<p>The Tunguska whatever it was hit the earth.</p><p>More links later...</p><p> </p><p>http://www.planetary.org/about/press/releases/2008/0626_Target_Earth_How_Prepared_Are_We.html</p><p> </p><p>Pasadena, CA, —It exploded over Siberia – this object from space – and leveled 2,000 square kilometers of forest, flattening pine trees like matchsticks. June 30 marks the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska event, the day in 1908 when an asteroid or comet entered Earth’s atmosphere and, in effect, fired an astronomical warning shot across our bow. How prepared is Earth today to avoid disaster from the skies.</p><p> </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
- Status
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Tunguska whatever it was hit the earth.More links ;later... http://www.planetary.org/about/press/releases/2008/0626_Target_Earth_How_Prepared_Are_We.htmlPasadena, CA, —It exploded over Siberia – this object from space – and leveled 2,000 square kilometers of forest, flattening pine trees like matchsticks. June 30 marks the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska event, the day in 1908 when an asteroid or comet entered Earth’s atmosphere and, in effect, fired an astronomical warning shot across our bow. How prepared is Earth today to avoid disaster from the skies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Not nearly enough. For all of the good ideas that I hear I am still missing the one that makes the most sense. What we need is a strategic mass reserve in orbit dedicated to preventing us from following the dinosaurs. If we already have a million tons or more in orbit solving the rest of the equation is much easier (because moving large masses in a short period requires a lot of reaction mass) . And it is only a matter of time before some nice large chunk of matter (or worse a swarm of objects) is gonna come heading our way from the Ort cloud, giving us very little time to plan our final vacation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... What we need is a strategic mass reserve in orbit dedicated to preventing us from following the dinosaurs. If we already have a million tons or more in orbit solving the rest of the equation is much easier (because moving large masses in a short period requires a lot of reaction mass) ....<br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p> Wouldn't adding more mass to our vicinity increase the likleyhood of attracting any objects passing by; making them, pass into Earth? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Wouldn't adding more mass to our vicinity increase the likleyhood of attracting any objects passing by; making them, pass into Earth? <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV><br /><br />You are not actually adding mass to the vicinity just redistributing it from ground level to orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are not actually adding mass to the vicinity just redistributing it from ground level to orbit. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />Unfortunately, having it in orbit is of no value.</p><p>By the time an asteroid reaches orbital height, it would have no effect on the energy of a large impacting object.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately, having it in orbit is of no value.By the time an asteroid reaches orbital height, it would have no effect on the energy of a large impacting object. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Wayne the mass you put in orbit would be fuel and supplies for an intercept mission. You could also stage that mass and any intercept system further out in the solar system, say around mars. I believe (emphasis on believe, and I humbly defer to your experience in that area.) that Ort cloud objects don't actually turn into comets with a tail until they get close in. So spotting and intercepting an object from say the orbit of Jupiter might actually increase the mass requirements for intercept to get to it before it flys by. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne the mass you put in orbit would be fuel and supplies for an intercept mission. You could also stage that mass and any intercept system further out in the solar system, say around mars. I believe (emphasis on believe, and I humbly defer to your experience in that area.) that Ort cloud objects don't actually turn into comets with a tail until they get close in. So spotting and intercepting an object from say the orbit of Jupiter might actually increase the mass requirements for intercept to get to it before it flys by. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>What supplies do you store in orbit ? How do you store them? How long can you store them and expect them to remain functional? How do you transport them to a point of action ? How long do you anticipate the trip would be ? What is the spedific action to be taken using those supplies ? What preparation is needed at the site of the action ? What lead time is needed to complete that preparation and set up for whatever the action to be taken might be ? How much notice is required in order to be abe to initiate the final action in a time frame that would make that action effective ? What calculations support the assessment that the action will be effective ? What is the risk that the action will be counter-productive ? Do we have the capability to detect and evaluate a potential threat in time to take effective action ? </p><p>In short, talking about storing stuff in orbit is nice, but WHAT IS THE PLAN ?