zapatos

It was in one of the links I provided and I mentioned it again on this page. What is the purpose of your snarky attitude?

Where and when was the bird photographed?

I don't know why you think we aren't preparing. We've been talking about actions that are being undertaken for a while now, including on this page.

Is that a particularly difficult path for us? As with every other threat in life.

The impact this discussion will have on the possibility of an impact is just about zero. Fortunately the people who can have an impact have been in discussions and taking action for years. We've been searching for and tracking Near Earth and other objects since 1947. Projects are funded and tests are being conducted around the world. We successfully impacted an object in 2022. Strategies have been developed, simulations have been run, and various countries are coordinating efforts. While we'd need at least a year's warning to intercept a threat at this time, the risk of anything significant happening in the near term is also very small. Edit: No idea what is going on with the editor. Exactly. We're fine.

The impact this discussion will have on the possibility of an impact is just about zero. Fortunately the people who can have an impact have been in discussions and taking action for years.

Can you walk us through the reasoning you used to arrive at that number. Why wouldn't, say, 10 million, 500 million or 2 billion be sufficient?

I question whether or not that would that be more precise and adjustable than a gravity tractor. Center of gravity of the asteroid to center of gravity of the tractor is rather precise, as would be the ability to move the tractor relative to the asteroid.

(Note: I may be mistaken but I don't believe ChatGPT is allowed on this site for use as a citation. ) But that is neither here nor there as I agree a gravity tractor needs more time to achieve results. I am actually more interested in your claim that a gravity tractor requires more engineering and cost than exploding a nuke. While the results you'd achieve with a gravity tractor are well understood, knowing the size of a nuke to use, the altitude to explode above (or on) the asteroid, knowing the composition of the asteroid so that predictions of the result can be made, etc., may require extensive time and effort.

Seems self evident.

No. I never said we should. Citation?

Don't know.

Sperm first - 600 million years ago Eggs second - 300 million years ago Chickens third - less than 10,000 years ago

I would think they'd both be put into action at roughly the same time. That is, as soon as they arrive at the asteroid. While a direct strike vehicle wouldn't need to adjust course near the end of the trip and thus would arrive sooner, I don't know why that time would be significant. Why not? As soon as we spot the asteroid and determine it is a collision risk, don't we know rather precisely how much time we have? Only because of how it was constructed. It easily could have yielded more than 100 megatons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test

Just something I found on Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#:~:text=An object with a high,a spacecraft with the asteroid.

So now you are saying we DO have the time? Aren't many small bombs the same as one large bomb? We can use 100 small or one large. Basically the same thing I believe.

Why don't we have time? Is there some asteroid we're about to collide with that I'm unaware of? This brings up a major concern of mine; how far away is safe enough to use nukes? Despite the talk of 'fine tuning' the use of nukes in this thread, I don't believe the words 'fine tuning' and 'nuclear weapons' go together. With a gravity tractor you have a pretty good idea how the asteroid will move, and it will all move in the same direction. If you use a nuclear weapon I feel like you run the risk of pieces of the asteroid moving in unanticipated ways. Perhaps if far enough away the risk is low enough, but if a gravity tractor would work, why introduce the risk of breaking the asteroid apart?

I don't know. You made the claim, that is why I was asking. I assume that either method is incredibly complex which means there are probably thousands of factors that must be addressed, all costing time and money. I couldn't possibly guess which method would cost more without any details of all those issues. I wouldn't even want to assume you need a "180 degree course change". Frankly I'd be shocked if we launched directly toward the asteroid in a straight line.

How much is the relative cost compared to a gravity tractor?

Perhaps it is just me but I cannot see where he has been exaggerating the dangers. Can you please show a specific statement he made that was an exaggeration so that we can dive down into the details and evaluate it?

Given that you asked for the citations then asked about their relevance, you can perhaps forgive Mordred for questioning your familiarity with the subject.

You have completely misread my comments. It is no wonder we are not getting anywhere.

NO ONE here is suggesting such a thing or displaying an unhinged fear of nukes. You seem to be arguing with some boogeyman rather than anyone participating in this thread.

When the shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry the debris field covered roughly 10,000 square miles. How do you account for the plutonium being contained on only a few acres? https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1805/about-how-far-was-debris-scattered-from-the-columbia-incident#:~:text=Roughly 400km (250 miles) long,so this is an estimate.

Then it is not an example of surviving reentry. I did not claim any nukes have fallen from orbit. To the best of my knowledge no nukes have ever entered orbit. I claimed that if plutonium fell from orbit that it could hit the ground..