, but he's recent enough that I'll give you one for him.

      Steve-jobs — if you weren't giving out steve-jobs (getting "liberals" to suck his ass and hawking his glued-together, puritan/corporate values-spewing fadgets for him), you weren't doing your job as a worthwhile spender. Form an orderly line, pukes... Not that big a deal.

      There's the Microsoft schmuck [...]

      Bill's Gates — gates to the code, gates to the bugs, gates to the exploit road-maps, off-limits to all but intelligence agencies that like to fuck their citizens.

      [T]he Facebook douche [...]

      Mark Fuckerberg — but it's the user who's the mark getting fucked, along with anyone else in your 'berg with excessive narcissism and time to waste whoring themselves to corporate propaganda.

  4. If it works as well as the security council... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then we will be hit a hundred times before they stop bickering and vetoing each other's plans.

    It may still work though, if the asteroid decides to stand back and watch us slowly implode on our own.

    I also wonder what technology they hope to use to deflect dangerous asteroids. We can send some celebrities on one-way trips with nuclear warheads, but aside from the cathartic effect I doubt it will help.

    1. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      - Nuke it -- not ideal, as we'll probably lose a few satellites, however the smaller pieces won't cause nearly so much damage. Most of the fragments will burn up in the atmosphere. Many will miss the earth entirely.

      - Send a probe out to it when it's still far away. Position the probe close to the asteroid for a long time (months) -- the pull of gravity exerted by the probe will nudge the asteroid off its collision course.

      - Wrap it in a giant piece of plastic, and mount some engines on it, so we can capture it into a nearby orbit. That much mass *in orbit* would be immensely valuable, even if it's just rock. (this one is probably unworkable due to the sheer quantity of fuel that would be required)

      A manned mission is laughable, and only fit for the movies.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    2. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      You don't have to put the nuke right next to it as to smash it. With a reasonable distance you should be able to sublimate the meteor's dark and dust-covered surface surface, which creates quite a bit of pressure which can be further increased with additional detonations.

      The risk to satellites is very real though. Just like the gravity probe you have to have an early detection and launch. A nuke in space too close to Earth will over-excite the van Allen Belt, which then damages satellites over a period of many months.

      It may be an alternative to give the meteor a slight spin with a simple collision. The sun will heat up the surface and as the surface spins it creates a thrust to one side as it cools. You basically turn it into a solar-powered curveball.
      This is also why predicting meteor paths is difficult; it's hard to tell if it's spinning unless one side is naturally brighter.

      I wonder if there are any junior positions job openings for this...

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    3. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      A manned mission is laughable, and only fit for the movies.

      Actually, going from past experience, not even that.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    4. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by nbauman · · Score: 2

      The New Scientist had an article about this. If it's just big enough to destroy a city, but not to destroy the planet, the most practical solution would be to evacuate the city.

    5. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That "pull of gravity" thing is so fucking ridiculous. You're going to have a probe being pulled toward a massive rock much more than the rock is being pulled toward the probe. The only reason it doesn't get laughed out of science entirely is you can't just land the probe on a pile of loosely coherent gravel and fire boosters, so you need to gravity-drag it. Otherwise, you're going to expend a ton of fuel keeping a distance that should be close, but not too close that expending fuel will create thrust against the rock and push it away.

      Or... you could just couple to it and fire boosters. Enough boosters to move a 400 ton rock.

      Also sometimes movies are right: Lunking a nuke at the surface of a giant rock won't do much.

    6. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Also sometimes movies are right: Lunking a nuke at the surface of a giant rock won't do much.

      We have thousands of them and they aren't much good for anything else. Most of us would be happy just to get them off the face of the planet and somehow imagine the nuclear arms race wasn't just an economic holocaust.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    7. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's like saying Cambodian children aren't much good for anything else, so we should use them for sex tourism and somehow imagine that at least they won't all starve when they've got all that semen to swallow.

      The only thing you'll end up with is a bunch of starving, exploited eight year olds. Just like you'll end up with a heated ball of nickle-iron instead of a cold one. It might weigh slightly less. If you want to use that nuke power to move the thing, you're going to need to produce thrust; you'll need to redo the nukes to produce cigar-shaped blasts and turn the surface of the meteor... into... an... orion drive that's brilliant! The first nuke will blast away any surface protrusions and set a general shape--like a demolition blast used for sculpting a rock face (Mt Rushmore was carved with explosives)--while the following will provide thrust!

    8. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You don't detonate on the surface, nor do you detonate a low altitude. You hit it with a penetrator. The deeper you can penetrate, the better. If you can actually SPLIT the huge ass rock, the several largest parts begin moving away from each other, at fairly rapid speeds. If it's so huge you can't split it, you at least launch many tons of debris in one direction at high speed, while the remaining larger body moves in the opposite direction at a much slower speed. And, that much slower speed is precisely the reason you need to detect, then act, MONTHS in advance. Waiting until impact minus 10 days is pretty much the same as not acting at all. A detonation that late might change the point of impact on earth be a few thousand miles, but it can't ensure a miss.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You won't make tons of high speed debris as a thrust source. Consider if you split the rock 50/50 mass-wise, you have to launch one 50% size chunk at a velocity V to produce enough thrust to launch the other 50% chunk at -V. If you launch a proportionally smaller piece--say a 1% chunk, 1/99--you have to launch that chunk at velocity V to launch the other chunk at -V/99. So if you want to move a 200 ton rock by launching 2 tons of rock off it, to get it moving 100mph you need to mechanically launch the dislodged 2 tons of rock at 10,000mph in the opposite direction. You can launch many pebbles at 10,000mph instead of one 2 ton chunk, but you will need to do that.

