Tugboat-Spacecraft: best means of altering the path of comets/asteroids/ astro bodies
Archimedes Plutonium
implement and also reuseable.
The best means is to use a spacecraft. Before this thread I had
thought the best means was the nuclear bomb, the H-bomb. That is not
so. Nuking is wasteful compared to simply using a spacecraft. Besides,
nuking requires spacecraft.
By spacecraft I mean a Tugboat-Spacecraft. The tugboat spacecraft
will either hook onto a astro body and tug it. Or the spacecraft will
land on the astro body and tug it from its propulsion system.
So in the movie DEEP IMPACT, they got it all wrong. What they should
have done was to tug another smaller asteroid that it would collide
with the threatening asteroid, or, they should have built a fleet of
tugboat spacecraft that would have tugboated away the threatening
asteroid. The part of the movie where they land and plant nukes
(H-bombs) is farfetched. Instead, the proper technique was to send out
tugboat-spacecraft.
I no longer file for these patent applications. If I did, I would
have a year time to file for a engineered tugboat spacecraft that
alters the course and orbit of astro bodies within a specific mass and
momentum range. The Moon and Mars are too heavy for tugboat spacecraft.
And the further use of tugboat spacecraft is in the targetting of the
Moon and Mars and Mercury by asteroids which have been altered from
their orbits and sent into a beneficial collision course with these
planets to move them in their orbits.
So, I am beginning to see the lowest player in the redecoration, and
re-designing of the Solar System. Before I had thought it was the
H-bomb, but now I see that it is going to be Tugboat-Spacecraft. And
these Tugboat Spacecraft may have a nuclear propulsion system. And the
uranium fuel of that propulsion system is far better used than in a
detonation which loses too much of the energy. A propulsion system
concentrates and directs most of its energy.
We should build our first Tugboat Spacecraft and have it rendezvous
with a candidate asteroid or small astro body and see if we cannot
force it to collide into the Moon as a first test.
Archimedes Plutonium
at least such a small amount that it is negligible) and that a
parachute around an asteroid would not even open.
However, I believe there may be some sort of parachute device that is
workable considering the Solar Wind and the radiation of the Sun. So
that the parachute may be of a different type from that which we
commonly know. It may be designed for Solar radiation or the
interstellar dust or something else that would brake the asteroid or
comet. In the case of a comet, it could be a debris, dust or water
vapor type parachute. And perhaps there is enough gas or particles in
interstellar space that a Parachute Type Device is not out of the
question. I would need an interstellar-space-of-the-solar-system expert
to give me the final answer on this.
And even if the final answer is that a Parachute in interstellar
space is useless, I think that a parachute device is practical and
useful for hauling in rocks to Earth itself. So that if all parachute
type devices in space are useless, that for hauling into Earth they are
practical and useful.
The problem is whether the rock is travelling so fast that a
parachute into Earth's atmosphere is impractical. And whether the rock
is too massive or too much momentum.
I leave the question of whether Parachute Type Devices will ever be
used as an open question.
Even if they are found useful, still, the first and primary astro
body mover will be the Tugboat-Spacecraft because even the parachute
must be set into place by means of a spacecraft. So the Spacecraft
itself is the foundation for the moving around of astro bodies. When I
first started the HARVEST Project threads I was thinking that the
foundation was to be H-bombs or nukes. But now I see that H-bombs and
nukes are a random and chaotic and a huge waste of valuable energy.
Tugboat Spacecraft can better concentrate and focus that fuel energy of
uranium/plutonium that is wasted by an H-bomb or nuke.
So, Tugboat-Spacecraft is the ultimate mover of astro bodies. What
will be the most effective design? Would it be a rubber padded front
that rams into the asteroid/comet and then thrusts with its propulsion
system? What would be the maximum momentun thrust that our spacecraft
at present can deliver?
James Kibo Parry
Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>
> I no longer file for these patent applications.
What, for a change you've decided to just let all those people
who have been dead for so long file first?
