If the success rate is per interceptor, meaning that they have several chances to hit a warhead by using several interceptors then 50 percent isn't too bad. Fifty percent success (or failure) means that shooting say five interceptors at each warhead will result in a 95 percent chance of shooting it down, not perfect but certainly enough to make Kim Jung-Un realize he probably isn't going to inflict ANY damage with a suicidal nuclear attack. NK probably wouldn't be able to get off more than a few before the launch sites and command bunkers were nuked (can you say close to shore submarine based missiles on depressed trajectories?).
Of course if the success rate is for the system as a whole (doubtful) for example due to some basic limitation of the targeting radars, then adding more interceptors isn't going to deter Mr. Kim. He probably realizes that his attack is a long shot (ha ha) anyway and having 50 percent odds on taking out, say San Francisco is pretty good. So let's hope that the system is capable of targeting multiple interceptors at a single warhead so the odds are in our favor.
The best scenario is for to add more layers to make a multilayer defense. In addition to the Patriot missile batteries in South Korea and the Aegis missile cruisers offshore (can either of their missiles overtake an ascending ICBM launched hundreds of miles away?) whatever happened to the laser equipped 747s?
Now if Kim Jung-Un really wanted to make the U.S. worried, he should use his much more powerful (but extremely vulnerable and time consuming to launch) liquid fueled rockets to put a disguised nuke INTO ORBIT. Not only would it completely bypass the ABM defenses that are only protecting the U.S. from direct trajectories but it would reduce the warning time from 30 minutes to maybe 5 (or zero if an EMP blast was the goal). The only thing the U.S. could do would be to pre-emptively knock down EVERY satellite put up by NK which while easily doable, would really raise tensions. Of course NK would be violating the 1967 treaty banning weapons (especially nukes!) in Outer Space which is probably the only thing that kept us from accidental thermonuclear war but NK doesn't seem to pay to much attention to treaties.
So if NK starts orbiting largish satellites and testing re-entry vehicles, be afraid.
One side effect of all this is that the improvements in ABM systems is forcing China to upgrade its ICBM force. Unlike the Russians, the Chinese only had a few hundred (?) ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. and no subs or bombers. They worried that if the shit REALLY hit the fan, the U.S. could launch a first strike taking out most of their missiles (not to mention iPhone production). The few surviving missiles would not make it through even the modest shield that is being built and thus the U.S. woud survive unscathed. So the Chinese are following the Russian model of bolstering their ICBM forces so that even after a first strike they would be able to overwhelm the limited ABM defenses in place.
This fear of an enhanced ABM system is one reason why China is (trying to) keep Mr. Kim from building ICBMs. Not to mention the fear that South Korea and Japan and possibly Taiwan(!!!) will decide they need a nuclear deterrent against North Korea. That would really complicate China's desire to become THE power in Asia (and make reunification with Taiwan much more perilous).
Have they done a similar study for a Venus flyby? The launch dates might be more forgiving, the target a bit closer, the trip length might be a shorter and the delta-V requirements a bit less. Most important maybe the earth re-entry requirements would be a little less extreme. It is a 14km/sec aero-capture maneuver prior to re-entry that would, in some scenarios, put the vehicle in an elliptical, battery power only, 10-day trajectory beyond the moon (not to mention abusing the heat shield TWICE) just to reduce G-forces!. And there's only a 6km entry "window" between burn-up and bouncing off the atmosphere on an escape trajectory!
I mean since this trip is mainly a (very useful) test of long duration deep space flight with very limited "observation" of an already well-studied planet (there are currently three orbiters and two rovers on Mars), does it really matter which planet we flyby? Since the trajectory for this mission already takes it inward almost to Venus' orbit, they will be exposed to the same levels of solar heat (and radiation). Mars is, of course, more relevant for future long term exploration but other than the P.R. value there is not much more that would be gained over going to it versus Venus.
On the other hand, if somebody forks up the money for this tomorrow, please ignore everything I said. Mars or bust!
Ok, so once the asteroid collector has delivered the asteroid to high lunar orbit, what does the spacecraft do then?
Well, if its got even a tiny fraction of its propellant left over (remember it just towed something maybe 100x its size clear across the solar system) , it slowly spirals down to low earth orbit and... REFUELS.
Now here's where things get interesting. Once it's refueled (remember its main consumable is up to 12,000 lbs. of Xenon, it gets its energy from solar power), it can do any number of things. Of course it could be sent out again to get another asteroid (including, as I mentioned in a previous post, one with precious WATER) but that might be boring. How about having it PAY FOR ITSELF by moving satellites from LEO to geosynchronous orbit. (This is very expensive as it typically requires an additional booster, I think the cost per pound is at least double that to low orbit). I think this market is on the order of $5B per year.
The reason why this would work is because the asteroid tug would clearly be capable of moving very(!) large payloads. It wouldn't even have to be very slow, if it can accelerate a 500 ton asteroid at 1/10,000th of a g, it could accelerate a 5 ton satellite at say 1/200th of a gee (taking into account the tug's own weight). So it could deliver the satellites in weeks if not days. Of course there would need to be a few minor design modifications to the tug. The collapsible "bag" would have to be removable and some sort of industry standard docking ports added. There would need to be some provision for refueling ports and critical components (gyroscopes, reaction wheels, electronics) would need to be replaceable/upgradeable like the Hubble space telescope. Of course servicing this "space tug" in this way is probably beyond the near term capabilities of robotics. Rather than this being a problem, it could be an opportunity -
- for the International Space Station to actually be USEFUL. Here it could serve as a fuel depot, servicing "garage" and interchange point for these "space tugs". The kind of problem that robotics can't handle yet are ideally suited for an astronaut with a wrench (and maybe some elbow grease). The fact that the main propellant for these tugs is Xenon, an inert noble element, makes handling the fuel much less problematic (no problems with corrosion or toxicity) and safer (no fear of explosive combustion). Even the fact that these tugs use ion thrusters would be an advantage meaning that everything would be happening very slowly, if one went out of control they could probably move the entire station out of the way (like they do when avoiding space junk). The station could also keep spare, interchangeable parts for these tugs such as additional "bags" or robot arms or other modules. In short, the ISS would have a PURPOSE.
