CptHammer_ t1_jajvfc9 wrote
Reply to comment by could_use_a_snack in NASA’s DART data validates kinetic impact as planetary defense method | DART altered the orbit of the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos by 33 minutes by mepper
>Do you like professional sports?
Nope
>All the money paid to pro athletes should be used for real problems.
Agreed
>Do you enjoy a morning cup of coffee?
Nope
>All that money should be used for real problems.
Some of that money is already solving real problems.
>How much do you spend on alcohol? How about your lawn? I could go on.
Zero, zero, please do.
>If you aren't willing to give up these basically useless things, why should I be willing to give up on the advancement of science.
Done, now put your money where your mouth is.
Or answer this question: what's the best case scenario you can imagine that this research will help Earth?
From where I sit this planet has survived far worse than an asteroid impact. Any argument for continuing to waste money deflecting astroids is akin to watching drug dealers pimping their ride and saying to yourself, "welp, they could be out there selling drugs instead of investing in a clean hobby." Of course, neither is productive unless you're the car parts salesman.
wegqg t1_jajysp7 wrote
You're such an edgelord, maybe you should start spending some money on alcohol
AlexDKZ t1_jak3rjd wrote
>From where I sit this planet has survived far worse than an asteroid impact.
An asterod impact caused one out of the five major extinction events in earth's history, and are suspected in other three. I'd say, they rank pretty damn high in the "what could go wrong" scale.
CptHammer_ t1_jakrx43 wrote
So you say we survived 5, but a sixth is just crazy?
I think an asteroid is a natural course of nature and no amount of human involvement will overcome anything nature has to throw at us.
That being said, how is allowing people to die today of today's problems with these misspent funds going to save those same people in the future should an extremely unlikely event like an asteroid that we happen to detect in time to divert?
gobblox38 t1_jakzpx1 wrote
>So you say we survived 5, but a sixth is just crazy?
We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions. The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it. The entire planetary ecosystem changes during/ after a mass extinction event.
>That being said, how is allowing people to die today of today's problems with these misspent funds going to save those same people in the future...
You've never heard of spinoff technology? People have said the exact same thing you have about space exploration since the start. The technologies developed for the space industry has been applied to other industries which includes the medical field. Tomorrow's medical problems are solved with today's space challenges.
CptHammer_ t1_jal71s5 wrote
>We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions.
So what.
>The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it.
Doubt it. Humans will be the cause of human extinction. At that rate it's not an extinction it's darwinism. Spending money on diverting astroids is proof of what I'm saying.
>spinoff technology
I've heard of this. Perhaps you've heard of every kind of government funding into research ever is for weaponizing the stated goal. We wouldn't have nuclear bombs if it wasn't for the benevolent purpose of finding clean energy.
This goes for any significant government funding into research. Its true purpose is war, under the lie of something more benign.
gobblox38 t1_jal95lh wrote
>>We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions.
>So what.
You really don't understand the significance here.
>>The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it.
>Doubt it. Humans will be the cause of human extinction. At that rate it's not an extinction it's darwinism. Spending money on diverting astroids is proof of what I'm saying.
We're the apex predator on this planet. If the ecosystem collapses, it'll take us with it. And yes, humans are the main cause of the current mass extinction event.
And no, spending money on research to deflect asteroids does not prove what you're saying.
>Perhaps you've heard of every kind of government funding into research ever is for weaponizing the stated goal.
Yeah, like how the smallpox vaccine program was really about weaponization. /s
>We wouldn't have nuclear bombs if it wasn't for the benevolent purpose of finding clean energy.
You are completely wrong. Nuclear programs came out of advancements in physics. Quantum mechanics showed that there was enormous energy potential locked away in atoms. Splitting these atoms in a controlled reaction would release energy. It was WW2 and the possibility of other belligerent nations building the atomic bomb that spurred American research. It had nothing to do with finding clean energy.
>This goes for any significant government funding into research. Its true purpose is war, under the lie of something more benign.
Sure, a lot space technologies can have military applications. So what? The ability to image the surface of a planet can have military applications, should we have never invested into that even though the same technology is used to find tumors in a living person?
I'm not really seeing the point of your position.
CptHammer_ t1_jalwsjc wrote
>And yes, humans are the main cause of the current mass extinction event.
Glad we can agree. So instead of stopping that we keep that moving forward by sending resources to space.
>Yeah, like how the smallpox vaccine program was really about weaponization. /s
You don't know that it wasn't government funded research? Seriously? You put /s as if you think the opposite of what you wrote. Which means you think the government decided to fund medical advancements back in late 1700s. They didn't, specifically England didn't.
Governments have however funded the weaponizing of vaccine technology with little success.
>You are completely wrong.
Then you go on to explain how I'm completely correct... I'm confused. The government poured money into nuclear energy only to weaponize it. Your explanation is out of fear that someone would weaponize it.
