[K.I.L.E.R]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110902204.html

How the hell did they do this?
We don't have any gravity generating devices that work on a single vector.

WTF?
Explain please.

[BlueTsunami]

This is the most hair brained idea i've ever seen.

[Joe DeFuria]

How did they do what? All mass will exert a gravitational pull on another mass.

The only apparent question with this scheme would be getting the mass to the asteroid and up to speed.

[Fodder]

If anyone's read Asimov's Nemesis he proposes this exact method.

[BlueTsunami]

Would they have to manage the rocket for the next 20 (or the majority of) years? Also, will the mass of the spacecraft itself be able to exert enough pull on the comet to move the trajectory of the comet? I think i'm missing something on how this will all play out....

O_o

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by BlueTsunami

Would they have to manage the rocket for the next 20 (or the majority of) years? Also, will the mass of the spacecraft itself be able to exert enough pull on the comet to move the trajectory of the comet? I think i'm missing something on how this will all play out....

O_o

I think the idea is to make very minute changes that then become large distances in the bigger playground of space (and time). If you detonated a large nuke near an astroid and you observed it from close it would look like nothing changed. However, over a distance of one hundred million kilometers the vector will have changed sufficiently for it to now miss a small target such as Earth.

Once the "rocket" is in synchronized orbit with the mass that needs adjusting it should not need any management. That's the beauty of this. Once the mass is there the laws of the Universe play themselves out. No computer to break down and cause it to fail after the synchronization phase (which Murphy therefore states will be the time this does, indeed, fail). You are also going to need a substantial mass. Might be very costly to launch.

The problem here is that this requires early detection and some astroids have crept up on us and missed us by a hair (in space terms) before anyone knew they were there. Another geneal problem is the gravitational pull of Earth itself. Because it want's to attract the astroid ("Bad Earth! Naughty planet! Stop doing that!") you actually have a larger target than the width of the planet. You can imagine this as expanding the planet to adjust for its gravitation. Therefore, it would seem to be a weakness of this method as it needs to act over a long period of time as there must be an optimal point where changes in orbit are most significant. (well, duh, concentrating the work over 20 years into a one second blast would obviously be better..just stating the obvious here).

[BlueTsunami]

Originally Posted by wireframe

I think the idea is to make very minute changes that then become large distances in the bigger playground of space (and time). If you detonated a large nuke near an astroid and you observed it from close it would look like nothing changed. However, over a distance of one hundred million kilometers the vector will have changed sufficiently for it to now miss a small target such as Earth.

Once the "rocket" is in synchronized orbit with the mass that needs adjusting it should not need any management. That's the beauty of this. Once the mass is there the laws of the Universe play themselves out. No computer to break down and cause it to fail after the synchronization phase (which Murphy therefore states will be the time this does, indeed, fail). You are also going to need a substantial mass. Might be very costly to launch.

The problem here is that this requires early detection and some astroids have crept up on us and missed us by a hair (in space terms) before anyone knew they were there. Another geneal problem is the gravitational pull of Earth itself. Because it want's to attract the astroid ("Bad Earth! Naughty planet! Stop doing that!") you actually have a larger target than the width of the planet. You can imagine this as expanding the planet to adjust for its gravitation. Therefore, it would seem to be a weakness of this method as it needs to act over a long period of time as there must be an optimal point where changes in orbit are most significant. (well, duh, concentrating the work over 20 years into a one second blast would obviously be better..just stating the obvious here).

Thanks for the explanation!

So all in all manufacturing an object with enough mass to effect the Comet is what it comes down to. Sounds plausible but what kinda scares me is how seriously NASA is taking this. This comet must be a real threat to Earth.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by BlueTsunami

So all in all manufacturing an object with enough mass to effect the Comet is what it comes down to. Sounds plausible but what kinda scares me is how seriously NASA is taking this. This comet must be a real threat to Earth.

Well, any mass will do, it will just take more time to do the work, just like how distant planets in our solar system are acting upon us, but the forces are so small as to be negligible in periods of time we consider significant.