With even a little thought, these space tugs have lots of additional uses. The same high power ion engines that can move a 500 ton asteroid could also send 500 tons of cargo cheaply (if slowly) to Mars. The same collapsible bag that can capture a tumbling asteroid can easily capture a much lighter piece of space junk. All it takes is for a government with foresight to make the initial investment that may (as I've suggested) quickly repay itself perhaps many times over. And isn't that the purpose of government (if not NASA)?
In addition to all the other excellent reasons why this is such a good idea (yes I RTFA) there is one (or two) more.
It would provide a last(?) ditch means of protecting ourselves against a much bigger, real threat.
If we don't detect a big asteroid now on a collision course with earth, with at least 10 years of lead time then unless we're willing to use nukes which 1) may or not work depending on the composition of the asteroid 2) may make the problem worse by breaking it up, we're out of luck. Unless we have, conveniently, this nice big 500 ton rock which we can use to hit and redirect the incoming asteroid. Depending on many many variables like how far away it hits the incoming asteroid, the sizes of the two relative velocities, orbits and whatnot it could quite an effect. (Remember that it would be coming from its high lunar orbit so could hit the incoming asteroid with a relatively high transverse velocity).
It might be even be more effective a nuke because a nuke's energy, in the vacuum of space, might be all light and radiation with little propulsive effect (which is why Bruce Willis and gang had to actually land and bury theirs on the asteroid.). It would be like the difference between getting hit by a thrown firecracker or, a rock. Both might have roughly the same "energy" but one would have it in the form of an explosive bang and the other in kinetic (motion) energy.
Of course, this would in no means supplant a real planetary defense program like Spaceguard. But Spaceguard was never going to find 100% of all the asteroids so, like I said, this could be a last ditch defense. Anyway, it's just another possible use for having our own pet rock!:)
One more thought is that, if they decide to send this asteroid collector a bit further (okay much farther) out to the "snow line" where icy comets and asteroids that haven't had all their water evaporated are, they can bring back one that's loaded with FUEL and AIR. An icy 500 ton asteroid in lunar space would be just about the most valuable resource possible, it's got WATER which can be drunk, used for radiation shielding, and when electrolyzed, the oxygen can be breathed and the hydrogen used for fuel. (Also the hydrogen can be stretched even further by combining it with the carbon from a carbonaceous asteroid to make methane rocket fuel.).
Probably the existing spacecraft design doesn't have to be changed that much, the collection "bag" if silvered should keep the asteroid frozen on the long trip back to earth. (It'll also need bigger solar panels or a nuke and more xenon fuel). And the trip would be long, probably out beyond mars to where Ceres is. That's where the DAWN spacecraft is headed, to orbit the giant possibly icy asteroid. If we're really lucky, it'll find some small 7m icy mini-moons ripe for the picking.
Honestly though the distances are too far and our detection capabilities (it's hard enough finding 7m asteroids passing near earth let alone in the asteroid belt) too modest to make this a realistic goal for our first effort in asteroid collecting. Maybe version 2.0.
Get some federal Marshalls to walk up to that idiot's house in California, knock (or kick down the door). Have them tell that idiot that Obama is asking him to get on the phone to Google and issue a takedown notice. (Evidently he's been cowering in fear and is regretting his actions). It's his copyrighted property no?
This may/will not stop the rioting but will remove one problem. And it will show those idiots in the middle east that the U.S. is doing everything (legally) permissible to protect their "sacred" religion.
I'm trying hard (seriously) to think of any over-regulated markets that caused significantly more costs than benefits. Do you have any examples?
On the other hand, the recent financial crash, plunging most of the world into a "Great Recession" with tens of trillions of dollars of lost output and probably hundreds of millions of people (worldwide) being thrown out of work is a pretty good example of what lax regulation in a number of sectors (banking, real estate) can do. Are you sure you're not letting your ideology get in the way of the facts?
All I'm saying is in the choice between Somalia and Norway (okay Singapore) I know which way I'd prefer to err on.
How much would that be worth to you? Especially for a big ticket item (like a computer or car). Not to mention the hassle of looking for the item, comparing it against the alternatives, and (for physical items) going to the store or arranging shipping and delivery. True, for small items (candy? Cheap e-books?) it may not be worth it but you get the picture.
There already ARE "review police". It's called truth in advertising laws and especially for medical claims they are damned important (no more "quack" cures).
I live as an ex-pat in Vietnam where there is very little of this sort of policing going on and so I must buy all my drinking water and NEVER eat "street" food like the locals. Not with a 70%(!) infection rate of parasitic worms from improperly washed/prepared food (the locals take a pill every 6 months to kill them off).
There was a Nobel prize in Economics given (I forget which year) to an economist who realized that, unlike classical market theory, that INFORMATION WASN'T FREE and managed to put it into the equations. So yes, getting good information isn't free and in all cases it won't be worth it. But in many cases it will be and that will need regulations.
Well here's something that those tea-partiers and libertarians don't want to hear.
The "R" word. REGULATION
Unless you want to live in Somalia, you should realize that there IS an important role for government beyond just self-defense and essential services (like police, fire, waste management). MARKETS need to be REGULATED, with binding rules and penalties for the offenders.
Don't take it from me, just read up on Adam Smith who called it "The Tragedy of the Commons". (If you don't know who he is, may I suggest you take a basic class in Economics? Hint: he's not a friend of Karl Max).
Of course Mr. Smith was writing about a simpler time in the18th century; the "commons" he was referring to was that used by grazing cows. So in our MUCH more compex world, it stands to reason that we need a MUCH more sophisticated regulatory system to prevent people like Enron (remember them?) and more recently, investment banks and rating agencies (paid by the people they rate!) from gaming the system. In addition, since more of our commerce is going on-line (yay for shopping in our bathrobes!) regulation needs to follow.
Unfortunately Romney and crew (who benefit the most from the lack of regulation) are going to try to convince you otherwise. For example they really don't want to restrict the ability of billionaires to dominate elections with their money (alright I guess if you're a billionaire, I'm not. Welcome to the 1920s, age of the robber barons). Also, as slashdotters well know, they really don't want to cut down on a corporation's right to regulate Internet traffic (bye bye net neutrality).