      If you dig a hole deep enough and just set off a nuke, a big ass rock might not crack. Nickle-iron probably won't. You might get a canon.

      How do you engineer a penetrator? I assume it uses a nuclear power source.

    10. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

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

      If the big ass rock doesn't crack, you still ejected material in one direction at extremely high speed. Did you actually read my post? And, how many asteroids are pure nickle/iron?

      And, what is this "100 mph" nonsense? We don't NEED to make any delta changes that drastic. Try to visualize this now. A quarter million miles out, there is a big rock aimed DIRECTLY at earth. It's going to take six weeks to get here. We detonate a warhead, which launches only a single ton of debris in a sun-ward direction, at extremely high speed. Your 200 ton rock is now 199 tons, which has absorbed the same amount of energy that launched the one ton of rock, well in excess of 1000 mph. That 199 tons is still going to come near earth, but it has six weeks to move OUTWARD from the sun.

      Better still, to detect that threatening asteroid a million miles out, or multiples of millions of miles. The earlier you detect, the earlier you detonate, the larger the CUMULATIVE effect of even a very small change in course.

      Unfortunately, It seems most people visualize a straight-on missile strike, as if they expect an explosion to just STOP the asteroid. We don't want to stop it - we merely need to deflect it a few fractions of a degree.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      400 ton rocks are small potatoes. We still don't know the whereabouts of every 10000000 ton rock that's got a potential earth orbit intersection.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    12. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Bunker busters don't split the earth; they penetrate an outer shell to damage something squishy inside. Still, the 'digging' part of this is useful. This one goes 200 feet.

      A quarter million miles out there is a rock traveling in excess of 30,000mph (YU55 was traveling at 29,000mph; Chelyabinsk was traveling 41,750mph). The earth is 8000 miles in diameter, so we need to move this rock 4000 miles in about 8 hours. We can consider that for each 30,000 miles it approaches us we need it to move 500 miles perpendicularly. That means with this rock 1/4 million miles away, we need to immediately give it 500mph velocity perpendicular to its approach. Given that acceleration takes time, the actual final velocity will be much higher.

      Consider that the distance to the moon is 1/4 million miles; while to mars the distance is between 36 million miles and 250 million miles. Let's say we can see something as far away as Mars at 100 million miles--we're looking for a spec of space dust, it's hard to see. At 30,000mph that gives us 3,333 hours to move 4000 miles--about 1.2mph sideways instantaneously; however we're going to approach the rock at like 17,400mph (Space Shuttle Discovery's top speed), so 47,400mph approach gives interception at 2,109 hours with the rock about 36.7 million miles away instead of 100 million--2/3 of the time gone, leaving us 1224 hours to move 4000 miles, a good 3.25mph required.

      So you need 3.25mph, or over time who knows? To move a 10,000 tonne (10 million kilogram) meteor like Cheylabinsk, a city-destroyer, you need to accelerate it more than that but let's go with 3.25mph over 1224 hours. F=ma, so 10,000,000kg * 1.45m/s / 1224hr = 3.3kgm/s^2. 3.3 newtons applied for a continuous 1224 hours.

      The S-IC used 700,000L of RP-1 at 0.81g/mL and 1,305,000L of liquid oxygen at 1.141g/mL to produce 33MN of thrust for 150 seconds with 567,000kg fuel and 1,840,050kg of oxidizer (total payload: 2,407,050kg of fuel). If we divide that 33MN down by 10 million to 3.3N and then multiply that 150 seconds to 1224 hours, we need roughly .003 times as much fuel needed: 7,068kg

      You need 7,000kg of fuel to deflect a city killer detected 100 million miles away moving at 30,000mph, in addition to launch fuel, and assuming you can spot and immediately deploy countermeasures. Or, yeah, use a nuclear generator to dig and throw rocks away.

      At this point we're at "evacuate the city" territory. The risk and expense are bigger than the expense of building a city--and you'll have all that nickle-iron material to use too!

      Something with 100 times as much energy will take 100 times the energy to deflect ... or more: if it's moving much faster, you'll need to apply a lot more force. A meteor moving twice as fast is moving faster than your probe, so it will reach your prior interception point before your probe.. you'll land on it when it's closer. If it's 10 times faster, you'll barely be off the ground; you have hours, not weeks. If it's 10 times as big, you only have to push it 10 times as hard.

      And then there's the whole "it's hard to see something that small 100 million miles away" problem. It'll probably start weeks out, not months out. If it comes from the direction of the sun, or obscured by the moon, it could be invisible. A lot of non-obscured space rocks are invisible most of the time even when you know exactly where they are.

