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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.

Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy. The goal with nuking an asteroid is to deflect it so that it misses entirely. If you are able to catch it far enough out it only takes a very tiny nudge to turn a direct hit into a clean miss.

To an extent. Shattering something into smaller parts will make those parts disintegrate more rapidly in the atmosphere, causing a hell of a meteor shower light show rather than actually slamming into the ground with the strength of several nuclear bombs. There's still the same amount of energy being dumped, but it's much more distributed and at a higher altitude.

Full points for thinking of something like this. It just would never even have occurred to me. The details of the idea don't work out, but full credit for the lateral thinking.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.

Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy.

But that energy is spread over a larger area and the surface area that comes in contact with the atmosphere is greater meaning the atmosphere can burn off even more energy. If you concentrate energy on a single location vs many impact sites it'll tend to do more damage and have more penetrating power.

Obviously not getting hit at all is ideal, but it's definitely better to get hit with many small pieces that have the same total kinetic energy than one big bastard hogging all the kinetic energy to itself.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.

Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy.

But that energy is spread over a larger area and the surface area that comes in contact with the atmosphere is greater meaning the atmosphere can burn off even more energy. If you concentrate energy on a single location vs many impact sites it'll tend to do more damage and have more penetrating power.

Obviously not getting hit at all is ideal, but it's definitely better to get hit with many small pieces that have the same total kinetic energy than one big bastard hogging all the kinetic energy to itself.

But then the issue is trying to actually shatter an asteroid into small enough pieces for that to happen is very difficult to impossible depending on what the asteroid is made of.

A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.

Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy.

But that energy is spread over a larger area and the surface area that comes in contact with the atmosphere is greater meaning the atmosphere can burn off even more energy. If you concentrate energy on a single location vs many impact sites it'll tend to do more damage and have more penetrating power.

Obviously not getting hit at all is ideal, but it's definitely better to get hit with many small pieces that have the same total kinetic energy than one big bastard hogging all the kinetic energy to itself.

But then the issue is trying to actually shatter an asteroid into small enough pieces for that to happen is very difficult to impossible depending on what the asteroid is made of.

A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.

Even if you don't break it in to small enough pieces to completely burn up in the atmosphere breaking it up into a handful of smaller pieces may be enough to prevent completely wiping out humanity. Depending on the size of the original of course, at some point you reach a size which has enough energy to wipe stuff out even if you break it up.

But if you say a 30 billion ton asteroid is enough to wipe out humanity (I don't know if it is or not) that doesn't mean that three 10 billion ton asteroids are also enough to wipe out humanity even though they have the same energy. The same way that just because a 75mm anti tank round can destroy a tank doesn't mean the same energy worth of 40mm rounds will also destroy a tank.

It's not just about raw energy, it's where that energy is directed and how well it's directed. I guess at some point an asteroid would reach a sufficient size that breaking it in to smaller pieces would make things even worse (think cluster bomb vs bunker buster).

Same with hurricane vs nuclear bomb, it's not just a matter of raw energy.

Exactly. Breaking an asteroid up would lessen the overall damage it causes to earth. Depending on it's size, you might use several bombs too. Even if just to have a failsafe.

2-3 nukes placed at strategic points on an asteroid could easily handle something even several kilometers across. Especially if any of them were drilled below the surface.

Any asteroid large enough to where breaking it apart is going to make the damage worse is large enough to wipe us out many times over, and might be too large to deflect. So we're extra screwed in that case.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.

I figure it would be less Solid iron lump and more Hematite. still dense, still probably very strong.

ether way id throw nukes at it and deal with bird shot over a deer slug.

rather deal with a several city blocks blowing up vs half a state.

 Desubot wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.

I figure it would be less Solid iron lump and more Hematite. still dense, still probably very strong.

ether way id throw nukes at it and deal with bird shot over a deer slug.

rather deal with a several city blocks blowing up vs half a state.

More like wide spread, but overall minor devastation vs end of the world. An asteroid a couple kilometers in diameter is appocalyptic levels of destruction. World wide crop failure from blocked sunlight for decades. Whatever country(s) are unlucky to suffer direct impact are basically destroyed. If it hits the ocean we have the largest tsunami ever recorded which wipes out most of the world's coastlines.

The main advantage of blowing up an asteroid is that while the impact area is still boned, you change an extension event into a survivable event. Yes, the impact area is still boned but at least the rest of the planet will survive.

 curran12 wrote:
Probably not a very pleasant ride for the passengers. But modern airliners are super durable and flexible. Here's a photo of a 787 wing stress test:


http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Boeing-787-Ultimate-Load-Wing-Test-Completed-2.jpg

Wow, that's pretty amazing.

Apparently there is also a category 3 coming up called Jose. 950klm from little Antilles

I remember Hurricane Andrew in '92...

Holy crap Irma!


Andrews is the smaller one...

Wow, that's a huge size difference. Looks like twice the surface area.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But then the issue is trying to actually shatter an asteroid into small enough pieces for that to happen is very difficult to impossible depending on what the asteroid is made of.

A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.

And some asteroids have been identified as not being solid at all, but more porous like a sponge. A nuclear impact would likely be absorbed without causing a change in direction or a break up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I remember Hurricane Andrew in '92...


Andrews is the smaller one...

Holy crap. Stay safe everyone.

 whembly wrote:

Holy crap Irma!