I'd tell you how much he's personally benefitted but he doesn't seem to be disposed to releasing his financial records. Still that hasn't kept some forensic analysis of what he has released from turning up some interesting things:
By that I mean, they are like slashdotters (kinda geeky). Especially the foreman (also, not mentioned, is the claim he was a juror on several civil trials previously and has a couple of kids).
(Here's some commentary from Reuters and CNet. Also remember, BOTH APPLE AND SAMSUNG VETTED THEM, and were able to remove whomever they wanted; I understand Apple got rid of a Google employee).
Reuters and CNet have interviewed members of the Apple / Samsung patent trial jury who awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages over patent infringement claims against Samsung.
Reuters spoke with jury foreman Velvin Hogan who explained that they found Apple's arguments persuasive about the need to protect innovation. Furthermore, Hogan says it was "absolutely" clear based on Samsung executive testimony that the infringement was purposeful.
In the CNet interview with another Apple v. Samsung juror, Manuel Ilagan reiterated that it was "clear there was infringement". When asked for specifics, he said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."
Both jurors claim that their decision was deliberate and not rushed. According to Ilagan, the process was helped by the experience within the jury pool. Hogan, the jury foreman, had previously worked as an engineer and holds a patent himself. Meanwhile, others on the jury were said to also have engineering and legal experience.
In determining the award amount, Hogan reports that they felt Apple's demands of $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high", especially taking into account the uncertainty in Apple's ability to have sold significantly more iPhones due to component supply constraints. That said, Hogan told Reuters they did want a send a message.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.
Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his.
Hogan said he worked in the computer hard-drive industry for 35 years at companies including Memorex Corp., Colorado- based Storage Technology Corp. and Massachusetts-based Digital Equipment Corp.
“If there is one juror who seems more clearly knowledgeable than the others, the jury will often look to that person to help them work through the issues, and perhaps elect him foreman,” Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School Professor, said yesterday in an interview.
The jury in federal court in San Jose, California, also included a mechanical engineer, an aspiring software engineer and a woman who worked for National Semiconductor Corp. While the interests and professional backgrounds of those jurors reflect the Silicon Valley pool from which the panel was drawn, another juror works at a cycling shop and one panelist didn’t go to college and works in construction, according to court transcripts. Seven of the nine panelists said they had never served on a jury before.
Considering that Samsung, just ONE CONGLOMERATE, generates 20% of the entire country of Korea's GDP, I hardly think the judge(s) would be capable of being impartial.
Korean's are quite "feisty" (I've got some blood). I've been in numerous protests in Seoul where students would fight the police for days over some perceived fault by the U.S. Demonstrations by striking workers quickly become violent.
... from his buddy Donald Trump who recently claimed:
“Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism spread shots over long period and watch positive result.”
That's almost as bad as Akins "legitimate rape" comment (note: Romney's running mate co-authored the anti-abortion bill by the Republicans.). If you think this thinking is restricted to "just" a potential senator and vice-president please note the Republican platform REMOVED the clause allowing for abortions in case of Rape or Incest.
Judge them not (just) by what they say but what they do.
By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.
Thinks Evolution is just a theory Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy Thinks Obama is a socialist Thinks Obama is a muslim Thinks Obama was not born in the United States *New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge) *NEW* THINKS VACCINES CAUSES AUTISM (DONALD TRUMP) *New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform) Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple
So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.
At about 1:04 they talk about the Samsung "Smart Tutors". I thought this was part of the parody! Now I'm wondering how much of the rest of the video is true.
By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.
Thinks Evolution is just a theory Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy Thinks Obama is a socialist Thinks Obama is a muslim Thinks Obama was not born in the United States *New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge) *New* Thinks vaccines cause autism (Donald Trump) *New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform) Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple
So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.
Also, as far as prior art goes, when the New York Times asked a bunch of futurists what they would propose for the time capsule they were building for the year 2000 (this was for the millenial issue), Jaron Lanier (I think) suggested that information be DNA encoded and put into cockroaches. The thinking was that they were indestructible and still be ubiquitous in a thousand years.
No mechanism for preventing copying errors was described though so it would likely be like that game of "telephone" where each person orally conveys to the next a message but many many times (worse). How many cockroach generations would there be in a thousand years? Also the radioactivity from the Armageddon(s) would likely speed up mutations!
The government here is afraid that its hold on power is weak and that it lacks/is losing legitimacy. After the Vietnam war of course, the government was all powerful and seen as the victorious savior of the country (against the world's greatest power no less!).
Now, more than a generation later, with a youthful population that was mostly born after the war those memories are fading.
So the government mainly tries to keep things stable while it quietly plunders (through corruption) the country. It tries to defuse tensions by being very tentative with its actions; when some farmers killed some police who were reappropriating their land, the central government first hauled the local police/officials into court to charge them with illegal trespass (or something like that). Then they got the farmers. Laws are usually first proposed (I think) and then, depending on the reaction, implemented (or not). It can make for a confusing regulatory situation.
This of course, is very unlike China which rules with an iron fist. They put down a huge number of violent "incidents" (protests involving more than 500 people) every year. This allows them to push through projects at a mindboggling speed (need a neighborhood cleared for a highway or polluting factory? No problem!) The stakes are very very high in China and they're playing for keeps.
Getting back to the Vietnamese government: censorship is done out of insecurity that it will allow enough people to mass together (I guess this is always the case). Their blocking of some social media though is surprisingly weak, many Vietnamese friends I know use Facebook and access YouTube constantly, so there doesn't seem to be a "Great Firewall of Vietnam". Then again due to rising prosperity tensions weren't too bad(?) so maybe they haven't needed to really enforce it (these sites have been blocked from time to time). So actually I don't think censorship is as bad, as say China. (See below the post about indirect criticism of the government on traditional media).
Unfortunately for the government, the economy is really tanking now and they don't seem to have an external enemy they can focus the public's attention on. Their one great international dispute is with China over the Spratly and Paracell Islands (and the rest of the "South China" sea). However, unlike their previous war with China in the 70s, they are going to their heads handed back to them on a platter if they escalate this militarily (the Chinese are now, by far, the dominant regional military power).
