Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fortune090 t1_iqx3ecy wrote

Why go all the way to nuking it if we can confirm crashing into at high speeds is an effective solution? A lot easier to plot a direct collision course than it is to time an explosion and/or make sure the device actually explodes on time.

5

D3ATHfromAB0V3x t1_iqx52ni wrote

I'm not arguing about the validity of the impactor. It's probably the best solution we have at the moment. I'm just curious why we would rather move it slightly off course than destroy it and never worry about it again.

2

led76 t1_iqx678l wrote

I think the idea is that an extinction-level asteroid might be bigger than this one, so destroying may not be an option.

Also, nudging it out of the way of earth takes far less energy. And if you blow it up big chunks of it could still cause immense damage. They don’t have to be big. Enough pebble-sized meteorites in succession could heat up the atmosphere enough to kill off a lot of things.

5

crazyjkass t1_ir1szrc wrote

The probability that an extinction-sized asteroid will hit in the next 100 years are infinitesimally small. We already mapped out all the large asteroids in the solar system. NASA is actually worried about asteroids big enough to vaporize one city, because they're so numerous and hard to see.

1

sumelar t1_iqxs9jk wrote

Because if those high speeds aren't enough, what's your next plan?

1

WhalesVirginia t1_iqz4lb0 wrote

Crashing into a body requires affecting it's path further in advance because we only have such big rockets that can only add so much dV.

Energy density of a nuke is way higher than rocket fuel of equivalent mass.

Precisely timing a device is trivial in the grand scheme of thrust vector control, orbital navigation, and all of the other control systems operating the device. Like sure it's hard, but an extra PCB, sensor system, and software isn't going to exactly break the bank.

1