Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well putting it off course would be the best. Aiming for shattering might leave the possibility for harmful sized chunks to still be around, though less than if the whole thing hit.

A particularly large asteroid would be tougher to steer off course, but also more difficult to break into harmless chunks.

Read Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven. Not to spoil too much, but a comet breaks into chunks and then hits the Earth. Potentially worse than a single impact as it spreads the damage around the whole planet instead of concentrating it on one spot.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well putting it off course would be the best. Aiming for shattering might leave the possibility for harmful sized chunks to still be around, though less than if the whole thing hit.

A particularly large asteroid would be tougher to steer off course, but also more difficult to break into harmless chunks.

Read Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven. Not to spoil too much, but a comet breaks into chunks and then hits the Earth. Potentially worse than a single impact as it spreads the damage around the whole planet instead of concentrating it on one spot.

Only if each chunk is itself sizable enough to cause damage. And multiple chunks is always going to be better than a single large chunk. Multiple small chunks, a few cities and countries have some major damage. One large chunk, 90% of humanity wiped out and we're back to the stone age.

Concentrating in one spot is definitely way worse than spreading it out. Anything which still causes massive global damage after separating into chunks would be total extinction if it hit us in one chunk.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well putting it off course would be the best. Aiming for shattering might leave the possibility for harmful sized chunks to still be around, though less than if the whole thing hit.

A particularly large asteroid would be tougher to steer off course, but also more difficult to break into harmless chunks.

Read Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven. Not to spoil too much, but a comet breaks into chunks and then hits the Earth. Potentially worse than a single impact as it spreads the damage around the whole planet instead of concentrating it on one spot.

Only if each chunk is itself sizable enough to cause damage. And multiple chunks is always going to be better than a single large chunk. Multiple small chunks, a few cities and countries have some major damage. One large chunk, 90% of humanity wiped out and we're back to the stone age.

Concentrating in one spot is definitely way worse than spreading it out. Anything which still causes massive global damage after separating into chunks would be total extinction if it hit us in one chunk.

This is true, but it pays to explain why.

1. Breaking up the asteroid means greatly increasing the surface area of the pieces. as a good deal of the asteroid will vapourize on atmospheric entry having fewer larger pieces means more hits the ground.

2. Even a failed strike might slow down the asteroid reducing its kinetic energy, a broken up asteroid will lose kinetic energy as a whole.

3. Smaller fragments will be utterly vapourized and not reach landfall.

4. Fragments are 70% likely to hit water, any asteroid smaller than the water is deep will be at least partly contained. This is still very bad news, but no longer catastrophic.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well putting it off course would be the best. Aiming for shattering might leave the possibility for harmful sized chunks to still be around, though less than if the whole thing hit.

A particularly large asteroid would be tougher to steer off course, but also more difficult to break into harmless chunks.

Read Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven. Not to spoil too much, but a comet breaks into chunks and then hits the Earth. Potentially worse than a single impact as it spreads the damage around the whole planet instead of concentrating it on one spot.

Only if each chunk is itself sizable enough to cause damage. And multiple chunks is always going to be better than a single large chunk. Multiple small chunks, a few cities and countries have some major damage. One large chunk, 90% of humanity wiped out and we're back to the stone age.

Concentrating in one spot is definitely way worse than spreading it out. Anything which still causes massive global damage after separating into chunks would be total extinction if it hit us in one chunk.

Do you have an astrophysics degree? You are speaking with an air of authority here.

Nah, its just knowing a little bit about how asteroids and meteors act.

As objects fall through the atmosphere, they get heated up by the friction and vaporized. An object can only hit the ground if its mass is sufficiently large or durable enough to withstand the friction and heat.

So really its simple logic to determine that if you blow a chunk which is large enough to cause damage into smaller chunks you can reduce or eliminate the danger.

There is also a website which covers meteorite impact estimates you can look at.,

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/

Have fun pulverising the earth.

 Orlanth wrote:
There is also a website which covers meteorite impact estimates you can look at.,

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/

Have fun pulverising the earth.

This is honestly more fun than the last AAA game I bought

Use the calculator rather than Impact Earth, same results but no load screens

I just thought it may be worth mentioning that the effects of a nuclear device which are so devastating on earth is because there is an atmosphere.
A thermo-nuclear device (hints in the name) produces vast amounts of heat which causes extreme effects on the gasses around them and the effects we see.

EDIT: So the best a nuke will do is heat it up a bit on one side.