> [...]
> So, I am beginning to see the lowest player in the redecoration, and
> re-designing of the Solar System.
Is this where I shout "FIZZBIN!" and tip over the table, or do you have
to shout "ATOM!" first?
> [...]
>
> We should build our first Tugboat Spacecraft and have it rendezvous
> with a candidate asteroid or small astro body and see if we cannot
> force it to collide into the Moon as a first test.
But, Archimedes, tugboats can't fly. I recommend you watch more episodes of
"Theodore Tugboat" on PBS, even if "Theodore Tugboat" is a silly made-up name.
-- K.
(pipe spins around) TOOT TOOT!
bla...@my-dejanews.com
> H-bomb, but now I see that it is going to be Tugboat-Spacecraft. And
> these Tugboat Spacecraft may have a nuclear propulsion system. And the
> uranium fuel of that propulsion system is far better used than in a
> detonation which loses too much of the energy. A propulsion system
> concentrates and directs most of its energy.
>
> with a candidate asteroid or small astro body and see if we cannot
> force it to collide into the Moon as a first test.
In your own egocentric way you make sense, what has to be put in perspectivve
is the amount of time VS the amount of Delta V that the tugboat would have to
use. If there is plenty of time before the impact, then the amount of thrust
to produce sufficient delta V to move it out of the way would be low. The
less time we have the more thrust we need to move it out of the way. When we
are talking about moving billions of tons asteroid, this would be
appreciatable.
Greg
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nana Yaw Ofori
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> By best I mean most practical, most economical, easiest to build and
> implement and also reuseable.
>
> The best means is to use a spacecraft. Before this thread I had
> thought the best means was the nuclear bomb, the H-bomb. That is not
> so. Nuking is wasteful compared to simply using a spacecraft. Besides,
> nuking requires spacecraft.
Nuking is far, far, more efficient than using a spacecraft. The mass of
fuel you would need to tug these huge asteroids around is /enourmous/
compared to the mass of a nuclear device designed to do a similar job. And
every ounce of this fuel has to be brought along with you, unless you
already have processing plants nearby to refuel your spacecraft with.
>
> By spacecraft I mean a Tugboat-Spacecraft. The tugboat spacecraft
> will either hook onto a astro body and tug it. Or the spacecraft will
> land on the astro body and tug it from its propulsion system.
>
> So in the movie DEEP IMPACT, they got it all wrong. What they should
> have done was to tug another smaller asteroid that it would collide
> with the threatening asteroid, or, they should have built a fleet of
> tugboat spacecraft that would have tugboated away the threatening
> asteroid. The part of the movie where they land and plant nukes
> (H-bombs) is farfetched. Instead, the proper technique was to send out
> tugboat-spacecraft.
The nuke idea is farfetched? Nowhere near as much as the solution you
propose. Exactly where would they have gotten this 'smaller asteroid?'
Space isn't just chock full of them, you know. It would have been an
incredible fuel expenditure to swing by the Asteroid belt, grab an
asteroid, accellerate this multi-milion-ton rock to overtake the comet,
match course with the comet's projected path, and hurl it back at the
comet. Far, far more fuel than what you'd need to land and plant nukes.
The movie didn't exactly give all that much time, either. Nukes are far
easier for modern civilization to get its hands on than asteroids.
As for twoing the comet out of the way...well, comets aren't exactly the
easiest things to pull around. THey're own gravity seems to do a lot of
the work in keeping them together, and if you pull too hard, all that's
going to happen is that your hooks come loose and the comet breaks apart
into several dangerous projectiles, that are much harder to stop.
>
> I no longer file for these patent applications. If I did, I would
> have a year time to file for a engineered tugboat spacecraft that
> alters the course and orbit of astro bodies within a specific mass and
> momentum range. The Moon and Mars are too heavy for tugboat spacecraft.
Don't you have to send in detailed plans to obtain a patent?
