Home General Chat
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options

if it moves fuck with it!

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
we have just sent a missile to attack ...a comet.
smash into it. make a big hole in it.
it has been hurtling around undistubed by earths inhabitants for millions of years ...now we have to go and interfere ...
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats humans for you.....

    What's it to do with, high velocity impact tests?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    America probably thought it was allied with the middle east...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah heard this in the news. The NASA guys want to see what it's made of and maybe holds the secrets of the universe in it or something. It's also a test that the yanks are carrying out to see if it's possible to divert a comet and knowing the Yanks they'll manage to nudge this perfectly safe comet our way. :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah heard this in the news. The NASA guys want to see what it's made of and maybe holds the secrets of the universe in it or something. It's also a test that the yanks are carrying out to see if it's possible to divert a comet and knowing the Yanks they'll manage to nudge this perfectly safe comet our way. :rolleyes:

    I've read that we don't possess the capable fire power to destroy a comet, such as in the film Armageddon. Any attempts with nuclear devices would, at the most, fragment one big comet into a number of smaller fragments that would be even more devestating because they'd cause numerous impacts over the Earth.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the point of this comet-smasher is merely to enable scientists to find out the make up of the comets core...
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    :lol::lol: Thanks to the font I'm using, I read "comet" as "cornet"... Attacking a musical instrument with a missile, lol.

    I have mixed feelings about the real thing... One one hand it's destruction of something natural which should be a big no-no, but on the other hand it might give some interesting information... :chin:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how many peicres it will break into they know not ...trajectories for these pices then, unknown.
    if they fuck it up ...lets hope any damage they cuase is on american soil.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    saw this on the news last night myself, i'm sure they coulda put that X amount on millions of pounds to better use, don't you think
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    saw this on the news last night myself, i'm sure they coulda put that X amount on millions of pounds to better use, don't you think

    I'm all for this comet smasher actually, think it'll be pretty interesting to find out whether or not the theorised inards of the comet are the same as what they find...

    but then I've always been interested in astrophysics :yes:

    and plus, i dont think they're blowing it into little pieces, just smashing into it so they're nearer the core... I forget :chin:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Replicant wrote:
    and plus, i dont think they're blowing it into little pieces, QUOTE]not intentionaly no ...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    george bush moves


    argh
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Replicant wrote:
    and plus, i dont think they're blowing it into little pieces,
    not intentionaly no ...


    ahh, i see what you mean :yes:

    there is a chance it could break into bits if it was inherently unstable, however I believe the comet is a hell of a lot bigger than the diddy rocket they'll be shooting at it.

    clicky and linky :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .... After all, one day there will be another impact, so the more we do now the better for when the situation arises...

    If you think about it though, would the government tell us about an iminent earth impact, i highly doubt it!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Link to story?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote:
    I'm not entirely sure how they classify the sizes of comets, but in theory I suspect it would make more sense to break a large comet into small pieces.
    A large comet would kick up a huge cloud of dust and debris, causing something similar to a neclear winter, or if colliding with the ocean a huge tsunami capable of causing far far greater devistation that the recent one in Asia. Although small pieces would cause more direct damage over a wide area, the degree of severity of after affects, such as tsunami, would be greatly reduced.

    Breaking a large comet into pieces, perhaps pieces of some miles across, and for then to strike the earth in different areas would cause widespread devastation, without any doubt, and would be worse than one single impact..

    And the probability for those pieces to hit land mass is greatly increased!