With a very large gap between rich and poor (I see Rolls Royces, Bentlys and Maybachs here which, after tax can cost up to a million US in a country with a per cap income of about 1K per year), and a depressed economy, the government may welll start to really censor social media.
A long long time ago when Senator John Kerry was running for president, I was at a small event in Los Angeles.
In front of some local media, I confronted him about his "hockey goal" ad in which he (dressed as a goal keeper) said he would protect against Japanese imports. I said his ad (and the tone of his campaign) was contributing to the recent spike in anti-Asian American violence around the country (I'm Asian American).
He said he, of course, didn't mean for it to be construed that way and didn't mean to stigmatize hard working Asian Americans blah, blah. After that I don't think the ad was pulled or altered. However, I DID notice he would, when speaking about Asian imports, would often make a distinction between Asian competitors overseas and Asian citizens at home. Yay!
Even so I wholeheartedly agree that many politicians are lying, scheming scumbags only out for themselves. However censorship in the U.S. compared to some other countries? Give me a break. You're probably one of those people who like arguing for the sake of arguing and make the Internet (and the world) a miserable place to be in. Go away or become a lawyer.
... there used to be a product called "Desktape" made by a company called Optima Software.
Basically it kept a cached (on the system drive) directory listing of all the files on the tape, and then made a (virtual) disk using that directory which was mounted on the desktop (hence the name). The user would perform file transfers with this "disk" in much the same way as he would a real disk, he could copy files to and from it by dragging and dropping, similarly erasing or copying over files. Note that I said file transfers; direct random access to this "disk", while possible, were strongly recommended against because the tape would seek to one block, then seek to the next etc. so, for example, launching an application from the tape was ill-advised. Anyway, when the tape was ejected, the directory would be updated on the tape.
Still it was great because it made backing up very simple (no special utility to run) and this disk would behave just like a real disk so that you could run regular disk utilities on it like "Virtual Disk" (which kept searchable online copies of directory listings of offline volumes).
The software was hardware agnostic which means it could work with a variety of tape drives so maybe it would work with LTO. Alas, the software only ran on pre-OS X Macintoshes and the company is long gone. I would dearly love it if someone could revive this software and make it work with a "modern" OS! Can't someone buy the IP of this company?, surely the development (patents?) is worth something. (I wish there was some sort of law saying that abandoned software like this would, after 5 years, be put in the public domain; of course for this to work the source code would have to be continually archived at, say, the Library of Congress in case of sudden bankruptcy. Not too feasible.)
I know this is a fault of the movie, not the paper, but there aren't any asteroids 1000 km in diameter (Ceres is just a little bit smaller).
The only way that the movie could be even remotely plausible would be if this were an extra-solar body coming from interstellar space. Otherwise it would have been detected centuries ago. (Actually, I think the movie indicated something like this). It would also probably be traveling at a high rate of speed since it would have been dropped almost all the way down the Sun's gravity well.
Still, such a large object would have likely been detected months, if not years (decades)? before impact; even it it were coal black. (I believe the large nightly deep sky surveys would've caught it way in advance). Astronomers have recently been finding much smaller objects way beyond the orbit of Pluto; even if headed directly headed to earth they would take more than a century to get here. But since that would've allowed NASA to train its astronauts how to use the drilling gear used by Bruce Willis et al. the writers made the time very short (I think it was 14 days).
Far more likely would be the scenario in "Deep Impact" a much more scientifically accurate (boring?) movie. Here the asteroid was only about 10 km or so in diameter, or less than a millionth the size (volume, mass) of the one in "Armageddon". Also, I think, they intercepted it deeper in space and were just trying to deflect it, so a realistically sized nuke would have been able to do the job. And they carried more than one! (So no super heroics requiring Bruce to stay behind).
Obviously the size and speed of the asteroid in "Armageddon" was only to impress the audience; "Texas-sized is a lot more awesome than "Manhattan-sized". (Both would've been "ELE"- Extinction Level Events). The only possible way any realistically sized nuke (remember, those 1950s super H-Bombs were BIG, I don't think the very largest could be carried by plane), could do the job described in the film would be if the asteroid was shaped like a bow tie and the bomb placed in the fragile center (yes underground would also be important). Oh, and it should be (rapidly?) spinning to counteract its own self-gravity so that it would fly apart (and also perhaps be structurally weaker).**
I seem to remember there being something in the movie about it being shaped like this (not spinning though). The writers evidently sought to make their story just a little more plausible by adding even more implausibility to it. So what else is new (in Hollywood)?
*I don't know if any of the recently found Kuiper belt objects are larger, Ceres was the largest asteroid listed in Wikipedia. ** Actually, if the asteroid WAS in some sort of bow-tie or dumbbell kind of shape, it MUST have been spinning. Otherwise it would've collapsed under its own weight into a (rough) sphere.
I believe it was written by Isaac Asimov and resulted in the resource consuming project (I'm not sure if it was the preservation of the last animals) being approved not because the project was important but because it was important to keep people thinking differently.
For those blessed with living near JPL in Southern CA, there usually is a big event at Pasadena City College (where I viewed a few previous landings). I think there are very knowledgeable speakers from JPL who are usually there (along with the media). Maybe this was one of the suggestions in the link posted above, I couldn't access the site.
JPL by the way has a great series of monthly(?) free to the public lectures on its various deep space programs, often given by the lead investigator! A great way of nerding out.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the system as a whole?
If the success rate is per interceptor, meaning that they have several chances to hit a warhead by using several interceptors then 50 percent isn't too bad. Fifty percent success (or failure) means that shooting say five interceptors at each warhead will result in a 95 percent chance of shooting it down, not perfect but certainly enough to make Kim Jung-Un realize he probably isn't going to inflict ANY damage with a suicidal nuclear attack. NK probably wouldn't be able to get off more than a few before the launch sites and command bunkers were nuked (can you say close to shore submarine based missiles on depressed trajectories?).
