seeder Posted February 17, 2016 #1 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Real-life Armageddon: Putin to fire missile at 'dangerous asteroid flying near Earth' PRESIDENT Putin is gearing up to blast an asteroid expected to fly dangerously close to Earth - imitating the plot of the Hollywood blockbuster Armageddon. Scientists working under orders of Vladimir Putin are modifying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) so they can be used to fire at near-earth objects (NEOs), including asteroids and space debris. The multi-million pound Russian project aims to blow the space rock into smaller objects that could be less likley to threaten the planet. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/644646/Real-life-Armageddon-Putin-to-fire-missile-at-dangerous-asteroid-flying-near-Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted February 17, 2016 #2 Share Posted February 17, 2016 ...I'm assuming that Putin's cronies have worked it out so that the asteroid WON'T BE ONTO a collision course with Earth when struck by one of their missiles. Oh, who am I kidding? They'll be lucky to just get a missile out of orbit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubblykiss Posted February 17, 2016 #3 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Nothing says that your country has made it like firing missiles at space pebbles while claiming to be defending humanity. Can somebody plese send Putin a Cap't Planet custom? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickian Posted February 17, 2016 #4 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Wasn't all of the conflict in that movie derived from people who didn't think a bomb going off on the surface would do anything compared to inside of it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted February 17, 2016 #5 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I wonder just how effective heat and radiation would be in a vacuum? With no air to compress there would be no shock wave, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted February 17, 2016 Author #6 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Wasn't all of the conflict in that movie derived from people who didn't think a bomb going off on the surface would do anything compared to inside of it? China blew a satellite to bits with a missile from earth...ok not a speeding asteroid exactly.....but if somone doesnt try maybe we are all doomed... http://www.telegraph...e-in-space.html . Edited February 17, 2016 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted February 17, 2016 #7 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I wonder just how effective heat and radiation would be in a vacuum? Heat is electromagnetic radiation. Such radiation is not affected by vacuum, quite the opposite in fact. Heat from the Sun manages to reach Earth across 93 million miles of vacuum. In fact it is the Earth's atmosphere which prevents most of the harmful wavelengths reaching the surface. With no air to compress there would be no shock wave, right? If the warhead is detonated on the surface of the asteroid then there will be a shock wave through the asteroid itself. Detonating a warhead in space, close to the asteroid has been suggested as a method for deflecting an asteroid. Although there is no shock wave there would be an intense blast of radiation, enough to vaporise some of the asteroid's surface. This vaporised material acts like a thruster jet, pushing slightly changing it's orbit. I really can't see the Russians going through with this (and it is not unusual for the press to present a hypothetical situation as a done deal anyway). As things stand the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, which Russia isa signatory of states: States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 17, 2016 #8 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Heat is electromagnetic radiation. Such radiation is not affected by vacuum, quite the opposite in fact. Heat from the Sun manages to reach Earth across 93 million miles of vacuum. In fact it is the Earth's atmosphere which prevents most of the harmful wavelengths reaching the surface. If the warhead is detonated on the surface of the asteroid then there will be a shock wave through the asteroid itself. Detonating a warhead in space, close to the asteroid has been suggested as a method for deflecting an asteroid. Although there is no shock wave there would be an intense blast of radiation, enough to vaporise some of the asteroid's surface. This vaporised material acts like a thruster jet, pushing slightly changing it's orbit. I really can't see the Russians going through with this (and it is not unusual for the press to present a hypothetical situation as a done deal anyway). As things stand the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, which Russia isa signatory of states: and yet if you are dropped into the atmosphere of the sun you will freeze to death befor the vacuum can do it. this because the atmosphere is thin. and yes the atmosphere is around 10,000 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted February 17, 2016 #9 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I really can't see the Russians going through with this (and it is not unusual for the press to present a hypothetical situation as a done deal anyway). I agree with that. The article starts off by implying a missile is about to be launched at an asteroid, but by the end it is obvious this is little more than a suggestion to use ICBMs with storable or solid propellants rather than rockets that have to be loaded with liquid oxygen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kartikg Posted February 17, 2016 #10 Share Posted February 17, 2016 and yet if you are dropped into the atmosphere of the sun you will freeze to death befor the vacuum can do it. this because the atmosphere is thin. and yes the atmosphere is around 10,000 degrees. Please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted February 17, 2016 Author #11 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Did you know 'just' sunlight can move asteroids? Ok not a great deal at a time...but it does move them The Yarkovsky effect: Pushing asteroids around with sunlightWould you believe that sunlight has the ability to change the course of asteroids and comets? It can. Consider the example of Asteroid 1999 RQ36. On May 19, 2012—at the Asteroids, Comets, and Meteors 2012 meeting in Japan—astronomer Steven Chesley presented the most accurate determination of the asteroid’s orbit to date. The accuracy—akin to knowing the distance between New York and Los Angeles to within two inches—reveals the delicate nudge of the Yarkovsky effect, the minuscule push imparted on the asteroid by nothing more than sunlight. http://earthsky.org/...d-with-sunlight . Edited February 17, 2016 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 18, 2016 #12 Share Posted February 18, 2016 https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080926125618AAFvgaM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted February 18, 2016 #13 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Surely if you're in the sun's corona then the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, being 1,000,000K+ but really diffuse, is not your issue. If you're that close to the sun wouldn't the sheer intensity of heat radiation just bake anything that close to the sun? I'd imagine an astronaut would die from heat rather than freezing. Edited February 18, 2016 by JesseCuster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted February 18, 2016 #14 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Surely if you're in the sun's corona then the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, being 1,000,000K+ but really diffuse, is not your issue. If you're that close to the sun wouldn't the sheer intensity of heat radiation just bake anything that close to the sun? I'd imagine an astronaut would die from heat rather than freezing. At the distance the Earth is from the Sun each square meter receives 1.3 kW of electromagnetic radiation. Do a bit of maths with the inverse square law and you will see how much electromagnetic radiation is received per square meter close to the Sun. You are right, It is a hell lot more than is needed to bake an astronaut. But if an astronaut were shielded from that radiation, would he or she freeze in the Sun's atmosphere? I guess that depends on how energetic the molecules within the atmosphere are. I am not saying I know the answer to this, but a bit of playing around with gas kinetics might yield the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daffy123 Posted February 19, 2016 #15 Share Posted February 19, 2016 At the distance the Earth is from the Sun each square meter receives 1.3 kW of electromagnetic radiation. Do a bit of maths with the inverse square law and you will see how much electromagnetic radiation is received per square meter close to the Sun. You are right, It is a hell lot more than is needed to bake an astronaut. But if an astronaut were shielded from that radiation, would he or she freeze in the Sun's atmosphere? I guess that depends on how energetic the molecules within the atmosphere are. I am not saying I know the answer to this, but a bit of playing around with gas kinetics might yield the solution. I trust your call on this one seeing as your name is almost Bruce Willis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 25, 2016 #16 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Surely if you're in the sun's corona then the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, being 1,000,000K+ but really diffuse, is not your issue. If you're that close to the sun wouldn't the sheer intensity of heat radiation just bake anything that close to the sun? I'd imagine an astronaut would die from heat rather than freezing. no, because the sun's atmo is about as thin as the moon's. the atmos of all of the planets and trwo moons is thick enough to heat up from the suns radiation. hoiw ever all but venus get most of their heat from their coires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 10, 2016 #17 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Surely if you're in the sun's corona then the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, being 1,000,000K+ but really diffuse, is not your issue. If you're that close to the sun wouldn't the sheer intensity of heat radiation just bake anything that close to the sun? I'd imagine an astronaut would die from heat rather than freezing. radiation has to have something to bounce off of to give off its heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted March 10, 2016 #18 Share Posted March 10, 2016 no, because the sun's atmo is about as thin as the moon's. Depends on the region of the solar atmosphere. This is true of the outer part of the corona but the chromosphere, whilst more tenuous than the Earth's atmosphere, is much denser than the lunar exosphere. JesseCuster is quite correct, the corona may not kill you but heat directly radiated from the sun WOULD. the atmos of all of the planets and trwo moons is thick enough to heat up from the suns radiation. You do know that Mercury has virtually no atmosphere don't you, but has the second hottest surface temperature of any planet. hoiw ever all but venus get most of their heat from their coires. What? More nonsense. Only three planets generate more heat internally than they receive from the sun, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. It's been nice not having to say this for a year... Daniel, do some research before you post, it will save you a lot of embarrassment. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 10, 2016 #19 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Depends on the region of the solar atmosphere. This is true of the outer part of the corona but the chromosphere, whilst more tenuous than the Earth's atmosphere, is much denser than the lunar exosphere. JesseCuster is quite correct, the corona may not kill you but heat directly radiated from the sun WOULD. You do know that Mercury has virtually no atmosphere don't you, but has the second hottest surface temperature of any planet. What? More nonsense. Only three planets generate more heat internally than they receive from the sun, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. It's been nice not having to say this for a year... Daniel, do some research before you post, it will save you a lot of embarrassment. yea, but thex radeation has something to bounce off of the ground. it is also the second col;dest place in system. if its day was faster it would be colder. also it isn't inside the suns atmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 10, 2016 #20 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Depends on the region of the solar atmosphere. This is true of the outer part of the corona but the chromosphere, whilst more tenuous than the Earth's atmosphere, is much denser than the lunar exosphere. JesseCuster is quite correct, the corona may not kill you but heat directly radiated from the sun WOULD. You do know that Mercury has virtually no atmosphere don't you, but has the second hottest surface temperature of any planet. What? More nonsense. Only three planets generate more heat internally than they receive from the sun, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. It's been nice not having to say this for a year... Daniel, do some research before you post, it will save you a lot of embarrassment. i did not say more heat i said heat. Earth may have formed more than 4.5 billion years ago, but it’s still cooling. A new study reveals that only about half of our planet’s internal heat stems from natural radioactivity. The rest is primordial heat left over from when Earth first coalesced from a hot ball of gas, dust, and other material.The new finding comes from experiments carried out deep inside a Japanese mountain. Itaru Shimizu, a particle physicist at Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, and his colleagues used geoneutrinos—particles produced in a variety of ways, particularly during certain types of radioactive decay—to more directly estimate the amount of radiogenic heat produced inside Earth. http://rashidfaridi.com/2011/07/19/heat-of-the-earthwhere-does-it-come-from/ the suns l;ight is more needed for plant life than heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted March 11, 2016 #21 Share Posted March 11, 2016 radiation has to have something to bounce off of to give off its heat. What?!?! Please do elaborate.... Cheers, Badeskov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted March 11, 2016 #22 Share Posted March 11, 2016 i did not say more heat i said heat. That is not what you said. You said: hoiw ever all but venus get most of their heat from their coires. That is a very specific claim that only Venus doesn't get most of it's heat from it's core. A specific and FALSE claim I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 11, 2016 #23 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I have no problem with a nuke intervention. What else, really, do we have? I think the consequence of NOT doing something is far greater than the consequences of doing "something" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 12, 2016 #24 Share Posted March 12, 2016 That is not what you said. You said: That is a very specific claim that only Venus doesn't get most of it's heat from it's core. A specific and FALSE claim I'm afraid. earths core generates most of the heat that the earth has. this does not main earth generates more heat than it receives. the suns light is needed for plant life. the heat we animal life use to keep warm comes from the earths core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted March 12, 2016 #25 Share Posted March 12, 2016 earths core generates most of the heat that the earth has. this does not main earth generates more heat than it receives. the suns light is needed for plant life. the heat we animal life use to keep warm comes from the earths core. I have a few questions for you danielost: - If most of the heat we use to keep warm comes from the Earths core, not the sun, why does the ground freeze in the winter ? - Shouldn't the ground temperature not be pretty constant if most of the heat comes from the core ? - Is the Earths core seasonal ? - How does cold blooded animals keep warm ? - Why is it colder at night and when clouded ? - Does the core not work at night and in bad weather ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now