      Good luck, Solar Jetman!

    13. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      A nuclear weapon detonated in space is far less powerful than one detonated within the atmosphere. The shockwave produced is far less powerful then what is needed to alter a fast moving mid-size asteroid trajectory. Depending on how much advance time you have a mission to place nukes directly on the asteroid would probably be the best option we currently have. And if we are ever faced with an incoming asteroid the last thing anyone needs is the UN getting in the way. There are 2 and possibly 3 countries capable of destroying an incoming asteroid and those 3 countries are not subservient to the UN in any meaningful way. A potential asteroid disaster would help move space technology development into high gear with little regard to cost. After all it was ICBM rocket technology development that provided the launch vehicle needed to go to the moon.

    14. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Actually - most of the stuff that can hit the earth has already been seen one or more times, their trajectories roughly plotted, etc. We already know to watch for much of it. The asteroid that is going to hit us may or may not hit us on the first pass. We get time to prepare, to calculate how much thrust, and in which direction. The one that intersected our lunar orbit? We have an idea when it will be back again, and from which direction it will approach. We already have warning - all we need do is watch for it. Will it return in ten years, or fifty years, or 150 years? I dunno - haven't bothered to check on that.

      Additionally, not all heavenly bodies move at the same speed. Some rock moving at 200,000 mph relative to the earth is going to be a lot harder to detect, or to deflect. Another rock moving at a mere 100 mph relative to the earth will give lots of warning, and be relatively easy to deflect.

      Each and every instance will be different. How 'bout we make an attempt to deflect the ones that we have some chance of deflecting - and in the process learn more about how things work?

      Or - we can choose to do nothing, like you suggest.

      My dad always said, "Do something, right or wrong." I don't know how to sit passively and wait for disaster.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      A rock moving at 100mph relative to the earth is going to come down with a thud. You should worry about it landing in the ocean more than anything.

    16. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      You really need to get a grip of yourself.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    17. Re:If it works as well as the security council... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Look, first off, I'm a fucking genius. This sucks because savant-level genius necessarily means you're not really good at anything and have no social life. Directed specialists are much better off.

      Second, I've figured out how to reliably induce hypomania, so fuck you I feel great. Look guys, I played bipolarism and won!!! (Bonus: I'm so used to depression that it's preferable to baseline, so if I ever swing back or miss and land in a depressive state I'm better off anyway; heads I win, tails you lose!)

  5. Priorities? by ArturoBandini77 · · Score: 0

    What's the point of not being killed by an asteroid, when you get killed by hunger?
    UN should focus on basic / REAL people problems, not playing star wars.

    1. Re:Priorities? by palemantle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And here's the same tired old argument that we see when a third world country plans a satellite launch. Oh noes ... they don't have enough toilets ... and while they are sorting that, they should just sit around for the next couple of hundred years doing nothing else!

      The UN does have specific hunger and poverty eradication goals and organizations that look into those issues. See these:
      http://www.unicef.org/mdg/poverty.html
      http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml

      That doesn't mean the UN shouldn't have unrelated committees/arms investigating other issues and see if something can be done to address those.

    2. Re:Priorities? by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      This program sounds like a good excuse for the UN to waste tons of money on another boondoggle slush fund. It's especially awesome for them because if noone dies they can take credit, and if everyone dies then there won't be anyone around to complain.

    3. Re:Priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the US refuses to allow free trade in food, and subsidises all its farmers.

      If the UN tried to get them to stop, it would be game over for UN.

      Americans are paranoid enough about the UN coming for their guns, but coming for their food as well is just too much.

      They would have more chance deflecting the asteroid with a Chicken McNugget than they would solving the food problem.

    4. Re:Priorities? by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Informative

      UN should focus on basic / REAL people problems, not playing star wars.

      1 - Being well fed doesn't stop meteorites.

      2 - The UN's objective is to defend against basic/REAL threats against humanity (which essentially boils down to assuring world peace to avoid a third world war). Millions of people dying of hunger, sad as it may be, doesn't threaten the humanity unless those people also have an army with nuclear power.

      3 - (the most important one) The UN is perfectly capable of doing several things at the same time.

    5. Re:Priorities? by baKanale · · Score: 1

      What's the point of not being killed by hunger, when you get killed by an asteroid?

  6. You've got to spot them first by stiggle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The main issue we've got is the lack of warning we have. Even a year is too late if you want to divert large lumps of rock.
    Once you're going to divert something then you have to work out where its going to end up - no point diverting it from the earth this year, to have it end up crashing into something else which ends up sending 100 rocks at us.

    1. Re:You've got to spot them first by isorox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main issue we've got is the lack of warning we have. Even a year is too late if you want to divert large lumps of rock.
      Once you're going to divert something then you have to work out where its going to end up - no point diverting it from the earth this year, to have it end up crashing into something else which ends up sending 100 rocks at us.

      Depends on the size, if diverting an extinction causing asteroid now means we have to divert 4 in 100 years, I'll take that.

    2. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      four smaller ones is still probably preferable. a larger proportion of them will burn up on entry

    3. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been many documentary movies about how a few space cowboys can do it in just few months/weeks/days!

