Coffee House Musing

The June, 2021, issue of Scientific American contained an article about protecting the Earth from asteroids and comets: Are We Doing Enough to Protect Earth from Asteroids? A central focus was the loss of the Arecibo radio telescope, our best detector of asteroids and comets this past December. The current goal is to find 90% of objects larger than 140 meters. A 20-meter asteroid exploded above Chelyabinsk Oblast in Russia in 2013, causing damage to buildings and many injuries due to broken glass and falling objects. There were no deaths.

The article mentions a number of methods for defense against asteroids or comets whose orbit will intersect ours at some future point, deflection receiving the most attention. Some of these you already mentioned:

• Gravity tractor. Park a very heavy spacecraft next to it for years, gradually changing its orbit. The article says this approach won't be available for a century of two but doesn't say why. It seems the simplest technologically. The only reason I could guess is the difficulty of lifting a heavy enough spacecraft into space, but that doesn't make sense either, because the spacecraft could be lifted into Earth orbit by multiple launches and assembled in space. Or we could park many lighter spacecraft near the asteroid/comet instead one heavy one.

• Vaporize material on the asteroid's surface causing it to push off into space and exerting a force on the asteroid/comet. This could be done by lasers or by mirrors deflecting the suns light or by painting a large part of the surface a dark color so it absorbs more heat from the sun.

• Slam a spacecraft into it, deflecting it off course.

• Nuclear blast. This is sufficiently violent that it introduces the possibility of break up into smaller pieces.

These solutions have a common problem: they require years of lead time. This article doesn't mention the PI possibility of Lubin and Cohen, but here's a link to the Lubin/Cohen article that appeared in Scientific American a week ago: Planetary Defense Is Good—but Is Planetary Offense Better? It claims the lead time for launch need only be hours for a small asteroid/comet and days for a larger one. The resulting "house-sized pieces" seem approximately the size of the Chelyabinsk meteor that caused so much damage and injury (though percentage-wise the damage and injury was very minor since it's a large population center of over a million), but that's still a much better outcome than the 50 meter asteroid that hit Tunguska back in 1908 which would likely have been catastrophic for the modern Chelyabinsk and killed at least thousands.

--Percy

These solutions have a common problem: they require years of lead time.

Maybe decades depending on the size and speed of the object.

The PI method is going to require years also. It has to be built, but more importantly it has to be tested. How many tests? How many designs?

If we want something that will penetrate the furthest, then depleted uranium would be the material of choice. I would think that penetrators combined with explosives could send shockwaves at frequencies that would pulverize it to gravel or even sand sized grains.

There has to be multiple tests on many different types of objects, because right now we barely know anything about the structure of possible impactors.

Would the energy from a really big impactor be transferred to the atmosphere, even if it is pulverized to sand, but still hits the Earth? This is kind of the scenario in the novel Seven Eves by Neal Stephenson.

I hope this idea is given a fast track but I can't imagine any country or organization doing anything. We are making no effort to mitigate the tsunami of human caused disasters that are right here looming where we can see and touch them. The Earth's ecosystems are collapsing and we've had decades of warnings and humanity is plugging their ears.

I do like the deflection approaches best because they leave the meteor/comet intact. Any breakup approach that leaves behind 50 meter fragments instead of 20 meter fragments ("Sorry to report that there was an undetected vein of weaker material running through the asteroid that caused breakup along different planes than originally planned.") that remain on the same course means we could get multiple catastrophic hits.

--Percy

George Norey, of Coast to Coast championed these catyclismic issues a decade ago.

Megan McCain supported him on the electrical pulse petition.

Megan was a true " maverick,"

Graham Hancock made a major push, in his book on the Mars "face ".

Keep pushing the issue.

Tanypteryx writes: We are making no effort to mitigate the tsunami of human-caused disasters that are right here looming where we can see and touch them. The Earth's ecosystems are collapsing and we've had decades of warnings and humanity is plugging their ears.

