Scientists Propose Using Cold War Era Weapons To Deflect Asteroids (blastingnews.com)

MarkWhittington writes: Many people are considering what to do if an asteroid was headed for a collision with Earth. One such collision wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Now, films such as "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact" depict what might happen if Earth were threatened with a similar event in modern times. As a result, some people are repurposing weapons that were built or envisioned during the Cold War to confront the celestial threat, from old ICBMs to space-based laser systems.

Comments

Now?

[YutakaFrog]

Yeah, if by "now" you mean 18 years ago...

Meteor (1979)

[arobatino]

Meteor (1979)

Of course...

[blindseer]

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Of course...

[Applehu Akbar]

What could possibly go wrong?

The universal excuse for doing nothing about a given problem. But...having an asteroid aiming for us would tend to concentrate the collective mind.

false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

" One such collision wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. "
this is not science. that is a hypothesis. a good one but nothing more so far.

"films such as "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact" depict what might happen ..."
really? mediocre movies are the way to model future?

too much of such propaganda and hype may lead to bad decisions that will make bad use of scarce resources.
resources better used on more real problems that results in real tragedy, every day right now. for instance, there are millions without clean water( and thousands die because of that). but such things are not sexy .
not to forget, in some places whole world of people are/were destroyed by governments( especially by principal ones that fought the cold war) in ways more terrible than in any movie. but usa is not looking for practical solutions but more wars and regime changes.

This shit again?

[Chas]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.

And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

A new generation of people whose ability to reason has been compromised by mass media?

Re:This shit again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was generally accepted that painting an asteroid would be a good way to deflect it to a safe distance. It makes a whole lot more sense than using a nuclear weapon.

Re:This shit again?

[sociocapitalist]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

So that we can modernize our weapons to have something positioned against the late growth in military power of both Russia and China without seeming overly aggressive in the hope of not further escalating global tensions, perhaps?

Re:This shit again?

[blindseer]

Maybe some good can come from this. Let the idiots spout off solutions that won't work so that the people that have the knowledge and intelligence to see how this can fail can argue for something that will work. Sort of following the idea that "there is no such thing as bad publicity" that people follow in politics and popular culture.

If we can get people to think that firing rockets carrying radioactive materials is something that might be considered acceptable then perhaps we could do something that might work where only something with a nuclear reactor is a feasible solution. I'm just tossing this out as an example, I don't know if it would work, but suppose instead of detonating a nuclear weapon on the surface we have a nuclear powered drilling machine that bores into the asteroid. The hole it creates would act as a rocket bell and the burning and evaporating material from the nuclear reactor heat acts as the propellant. This could throw the asteroid out of orbit far enough that it misses Earth.

Also, this brain dead "science" shown in movies and TV is going to get people killed. Cars don't blow up when they hit a brick wall. The rubber soles of your boots won't keep you from getting electrocuted. Car doors don't stop bullets. People could write encyclopedias on how much movies and TV get medicine wrong.

As bad as things have been in the past I do see things getting better. Outside of the super hero genre we are starting to see science being portrayed more accurately. I think that there are enough educated people out there that writers at least try to appeal to them, and people are starting to realize that real life is interesting as it is.

Of course I could be completely wrong.

Re:This shit again?

[ceoyoyo]

You could paint the whole asteroid and only the sunward side would be affected. That would produce asymmetric thrust that would change the orbit.

Scientists.

[Spazmania]

"Scientists" should understand the difference between the low earth orbit that an ICBM can almost achieve versus intercepting an object in deep space. Deflect an asteroid a fraction of a degree when it's still a month away and it's certain to miss the planet. When the same asteroid is in range of an ICBM, it's far far too late to do anything.

Re:Scientists.

[rtb61]

So pretty much if you seriously want to do anything about it, you have to be up on the moon. Not only to find them far enough away but to 6 times more effectively launch them. Especially is you launched them via a steam cannon with variable acceleration for the first stage and rocket only for final guidance. Of course you could do the same from earth the barrel would just need to be quite a few kilometres long, with an outlet as high as practicable and you would not get as much warning. Better to use that earth mounted vacuum steam cannon(s), with magnetic suspension to fire stuff at the moon on a daily basis to build a base on the moon, for earlier detection and far more effective reaction.

Re:Scientists.

[Plumpaquatsch]

"Scientists" should understand the difference between the low earth orbit that an ICBM can almost achieve versus intercepting an object in deep space.

Actually, "scientists" may not be talking about ICBMs at all (despite the article first claiming so), because when it goes to the vague details of the plan there's suddenly an additional word: "The Russians would like to test their ICBM defense system on 99942 Apophis ..."

Re:Scientists?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> cold war era weapons?

I was thinking it could be a 1967 Oldsmobile Delta 88 sedan with a drunk Kennedy at the wheel.