    It is true that we would all be way better off for an astroid/comet to hit an ocean, a percentage of the ocean would imedietely vapourise... If you we're to view it you would see the ocean carved into a crater shape, then it immedietly falls back in on itself and a tsunami is sent out in all 360 degrees.
    Areas closer to the impact would sustain the largest waves, many hundreds of metres tall, travelling at imense speed...
    Areas thousands of miles away would still see waves extremely tall, but not as high as the immediate surrounding area of the impact, due to the wavelength decreasing over distance...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    small pieces would just cause widespread destruction, but on a minor scale compared to if the whole thing hit in one spot

    Comet Destruction Guide

    yes there would be a lot of damage to different areas for set amounts of time, its much worse if a bigger thing hits the earth

    even gcse physics reminds me, that if two objects are travelling at the same speed, if one is twice the size of the other, then it will contain 4 times the kinetic energy

    so there
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote:
    I'm not entirely sure how they classify the sizes of comets, but in theory I suspect it would make more sense to break a large comet into small pieces.
    A large comet would kick up a huge cloud of dust and debris, causing something similar to a neclear winter, or if colliding with the ocean a huge tsunami capable of causing far far greater devistation that the recent one in Asia. Although small pieces would cause more direct damage over a wide area, the degree of severity of after affects, such as tsunami, would be greatly reduced.

    Breaking a large comet into pieces, perhaps pieces of some miles across, and for then to strike the earth in different areas would cause widespread devastation, without any doubt, and would be worse than one single impact..

    And the probability for those pieces to hit land mass is greatly increased!

    It is true that we would all be way better off for an astroid/comet to hit an ocean, a percentage of the ocean would imedietely vapourise... If you we're to view it you would see the ocean carved into a crater shape, then it immedietly falls back in on itself and a tsunami is sent out in all 360 degrees.
    Areas closer to the impact would sustain the largest waves, many hundreds of metres tall, travelling at imense speed...
    Areas thousands of miles away would still see waves extremely tall, but not as high as the immediate surrounding area of the impact, due to the wavelength decreasing over distance...

    I read that if it we're to hit the west coast of the USA 1/3 of the entire country would be submerged in water.... scray stuff! but alot less severe than land impact!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    don't know why it posted twice there! :crazyeyes
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hmm, thats odd
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Link to story?

    think you mustav missed my clickies :)

    here they are:
    clicky and linky
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    small pieces would just cause widespread destruction, but on a minor scale compared to if the whole thing hit in one spot

    Comet Destruction Guide

    yes there would be a lot of damage to different areas for set amounts of time, its much worse if a bigger thing hits the earth

    even gcse physics reminds me, that if two objects are travelling at the same speed, if one is twice the size of the other, then it will contain 4 times the kinetic energy

    so there

    see above
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote:
    Surely the greater mass of a single projectile would cause more of a "thump" which would shake the ground and throw up tons of debris?
    A small projectile would be more likely to just bury irself in the ground. It's all about transferance of energy...
    I'm thinking the way bullets rip through flesh here. A flat nosed bullet causes a massive wound when leaving the body, yet a pointed tip bullet (think surface area rather than mass) tends to leave a clean hole.
    I might go and experiement with a bucket of sand or at the local pond with some golf balls and other sized objects.
    Nuclear winter around the globe would likely mean the death of us all... Sun is blocked out, crops die, then we get angry with each other (as we do so well) and finsih ourselves off.
    small pieces that bury themselves are fine ...what about the slightly bigger ones?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    send bruce willis and samuel L jackson after them?

    saving the world from intergalactic terrorist asteroids



    bruce.gif
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    send bruce willis and samuel L jackson after them?

    saving the world from intergalactic terrorist asteroids



    bruce.gif
    :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote:
    Surely the greater mass of a single projectile would cause more of a "thump" which would shake the ground and throw up tons of debris?
    A small projectile would be more likely to just bury irself in the ground. It's all about transferance of energy...
    I'm thinking the way bullets rip through flesh here. A flat nosed bullet causes a massive wound when leaving the body, yet a pointed tip bullet (think surface area rather than mass) tends to leave a clean hole.
    I might go and experiement with a bucket of sand or at the local pond with some golf balls and other sized objects.
    Nuclear winter around the globe would likely mean the death of us all... Sun is blocked out, crops die, then we get angry with each other (as we do so well) and finsih ourselves off.