Fear realized!
But we'll never do anything like that again, right? We're interested in controlling astroids for good not evil, but if one other person says it could be used for evil you think we'll definitely not repeat an endless cycle of history. I'm sceptical.
>Sure, a lot space technologies can have military applications. So what?
You support war funding. That's all, not peace funding. You should just be honest with yourself. You're about self preservation and "protecting the planet" is incidental if it happens. It's the least important thing to you, but at least it's on the list.
wappleby t1_jal8s1v wrote
Wait you think we developed nuclear bombs for the purpose of finding clean energy? WHEEZE
CptHammer_ t1_jaluydz wrote
If you don't, that means you literally didn't pay attention to history and are excited to repeat it.
wappleby t1_jamac6d wrote
Ah yes please explain how the Manhatten Project was originally about producing clean energy
CptHammer_ t1_jamyovq wrote
1932 a decade before a government got involved
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_power
1942 a government seeks to weaponize a new technology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
You're welcome
wappleby t1_jan4k0q wrote
Holy shit you link Wikipedia articles and then don't even read them. They weren't trying to develop clean energy. That was never the purpose of Fermi's research. Please do explain how weak interaction (Fermi's interaction) was the study of clean energy.
Rutherford's research was never for the purpose of clean energy either.
CptHammer_ t1_jaot0do wrote
>That was never the purpose of Fermi's research.
I never said it was.
>Please do explain how weak interaction (Fermi's interaction) was the study of clean energy.
It was the study of its potential use, who said he first that thought of use as an energy source?
Forget that question, how was it research to make a bomb specifically?
In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.
Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.
wappleby t1_jap5q7h wrote
In what world was Fermi's research into weak interaction based upon it's use??
>In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.
Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source. Again proving you don't even read the links you post as both Einstein and Bohr didn't even think it was possible to utilize the atom practically for quite a long time.
>Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.
Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding. The prospect of an atomic weapon was literally why the Manhattan Project was started. Have you ever even read the Einstein-Szilard letter?
And in regards to the nuclear reactor it was one of 5 options to make fissile material. It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium. How do you confidently say so many blatantly false things?
CptHammer_ t1_japi7wl wrote
>Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding.
Back at you. You really think they didn't prototype an energy reactor?
>It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium.
Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.
I'm sure a super fan of government war craft can probably look up the specifics.
>Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source.
Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD. I didn't have to look up his name, I didn't have to look up the timing of the patent and as I suspected it was a couple years before the Manhattan project started.
This reactor patent did come to him in a dream. It was theoretical for at least a decade with much input from the physical chemistry community as a whole.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=630726&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP
wappleby t1_japkw4r wrote
>Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.
Can you not read at all? The reactor used in the Manhattan Project PRODUCED plutonium. It USED uranium. And it kept running because it was used to keep producing plutonium until '45 and then was used until '63 to produce radioactive isotopes for research. That's 20 years not 10 years.
>Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD
Incredible you didn't even read the comment because I literally mentioned Einstein and Szilard's joint letter.
CptHammer_ t1_japyqgr wrote
Ok then, have fun war mongering. You seem happy to war monger and wish to continue to war monger. I'd wish normal people peace but you're all too happy to fund new ways to kill each other by repeating and repeating the mistakes (sorry that's my opinion, you're probably seeing them as successes) of the past.
But, you know you can't get normal people on board with it unless you lie about the past and of course lie about the future.
Good afternoon.
wappleby t1_japzd6h wrote
Making up strawmen after being proven wrong over and over again. Absolutely incredible. And I never once mentioned anything about war or wanting war in any of my original comments.
And that's rich coming from someone who can't even get basic facts in their comments right.
CptHammer_ t1_jaq043u wrote
You didn't prove anything. So there's that. You just want to lie and you offered no proof for your position that the governments of the world don't automatically seek to weaponize any new technology.
There's actually plenty of evidence on your side at least in the short term, but you chose to shit on my rock solid proof that nuclear energy production also wasn't proposed to the public as a weapon first. You chose to ignore actual fact, produce no evidence all the while I took every one of your examples and proved you don't know what you're talking about, or specifically lying.
I don't know which one it is, nor does it matter because either way you clearly enjoy funding war.
I'm done with you.
Good afternoon.
could_use_a_snack t1_jakk1b5 wrote
>Done, now put your money where your mouth is.
My entire comment is basically doing this. I encourage the spending on scientific research and contribute to it when I can.
>Or answer this question: what's the best case scenario you can imagine that this research will help Earth?
We need to know what effect we can have on a dangerous asteroid. The only way is to run some tests to see. So the best case scenario is that we have the data available to make a correction to the orbit of such an object if we need to.
And before you ask "what's the chances of needing to" I'll compare it to having a fire extinguisher on hand in my house, even though most households never have a fire. I'd like to be prepared.