    4. Re:You've got to spot them first by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Reliable, visual-range detection of meteors is doubtful since they get covered by dust which can be very dark.

      What's needed is a type of active radar with Doppler shift detection. You might be able to put an existing one of those on the ISS to start with, say from tech developed for fighter airplanes. Better not sink money into developing them all over again unless that is actually needed.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    5. Re:You've got to spot them first by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      With smaller pieces, you have more surface area to burn up as they go through the atmosphere. This gets better the more, smaller pieces there are. Not sure how powerful the explosive would have to be to break a sizable asteroid (say 1km diameter) though.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    6. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What a strange sense of orbital ballistics you have. The ability to play Velikovsky and play planetary pinball is... amusing. A big strike on Luna could, *maybe*, spray rock towards Earth, but it would have to be an awfully big rock and the Luna strikes would still be vastly, vastly less of an issue. And the odds are like those of throwing an axe at a tree, shooting the axe blade with a bullet, spliting the bullet, and hitting another target. They actually did that on MythBusters, the split bullets can't be aimed.

      That said, the earlier the detection, the *much*, *much*, *much* easier the deflection of the incoming meteor. Even remote lasers or solar reflectors, aimed at one side of an icy or even rocky object, can cause warming and outgassing early in its trajectory that can deflect its trajectory by millions of miles by the time it gets to Earth's distance from the Sun. But it has to be started very, very early in the object's trajectory. Doing this versus trying to deflect a dinosaur killer late in its trajectory is like blowing in a sniper's ear to mess up their aim versus trying to wear enough armor to stop the bullet.

    7. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work. Radar works by illuminating the target with your own beam. You might get 99% reflectivity versus 1% for optical frequencies, but you won't get anywhere near 1% of the sun's output in the visible range. A better technique is checking in the IR. Doesn't work from the ground (IR is strongly scattered and absorbed by water vapor), but a visibly black object near the sun will be a *lot* warmer than the 4 Kelvin cosmic background. Comets would be in the 100K-200K range. The biggest challenge would be that you'd want to put the observatory in deep space (sun orbit) to prevent the earth's heat from interfering with the observations.

    8. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about objects moving at several kilometers per second, though. That's crossing the atmosphere in a few seconds. You have a heat transfer problem to the core; that just doesn't happen in seconds even if the object is a few meters across.

    9. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. We should work on our observation an prediction first, it's impossible to deflect what we don't understand yet.

    10. Re:You've got to spot them first by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? Oh that's interesting.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    11. Re:You've got to spot them first by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      That's for the info. I didn't know it was that high and I'm not aware of any cooling effect aside from the easily detected, sublimated comet's tail which would act as an IR stealth-mode.

      I don't think 90% is good enough though, simply because of Murphy's Law.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    12. Re:You've got to spot them first by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      No idea about asteroids meteorites and stuff like that, but if "diverting it to something that will send 100 rocks at us back" is a problem, then divert it towards the sun.
      Or am I missing something ?

    13. Re:You've got to spot them first by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      No idea about asteroids meteorites and stuff like that, but if "diverting it to something that will send 100 rocks at us back" is a problem, then divert it towards the sun.
      Or am I missing something ?

      Given a year's warning, a 1m/s deltaV applied to the rock should be enough to make it miss. This time.

      Given the same year's warning, it would take around 30000 m/s deltaV to make the rock impact the Sun.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:You've got to spot them first by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work from the ground (IR is strongly scattered and absorbed by water vapor),

      Now you've done it, all the "skeptics" will be mad at you.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    15. Re:You've got to spot them first by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Since you're so apt to analyze the risk plane, why don't you do that for us, Captain Genius? Plot out the various risks for us and show what's likely and what we should worry about. Those kinds of super-star powers would be amazing, since humans have no clue how to assess risk.

    16. Re:You've got to spot them first by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Anything bigger than your fist doesn't burn up on reentry. Bigger than your head and it doesn't even have time to warm up: if the angle is steep, it crosses the entire atmosphere in less than a second.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    17. Re:You've got to spot them first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no point diverting it from the earth this year, to have it end up crashing into something else which ends up sending 100 rocks at us.

      I've seen suggestions like this before, and I'm having trouble understanding the misapprehension that leads someone to believe that this is a significant risk. Do you have any reason to believe that a diverted asteroid is more likely to cause this sort of doomsday scenario, than any of the other hundreds of thousands of asteroids are to do the same thing?

    18. Re:You've got to spot them first by stiggle · · Score: 1

      If an asteroid is deflected to avoid a collision with earth then its orbit is now changed. Where previously it might have transited the asteroid belt without colliding with another object, there is now the risk that on its new orbit it might hit something else.

      While the risk of collison is very minor, it is still there, and we might be trading an impact now for one or more in the future.

      Either way - we need to improve our detection of these objects, we've got some of the way there over the last 30 years, but there are still a lot of objects out there, and we only need to miss one to get wiped out.