Irmagod!

Tell me about it.
I was going to ride this thing out, but the latest track has the eye wall literally going over my house.
May have to go to a shelter for this one.

How close is it? Is there still time to jump in the car and drive to Tennessee for a couple days or something? Or are the roads just gridlock with people already trying that?

 Necros wrote:
How close is it? Is there still time to jump in the car and drive to Tennessee for a couple days or something? Or are the roads just gridlock with people already trying that?

My cousin's fam left southern miami a few days ago... and it was nearly gridlock all they way north till the border.

So, it seems that many saw that monster and decided for a vacay early. Not sure what's it like now.

Most theme parks are starting to shut down already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seems okay-ish:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Florida/@29.2021892,-83.2158839,8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x88c1766591562abf:0xf72e13d35bc74ed0!8m2!3d27.6648274!4d-81.5157535!5m1!1e1

Also, the tolls are free now, and that the Governor ordered that you can drive on both shoulders (more driving lanes).

 whembly wrote:

 Necros wrote:
How close is it? Is there still time to jump in the car and drive to Tennessee for a couple days or something? Or are the roads just gridlock with people already trying that?

My cousin's fam left southern miami a few days ago... and it was nearly gridlock all they way north till the border.

So, it seems that many saw that monster and decided for a vacay early. Not sure what's it like now.

Most theme parks are starting to shut down already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seems okay-ish:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Florida/@29.2021892,-83.2158839,8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x88c1766591562abf:0xf72e13d35bc74ed0!8m2!3d27.6648274!4d-81.5157535!5m1!1e1

Also, the tolls are free now, and that the Governor ordered that you can drive on both shoulders (more driving lanes).

Probably a good idea to get out of the DANGER ZONE.

board it up take your most irreplaceable things. grab your minis and get out.

even if the storm some how wiffs its probably not worth staying.

pretty cool to open up the roads like that.

Look at dis...

Woah momma... If I saw this, my ass is heading to the mid-west!

 Desubot wrote:
grab your minis and get out.

That's pretty much all I would do if it were me. Trouble is it would take me like 4 days to pack everything up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traffic looks OK though. I'd get out while I can if you still can.

Last big hurricane we had up here was Sandy. It was real bad, can't imagine one bigger. Here in Philly we lost power for a week, which is nothing compared to some friends and family who were along the jersey shore.

Looking at google maps traffic, it looks like the 75 and 95 have slow traffic for several hundred miles going north from southern florida all the way up through to Atlanta and South Carolina...though not totally jammed...yet.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Looking at google maps traffic, it looks like the 75 and 95 have slow traffic for several hundred miles going north from southern florida all the way up through to Atlanta and South Carolina...though not totally jammed...yet.

Wait till those last second people.

 Desubot wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.

I figure it would be less Solid iron lump and more Hematite. still dense, still probably very strong.

ether way id throw nukes at it and deal with bird shot over a deer slug.

rather deal with a several city blocks blowing up vs half a state.

I think a bit of reality needs to be shown here and too many Armageddon films have been watched. A 2km diameter asteroid is something like 12bn tonnes (UK so 10^9) of rock. A nuke would scratch it not shatter it. You can see this from images of post nuclear explosions. The area round it is flattened but there is relatively little damage to any the rock formation (at the mineral level there will be some shocking near the blast site). The idea that you can lob a few nukes at an asteroid this big and turn it into a pile of small rubble pieces isn't based on reality. The only reason to send nukes after an asteroid is that if you hit it early enough you might give it enough of a nudge that it changes its orbit ever so slightly so that by the time it reaches the earth it misses by a few thousand kms.

Obviously you need to land an oil drilling crew on it first. That's just good science.

https://thinkprogress.org/limbaugh-to-evacuate-south-florida-after-claiming-irma-was-a-hoax-cb3fb5fb35b8/



well feth him -- once again.


Hope any and all dakkanauts etc etc are safe and sound.

A guy I recently started playing Player Unknown's Battleground with is going to ride it out. I suggested he should either get out or seek better shelter. I was laughed at and told to stay in the North.

lol Florida people

 reds8n wrote:
https://thinkprogress.org/limbaugh-to-evacuate-south-florida-after-claiming-irma-was-a-hoax-cb3fb5fb35b8/



well feth him -- once again.


Hope any and all dakkanauts etc etc are safe and sound.

I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh fans taking him at his word and refusing to evacuate. I'm a liberal, and this sure would stick it to me!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
A guy I recently started playing Player Unknown's Battleground with is going to ride it out. I suggested he should either get out or seek better shelter. I was laughed at and told to stay in the North.

lol Florida people

Yeah, we need mandatory evacuation warnings to make most of us leave. As of the 2pm forecast, looks like i'm right in the path, but up near Orlando. Irma may not even be major hurricane strength by the time it hits me.

I feel really sorry for the South Florida and Miami folk. I was in Broward during Andrew and Wilma. The cleanup is not fun. Even the hardiest Floridians admit this one is going to be really ugly.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
A guy I recently started playing Player Unknown's Battleground with is going to ride it out. I suggested he should either get out or seek better shelter. I was laughed at and told to stay in the North.

lol Florida people

Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.

im fairly sure in a bad situation the power gets shut off so its not like you can sit their and play games all day besides one of them hand held game boys.

that and painting miniatures but who has time for that