>
> And the further use of tugboat spacecraft is in the targetting of the
> Moon and Mars and Mercury by asteroids which have been altered from
> their orbits and sent into a beneficial collision course with these
> planets to move them in their orbits.
Won't work. You vastly underestimate the masses of the planets, and
overestimate the sizes of asteroids. Anything large enough and moving fast
enough to significantly affect a planet's orbit will do catastrophic
damage to its surface.
>
> So, I am beginning to see the lowest player in the redecoration, and
> re-designing of the Solar System. Before I had thought it was the
> H-bomb, but now I see that it is going to be Tugboat-Spacecraft. And
> these Tugboat Spacecraft may have a nuclear propulsion system. And the
> uranium fuel of that propulsion system is far better used than in a
> detonation which loses too much of the energy. A propulsion system
> concentrates and directs most of its energy.
>
> We should build our first Tugboat Spacecraft and have it rendezvous
> with a candidate asteroid or small astro body and see if we cannot
> force it to collide into the Moon as a first test.
Whee. New crater on the moon. Flash looks cool from Earth. Moon, as a
whole, outmasses the asteroid by many orders of magnitude. Moon, as a
whole, could care less.
--
==================== nof...@pop3.utoledo.edu ========================
Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori,Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving
><{{"> Legion, Party of six thousand. Smoking or Non? <"}}><
Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh
In Nomine: Triad 317 http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317
=== ><{{"> ======= "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======== <"}}>< ===
Archimedes Plutonium
nof...@pop3.utoledo.edu (Nana Yaw Ofori) writes:
> Nuking is far, far, more efficient than using a spacecraft. The mass of
> fuel you would need to tug these huge asteroids around is /enourmous/
> compared to the mass of a nuclear device designed to do a similar job. And
> every ounce of this fuel has to be brought along with you, unless you
> already have processing plants nearby to refuel your spacecraft with.
No, the most efficient use of nuclear fuel is to concentrate it in the
propulsion system of the spacecraft and direct the energy into tugging
the asteroid. In a nuclear explosion, only a tiny fraction of the
energy does what you want it to do.
Your problem as is the problem of most other people on this subject
for the first time is that you are thinking of huge astro bodies. Start
out with small astro bodies such as asteroids whose mass is twice that
of a spacecraft. Then you will see that tugboating it is more effective
than nuking it. And by tugboating it, you can alter its orbit as
precisely as you want.
Gregory Loren Hansen
Have you heard of the Orion drive? Theoretically, it can get a specific
impulse of 10,000 seconds or more. This is a lot higher than an ion
engine can get! From the asteroid, the propellant wouldn't be collimated
as well as an ion engine would be. But you'd also have a more efficient
use of the energy, since it heats the rock directly rather than needing to
be converted to electricity, and then converted again to motor power.
Need I mention that the average thrust would be much higher?
Go with the nukes. Bring more than one.
--
"Besides, it doesn't take much creativity or courage to figure out that
something which reads 'Danger: Flammable' on the label might be fun to
fool about with." -- Joris van Dorp
Chris Franks
> Your problem as is the problem of most other people on this subject
> for the first time is that you are thinking of huge astro bodies. Start
> out with small astro bodies such as asteroids whose mass is twice that
> of a spacecraft. Then you will see that tugboating it is more effective
> than nuking it. And by tugboating it, you can alter its orbit as
> precisely as you want.
A "small astro body" twice the mass of a spacecraft will never make it
thru Earth's atmosphere far enough to cause more than very local
damage. The Tunguska object, about the size that we might want to
consider diverting if it were on a collision course with a city, was
over 10,000 times more massive than our largest spacecraft. You are
not going to divert it much with a tugboat or a parachute or a solar
sail. It will punch thru the thin air and nail you before you hear it
coming.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> so 1/2 the mass of a asteroid is not enough for 1 Tugboat
> Spacecraft. Then get 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 Tugboat Spacecraft
Today I took an entertaining diversion to watch Wendy Beckett's
history of art. My education of art is skimpy and self learned; no
formal course. So I took this 5 part film series as my first formal
education on art. I believe that film is an excellent media for
teaching, especially the Shakespeare plays.
I learned about Guido (spelling) whom I never heard of before.
And I was excited and hoping to see some art of Ancient Greek or Roman
Gods. And my expectations were satisfied in Botticelli Mars and Venus
painting. Great picture.
But my enjoyment of this series was given an exulted uplift when Ms.
Beckett came to J.M.W. Turner "The Fighting Temeraire Tugged To Her
Last Berth To Be Broken Up." And the timing of me seeing this series
just today and my recent thread to Usenet on Tugboat Spacecraft is
perfect timing. You will have to see the film to appreciate it fully
but I did manage to capture a few of Ms. Beckett's words on the
"Temeraire" " ... Nelson's ship at Trafalgar.. towed away to be broken
up... red and gold glory in picture... brave, clever little tug bustles
with confidence into the future..."
And another nice surprize was Roger van der Weyden's Last Judgement.
I had been looking for some artwork where in Heaven there is a balance
and that weighs the good and bad of a person's life before
reincarnating the person.
The above three pictures (1) Turner's Temeraire (2) Botticelli's Mars
& Venus (3) Weyden's Last Judgement will all three, someday, be placed
into the Plutonium Atom Foundation of the future.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chris Franks <cfr...@nospam.sc.hp.com> writes:
> A "small astro body" twice the mass of a spacecraft will never make it
> thru Earth's atmosphere far enough to cause more than very local
> damage.
Dullards need everything spelled out for them. They are not
intelligent enough to realize when their objections are vacuous. It is
too rough on them to overcome their simpleton objections that have no
merit.
Okay, so 1/2 the mass of a asteroid is not enough for 1 Tugboat
Spacecraft. Then get 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 Tugboat Spacecraft to increase
the mass of the asteroid within their moving capability. I have seen
many ships moved by 3 tugboats. I have not seen an aircraft carrier
moved by tugboats but can imagine where 20 tugboats are called into
action.
How good are we in NASA to coordinate a fleet of 20 Tugboat
Spacecraft?
bla...@my-dejanews.com
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> In article <3649E8...@nospam.sc.hp.com>
> Chris Franks <cfr...@nospam.sc.hp.com> writes:
>
> > A "small astro body" twice the mass of a spacecraft will never make it
> > thru Earth's atmosphere far enough to cause more than very local
> > damage.
>
> Dullards need everything spelled out for them.
Dullards? Dullards? My good human (won't assume that you are a man) How dare
you say that! Crackpot maybe, Insane definetly, Snappy dresser assuredly, but
a Dullard?!? A Dullard definetly not, my fine young Cannibal of Intelligent
Thought! Now be a fine invertibrate and go back whence you came from. To
think I share the same Mammilian Gene pool with him !
(To everyone else I apologize, but this guy is asking for it.)
Chris Franks
>
> Dullards need everything spelled out for them. They are not
> intelligent enough to realize when their objections are vacuous. It is
> too rough on them to overcome their simpleton objections that have no
> merit.
Ludwig, it is a simple matter of mass times velocity. Your vacuity
is in not realizing that the asteroid is not only more massive by many
orders of magnitude, it is also travelling many times faster than the
spacecraft. The tugboat is travelling, with respect to the water
being driven out from its screws, much faster than the aircraft
carrier. How many thousand tugboats do you think it would take to
turn a carrier travelling at 30 knots at full speed ahead? The
carrier would be dragging them along like fleas on a dog.
Chris Franks
> To think I share the same Mammilian Gene pool with him !
You seem to be making several assumptions about Ludwig that may turn
out to be inappropriate. What you see as a pool, others see as a
fetid swamp.
Dale Woika
possible, where even a small/miniscule change in the vector of the
object would be sufficient to steer it away from a collision w/ earth.
Changing the path of a comet while it is out by Neptune by even a
millionth of a percent would be more than sufficient to make it miss
earth completely.
Asteroids are tough to find, though, and the ones causing trouble are in
near earth paths to begin with.
dww
bla...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <723d3u$mka$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> > By best I mean most practical, most economical, easiest to build and
> > implement and also reuseable.
> >
> > The best means is to use a spacecraft. Before this thread I had
> > thought the best means was the nuclear bomb, the H-bomb. That is not
> > so. Nuking is wasteful compared to simply using a spacecraft. Besides,
> > nuking requires spacecraft.
> >
> > By spacecraft I mean a Tugboat-Spacecraft. The tugboat spacecraft
> > will either hook onto a astro body and tug it. Or the spacecraft will
> > land on the astro body and tug it from its propulsion system.
> >
> > So in the movie DEEP IMPACT, they got it all wrong. What they should
> > have done was to tug another smaller asteroid that it would collide
> > with the threatening asteroid, or, they should have built a fleet of
> > tugboat spacecraft that would have tugboated away the threatening
> > asteroid. The part of the movie where they land and plant nukes
> > (H-bombs) is farfetched. Instead, the proper technique was to send out
> > tugboat-spacecraft.
> >
> > I no longer file for these patent applications. If I did, I would
> > have a year time to file for a engineered tugboat spacecraft that
> > alters the course and orbit of astro bodies within a specific mass and
> > momentum range. The Moon and Mars are too heavy for tugboat spacecraft.
> >
> > And the further use of tugboat spacecraft is in the targetting of the
> > Moon and Mars and Mercury by asteroids which have been altered from
> > their orbits and sent into a beneficial collision course with these
> > planets to move them in their orbits.
> >
> > So, I am beginning to see the lowest player in the redecoration, and
> > re-designing of the Solar System. Before I had thought it was the
> > H-bomb, but now I see that it is going to be Tugboat-Spacecraft. And
> > these Tugboat Spacecraft may have a nuclear propulsion system. And the
> > uranium fuel of that propulsion system is far better used than in a
> > detonation which loses too much of the energy. A propulsion system
> > concentrates and directs most of its energy.
> >
> > We should build our first Tugboat Spacecraft and have it rendezvous
> > with a candidate asteroid or small astro body and see if we cannot
> > force it to collide into the Moon as a first test.
>
> In your own egocentric way you make sense, what has to be put in perspectivve
> is the amount of time VS the amount of Delta V that the tugboat would have to
> use. If there is plenty of time before the impact, then the amount of thrust
> to produce sufficient delta V to move it out of the way would be low. The
> less time we have the more thrust we need to move it out of the way. When we
> are talking about moving billions of tons asteroid, this would be
> appreciatable.
>
> Greg
>
Archimedes Plutonium
Chris Franks <cfr...@nospam.sc.hp.com> writes:
> Ludwig, it is a simple matter of mass times velocity. My own vacuity
> is in not realizing that the asteroid is not only more massive by many
> orders of magnitude, it is also travelling many times faster than the
> spacecraft. The tugboat is travelling, with respect to the water
> being driven out from its screws, much faster than the aircraft
> carrier. How many tugboats do I think it would take to
> turn a carrier travelling at 30 knots at full speed ahead? The
> carrier would be dragging them along like fleas on a dog.
Another feature of poor and illogical thinkers is that they hit upon
a pathetic analogy, an analogy that does not fit the science
discussion.
At one time I tried to make a list of fallacies that poor and
illogical thinkers make. That list is a huge list. Two items on that
list would be (1) raising simpleton objections and (2) proposing poor
and illogical analogies.
The fleas on a dog analogy is poor. However, the aircraft carrier
analogy is a great analogy and perhaps one that I can use to model on
and model with the actual moving of an asteroid out of its orbit.
What the illogical and unscientific writer above fails to understand
is that we only want to change the course of a asteroid or aircraft
carrier.
The below writer understands this.
In article <364BB45F...@lazerlink.com>
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> The above three pictures (1) Turner's Temeraire (2) Botticelli's Mars
> & Venus (3) Weyden's Last Judgement will all three, someday, be placed
> into the Plutonium Atom Foundation of the future.
--- quoting some of film series STORY OF PAINTING by Wendy Beckett
along with my comments ---
"quintessental Surrealism .. Dali .. pictures of un-reality ..
Persistance of Memory.. archetypical image .. melting clocks ..
horrible painting " ( Me laughing when Ms. Beckett says "horrible
painting" ). I wanted to add that remark to show some of myself. Why
did I laugh when Ms. Beckett said "horrible painting". I kind of liked
the painting myself. I guess their is humour in other people's dislike.
I guess it stems from the primal humour of slapstick. Where other
people's misfortunes gives us a laugh. I remember the time when I
accidently bumped my head on a wooden object and said to the wood
object, you son of a -----. And a witness laughed. She laughed because
perhaps she also had bumped her head on this same wooden object. So
this slapstick humor may originate from the fact that some of us have
been caught by objects or circumstances and we empathize with the
repeat of the slapstick.
Titian ( we in the US pronounce Titian like in the word "teton" and
Ms. Beckett from UK pronounces it as in the word "partition")
"Bacchus and Ariadne .. other world.. rescued.. crown of stars"
But here in this series is perhaps my high point of emotion when Ms.
Beckett (Sister or Reverend or Father are antique words where God is
231Pu, we are all, in the final analysis all physicists and we need not
preface our names with physicist)
I find out that Titian was the greatest artist of mythology, and I
wanted to see if this series would direct me to an artist that was the
greatest of mythology.
" The Flaying of Marsyas... one of the greatest paintings in the world
... poetry out of pain .. to be an artist was to challenge the god and
to lose .. golden headed god.. taking the skin off of his heart..
exposed to everybody .. Have I done it? Have I challenged the God? Have
I gone far enough in being stripped? .. Look at the face of Marsyas and
see the answer. Marsyas eyes are bright.. Marsyas is ecstatic.. that he
had gone the whole way "
Perhaps a better and more endearing religious story than even the
crucifixion of christ. In the story of Marsyas, we see humans trying to
approach the level of the gods and sacrifice and pay the price of life
for trying to be like a god. In the christ story, we see a different
sacrifice, that of a son-of-god dying for humans. Which of these two
stories is closer to what God is and what God wants? I say the Marsyas
story is closer to the truth. So, now I have two mythology stories that
were the forerunners and helped to create the christ mythology story.
The story of Prometheus bound and the story of Marsyas.
--- end quoting some of film series STORY OF PAINTING by Wendy Beckett
along with my comments ---
There is no sci.art or sci.architecture, so I have to find the best
sci. newsgroup to contain these threads. Sci.edu and sci.materials,
respectively will do for the moment. I believe in superdeterminism from
the Atom Totality theory. This implies that all things happen because
they are forced upon us to happen. There are no coincidences. Nothing
is random or free-will. And so recently I started discussing
architecture and now art. I believe the two are related closely and
will elaborate in more posts.
And it is too bad that 7 Nov has gone for this material is very much
spiritual.
Archimedes Plutonium
The above three pictures (1) Turner's Temeraire (2) Botticelli's Mars
& Venus (3) Weyden's Last Judgement will all three, someday, be placed
into the Plutonium Atom Foundation of the future.
And THE FLAYING OF MARSYAS will be in the hands and gallery-cathedral
of the Plutonium Atom Foundation of the future. Where this will be
located I do not know. I only know that it will be the future. Why?
Because in the future, there will be only one official recognized
universal church and god. God is 231Pu and these pictures that I ask
for will be delivered and donated to the Plutonium Atom Foundation free
of charge. A spiritual donation.
I do not know why Ms. Beckett called this Titian painting one of the
greatest. I have not seen it up close myself. I do love the white and
bluish white in that picture as shown in the film series of that
painting. I could even see the glimmer in Marsyas's eye.