Of course if the success rate is for the system as a whole (doubtful) for example due to some basic limitation of the targeting radars, then adding more interceptors isn't going to deter Mr. Kim. He probably realizes that his attack is a long shot (ha ha) anyway and having 50 percent odds on taking out, say San Francisco is pretty good. So let's hope that the system is capable of targeting multiple interceptors at a single warhead so the odds are in our favor.
The best scenario is for to add more layers to make a multilayer defense. In addition to the Patriot missile batteries in South Korea and the Aegis missile cruisers offshore (can either of their missiles overtake an ascending ICBM launched hundreds of miles away?) whatever happened to the laser equipped 747s?
Now if Kim Jung-Un really wanted to make the U.S. worried, he should use his much more powerful (but extremely vulnerable and time consuming to launch) liquid fueled rockets to put a disguised nuke INTO ORBIT. Not only would it completely bypass the ABM defenses that are only protecting the U.S. from direct trajectories but it would reduce the warning time from 30 minutes to maybe 5 (or zero if an EMP blast was the goal). The only thing the U.S. could do would be to pre-emptively knock down EVERY satellite put up by NK which while easily doable, would really raise tensions. Of course NK would be violating the 1967 treaty banning weapons (especially nukes!) in Outer Space which is probably the only thing that kept us from accidental thermonuclear war but NK doesn't seem to pay to much attention to treaties.
So if NK starts orbiting largish satellites and testing re-entry vehicles, be afraid.
One side effect of all this is that the improvements in ABM systems is forcing China to upgrade its ICBM force. Unlike the Russians, the Chinese only had a few hundred (?) ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. and no subs or bombers. They worried that if the shit REALLY hit the fan, the U.S. could launch a first strike taking out most of their missiles (not to mention iPhone production). The few surviving missiles would not make it through even the modest shield that is being built and thus the U.S. woud survive unscathed. So the Chinese are following the Russian model of bolstering their ICBM forces so that even after a first strike they would be able to overwhelm the limited ABM defenses in place.
This fear of an enhanced ABM system is one reason why China is (trying to) keep Mr. Kim from building ICBMs. Not to mention the fear that South Korea and Japan and possibly Taiwan(!!!) will decide they need a nuclear deterrent against North Korea. That would really complicate China's desire to become THE power in Asia (and make reunification with Taiwan much more perilous).
Have they done a similar study for a Venus flyby? The launch dates might be more forgiving, the target a bit closer, the trip length might be a shorter and the delta-V requirements a bit less. Most important maybe the earth re-entry requirements would be a little less extreme. It is a 14km/sec aero-capture maneuver prior to re-entry that would, in some scenarios, put the vehicle in an elliptical, battery power only, 10-day trajectory beyond the moon (not to mention abusing the heat shield TWICE) just to reduce G-forces!. And there's only a 6km entry "window" between burn-up and bouncing off the atmosphere on an escape trajectory!
I mean since this trip is mainly a (very useful) test of long duration deep space flight with very limited "observation" of an already well-studied planet (there are currently three orbiters and two rovers on Mars), does it really matter which planet we flyby? Since the trajectory for this mission already takes it inward almost to Venus' orbit, they will be exposed to the same levels of solar heat (and radiation). Mars is, of course, more relevant for future long term exploration but other than the P.R. value there is not much more that would be gained over going to it versus Venus.
On the other hand, if somebody forks up the money for this tomorrow, please ignore everything I said. Mars or bust!
Ok, so once the asteroid collector has delivered the asteroid to high lunar orbit, what does the spacecraft do then?
Well, if its got even a tiny fraction of its propellant left over (remember it just towed something maybe 100x its size clear across the solar system) , it slowly spirals down to low earth orbit and... REFUELS.
Now here's where things get interesting. Once it's refueled (remember its main consumable is up to 12,000 lbs. of Xenon, it gets its energy from solar power), it can do any number of things. Of course it could be sent out again to get another asteroid (including, as I mentioned in a previous post, one with precious WATER) but that might be boring. How about having it PAY FOR ITSELF by moving satellites from LEO to geosynchronous orbit. (This is very expensive as it typically requires an additional booster, I think the cost per pound is at least double that to low orbit). I think this market is on the order of $5B per year.
The reason why this would work is because the asteroid tug would clearly be capable of moving very(!) large payloads. It wouldn't even have to be very slow, if it can accelerate a 500 ton asteroid at 1/10,000th of a g, it could accelerate a 5 ton satellite at say 1/200th of a gee (taking into account the tug's own weight). So it could deliver the satellites in weeks if not days. Of course there would need to be a few minor design modifications to the tug. The collapsible "bag" would have to be removable and some sort of industry standard docking ports added. There would need to be some provision for refueling ports and critical components (gyroscopes, reaction wheels, electronics) would need to be replaceable/upgradeable like the Hubble space telescope. Of course servicing this "space tug" in this way is probably beyond the near term capabilities of robotics. Rather than this being a problem, it could be an opportunity -
- for the International Space Station to actually be USEFUL. Here it could serve as a fuel depot, servicing "garage" and interchange point for these "space tugs". The kind of problem that robotics can't handle yet are ideally suited for an astronaut with a wrench (and maybe some elbow grease). The fact that the main propellant for these tugs is Xenon, an inert noble element, makes handling the fuel much less problematic (no problems with corrosion or toxicity) and safer (no fear of explosive combustion). Even the fact that these tugs use ion thrusters would be an advantage meaning that everything would be happening very slowly, if one went out of control they could probably move the entire station out of the way (like they do when avoiding space junk). The station could also keep spare, interchangeable parts for these tugs such as additional "bags" or robot arms or other modules. In short, the ISS would have a PURPOSE.
With even a little thought, these space tugs have lots of additional uses. The same high power ion engines that can move a 500 ton asteroid could also send 500 tons of cargo cheaply (if slowly) to Mars. The same collapsible bag that can capture a tumbling asteroid can easily capture a much lighter piece of space junk. All it takes is for a government with foresight to make the initial investment that may (as I've suggested) quickly repay itself perhaps many times over. And isn't that the purpose of government (if not NASA)?
In addition to all the other excellent reasons why this is such a good idea (yes I RTFA) there is one (or two) more.