I'm noting that you understand that humans know what to do and yet do not address it. At work during my Smalltalk sessions with my customers, I mention that life has gone on pretty much stable and comfortable for many decades. I quip to them that if the Far Right is correct, we will have to deal with a spiritual apocalypse and if the secular intellectuals are right, it will be global warming and possibly other apocalyptic (or at best) societally changing events. I fear that people of either political ideology won't listen until it's too late.(Or if ever) I turn on the news less now.

Phat writes: I quip to them that if the Far Right is correct, we will have to deal with a spiritual apocalypse

Bullshit, but it has the advantage of being totally out of our control.

and if the secular intellectuals are right, it will be global warming and possibly other apocalyptic (or at best) societally changing events.

Do you doubt "if"?

But what do you think secularism has to do with it? Do you not understand that science is not secular?

I'm noting that you understand that humans know what to do and yet do not address it.

The humans aren't the problem. The problem is with the anti-humanist thoroughly unchristian Christians.

I quip to them that if the Far Right is correct, we will have to deal with a spiritual apocalypse and if the secular intellectuals are right, it will be global warming and possibly other apocalyptic (or at best) societally changing events.

And you thereby turn a solvable problem into a bullshit religious issue.

First of all, you are stereotyping Christians. (SOME not ALL)

Second of all, "bullshit religious issues" won't go away. Nor will religion being mixed with politics. Our challenge as critics and supporters is to find consensus.

First of all, you are stereotyping Christians.

Nah. nwr’s characterization of Christians as anti-humanist thoroughly unchristian Christians is quite accurate and does cover all of the myriad laundry-list of cults that is Christianity.

Our challenge as critics and supporters is to find consensus.

Our challenge is to strip the religious bullshit from every serious human endeavor. Our challenge is to stop the poison of religion from continuing to ravage the mind of the species.

"bullshit religious issues" won't go away. Nor will religion being mixed with politics.

Oh, but they will. All such fantasies come to an end in the light of reality. Ask the now unemployed volcano gods. Ask Zeus, if you can even find him these days.

Not long off is the day when you can opt to receive your daily horoscope, bible verse, and mini-crossword with your morning joe treating each as no more than a fun cultural artifact. Religion may not die right away but will be relegated to the same humorous quips we presently give astrology and children's games.

quote:

---

Your bible quote for today:

Nehemiah 3:3-4

3 The Fish Gate was rebuilt by the sons of Hassenaah. They laid its beams and put its doors and bolts and bars in place. 4 Meremoth son of Uriah, the son of Hakkoz, repaired the next section. Next to him Meshullam son of Berekiah, the son of Meshezabel, made repairs, and next to him Zadok son of Baana also made repairs.

To opt out of Daily Bible Quotes go to dbq/opt out/stop-this-shit

---

From there it can die quietly, unnoticed. Hallelujah.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Phat writes: Our challenge as critics and supporters is to find consensus.

It is impossible to find consensus when a whole population has been taught how to not think and to avoid reality or honesty and instead to worship and glorify fantasy and incomprehension.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

First of all, you are stereotyping Christians. (SOME not ALL)

Yes, what I said does not apply to many liberal Christians. But the conservative Christians usually deny that the liberal Christians are actually Christian. So I exaggerated, but only a little.

So I exaggerated, but only a little.

Which part was exaggerated?

Which part was exaggerated?

Looking back at what I wrote, I don't think I did exaggerate. Phat took me as saying something about all Christians. But I carefully avoided doing that.

Here's a link to an Atlantic article that describes the corruption we see in evangelical Christianity: The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart

Phat writes: I fear that people of either political ideology won't listen until it's too late.

As I've pointed out to you before, ideologies are for lazy thinkers - e.g. people who get their ideas from YouTube.

Ideologies are only part of the spectrum of thought. There are people who actually think about issues instead of just having knee-jerk reactions based on ideologies.

Ideologies are for those too lazy to even try to learn; but it does keep the Apologists, Snake Oil Salesmen and Carny Barkers phat and rich.