      Scott Manley's asteroid discovery video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUSP23cmAE

    19. Re:You've got to spot them first by fatphil · · Score: 1

      We're spinning round the sun at about 30 km/s, so the average speed of something we encounter will be around that midpoint. Some things we'll be catching up (so subtract speeds[*]), some things will be catching us up (also subtract speeds[*]), but sometimes they'll be approaching head on (so add speeds[*]). A direct head on colision cuts through only 10km of atmosphere, so indeed there's less than a second of that. However, at the very limits, a grazing collision (or near miss) can cut through over 500km (1000km) of atmosphere (from pythagoras' theorem: hypotenuse = earth's radius + atmosphere, adjecent edge = earth's radius). That's a fair few seconds. Typically, you'll be between the two, more likely to be at the shorter end, grazing is a corner case, so to speak.

      [* of course, this is a velocity calculation, directions matter, but I'm simplifying onto a 1-dimensional case.]

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:You've got to spot them first by khallow · · Score: 1

      Anything bigger than your fist doesn't burn up on reentry.

      Doesn't completely burn up. Just because the residue didn't have time to heat up doesn't mean that the rest didn't burn up.

      The problem isn't the head sized meteorite, but its zillion compatriots doing the same thing and dumping all that kinetic energy into the atmosphere and surface at the same time. It would be interesting to see what the effects of a shattered asteroid would be. And it might be a good idea even in the absence of asteroid shattering strategies since some asteroids may well be piles of loose rubble.

  7. The UN? by rts008 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't think a strongly worded protest/condemnation and/or sanctions will be noticed by an incoming asteroid. ;-)

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:The UN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear U.N.,

      As I was aiming at your location in N.Y.C., I was diverted by your comittee's strongly worded resolution. You win (this time). - signed, The Asteroid

    2. Re:The UN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the resolution weigh 50 tons when printed and hit the asteroid at 50 miles per second?

    3. Re:The UN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might if it is Greek.

  8. no single force? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
  9. Just like in horror movies... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    You never see the one that gets you. While we'll be feeling safe and secure and oh so smart that we saved ourselves from the scary space rocks... BLAM!!! A big one comes out from behind the Sun and smashes into us. Game over.

    At least we'll have some time to try and divert asteroids coming from where we can see them. It's the ones we don't see that keep me awake at night.

    1. Re:Just like in horror movies... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      An asteroid that comes from behind the sun has gotten there short before, or it isn't going to hit us. That's because asteroids are in orbits around the sun. A useful early warning system would warn us years in advance, thus the asteroid would be behind the sun several times before it hits.
      The first step is detecting them. At this point it is not feasible to get funding for an asteroid deflection program. Once we have detected a killer we can get the funding to try and deflect it. I just hope we'll be able to do it in time by then.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:Just like in horror movies... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If you need funding to deflect a planet-killing asteroid, your planet deserves to die. Seriously do you live on a planet full of Arabs?

    3. Re:Just like in horror movies... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't such a project need funding? Granted, funding it shouldn't be a problem once one is detected, but that doesn't mean it's not required. Stuff costs money, get over it.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:Just like in horror movies... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Supposedly the holy Free Market will provide the one true solution.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:Just like in horror movies... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Free markets seem to be as real as any God. People pray to it, but what they point to is a political tool abused until it doesn't resemble the original intention. The real thing doesn't exist.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:Just like in horror movies... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Sir, we are OUT OF BUDGET! We can't afford these new booster throats!

      ... what? You won't give us a discount? We can't afford to PAY at all! Can't you just, you know, give them to us?

      ... running a business ARE YOU INSANE?! IN FOURTEEN DAYS THERE WON'T EVEN BE A PLANET HERE!

  10. thats great by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    the UN can send a diplomat in to space to negotiate with the asteroid

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  11. Re:It begins by siddesu · · Score: 0, Troll

    Actually, this is the beginning of the end. If the UN will be in charge of the defense against the evil asteroids from space, I'd bet on the asteroids. Too bad I won't be able to claim my prize.

  12. Re:It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was ordained long ago by the elite. They make very long-term plans which is why they often get what they want. First it was Communism, now it is Terrorism, then Asteroids, and after that, Extraterrestrials. Long as the masses are scared shitless of something. Doesn't matter what that is. Fear -> power. They're lying cocksuckers, the media is bought and paid for, don't believe them.

  13. Re:It begins by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

    I was secretly referring to Carol Rosin's relaying of Werner von Braun's warning about the militarization of space. I felt I'll probably earn the Troll mod just for thinking about it... But both of these people are to be considered reliable non-cranks and respected scientists.

    However, if we don't have any tactical ability in space it means we are relying on the presumed aliens for our safety. - That would be the same aliens which let 1000 people get hurt in Chelyabinsk. - If meteor-deflecting aliens did ever exist, perhaps this means they think we are ready to handle it ourselves?

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  14. You Fires The Missile ... by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

    UN Official #1: "Sir! An asteroid on a direct collision course has been spotted! Impact in 5 days!"

    UN Official #2: "Plenty of time. We've fired the missiles, each loaded with a STERNLY-WORDED letter ..."

