-
I'm not bothering to math anything, but, like, depending on how it hits, would it not just pierce the planet like a martini olive? I guess it depends on how much it's able to pierce, if it goes right through or gets stuck. I guess the real problem would be less the immediate moment of impact, and how much the spear tears up the planet as it drags/digs as it conflicts with Earth's spin.
Otherwise, Beadle basically laid out my first thoughts.
-
I'm with Beadle in the 'we're hosed' department.
-
[QUOTE=Sharpandpointies;5767143]I'm with Beadle in the 'we're hosed' department.[/QUOTE]
Hosed like a martini olive.
:V
-
[QUOTE=Sharkerbob;5767153]Hosed like a martini olive.
:V[/QUOTE]
Ka-thunk.
*limit dance*
-
But at least we can use the spear as basis for the space elevator if we survive :)
-
It's not a matter of surviving honestly, it's a matter of how badly we die.
-
I mean, if we're allowed to defend ourselves then a bunch of nukes just detonating along one side might be able to deflect something that thin and that long the fraction of a degree needed to make sure that it missed Earth altogether several months later.
-
the amount of work and coordination needed to hit a moving target like that probably wouldn't be feasible given the time frame.
-
Also, how do we deliver the nukes? Forget about the actual targeting issues (which are huge, as we don't have 'guidance packages' on the nukes that are calibrated for hitting an object in space), how do the nukes reach the target far enough away from Earth that they will actually affect its trajectory sufficiently to make it miss?
ICBM's are 'intercontinental', not 'interplanetary'.
Granted, at 10 miles per second, we have a ton of time to figure this out. EDIT: ~1.3 years, based on current distance between Jupiter and Earth, and not bothering to take into account the differences of our orbits and stuff that make such things much more complex.
-
If this becomes a "survival" issue, we can probably figure out something. All of the problems for sustainable travel and reasonable budgets go straight out the window in the face of "extinction level event." We have plenty of nuclear warheads, and we can make plenty of rockets. We have already, while constrained by budgets, sent numerous probes and vehicles far further then this has to go, and this task doesn't require things like delicate orbital insertion or recoverable assets. Given the absolute lack of fiscal responsibility this would entail, just launch spacecraft as quickly as possible carrying nukes and a bunch of packing arounf them, and detonate them to the side of the oncoming needle. Diverting it a fraction of a degree is enough, and that should be possible, I'd guess.
-
[QUOTE=big_adventure;5770529]If this becomes a "survival" issue, we can probably figure out something. All of the problems for sustainable travel and reasonable budgets go straight out the window in the face of "extinction level event." We have plenty of nuclear warheads, and we can make plenty of rockets. We have already, while constrained by budgets, sent numerous probes and vehicles far further then this has to go, and this task doesn't require things like delicate orbital insertion or recoverable assets. Given the absolute lack of fiscal responsibility this would entail, just launch spacecraft as quickly as possible carrying nukes and a bunch of packing arounf them, and detonate them to the side of the oncoming needle. Diverting it a fraction of a degree is enough, and that should be possible, I'd guess.[/QUOTE]
All of that, again, depends on how fast we get this together. It's not just a matter of strapping big stuff to a rocket. We need to actually get something chock-a-block full of nuclear warheads close enough to this thing that detonating the warheads in space will actually have an effect on it, and far enough away from Earth that nudging it a trifle WILL shift it off course. The nukes REALLY need to be super-close to the target - we're not talking about any kind of 'shockwave' any more (due to space), it's all heat and particles.
This is really something we've never, ever done.
Is it possible to accomplish this in 1.3 years? Maybe, but we don't have 1.3 years. We have a lot less than that, because while each day means the giant flying noodle is much easier for us to actually reach, it also means the giant flying noodle is more difficult to shift enough off-course. If you get my drift. ^_^
I think it COULD be done, but my expectations are pretty low.
-
[QUOTE=Beadle;5766840]2.5 million tons of force is pretty much exactly 2.5 Megatons. That’s what a Megaton is. ;)[/quote]
Terms like 'kiloton' and 'megaton' were coined to describe a weapon's blast energy in equivalent weights of TNT. Of course, being constants, they should be simple enough to convert to standard force or energy units, but they do not directly or instinctively relate to kgs or newtons as a measure of force.
-
For what it's worth, if they can get within visual range of the target, then there's probably a bunch of people willing to manually close range and set of the nukes from point blank in order to save the entire planet. Granted, the trick would be find the ones who also know how to properly pilot a space shuttle to a sufficient degree...
-
[QUOTE=The Drunkard Kid;5770580]For what it's worth, of they can get within visual range of the target, there's probably a bunch of people willing to manually close range and set of the nukes from point blank in order to save the entire planet. Granted, the trick would be find the ones who also know how to properly pilot a space shuttle to a sufficient degree...[/QUOTE]
They would also need to fly the darned thing in a pretty exact way the entire time to arrive there close enough to pull this off. And stay alive all of that time, as well - we're not talking a couple hours of flight, intercepting it far enough away to make a difference will mean 'well-beyond lunar orbit' or something like that.
And getting 'in visual range' of something thin as a telephone pole is getting pretty darned close, in terms of space. ^_^
-
[QUOTE=Sharpandpointies;5770559]All of that, again, depends on how fast we get this together. It's not just a matter of strapping big stuff to a rocket. We need to actually get something chock-a-block full of nuclear warheads close enough to this thing that detonating the warheads in space will actually have an effect on it, and far enough away from Earth that nudging it a trifle WILL shift it off course. The nukes REALLY need to be super-close to the target - we're not talking about any kind of 'shockwave' any more (due to space), it's all heat and particles.
This is really something we've never, ever done.
Is it possible to accomplish this in 1.3 years? Maybe, but we don't have 1.3 years. We have a lot less than that, because while each day means the giant flying noodle is much easier for us to actually reach, it also means the giant flying noodle is more difficult to shift enough off-course. If you get my drift. ^_^
I think it COULD be done, but my expectations are pretty low.[/QUOTE]
I hear you - I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it would be far from impossible given the incalculable amount of resources that would be thrown at the problem. This isn't NASA spending years negotiating the very lowest bidder for a rocket, and building it for a few million. This is "We're going to spend hundreds of billions or trillions to make dozens or hundreds of rockets with the range required and deliver existing warheads and filler" (to provide mass to shift the trajectory).