BTW, there is an interesting thread about shooting a bullet into water in this forum (Mythbusters). That has a lot in common with a comet or astroid entering the Earth's atmosphere and I think it might be interesting to look at a theory to shape an astroid into "the worst kind of bullet."

[K.I.L.E.R]

I thought the chance of it hitting us in 1 in 38 by 2029?

[Simon F]

Originally Posted by Fodder

If anyone's read Asimov's Nemesis he proposes this exact method.

I've read a lot of his other work (when I was about 10 or 11) but I haven't seen that. I must see if I can get hold of it somewhere.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by Simon F

I've read a lot of his other work (when I was about 10 or 11) but I haven't seen that. I must see if I can get hold of it somewhere.

It wouldn't be right if you didn't also read Arthur C Clarke's "Hammer of God."

[Xenus]

I think I've read that one. I've read a lot of Asimov to but mostly the Foundation Series and it's off shoots.

[bloodbob]

OMG god invented a tractor beam its called the world and its attracting asteroids to earth.

Fecking calling gravity a tractor beam.. someone should be stuck between a tractor beam and a 10 pound weight.

[PC-Engine]

What a stupid idea. There are lots of problems with this idea not to mention easier and cheaper ways of getting to the same end result.

[LunchBox]

would this pave the way for NSA to make a deathstar???

[LunchBox]

^
i meant NASA...

boo to not being able to edit

[rabidrabbit]

LunchBox, I was thinking the same thing!
Not many people know, but it's been often wondered why it took so long for the Empire to build the Deathstar v.1.0.
Answer: They didn't have the tractor beam technology ready until sometime between episodes III - IV.
You didn't see tractor beams being used in Ep.I-III, did you. That's because not until the massive resources put into military technology by the empire were they able build tractor beams.
Interestingly enough, repulsion technology was already widely used during Ep.I-III. One might think making a tractor beam would be just "reversing" a repulsory field, but maybe it's not that simple.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by rabidrabbit

LunchBox, I was thinking the same thing!
Not many people know, but it's been often wondered why it took so long for the Empire to build the Deathstar v.1.0.
Answer: They didn't have the tractor beam technology ready until sometime between episodes III - IV.
You didn't see tractor beams being used in Ep.I-III, did you. That's because not until the massive resources put into military technology by the empire were they able build tractor beams.
Interestingly enough, repulsion technology was already widely used during Ep.I-III. One might think making a tractor beam would be just "reversing" a repulsory field, but maybe it's not that simple.

You were paying attention during these movies?!

[rabidrabbit]

Very much so, and several times.
I've seen the IV-VI tens of times, the I-III less. but plan to view them at least once a year.

To clarify, tractor beams of couse made moving and assembling all those structures easier and faster, whereas before they used the enslaved Geonosians as buiders (flying creatures that were the architects of the Death Star)

[MuFu]

Are they recruiting super-fat astronauts especially for this mission?

[PC-Engine]

Originally Posted by MuFu

Are they recruiting super-fat astronauts especially for this mission?

Yep, especially if their name is Jabba.

[rabidrabbit]

Did Jabba ever get off the planet Tatooine?

[PC-Engine]

Originally Posted by rabidrabbit

Did Jabba ever get off the planet Tatooine?

No he was too fat. He couldn't overcome gravity.

[MuFu]

He just spread out over a large area, like a badly cooked flan.

[LunchBox]

Originally Posted by rabidrabbit

LunchBox, I was thinking the same thing!
Not many people know, but it's been often wondered why it took so long for the Empire to build the Deathstar v.1.0.
Answer: They didn't have the tractor beam technology ready until sometime between episodes III - IV.
You didn't see tractor beams being used in Ep.I-III, did you. That's because not until the massive resources put into military technology by the empire were they able build tractor beams.
Interestingly enough, repulsion technology was already widely used during Ep.I-III. One might think making a tractor beam would be just "reversing" a repulsory field, but maybe it's not that simple.

I totally agree