It would provide a last(?) ditch means of protecting ourselves against a much bigger, real threat.
If we don't detect a big asteroid now on a collision course with earth, with at least 10 years of lead time then unless we're willing to use nukes which 1) may or not work depending on the composition of the asteroid 2) may make the problem worse by breaking it up, we're out of luck. Unless we have, conveniently, this nice big 500 ton rock which we can use to hit and redirect the incoming asteroid. Depending on many many variables like how far away it hits the incoming asteroid, the sizes of the two relative velocities, orbits and whatnot it could quite an effect. (Remember that it would be coming from its high lunar orbit so could hit the incoming asteroid with a relatively high transverse velocity).
It might be even be more effective a nuke because a nuke's energy, in the vacuum of space, might be all light and radiation with little propulsive effect (which is why Bruce Willis and gang had to actually land and bury theirs on the asteroid.). It would be like the difference between getting hit by a thrown firecracker or, a rock. Both might have roughly the same "energy" but one would have it in the form of an explosive bang and the other in kinetic (motion) energy.
Of course, this would in no means supplant a real planetary defense program like Spaceguard. But Spaceguard was never going to find 100% of all the asteroids so, like I said, this could be a last ditch defense. Anyway, it's just another possible use for having our own pet rock! :)
One more thought is that, if they decide to send this asteroid collector a bit further (okay much farther) out to the "snow line" where icy comets and asteroids that haven't had all their water evaporated are, they can bring back one that's loaded with FUEL and AIR. An icy 500 ton asteroid in lunar space would be just about the most valuable resource possible, it's got WATER which can be drunk, used for radiation shielding, and when electrolyzed, the oxygen can be breathed and the hydrogen used for fuel. (Also the hydrogen can be stretched even further by combining it with the carbon from a carbonaceous asteroid to make methane rocket fuel.).
Probably the existing spacecraft design doesn't have to be changed that much, the collection "bag" if silvered should keep the asteroid frozen on the long trip back to earth. (It'll also need bigger solar panels or a nuke and more xenon fuel). And the trip would be long, probably out beyond mars to where Ceres is. That's where the DAWN spacecraft is headed, to orbit the giant possibly icy asteroid. If we're really lucky, it'll find some small 7m icy mini-moons ripe for the picking.
Honestly though the distances are too far and our detection capabilities (it's hard enough finding 7m asteroids passing near earth let alone in the asteroid belt) too modest to make this a realistic goal for our first effort in asteroid collecting. Maybe version 2.0.
Get some federal Marshalls to walk up to that idiot's house in California, knock (or kick down the door). Have them tell that idiot that Obama is asking him to get on the phone to Google and issue a takedown notice. (Evidently he's been cowering in fear and is regretting his actions). It's his copyrighted property no?
This may/will not stop the rioting but will remove one problem. And it will show those idiots in the middle east that the U.S. is doing everything (legally) permissible to protect their "sacred" religion.
I mean code is code so the same tactics could be used to make an artificial virus evade the immune system right?
Would it work? Probably not.
Would it be plausible enough to write a sci/fI book or movie? Maybe.
I'm trying hard (seriously) to think of any over-regulated markets that caused significantly more costs than benefits. Do you have any examples?
On the other hand, the recent financial crash, plunging most of the world into a "Great Recession" with tens of trillions of dollars of lost output and probably hundreds of millions of people (worldwide) being thrown out of work is a pretty good example of what lax regulation in a number of sectors (banking, real estate) can do. Are you sure you're not letting your ideology get in the way of the facts?
All I'm saying is in the choice between Somalia and Norway (okay Singapore) I know which way I'd prefer to err on.
Imagine reviews that you actually COULD trust.
How much would that be worth to you? Especially for a big ticket item (like a computer or car). Not to mention the hassle of looking for the item, comparing it against the alternatives, and (for physical items) going to the store or arranging shipping and delivery. True, for small items (candy? Cheap e-books?) it may not be worth it but you get the picture.
There already ARE "review police". It's called truth in advertising laws and especially for medical claims they are damned important (no more "quack" cures).
I live as an ex-pat in Vietnam where there is very little of this sort of policing going on and so I must buy all my drinking water and NEVER eat "street" food like the locals. Not with a 70%(!) infection rate of parasitic worms from improperly washed/prepared food (the locals take a pill every 6 months to kill them off).
There was a Nobel prize in Economics given (I forget which year) to an economist who realized that, unlike classical market theory, that INFORMATION WASN'T FREE and managed to put it into the equations. So yes, getting good information isn't free and in all cases it won't be worth it. But in many cases it will be and that will need regulations.
Well here's something that those tea-partiers and libertarians don't want to hear.
The "R" word. REGULATION
Unless you want to live in Somalia, you should realize that there IS an important role for government beyond just self-defense and essential services (like police, fire, waste management). MARKETS need to be REGULATED, with binding rules and penalties for the offenders.
Don't take it from me, just read up on Adam Smith who called it "The Tragedy of the Commons". (If you don't know who he is, may I suggest you take a basic class in Economics? Hint: he's not a friend of Karl Max).
Of course Mr. Smith was writing about a simpler time in the18th century; the "commons" he was referring to was that used by grazing cows. So in our MUCH more compex world, it stands to reason that we need a MUCH more sophisticated regulatory system to prevent people like Enron (remember them?) and more recently, investment banks and rating agencies (paid by the people they rate!) from gaming the system. In addition, since more of our commerce is going on-line (yay for shopping in our bathrobes!) regulation needs to follow.
Unfortunately Romney and crew (who benefit the most from the lack of regulation) are going to try to convince you otherwise. For example they really don't want to restrict the ability of billionaires to dominate elections with their money (alright I guess if you're a billionaire, I'm not. Welcome to the 1920s, age of the robber barons). Also, as slashdotters well know, they really don't want to cut down on a corporation's right to regulate Internet traffic (bye bye net neutrality).
I'd tell you how much he's personally benefitted but he doesn't seem to be disposed to releasing his financial records. Still that hasn't kept some forensic analysis of what he has released from turning up some interesting things:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/business/in-romneys-tax-return-clues-in-foreign-taxes.html?ref=politics
By that I mean, they are like slashdotters (kinda geeky). Especially the foreman (also, not mentioned, is the claim he was a juror on several civil trials previously and has a couple of kids).
(Here's some commentary from Reuters and CNet. Also remember, BOTH APPLE AND SAMSUNG VETTED THEM, and were able to remove whomever they wanted; I understand Apple got rid of a Google employee).
Reuters and CNet have interviewed members of the Apple / Samsung patent trial jury who awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages over patent infringement claims against Samsung.
Reuters spoke with jury foreman Velvin Hogan who explained that they found Apple's arguments persuasive about the need to protect innovation. Furthermore, Hogan says it was "absolutely" clear based on Samsung executive testimony that the infringement was purposeful.
In the CNet interview with another Apple v. Samsung juror, Manuel Ilagan reiterated that it was "clear there was infringement". When asked for specifics, he said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."
Both jurors claim that their decision was deliberate and not rushed. According to Ilagan, the process was helped by the experience within the jury pool. Hogan, the jury foreman, had previously worked as an engineer and holds a patent himself. Meanwhile, others on the jury were said to also have engineering and legal experience.
In determining the award amount, Hogan reports that they felt Apple's demands of $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high", especially taking into account the uncertainty in Apple's ability to have sold significantly more iPhones due to component supply constraints. That said, Hogan told Reuters they did want a send a message.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.
Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his.
Hogan said he worked in the computer hard-drive industry for 35 years at companies including Memorex Corp., Colorado- based Storage Technology Corp. and Massachusetts-based Digital Equipment Corp.
“If there is one juror who seems more clearly knowledgeable than the others, the jury will often look to that person to help them work through the issues, and perhaps elect him foreman,” Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School Professor, said yesterday in an interview.
The jury in federal court in San Jose, California, also included a mechanical engineer, an aspiring software engineer and a woman who worked for National Semiconductor Corp. While the interests and professional backgrounds of those jurors reflect the Silicon Valley pool from which the panel was drawn, another juror works at a cycling shop and one panelist didn’t go to college and works in construction, according to court transcripts. Seven of the nine panelists said they had never served on a jury before.
Considering that Samsung, just ONE CONGLOMERATE, generates 20% of the entire country of Korea's GDP, I hardly think the judge(s) would be capable of being impartial.
Korean's are quite "feisty" (I've got some blood). I've been in numerous protests in Seoul where students would fight the police for days over some perceived fault by the U.S. Demonstrations by striking workers quickly become violent.
... from his buddy Donald Trump who recently claimed:
“Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism spread shots over long period and watch positive result.”
That's almost as bad as Akins "legitimate rape" comment (note: Romney's running mate co-authored the anti-abortion bill by the Republicans.). If you think this thinking is restricted to "just" a potential senator and vice-president please note the Republican platform REMOVED the clause allowing for abortions in case of Rape or Incest.
Judge them not (just) by what they say but what they do.
From the Samsung posting...
By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.
Thinks Evolution is just a theory
Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy
Thinks Obama is a socialist
Thinks Obama is a muslim
Thinks Obama was not born in the United States
*New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge)
*NEW* THINKS VACCINES CAUSES AUTISM (DONALD TRUMP)
*New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform)
Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do
Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions
Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives
Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple
So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.
I'm sure you've seen this (but if you haven't it's pretty funny). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YciM_54HzZk
At about 1:04 they talk about the Samsung "Smart Tutors". I thought this was part of the parody! Now I'm wondering how much of the rest of the video is true.
By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.
Thinks Evolution is just a theory
Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy
Thinks Obama is a socialist
Thinks Obama is a muslim
Thinks Obama was not born in the United States
*New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge)
*New* Thinks vaccines cause autism (Donald Trump)
*New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform)
Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do
Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions
Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives
Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple
So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.
"Yang has made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit" for Samsung
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/samsung-says-it-patented-iphones-best-features-before-apple/
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2122
Also, as far as prior art goes, when the New York Times asked a bunch of futurists what they would propose for the time capsule they were building for the year 2000 (this was for the millenial issue), Jaron Lanier (I think) suggested that information be DNA encoded and put into cockroaches. The thinking was that they were indestructible and still be ubiquitous in a thousand years.
No mechanism for preventing copying errors was described though so it would likely be like that game of "telephone" where each person orally conveys to the next a message but many many times (worse). How many cockroach generations would there be in a thousand years? Also the radioactivity from the Armageddon(s) would likely speed up mutations!
The government here is afraid that its hold on power is weak and that it lacks/is losing legitimacy. After the Vietnam war of course, the government was all powerful and seen as the victorious savior of the country (against the world's greatest power no less!).
Now, more than a generation later, with a youthful population that was mostly born after the war those memories are fading.
So the government mainly tries to keep things stable while it quietly plunders (through corruption) the country. It tries to defuse tensions by being very tentative with its actions; when some farmers killed some police who were reappropriating their land, the central government first hauled the local police/officials into court to charge them with illegal trespass (or something like that). Then they got the farmers. Laws are usually first proposed (I think) and then, depending on the reaction, implemented (or not). It can make for a confusing regulatory situation.
This of course, is very unlike China which rules with an iron fist. They put down a huge number of violent "incidents" (protests involving more than 500 people) every year. This allows them to push through projects at a mindboggling speed (need a neighborhood cleared for a highway or polluting factory? No problem!) The stakes are very very high in China and they're playing for keeps.
Getting back to the Vietnamese government: censorship is done out of insecurity that it will allow enough people to mass together (I guess this is always the case). Their blocking of some social media though is surprisingly weak, many Vietnamese friends I know use Facebook and access YouTube constantly, so there doesn't seem to be a "Great Firewall of Vietnam". Then again due to rising prosperity tensions weren't too bad(?) so maybe they haven't needed to really enforce it (these sites have been blocked from time to time). So actually I don't think censorship is as bad, as say China. (See below the post about indirect criticism of the government on traditional media).
Unfortunately for the government, the economy is really tanking now and they don't seem to have an external enemy they can focus the public's attention on. Their one great international dispute is with China over the Spratly and Paracell Islands (and the rest of the "South China" sea). However, unlike their previous war with China in the 70s, they are going to their heads handed back to them on a platter if they escalate this militarily (the Chinese are now, by far, the dominant regional military power).