CptHammer_ t1_jaktgg6 wrote
>So the best case scenario is that we have the data available to make a correction to the orbit of such an object if we need to.
Wow, best case you can imagine is super limited. I thought for sure you'd go into astroid wrangling for convenience of mining. Nope, you're happy with, probably not going to need it, but if we spend an unbelievably higher amount of money then we might just maybe not kill ourselves unintentionally simultaneously ignoring petty issues on the big blue marble.
I'm just more confident that this technology will be used specifically to aim astroids at Earth. How do I know? Humans always say, "but this time it will be different." Sure resting on the fact that it's a technical difference in weapons, major advances that could change human civilization always, 100% of the time, get weaponized.
This is no different.
could_use_a_snack t1_jakvh5g wrote
This would be ridiculously hard to weaponize. You have to find an asteroid that was already coming extremely close to earth to be able to adjust its course enough to hit the earth, and then it wouldn't be possible to know where it would hit. And it would probably cost more than just dropping a bomb exactly on target by a factor of 10.
CptHammer_ t1_jal5p3i wrote
If we can get a vehicle to an asteroid using math, I'm pretty sure there's an equally simple formula to get on to earth at the appropriate time and space.
To speculate otherwise shows how dangerous you think the technology is at its current situation.
could_use_a_snack t1_jalbltl wrote
Sure. You can do the math, but moving a rock that weighs 1000s of pounds to actually change course is crazy hard. And would take a lot of energy.
Go look up the term "delta V" and read up a bit on it. 99.99% of the math to get that prob to hit the asteroid was done before it launched. If it was off by even a degree when it launched, they wouldn't have been able to correct its course enough to hit the target.
CptHammer_ t1_jalwwk6 wrote
>they wouldn't have been able to correct its course enough to hit the target.
Which is probably why you support more funding. We haven't perfected the weapon yet.
could_use_a_snack t1_jan4xdm wrote
>Which is probably why you support more funding. We haven't perfected the weapon yet.
Your statement shows that you are just trying to troll me. They did hit the target. Perfectly. Physics just makes it really hard to overcome an error. This will never be used as a weapon. It can't be.
I hope that you are either still in school and haven't taken basic 9th grade physics yet or have just forgotten what you have learned.
Either way, If you would like to have a reasonable conversation on this topic, you seem to be worried and I could help you understand that you don't need to be, I would suggest you brush up on orbital mechanics, and the launch capabilities that we currently have. Until then have a great day.
CptHammer_ t1_jaounbm wrote
>This will never be used as a weapon. It can't be.
You're saying basically it's impossible to do what they did. And you seem to also think that practice doesn't make perfect.
>I hope that you are either still in school and haven't taken basic 9th grade physics yet or have just forgotten what you have learned.
I've taught physics at a collegic level. This is barely a physics problem and more of an economic problem. We already know we can divert astroids, how much will it cost to put it where we want it?
You're probably unaware of proposals to aim astroids into a Mars orbit for mining. Mars orbit before lunar orbit just to prove we won't make accidents. Lunar orbits rather than earth orbits because we actually don't need much material back on earth. Only to replace the materials we sent to space. And of course it's an extra risk.
The idea of mining astroids in place is too dangerous and too costly as it's simply easier to bring things to the mill rather than moving mining operations so often. It's why we don't build a saw mill in every tree grove for lumber production, we move the logs to the mill.
could_use_a_snack t1_jap1qve wrote
You make some good points.
This is not what they did however. They didn't aim an asteroid anywhere. They caused it to change its orbit.
Yes you can move an asteroid to orbit a planet, but it will take years to do this. Making several minor adjustments over a long period of time. Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.
And the mill towns I've seen (I live in one that isn't one anymore) are always right next to the forest, if not in the middle. Moving huge trees is costly, you mill them as close to the source as possible and then transport the finished product to its destination.
And. If you did teach physics, I feel sorry for your students, anyone that doesn't want to see science funded shouldn't be teaching it.
CptHammer_ t1_japefzp wrote
>Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.
I don't think they're trying to hide it. Did you skip past the part where I said putting them in lunar orbit? It would take a push of the button at precisely the right time to send one to earth. Once they've been reduced to the appropriate size for the deviation they want to cause.
Even worse is if I'm wrong and a government isn't behind it but a terrorist. I'm telling you any perceived good is outweighed by the inevitable bad.
could_use_a_snack t1_jaq2wgn wrote
Wait, are you suggesting that what would amount to a trillion dollar industry capable of getting multiple asteroids into orbit around the moon, will be accomplished by a terrorist organization?
I'm done talking to you. You are just being ridiculous now.
CptHammer_ t1_jaqo8hh wrote
No, I'm saying once the benevolent portion of the plan is finished a terrorist could turn it into a weapon. I don't care how benevolent a plan you suggest any new technology will be weaponized.
It's like you're trying to suggest terrorists invented bombs with their own R&D to come to the conclusion you did.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments