If an extinction level astroid was heading straight towards Earth

[I Push Buttons]

And you are still crushed to death ... the result is the same. Your body isn't going to be in any better condition.

You are the guy who thinks it is better to get hit by a ton of feather than a ton of bricks aren't you?

As a matter of fact I would rather get hit by one ton of feathers than one ton of bricks.

Unless you have melted or compressed the feathers into a dense one ton block of feathers, one ton of just free falling feathers would do literally nothing, even in a vacuum assuming there was sufficient space for them to disperse around me.

And the sand has an even bigger multitude of factors as to whether it is deadly or not. Is it a bag of sand falling on me? Then yeah I would be crushed? If its just a free mass of sand, are you dropping it from a few feet above me? Then yeah, it would probably still crush me. Are you dropping it from 100 feet above me? Probably still crushed, but maybe it could dissipate and I would survive? From 1000 feet up? Yeah I would survive just fine, it would dissipate and cover a massive area if dropped from up there and do nothing to me... As opposed to a one ton boulder, where whether you dropped it from one foot above me or a hundred miles, it would kill me if it hit me.

An asteroid has the same numerous multitudes of factors regarding the damage it would do when fractured versus remaining solid. And in many cases the fractured asteroid would be less destructive than if it weren't fractured.

If a 10km asteroid was converted to small stones and they all hit the earth, burning up in the atmosphere, every living thing on the planet would be burnt to a crisp.

Lol.

[muto]

You wouldn't even need to blow it up, just change its trajectory.

[Dsonsion]

And you are still crushed to death ... the result is the same. Your body isn't going to be in any better condition.

You are the guy who thinks it is better to get hit by a ton of feather than a ton of bricks aren't you?

You're not taking into account the atmosphere. It makes a world of difference, really.
And the atmosphere wouldn't just burst up into flames and escape the planet. I don't think an asteroid had the energy for that.

[Raelbo]

You're not taking into account the atmosphere. It makes a world of difference, really.
And the atmosphere wouldn't just burst up into flames and escape the planet. I don't think an asteroid had the energy for that.

It would heat up. By a lot. Obviously it depends on how dispersed the debris is and how much of it actually intercepts the atmosphere, but if a significant portion of the matter from a 10Km asteroid does, we're all toast, in the literal sense.

- - - Updated - - -

You wouldn't even need to blow it up, just change its trajectory.

I feel a Boromir meme would be appropriate here.

[mickybrighteyes]

would a nuke even really work that well in space? the biggest portion of the blast I thought was caused by the presence of gasses that are heated to stupid levels and blasted out through temperature differences.... a blast wave that wouldn't take place in the void of space

[Raelbo]

would a nuke even really work that well in space? the biggest portion of the blast I thought was caused by the presence of gasses that are heated to stupid levels and blasted out through temperature differences.... a blast wave that wouldn't take place in the void of space

How I expect it work: The intense heat of the reaction would rapidly heat the surface of the asteroid causing surface material to explode violently as it expands faster than the underlying material. As this material is expelled it will transfer the opposite momentum onto the remaining mass of the asteroid. For a small enough asteroid that would break the entire thing up. For an asteroid big enough to wipe out human life on earth? Probably make a tiny crater and an almost imperceptible change in velocity, woefully inadequate to change the collision course.

[Deleted]

Our nukes might not even be able to reach space, they're like big artillery shells that fly from North Dakota to Moscow or where ever in a big arch.

I know this is a dumb thread and it's off-topic by my god this post is next level stupid.

A modern nuclear ICBM works an awful lot like a lot of Nasa's multi-stage rockets. Meaning they absolutely leave our atmosphere and enter what me and you would term as space. I mean, that whole debacle a little while ago where the USA was really worried about North Korean missles being good all of a sudden? That essentially came about because the North Koreans fired a missile in to space to show they could hit just about anywhere in America. But what you're saying - that we launch nukes like cannon balls, is ridiculous. Because they have engines. And are guided.