With a very large gap between rich and poor (I see Rolls Royces, Bentlys and Maybachs here which, after tax can cost up to a million US in a country with a per cap income of about 1K per year), and a depressed economy, the government may welll start to really censor social media.
A long long time ago when Senator John Kerry was running for president, I was at a small event in Los Angeles.
In front of some local media, I confronted him about his "hockey goal" ad in which he (dressed as a goal keeper) said he would protect against Japanese imports. I said his ad (and the tone of his campaign) was contributing to the recent spike in anti-Asian American violence around the country (I'm Asian American).
He said he, of course, didn't mean for it to be construed that way and didn't mean to stigmatize hard working Asian Americans blah, blah. After that I don't think the ad was pulled or altered. However, I DID notice he would, when speaking about Asian imports, would often make a distinction between Asian competitors overseas and Asian citizens at home. Yay!
Even so I wholeheartedly agree that many politicians are lying, scheming scumbags only out for themselves. However censorship in the U.S. compared to some other countries? Give me a break. You're probably one of those people who like arguing for the sake of arguing and make the Internet (and the world) a miserable place to be in. Go away or become a lawyer.
... there used to be a product called "Desktape" made by a company called Optima Software.
Basically it kept a cached (on the system drive) directory listing of all the files on the tape, and then made a (virtual) disk using that directory which was mounted on the desktop (hence the name). The user would perform file transfers with this "disk" in much the same way as he would a real disk, he could copy files to and from it by dragging and dropping, similarly erasing or copying over files. Note that I said file transfers; direct random access to this "disk", while possible, were strongly recommended against because the tape would seek to one block, then seek to the next etc. so, for example, launching an application from the tape was ill-advised. Anyway, when the tape was ejected, the directory would be updated on the tape.
Still it was great because it made backing up very simple (no special utility to run) and this disk would behave just like a real disk so that you could run regular disk utilities on it like "Virtual Disk" (which kept searchable online copies of directory listings of offline volumes).
The software was hardware agnostic which means it could work with a variety of tape drives so maybe it would work with LTO. Alas, the software only ran on pre-OS X Macintoshes and the company is long gone. I would dearly love it if someone could revive this software and make it work with a "modern" OS! Can't someone buy the IP of this company?, surely the development (patents?) is worth something. (I wish there was some sort of law saying that abandoned software like this would, after 5 years, be put in the public domain; of course for this to work the source code would have to be continually archived at, say, the Library of Congress in case of sudden bankruptcy. Not too feasible.)
Fellow Nerds!
If you just spend a minute registering, WE CAN GET THIS DONE! I mean how many slashdotters are going to see this article and say: "I want one!"
I used my slashdot name and password, it was easier that way.
I wonder if groupon(?) would put together some sort of discount for purchasing these.
(Classic SMBC cartoon)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1917
I know this is a fault of the movie, not the paper, but there aren't any asteroids 1000 km in diameter (Ceres is just a little bit smaller).
The only way that the movie could be even remotely plausible would be if this were an extra-solar body coming from interstellar space. Otherwise it would have been detected centuries ago. (Actually, I think the movie indicated something like this). It would also probably be traveling at a high rate of speed since it would have been dropped almost all the way down the Sun's gravity well.
Still, such a large object would have likely been detected months, if not years (decades)? before impact; even it it were coal black. (I believe the large nightly deep sky surveys would've caught it way in advance). Astronomers have recently been finding much smaller objects way beyond the orbit of Pluto; even if headed directly headed to earth they would take more than a century to get here. But since that would've allowed NASA to train its astronauts how to use the drilling gear used by Bruce Willis et al. the writers made the time very short (I think it was 14 days).
Far more likely would be the scenario in "Deep Impact" a much more scientifically accurate (boring?) movie. Here the asteroid was only about 10 km or so in diameter, or less than a millionth the size (volume, mass) of the one in "Armageddon". Also, I think, they intercepted it deeper in space and were just trying to deflect it, so a realistically sized nuke would have been able to do the job. And they carried more than one! (So no super heroics requiring Bruce to stay behind).
Obviously the size and speed of the asteroid in "Armageddon" was only to impress the audience; "Texas-sized is a lot more awesome than "Manhattan-sized". (Both would've been "ELE"- Extinction Level Events). The only possible way any realistically sized nuke (remember, those 1950s super H-Bombs were BIG, I don't think the very largest could be carried by plane), could do the job described in the film would be if the asteroid was shaped like a bow tie and the bomb placed in the fragile center (yes underground would also be important). Oh, and it should be (rapidly?) spinning to counteract its own self-gravity so that it would fly apart (and also perhaps be structurally weaker).**
I seem to remember there being something in the movie about it being shaped like this (not spinning though). The writers evidently sought to make their story just a little more plausible by adding even more implausibility to it. So what else is new (in Hollywood)?
*I don't know if any of the recently found Kuiper belt objects are larger, Ceres was the largest asteroid listed in Wikipedia.
** Actually, if the asteroid WAS in some sort of bow-tie or dumbbell kind of shape, it MUST have been spinning. Otherwise it would've collapsed under its own weight into a (rough) sphere.
I believe it was written by Isaac Asimov and resulted in the resource consuming project (I'm not sure if it was the preservation of the last animals) being approved not because the project was important but because it was important to keep people thinking differently.
Or something like that.
In the U.S. the conservative political party (the ones opposed to doing anything about this) is called the Republicans.
By and large they live in the center and southern parts of the country, the parts most affected by the heat.
So, in a sense, they are burning in the Hell they themselves have created. Unfortunately the rest of the world is also suffering.
For those blessed with living near JPL in Southern CA, there usually is a big event at Pasadena City College (where I viewed a few previous landings). I think there are very knowledgeable speakers from JPL who are usually there (along with the media). Maybe this was one of the suggestions in the link posted above, I couldn't access the site.
JPL by the way has a great series of monthly(?) free to the public lectures on its various deep space programs, often given by the lead investigator! A great way of nerding out.