Stunning NASA image from a spacecraft on its way to an asteroid shows Earth and the moon from three

If there's one thing which makes me realise that mankind is on self-destruct, it's reading garbage like that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...age-spacecraft-shows-Earth-3m-miles-away.html

 

If you want to be worried about other overly complicated ways for mankind to self-destruct, I'd look into this.



Biological weapons are quite potent too, but not very spectacular.

Sure, none of the above is likely to completely eradicate all of mankind when used, but wow, articles like the one you linked above are clearly up to the job.

 

Stop reading it then.

 

I just like to let 'em know now and again that somebody out here is onto them?

 

possum in his hidy hole inna backyard, Granny says, "Dat's right - we all gonna die!...

END OF THE WORLD: Empire State-sized asteroid is Earth-bound and NASA says we’re helpless
16 Mar.`18 - AN ASTEROID which is bigger than five football fields is on a collision course with Earth and there are no systems to protect us from the life-ending space rock.

 

Is it a complete lack of intellect or curiosity that smolders between your ears?

 

https://www.space.com/33616-asteroid-bennu-will-not-destroy-earth.html

 

The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor was not detected before impact and was about 30 times the power of Hiroshima.

It came in at a low angle and thus most of its energy was absorbed by the atmosphere when it blew, plus it hit a relatively remote area - two bits of total luck! A more vertical arrival over a population density ...

As waltky notes we need time to take action - maybe like a couple or three decades. The size and composition of these objects means that one strategy won't solve all these objects. Some are like iron. Some are like conglomerates of material that could just come apart. And, the "blow them up" strategy has problems.

Our current telescopes, etc., aren't particularly oriented to searching for small, near, dark objects. Today, amateurs are often the ones finding these things - if they are found at all.

 

I can think of five things which will finish us off long, long before that, and I haven't even had breakfast yet. lol In order of probability: over population-related disasters including water shortage and famine; wars (or just one big one? ); an unprecedented natural disaster, such as a planet-wide series of earthquakes; Armageddon; and last but not least, a global banking crisis the severity of which we've never seen before, and the concomitant ramifications of worldwide panic, deprivations of all kinds, and anarchy. The chance of us being wiped out like the poor bloody dinosaurs by an asteroid is a zillion-to-one shot, so tell NASA not to spend your tax dollars on it, and to think of some other way to waste them?? Actually, move Armageddon up to number two.

 

waltky - thanks, and I've just added to it?? lol Good to see you back, by the way.

 

Someone in NASA has obviously freaked out after watching Deep Impact?

 

Not a matter of if the earth will be hit, but when the earth will be hit. It is inevitable.

 

Believe it or not....most people do not get their science from movies or....as you do from YouTube.

 

YES,
AND
If you sit by the river long enough
you will see the body of your enemy float by.

It's all about "time".
Time and nonsense.

 

You're arguing that we should ignore this threat on the basis that there exists some other threat.

That's totally ridiculous.

We have hundreds of millions of people just in the USA. Suggesting we can't even bother to LOOK at a known existential threat makes no sense.

 

The Earth will be finished by an enormous Earth Quack, the huge underground Emo Duck slumbering and finally awakes to take vengeance for all other tasty Ducks served with Orange sause.

 

Not so; as I thought I made perfectly clear, I was putting them in the correct order of threat levels. Do you think that a rogue asteroid is the number one threat to mankind then?

 

I read somewhere that a small engine attatched to an asteroid, able to provide a constant counter vector over a long period of time would have far more effect at redirecting an asteroid away from collision than a nuke.

 

You said, "The chance of us being wiped out like the poor bloody dinosaurs by an asteroid is a zillion-to-one shot, so tell NASA not to spend your tax dollars on it, and to think of some other way to waste them??"

I said that the threat of asteroids is real and should be on the list, though not at the top. I also pointed out that having humanity wiped out is not the only level of risk we should be concerned about - noting that the recent event in Russia had the power of about 30 Hiroshima sized bombs and was small enough not to be detected by current levels of watchfulness.

Don't be tiring.

 

The phrase 'a zillion-to-one against' doesn't rule it out, merely suggests that the possibility of one big enough to justify preparing to nuke it as so unlikely as thinking it would be possible anyway - at least, only possible in movies like Deep Impact, and even with fictional licence they almost failed in the attempt; I daresay asteroids are striking our planet probably at the rate of at least one a year. As to the Russian one, I haven't heard about it. Where did you get the information of its power?

Seeing as you mention the word, I feel justified in saying that I find your gullibility tiring.

 

Why does this image make you think of human self destruction?

 

I'll bet scientists all over the world were hanging on the outcome of that movie, given the impact it would have on the direction of space flight today.


Chelyabinsk, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor).
26 to 33 times as much energy as that released from the atomic bomb detonated at Hiroshima.
Some 7,200 buildings in six cities across the region were damaged by the explosion's shock wave
They were lucky that it came in at a low angle and thus detonated at a relatively high altitude.

Tunguska, 1908 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event)
3 to 5 megatons (Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, so Tunguska was 200 Hiroshima sized bombs at the low end)
Uninhabited Siberia, so no known deaths.
Knocked down 830 square miles of trees.

 

How do you fuel it?

 

Biological weapons are the most potentially destructive weapons...period. More people have died from viruses and bacteria than all the wars and murders combined throughout history. The odds of a small group releasing polio, Spanish flu or any number of diseases is far higher and much deadlier than a nuke and much more cost effective as well.

 

I believe it was ion drive.