[Independent voter]

How I expect it work: The intense heat of the reaction would rapidly heat the surface of the asteroid causing surface material to explode violently as it expands faster than the underlying material. As this material is expelled it will transfer the opposite momentum onto the remaining mass of the asteroid. For a small enough asteroid that would break the entire thing up. For an asteroid big enough to wipe out human life on earth? Probably make a tiny crater and an almost imperceptible change in velocity, woefully inadequate to change the collision course.

That makes sense, a nuke doesn't necessarily weigh a lot. And even though what it does weigh is ejected at high speed it's still not enough weight to move a big asteroid.

I see now.

[Dsonsion]

From my first approximation for an energy of a comet of about 10^19 Joules, in the case it exploded very close to the surface (100 km) and gave off all its energy in a decreasing linear manner reaching 0 at surface level, and considering an even vertical distribution of energy for the atmosphere, also in the order of 10^19 Joules, the atmosphere below 100 meters would increase its internal energy about 1/100. Which isn't much.

That's only if we say that the energy is evenly distributed around the globe and that the comet gives off all its kinetic energy as heat.
In the case the energy was localised to the surface of the USA, the increase in internal energy below 100m would be about 1/5, corresponding to an increase in temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius. Which would of course fry the entire US population but not everyone on earth.

EDIT: this is wrong, see comments below.

[Raelbo]

From my first approximation for an energy of a comet of about 10^19 Joules, in the case it exploded very close to the surface (100 km) and gave off all its energy in a decreasing linear manner reaching 0 at surface level, and considering an even vertical distribution of energy for the atmosphere, also in the order of 10^19 Joules, the atmosphere below 100 meters would increase its internal energy about 1/100. Which isn't much.

That's only if we say that the energy is evenly distributed around the globe and that the comet gives off all its kinetic energy as heat.
In the case the energy was localised to the surface of the USA, the increase in internal energy below 100m would be about 1/5, corresponding to an increase in temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius. Which would of course fry the entire US population but not everyone on earth.

hmm, let's see shall we?

E = 1/2MV^2

First calculate mass:
The volume of a 10km diameter asteroid would be in the region of 6x10^11 m^3
With a rock density of 2.5 tons per m^3 that would make a total mass of ~15x10^14 kg

Next we need to calculate velocity:
20km/s = 2x10^4 m/s

So, energy is around 6x10^23 joules. You underestimated by a factor of 10 000 (I suspect you forgot to square the velocity).

So with that in mind, you're looking at the internal energy of the atmosphere increasing by a factor of 100. That being said, it would likely be less, as a lot of the heat energy would radiate out into space instead of into the earth. Also the energy would be dumped into the atmosphere over time, giving it time to dissipate. Still, if the entire payload of a 10km asteroid was vaporised in our atmosphere, I think it would be safe to say that we'd all be cooked.

[ItsRainingMetal]

Depending on which part of the world it's going to hit, I say we let it fly.

Fingers crossed we evade that extinction.

[Dsonsion]

It's not the velocity that I forgot to square, but yes, I just thought of my mistake.
The thing is, I also remembered the energy in the atmosphere wrongly. It's closer to 10^21.
But that does indeed blow the increase of temperate to a 100 percent. So yeah, for that approximation everyone fries.

Sorry for the miscalculation.

[Independent voter]

So what we need is a sphere of a 1,000 satellites orbiting the solar system out beyond Pluto. These satellites would detect an incoming asteroid, determine if it's going to hit the Earth, and bump it off course. Since it's so far out, you don't have to bump the asteroid much.

Today we have bunker busting missiles that can pierce many meters of rock and reinforced concrete. So these missiles would bury themselves into the asteroid and blow a big crater in it and all that ejecta shot out at a high speed would would change the asteroid's course.

One satellite would carry a dozen missiles.

[Darththeo]

As a matter of fact I would rather get hit by one ton of feathers than one ton of bricks.

Unless you have melted or compressed the feathers into a dense one ton block of feathers, one ton of just free falling feathers would do literally nothing, even in a vacuum assuming there was sufficient space for them to disperse around me.