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    1. Re:You Fires The Missile ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You've been reading your Retief again, haven't you?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  15. Weeell .... Priorities? by giorgist · · Score: 1

    We need some real numbers. If there is only a 50% chance of being hit by a city shattering meteorite in the next 10,000 I don't think it is worth bothering. I know it will suck if it landed in my backyard or even my front porch, but it is not worth it. There are other things we should spend money on like super volcanoes or massive earth splitting earthquakes or even rogue killer bees that spread zombie viruses.

    1. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

      we have preliminary numbers. Russia has been hit by potential city shattering meteorites twice in a hundred years. If the Tunguska event happened over a populated area it would no longer have been populated. If Chelyabinsk had entered at a slightly steeper angle, it would have been significantly worse. As it is, it entered at a shallow enough angle that it broke up high in the atmosphere and reducing the effect of the shock wave. We have a reasonable handle on the larger nation killing, and extinction causing, world ending variety. What we don't have is sufficient tracking data on the smaller city killers.

    2. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Why do we care about city killers then? The severity seems low, and the probability is only twice in a hundred years?

    3. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      "and the probability is only twice in a hundred years"

      Which is clearly wrong, because we've had cities for about 5000 years and exactly zero such kill events.

    4. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because we were lucky enough to have the Tunguska impactor hit in the middle of Siberia instead of Manhattan?

    5. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Rather wonder if the current rate of medium-size meteors isn't just a statistical fluke. Comet Shoemaker-Levy was described as a once in a hundred or even once in a thousand year event that we were being treated to. Since that time there have been three or possibly four more similar-sized events on Jupiter that we didn't see happen, we just saw the effects of. The first meteor impact that we managed to observe on the Moon was also described as something that was supposed to be exceedingly rare, and now we're finding that it's not.

      Ancient legends and stories are full of meteors that presage or bring about important events. Some of them would be fictional, inserted by the storyteller for dramatic effect, but there are an awful lot of them.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by cusco · · Score: 1

      5000 years ago there were perhaps 15 cities in all of North America, none in Europe, a couple dozen in South America and Asia, a dozen in India, and a couple score in Africa and the Middle East. Not much in the way of targets, and they were pretty small. Even then, Ubar in the Arabian Peninsula seems to have been destroyed by a nearby meteor strike while at the height of its power.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Weeell .... Priorities? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't consider the number of actual kill events. You should consider the number of events in general. Eventually a meteor will "get lucky" and take out a major city. Any such event, anywhere in the world, will have world-wide impact (no pun intended). It would be wise to prepare a solution, if we have the technology (which we do).

      What your suggesting by not preparing is like the insurance question: "I've never been sick, been in an accident or had my home damaged; so, why should I carry insurance?" You pay for the insurance policies because it's wise to do so. The economic fallout of not having insurance will literally ruin you, it could take decades to recover financially, should you actually have an incident.

  16. Re: It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, asteroids are an invention of the elite. You're a real freethinker, you. Clearly you're onto something is sheeple cannot understand.

  17. Re:It begins by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thank you for your uninformed, knee-jerk anti-UN comment.

    They did eradicate smallpox, you know.

  18. Re:It begins by famebait · · Score: 1

    That's what they want you to think.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  19. Real defense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, real defense should not only consider avoiding the asteroid, but measures to warrant our survival in the worst case (underground cities or whatever), too.

    Also, we must protect what we need to survive -- not only humans. We should go beyond avoiding doing environment damage -- we should be working to make it more resilient.

    The way I see it, that's a matter of (inter) national security.

    Just picture two countries at war and both are hit by a tsunami. That may be of advantage to one of them; OTOH, winning in such scenario may amount to a Pyrrhic victory (i.e., a defeat in truth).

  20. Unfeasible by aglider · · Score: 1

    We would need:
    1. A system to track "anything larger than a certain size"(tm) moving within out solar system and within "a certain maximum amount of time"(tm)
    2. A reliable way to deflect/destroy "anything larger than a certain size"
    3. A system to implement that way within "a certain maximum amount of time"(tm) available 24x7
    4. The same as above multiplied by 2 or maybe 3, just in case.

    It would take not less than 100 or 200 years, just to reach the agreement about who is going to look into it.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Unfeasible by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      A few countries were able to work together to put a science station in orbit for the sake of scientific experiments, I think protecting the future of mankind is important enough that even more countries would help in any way they can to support this ADP.

    2. Re:Unfeasible by aglider · · Score: 1

      The ISS is almost dead ... and cannot even deflect a baseball sized body ... yet it costed billions ...

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    3. Re:Unfeasible by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Just imagine how stupid the rest of the world will look when an asteroid gets on a collision course with earth, so North Korea nukes it and saves the planet.

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

      The ISS is almost dead ... and cannot even deflect a baseball sized body ... yet it costed billions ...

      Your English is very good, however the word you are looking for here is cost.. 'costed' is infrequently used and has a slightly different meaning.

      Posting AC in case I upset a grammar-nazi-nazi. :)

  21. NASA looks for funding from UN? by mrthoughtful · · Score: 2

    To me this looks like an agreement by the UN to help fund NASA's existing NEO program ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ ).

    --
    This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
  22. Re:It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your uninformed, knee-jerk anti-UN comment.

    They did eradicate smallpox, you know.

    The UN did not eradicate smallpox. It was the WHO. No, not Pete Townshend. The World Health Organization. The WHO is not the UN.