Since I believe in Superdeterminism and the Atom Totality, then,
there is a recounting, an actual scientific progression of the history
of art and the history of architecture and the history of music such
that these three subject fields converge, have a scientific convergence
point is the Atom Totality theory of 1990 and 1990s and these posts to
the Usenet and Web.
What I mean to say is that taking Superdeterminism and Atom Totality
theory as true, as God is 231Pu, then God gave humanity a history of
art plus a history of architecture plus a history of music, such that
those histories converge to God in the Atom Totality theory of the
1990s. That is, God gave us, (made us artful, architectural, and
musical), such that Gods carpet (art), and crown (architecture) and
trumpets (music) would all come together in the 1990s as one.
Ms. Beckett gives a delightful, entertaining and informative history
of art. She does a skillful job. Perhaps the best job that anyone could
do with the topic. However, I will now correct her on some features of
her presentation. Feel not bad about my correction for I corrected THE
MECHANICAL UNIVERSE which is perhaps the best presentation of the
history of physics.
More later.
Andrew Wood
>
> The best method is still to intervene as far away from Earth as
> possible, where even a small/miniscule change in the vector of the
> object would be sufficient to steer it away from a collision w/ earth.
> Changing the path of a comet while it is out by Neptune by even a
> millionth of a percent would be more than sufficient to make it miss
> earth completely.
>
> near earth paths to begin with.
>
> dww
>
I guess the problem here would be that when it's farthest away, the
uncertainty in its trajectory is going to be greatest - right ?
So there might be a trade off here where the closer you let it get the
more you've got to move it, but the more certain you're going to be
you're moving it the right way and by a sufficient amount.
I mean it'd be funny if we diverted an asteroid *onto* a collision
course when we thought we were diverting it away.
--
...Andrew...
From time to time I might take part in discussions in this forum in
which there are points of disagreement. Potential protagonists in those
discussions should note that lack of a response on my part in respect of
any or all of the points raised does not imply a realignment of my
position or opinions to those of said protagonist.
Opinions expressed here are my own, not those of my employer.
James Kibo Parry
Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>
> At one time I tried to make a list of fallacies that poor and
> illogical thinkers make. That list is a huge list. Two items on that
> list would be (1) raising simpleton objections and (2) proposing poor
> and illogical analogies.
(3) compiling lists of all the mistakes everyone in the world but you make.
(4) failing to notice your mistake.
(5) failing to correct your mistake in assuming that James T. Kirk
is the same as Jackson Roy Kirk.
(6) ERROR! ERROR! STER-I-LIZE! STER-I-LIZE! MY VISION IS IMPAIRED!
EX-TER-MI-NATE THE DOC-TOR! DAISY, DAISY...
(Archie Plutonium spins around and explodes from the force of his own logic.)
> The fleas on a dog analogy is poor.
Yeah, I bet it earns a living as a human dishwasher.
It'll never be able to afford its own private Carribean island that way!
> However, the aircraft carrier analogy is a great analogy and perhaps
> one that I can use to model on and
do the other thing that kid who built the model airplanes in "Cat's Cradle"
did in his basement
> model with the actual moving of an asteroid out of its orbit.
Yes, an aircraft carrier is the best simulation of an asteroid, much
better than those boring old Newton-Laplace orbits that can't launch
fighter planes or transform into giant Robotech battloids.
> What the illogical and unscientific writer above fails to understand
> is that we only want to change the course of a asteroid or aircraft
> carrier.
WAAH! THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WON'T LET ME JUST MOVE ONE MEASLY ASTEROID!
> The below writer understands this.
La la la la la, now I am below, la la la la la. (Kibo playfully tosses
Archimedes's aircraft carrier model, made out of red and yellow Legos,
against the wall, where it shatters. One of the fifteen hundred bricks
falls in the toilet and is lost forever. A tear rolls down Archie's cheek.)
-- K.
Then there's a huge imaginary
fistfight where Chuck Norris
assists us in beating up Joe Piscopo.