And the sand has an even bigger multitude of factors as to whether it is deadly or not. Is it a bag of sand falling on me? Then yeah I would be crushed? If its just a free mass of sand, are you dropping it from a few feet above me? Then yeah, it would probably still crush me. Are you dropping it from 100 feet above me? Probably still crushed, but maybe it could dissipate and I would survive? From 1000 feet up? Yeah I would survive just fine, it would dissipate and cover a massive area if dropped from up there and do nothing to me... As opposed to a one ton boulder, where whether you dropped it from one foot above me or a hundred miles, it would kill me if it hit me.

An asteroid has the same numerous multitudes of factors regarding the damage it would do when fractured versus remaining solid. And in many cases the fractured asteroid would be less destructive than if it weren't fractured.



Lol.

Yeah, take a high school physic course again. They aren't going to disperse around you in a vacuum if they are falling toward you ... they don't change trajectory unless acted on by an outside force.

[I Push Buttons]

Yeah, take a high school physic course again. They aren't going to disperse around you in a vacuum if they are falling toward you ... they don't change trajectory unless acted on by an outside force.

Yeah that force is my body you fool.

I am not sure if you are aware, but if you drop feathers and they land on a person, the feathers don't just rip through them and continue straight down to the ground... I enjoy how you keep insulting me but seem to think feathers will somehow either go straight through a person or ALL come to a rest on top of a person so that their body bears the entire weight of them. Its like your mind can't comprehend a feather making contact with person and then and continuing to the ground.

[Darththeo]

Yeah that force is my body you fool.

I am not sure if you are aware, but if you drop feathers and they land on a person, the feathers don't just rip through them and continue straight down to the ground... I enjoy how you keep insulting me but seem to think feathers will somehow either go straight through a person or ALL come to a rest on top of a person so that their body bears the entire weight of them. Its like your mind can't comprehend a feather making contact with person and then and continuing to the ground.

Did you really call me a fool when you just stated your body is a force? The force is the impact of the feathers to your body ... your body isn't a force. Your body could act as a flat plane or a whatever ... your body isn't a force. The impact is the force and if the feathers are move together, the feathers behind them still are moving forward. If they were compressed, not solid fused block ... but with no air between them, they move as one unit.

You have a child's understanding of physics and the rest of your post prove that.

And also, with enough force, a feather could in theory go through your body.

[Somewhatconcerned]

We'd need to drill a hole in it like Armageddon.

[mickybrighteyes]

How I expect it work: The intense heat of the reaction would rapidly heat the surface of the asteroid causing surface material to explode violently as it expands faster than the underlying material. As this material is expelled it will transfer the opposite momentum onto the remaining mass of the asteroid. For a small enough asteroid that would break the entire thing up. For an asteroid big enough to wipe out human life on earth? Probably make a tiny crater and an almost imperceptible change in velocity, woefully inadequate to change the collision course.

i don't think surface radiation on metals in a void will have enough heat transfer to really deform the overall shape of an object we'd classify as an extinction level event.

no air creates two problems.... no blast wave and nothing in the way to move the heated material aside as the object stays in motion.

[Kelathos]

Earth would be screwed.

Best hope would to be to abandon Earth and try to Terraform mars. Although it would have to be done way in advance...

Wouldn't need to change Mars, so much as find a way to maintain our pressure and environment inside buildings on Mars.

[mickybrighteyes]

Did you really call me a fool when you just stated your body is a force? The force is the impact of the feathers to your body ... your body isn't a force. Your body could act as a flat plane or a whatever ... your body isn't a force. The impact is the force and if the feathers are move together, the feathers behind them still are moving forward. If they were compressed, not solid fused block ... but with no air between them, they move as one unit.

You have a child's understanding of physics and the rest of your post prove that.

And also, with enough force, a feather could in theory go through your body.

"better to get hit by a ton of feather than a ton of bricks"

lets take a moment to looked at the original example... now look at the bold.

I think someone moved some goal posts cause mass was mentioned but not density. So someone thinking a mass of bricks in motion vs giant featherball in motion (because context did not dictate anything beyond 'weight') can be excused due to the vagueness of the phrasing.

Also, that person's 'body' would be acting as a force on the impact of anything striking it. That is part of how acting 'as a surface' would be. But yeah a multi-unit conglomerate of random shit moving together is fine and dandy... until it hits something and it's pieces then are subject to impacting themselves upon each other (even if it was compressed and moving as a unit until point of impact)