    Moron.

  23. Re:It begins by siddesu · · Score: 1

    "They" didn't. They didn't even provide the money for it. The eradication of smallpox was a huge effort which spanned more than a century. The part that WHO played in it happened in the last two decades, and that was more than 50 years ago.

  24. Re:It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey ! As a taxpayer he *is* footing the bill for it so let him say what he wants.

  25. The UN acts in Asteroid Deflection Scenerio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as the asteroid is spotted and confirmed to be on it's way, the UN will get together to discuss the economic, political, social and Military impact for aobout 2 years and a month before Impact, they'll come begging to the US, Russia and China to do something!

  26. And the WHO is.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...an agency of the UNITED NATIONS.

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

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:And the WHO is.... by jittles · · Score: 1

      ...an agency of the UNITED NATIONS.

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

      You don't know who The WHO are? I assure you they have nothing to do with the UN!

  27. Impossible technology. by confused+one · · Score: 2

    Then we shouldn't do it. While your at it, please turn over all technology in your possession that didn't exist 200 years ago and, at the time, would have been considered impractical or impossible. Cell phones, automobiles, computers, implanted medical devices, plastics and synthetic fibers, electric lighting and refrigeration... to name a few items.

    1. Re:Impossible technology. by aglider · · Score: 1

      None of the mentioned technologies costed the mankind billions per year for years. But I could be wrong.

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    2. Re:Impossible technology. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      But they do.

      Medical fields, electronics and semiconductor industry, chemical industry all spend billions each year. Automotive industry income sheets read in the billions per quarter and they all have substantial R&D expenses. The cost to build and maintain power plants and infrastructure runs into billions per year, nationwide.

      Research into lighting technology, not so much; but, without the supporting infrastructure there would be no electric lights to begin with. I referred to lighting and refrigeration specifically because those were two of the earliest technologies that drove buildout of electrical infrastructure and had the largest impact. (power plants were initially being built to support lighting -- all the other stuff followed).

  28. Re:It begins by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Now I'm more worried that a huge UN committee will slam into the earth causing devastation!

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  29. Bah. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "Astronomers have warned that our planet is long overdue for a defense plan against catastrophic asteroid collisions"

    Meanwhile, we do nothing about all those earthquakes, which actually kill people.

    Man against Nature! On to Victory!

    1. Re:Bah. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Have you some new method of preventing earthquakes? I'm sure the Nobel Prize committee would be interested in hearing about it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  30. Klendathu is going to attack us! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1
  31. what a joke! by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    America (specifically NASA) is no longer capable of dealing with incoming rocks. What chance does the UN have? Zero, absolutely zero.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  32. How can this not involve by wiredog · · Score: 1
  33. One-punch man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    short of a superhero capable of punching the approaching rock back into outer space

    I know just the guy for the job: http://www.batoto.net/read/_/162162/onepunch-man_ch21.4_by_boon-scanlation/26

  34. Re:It begins by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    How about a non-knee-jerk anti-UN comment?

    I've believed the UN to be as worthless as teats on a boar hog for almost as long as I've appreciated a nice pair of teats on a female homo sapien. That's almost fifty years of careful consideration for you, rather than a knee-jerk.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  35. Re:It begins by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/smallpox

    Actually, the effort spanned three centuries.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  36. While they plan.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are thousands of unknown asteroids waiting to cold cock Earth. We won't see the big one coming until it's recorded on dash cams. Too late. Planning is good as it makes us feel safe.

  37. Re:It begins by cusco · · Score: 1

    My parents and grandparents remember the time before the existence of the UN, and the two world wars that prompted its creation. Having an outlet to vent disagreements publicly helped prevent their being vented privately and exploding into the conflict that would have left Earth uninhabitable by life forms higher than moles. It that's worthless to you, so be it. I'm glad it was there so Khrushchev (?) could bang his shoe on the table and Reagan could play to his base and no one started shooting.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  38. That's no meteor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wasn't a meteor that hit chelyabinsk. It was the finnish testing their AMOS mortar. So think twice russians before attacking Finland again.

  39. Re:It begins by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    /sarcasm/ Oh yes, I forgot - the UN has prevented the US from invading literally DOZENS of countries, for fun and profit. In 2002, the UN put it's foot down, and firmly denied permission to invade Iraq. Yep, I remember now.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  40. Re:It begins by deKernel · · Score: 1

    So you are thinking that if either the U.N. or some similar body existed before either WWI or WWII that possibly either/both wars would not have happened....well, I am pretty confident in stating that the League of Nations sure didn't due the trick preventing a world war. Yes, the League of Nations is not exactly like the U.N., but they sure try to operate in the same capacity.

    Crazy people typically can't be talked off the ledge or taught that world domination is a bad thing.

    Just my $0.02.

  41. Been there, done that. by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Could I say, "Ea is my copilot"? Ea, the clever prince, Ea, the one who said that to rescue the dead, an immortal would have to give up his immortality? Ea -- ummm, EaShua, 'salvation of Ea' --- who did exactly that, 2000 years ago?