    These things arn't streamlined to inbed themselves into the ground. A piece of rock the size of a car travelling at 40000 miles an hour hitting the earth is going to leave a crater, a big one too!! Now take a rock the size fo a house...
    Then maybe a rock 50 metres in diameter.... Then go a few miles accross...
    These objects, no matter how small should not be taken lightly, they will cause massive damage on a catastrophic scale!! If you think of a house sized object hitting New York for example, then you can wipe that city off your map...
    These objects explode with the force of thousands of megatons when the velocity is that fast... we need to try and prevent these things happening, hence the research that is being done.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    im not doubting what you are saying

    all that we are saying and that i have shown through the links, is that while many small asteroids hitting the earth would be very problematic, the problems caused would while been global, when talking about the specific problem of each asteroid, be locally confined

    you get a big one hitting us and its all worldwide off one rock, and we all suffer never ending problems that bugger us whereever we are
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    ...even gcse physics reminds me, that if two objects are travelling at the same speed, if one is twice the size of the other, then it will contain 4 times the kinetic energy...

    Sorry, but I think You're wrong there. The formulae is: E=(m*v^2)/2
    m - mass
    v - velocity in m/s

    So masses are directly proportional, and velocities squarely. But that doesn't change the point a lot :D Thus the second object will have 2 times the kinetic energy. Sorry again.


    I have read a lot about comets and i know some stuff. You can't destroy an asteroid, like they did in armageddon, but you can destroy a comet. If you could put a man on the comet, he could destroy it by his own power. All he had to do was dig 10 cm deep of ice/rock mixture, and reach the pure ice. Do that on a big surface, and the comet will melt, as there will be nothing to protect the core. Of course, I have exaggerated a little there, but it is still easy to destroy a comet, because they are not really stable objects, and the mass of a comet is actually a lot lower than people expect it to be. I'm just looking at some literature, and there was an experiment in which it was shown that the comet's mass is *at least* 5000 times smaller than that of Earth. Of course, this was calculated for a comet back in 1770. Guesses about typical weights are all around several tons to several hundreds or even billions of tons.

    Comets are also small in radius. On May 18th 1910, the Halley comet passed between Earth and the Sun, and was supposed to be visible on the sun as a shadow. However, nobody was able to spot the core. So there is an assumption that the Halley's core is less than 5km, and according to Orlov, it is about 2km in radius.

    What I would like to know is where the ice came from, what other elements there are, if there are any heavy elements or radioactive ones, to see if the ice is made of water or is it dry ice (CO2), as that is a possibility too. It would be also nice to see some accurate spectral analysis from a small distance, as it would show every element there is inside the core.

    Or to find an explanation for those "reverse tails" (my english sucks on this one). It's an occurance where the "tail" behind the comet is actually pointed towards the sun.

    In my opinion, comets are very nice cosmic bodies and as such should not be destroyed, but observed. They could make a landing attempt on it. They could set up an orbit around it, as they did with some asteroid. Spectral analysis is possible without destroying it. They could even drill deep inside it to see what's in the lower layers, without compromising it's existance. But if they really have to destroy it, then... there's nothing you can do. All we can do is hope that they will be able to use the info they gather in a good way, and that they won't let anything "slip away" so that they have to destroy an anoter one.

    It was a long one, but if you read through it, thank you! It's just my opinion on comets, as I'm in love with astronomy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nmrmak wrote:
    It was a long one, but if you read through it, thank you! It's just my opinion on comets, as I'm in love with astronomy.

    fantastic, as long as I'm not the only one :p

    ooh, and I though the tail of a comet always pointed away from the sun? as it's due to "solar wind" ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The comet tail points in the direction opposite the direction of the sun from the comet. If the comet were headed directly towards the sun, the comet tail would point straight back from the comet away from the sun. With any other angle of movement of the comet, the tail still points away from the sun or solar wind.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nash wrote:
    The comet tail points in the direction opposite the direction of the sun from the comet. If the comet were headed directly towards the sun, the comet tail would point straight back from the comet away from the sun. With any other angle of movement of the comet, the tail still points away from the sun or solar wind.
    Not necessarily. There are so called anti-tails that point towards the sun, and coexist with the main tail. I will search for a picture somewhere and post it. It's really interesting, actually!

    Here's a pic:
Sign In or Register to comment.