    We've already been hit with a massive asteroid, and it made the Chevrons of Madagascar; it caused the few survivors around the world to focus on building pyramids; and it is recorded in the stores of Noah.

    Excerpt from the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI:

    Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them
    so he repeated their talk to the reed house:
    'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
    O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
    Tear down the house and build a boat!
    Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
    Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
    Make all living beings go up into the boat.
    The boat which you are to build,
    its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
    its length must correspond to its width.
    Roof it over like the Apsu.
    I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
    'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
    I will heed and will do it.
    But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the
    Elders!'
    Ea spoke, commanding me, his servant:
    'You, well then, this is what you must say to them:
    "It appears that Enlil is rejecting me
    so I cannot reside in your city (?),
    nor set foot on Enlil's earth.
    I will go down to the Apsu to live with my lord, Ea,
    and upon you he will rain down abundance,
    a profusion of fowl, myriad(!) fishes.
    He will bring to you a harvest of wealth,
    in the morning he will let loaves of bread shower down,
    and in the evening a rain of wheat!"'
    Just as dawn began to glow
    the land assembled around me-
    the carpenter carried his hatchet,
    the reed worker carried his (flattening) stone, ... the men ...
    The child carried the pitch,
    the weak brought whatever else was needed.
    On the fifth day I laid out her exterior.
    It was a field in area,
    its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
    the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
    I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
    I provided it with six decks,
    thus dividing it into seven (levels).
    The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
    I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
    I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
    Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the bitumen kiln,
    three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it,
    there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vegetable) oil,
    apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!)
    and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored away.
    I butchered oxen for the meat(!),
    and day upon day I slaughtered sheep.
    I gave the workmen(?) ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water,
    so they could make a party like the New Year's Festival. ... and I set my hand to the oiling(!).
    The boat was finished by sunset.
    The launching was very difficult.
    They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back,
    until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?).
    Whatever I had I loaded on it:
    whatever silver I had I loaded on it,
    whatever gold I had

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  42. Re:It begins by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your stupid, uninformed anti-UN comment.

  43. Re:It begins by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    As usual - when you've run out of arguments, resort to insults. Thanks for playing!!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  44. Re:It begins by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    If meteor-deflecting aliens did ever exist, perhaps this means they think we are ready to handle it ourselves?

    Why is everyone so sure aliens exist?

  45. Re:It begins by cusco · · Score: 1

    I don't know about that, we somehow managed to keep Ronnie Raygun from starting the nuclear war in Europe that he seemed to think was "winnable". That was even with Wolfowitz whispering "Nuke them now" in his ear.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  46. Re:It begins by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone so sure aliens exist?

    Because it seems like at least some form of life in the universe besides us is a near statistical certainty.

    We used to think stars with planets would be pretty rare. Now we find planets all over the place, and find them at an ever increasing pace.

    Are you telling me that across billions and billions of galaxies, each with billions and billions of stars, leading to billions and billions and billions (and billions) of planets, that life in the universe evolved on only one single planet sounds plausible? Because it sure doesn't to me. In fact, it sounds outrageous.

    Besides, to quote Monty Python ... And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
    'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  47. asteroid deflection by volmtech · · Score: 1

    From what I understand involving the UN limits the liability of any nation that tries to divert an asteroid and it hits the Earth anyway. Whoever it then hits (if anyone is left) could sue claiming that they wouldn't have been hit if the asteroid's trajectory hadn't been altered.

  48. Won't matter by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    As if anything will happen anyway. First thing will be to set up a commission and staff it with representatives mostly from the Earth-destroying asteroids (Human Rights Commission) or they will endlessly discuss whether the asteroid really represents a danger or not (Security Council).

  49. Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ace Combat 4, anyone?

  50. Re: It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a good argument for creation.

  51. Re:It begins by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I think it's unlikely that this is the only (or first) planet to have life, bot otoh so much has to be just perfect for it to begin that I do think it's rare.

    But no way am I certain one way or the other.

  52. Re: It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they going to do? Pass a resolution saying it may not hit the Earth and has 90 days to change course or so help us we'll pass another resolution?

  53. Let's just hope.. by TGoss · · Score: 1

    they don't use any Microsoft products for anything important..Otherwise this plan is doomed! But then again, it's a committee..

  54. Re:It begins by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Actually, the effort spanned three centuries.

    But for the first two centuries of that, no one anywhere had a coherent idea of what the progress of pathogen-borne diseases was, and it took about another 3/4 (maybe 2/3) of a century after the development of germ theory (and it's later extension to recognising very small infections agents called viri) for someone to seriously propose the eradication of an entire natural virus in the wild. Now we're teetering on the edge of success against a second virus (polio ; you probably have relatives who were injured by it), but a combination of religion and warfare are trying to bring it back from the brink of eradication.

    Talk about cooperation against a common enemy : War lending a helping hand to save Plague, under the helpful oversight of Religion. Those anthropomorphised incarnations of psychological terrors must be feeling really threatened by the progress of humans and their sciences.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  55. Re:It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If meteor-deflecting aliens did ever exist, perhaps this means they think we are ready to handle it ourselves?

    Why is everyone so sure aliens exist?

    So there'd be a being that initiated our Creation.