</p><p>Sending Bruce Willis is not a plan.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>An intercept mission for destruction is rather pointless, as the Dr says. </p><p>The threat from asteroids can be mitigated by subtly shifting it's orbit many years in advance, which is why monitoring programs such as Spaceguard and the few search programs in progress are so important. The idea is to discover a possible impacting asteroid many orbits in advance to allow time to determine the threat, evaluate strategies to change it's orbit slightly, and put such a plan into action. As of now, there are no known substantial threats for many centuries, though quite a few have non-zero probabilities of impact.</p><p>For such "orbit tweaking" missions, having material pre-position provides little benefit, and pragmatically, who's gonna pony up the money before there is a threat. The answer is, no one.</p><p>Edit, this was poorly worded on my part, I have corrected it.</p><p>MW 11AM EDT</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What supplies do you store in orbit ?</DIV> - Reaction Mass = Hydrogen+Oxygen(or some other propellant mixture)<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do you store them?</DIV> - Good question<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How long can you store them and expect them to remain functional?</DIV> Basic elements do not lose their physical properties over time. so system losses would determine longevity.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do you transport them to a point of action ?</DIV> Depends on the length of time to impact.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How long do you anticipate the trip would be ?</DIV> I believe (emphasis on believe) that Ort based objects on an intercept with Earth might be undetectable until they are only a few months away. Again I defer to someone with more experience. Long period asteroids might allow thousands of years for solutions. So the answer to that question would be based on how dire the situation was and what capabilities could be brought to bear.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is the spedific action to be taken using those supplies ?</DIV> I am not discussing specific actions in this case. I am saying that from a strategic standpoint that having the mass already available to use outside of a large gravity well would increase the specific actions available.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What preparation is needed at the site of the action ?</DIV> Again I am not talking about the tactical situation, I am talking about the strategic pre-positioning of supplies.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What lead time is needed to complete that preparation and set up for whatever the action to be taken might be ?</DIV> Depends on the nature of the threat.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How much notice is required in order to be abe to initiate the final action in a time frame that would make that action effective ? What calculations support the assessment that the action will be effective What is the risk that the action will be counter-productive ?</DIV></p><p><br /> Again -These are tactical considerations</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do we have the capability to detect and evaluate a potential threat in time to take effective action ?</DIV><br /> Very good question</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short, talking about storing stuff in orbit is nice, but WHAT IS THE PLAN ?</DIV><br />Well I have seen a lot of proposals, from using thermonuclear devices to gravity tractors. Again the tactical situation will determine practicalities</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sending Bruce Willis is not a plan. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />You mean this isn't TV? 
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Basic elements do not lose their physical properties over time. so system losses would determine longevity. ...Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Basic elements, like everything else, can react with their container, undergo phase transitions, expand and contract and put cyclic loads on the container, diffuse into the container material, leak, ...<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne the mass you put in orbit would be fuel and supplies for an intercept mission. You could also stage that mass and any intercept system further out in the solar system, say around mars. I believe (emphasis on believe, and I humbly defer to your experience in that area.) that Ort cloud objects don't actually turn into comets with a tail until they get close in. So spotting and intercepting an object from say the orbit of Jupiter might actually increase the mass requirements for intercept to get to it before it flys by. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />An intercept mission for an Oort cloud comet is rather pointless. You are correct that <em>about</em> the orbit of Mars is where they generally become visible, but if an Oort comet has our name on it, by then it's already almosttoo late. An Oort cloud comet will be heading straight toward the earth at ~ 41 km/sec (the speed is pretty invariable due to the near parabolic eccentricity required for such a comet) which gives an impact velocity of 16 to 72 km/sec depending on the direction it hits us.</p><p>There was only 20 months between Hale-Bopp's discovery and it's closest approach to earth. It was a very large (~60 km) and very active comet so was discovered at 7AU from the sun, well outside of Jupier's orbit. A smaller (but still very dangerous) and less active comet would give far less warning time. It was a record-breaking comet — discovered the furthest from the Sun, with the largest cometary nucleus known, and it was visible to the naked eye for twice as long as the previous record-holder. It was also brighter than magnitude 0 for eight weeks, longer than any other comet in the past thousand years.</p><p>Even if you were able to intercept it, what would you do then? Split it into two comets, either or both of which might still hit earth?</p><p>It is unlikely any deflection we would be able to impart would make any orbital change greater than that which the surface jets already provide, and what if it would miss us until we deflect it?</p><p>Oort comets are undoubtedly the most dangerous events that could hurt the earth, primarily due to the short lead times and high velocities.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Basic elements, like everything else, can react with their container, undergo phase transitions, expand and contract and put cyclic loads on the container, diffuse into the container material, leak, ... <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I believe that these all equate to system losses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An intercept mission for an Oort cloud comet is rather pointless. You are correct that about the orbit of Mars is where they generally become visible, but if an Oort comet has our name on it, by then it's already almosttoo late. An Oort cloud comet will be heading straight toward the earth at ~ 41 km/sec (the speed is pretty invariable due to the near parabolic eccentricity required for such a comet) which gives an impact velocity of 16 to 72 km/sec depending on the direction it hits us.There was only 20 months between Hale-Bopp's discovery and it's closest approach to earth. It was a very large (~60 km) and very active comet so was discovered at 7AU from the sun, well outside of Jupier's orbit. A smaller (but still very dangerous) and less active comet would give far less warning time.Even if you were able to intercept it, what would you do then? Split it into two comets, either or both of which might still hit earth?It is unlikely any deflection we would be able to impart would make any orbital change greater than that which the surface jets already provide, and what if it would miss us until we deflect it?Oort comets are undoubtedly the most dangerous events that could hurt the earth, primarily due to the short lead times and high velocities. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Wayne thanks for bringing in the data (something told me you might have some lying around on the subject ;O)</p><p>I think you help make my point. If we are to have any chance to survrive we need to think on the strategic level. i.e. what steps can we take starting today to prevent an action or event from killing us off in the next month, next year, or next century etc....</p><p>because if we do nothing we limit our options considerably</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe that these all equate to system losses. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Ok let me put it another way.</p><p>How long would a ball of Ice last on the dark side of the moon?</p><p>How long could you maintain pure hydrogen or oxygen in a pressurized tank tank in orbit?</p><p>The amount of time you have to use the supplies is basically dependent on your storage method and how long that method is capable of maintaining its integrity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok let me put it another way.How long would a ball of Ice last on the dark side of the moon?How long could you maintain pure hydrogen or oxygen in a pressurized tank tank in orbit?The amount of time you have to use the supplies is basically dependent on your storage method and how long that method is capable of maintaining its integrity. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />Well, any point on the moon is only dark for 14 days at a time (unless it's in a polar crater).</p><p>With no atmopshere at all, in direct sunlight, it all depends on how big the ball of ice is to start with. Comets can last a long cumulative time. You got a 10 km sized chunk of ice you can experiment with?</p><p>There is no permanantly dark side of the moon.</p><p>Any object in orbit around the earth is in the dark for 45 minutes to 12 hours up to geostationary height.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, any point on the moon is only dark for 14 days at a time (unless it's in a polar crater).With no atmopshere at all, in direct sunlight, it all depends on how big the ball of ice is to start with. Comets can last a long cumulative time. You got a 10 km sized chunk of ice you can experiment with?There is no permanantly dark side of the moon.Any object in orbit around the earth is in the dark for 45 minutes to 12 hours up to geostationary height. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Ok I am not debating the methods. Those were just a few quick examples off the top of my head. What I am saying is that the methods will determine longevity, in response to Dr. Rockets question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok let me put it another way.How long would a ball of Ice last on the dark side of the moon?How long could you maintain pure hydrogen or oxygen in a pressurized tank tank in orbit?The amount of time you have to use the supplies is basically dependent on your storage method and how long that method is capable of maintaining its integrity. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>There is no such thing as a dark side of the moon. It all gets sunlight. It is just that one side faces away from Earth. This is a perfect example of why one needs to think things through and get one's facts and physics straight before taking useless action. </p><p>You observation about storeage methods is true, but essentially by definition of "method". It is not useful in formulating a plan.</p><p>The point is that there is no point in putting a bunch of stuff in orbit when you have no plan to keep it in useable condition and even no ideas what "useable"means because you have no idea how to use it.</p><p>If one is going to take action the FIRST step is to formulate a viable plan for that action. At the moment there is none and I have serious doubts that there is any technology that would be useful. We simply do not have the capability to perform any meaninful deep space operations with large amounts of mass. In this case deep space means anything outside of Earth orbit.</p><p>It seems to me that step number one is to identify and quantify the threat. That takes only observation and thought.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as a dark side of the moon. It all gets sunlight. It is just that one side faces away from Earth. This is a perfect example of why one needs to think things through and get one's facts and physics straight before taking useless action. You observation about storeage methods is true, but essentially by definition of "method". It is not useful in formulating a plan.The point is that there is no point in putting a bunch of stuff in orbit when you have no plan to keep it in useable condition and even no ideas what "useable"means because you have no idea how to use it.If one is going to take action the FIRST step is to formulate a viable plan for that action. At the moment there is none and I have serious doubts that there is any technology that would be useful. We simply do not have the capability to perform any meaninful deep space operations with large amounts of mass. In this case deep space means anything outside of Earth orbit.It seems to me that step number one is to identify and quantify the threat. That takes only observation and thought. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />So you would rather start out at ground zero without the advantage of strategically prepositioned supplies and systems? Are you saying that there is absolutely no merit in the idea? Do you have better ideas? Can you please post them so I can practice MY sophistry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems to me that step number one is to identify and quantify the threat. That takes only observation and thought. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />And that is going rather well. Few large asteroids sneak up on us, though small ones (just bright fireballs) do.</p><p>As I said, there's not much that can be done about a large Oort cloud comet anyway.</p><p>So we are taking the most important steps in monitoring the near earth environment. </p><p>The current most threatening asteroid is 2007 VK 184, a ~ 130 meter sized object with a 3 in 10,000 chance of impacting earth beginning in 2048, plenty of time for planning.</p><p>As currently understood, the odds are a thousand times higher for an unknown asteroid to smack us, but I suspect it's about time to reduce the odds for an unknown one. I'm currently working on some discussions on that subject, but am only in the data acquisition phase.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no permanantly dark side of the moon.<br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />I get a chuckle out of the poeple who truly think that the moon has a constant dark and constant light side. Had a discussion with a young chap the other day he he was determined to changed my train of thought that the moon had a continual dark side. I asked him one simple question "What side of the moon is facing Earth during a solar eclipse". Nuff said!</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I get a chuckle out of the poeple who truly think that the moon has a constant dark and constant light side. Had a discussion with a young chap the other day he he was determined to changed my train of thought that the moon had a continual dark side. I asked him one simple question "What side of the moon is facing Earth during a solar eclipse". Nuff said! <br />Posted by bearack</DIV><br /><br />The question was asked tongue in cheek </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you would rather start out at ground zero without the advantage of strategically prepositioned supplies and systems? Are you saying that there is absolutely no merit in the idea? Do you have better ideas? Can you please post them so I can practice MY sophistry. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I am saying that a little bit of thought beats gobs of mindless undirected action. If you don't know what you are going to do then you don't know what supplies are appropriate. Wasting precious launch resources putting up things that can't or won't be used is counter-productive.</p><p>I am saying that there is no merit in action without a plan. There is lots of merit in formulating a plan.</p><p>I already gave you an idea. First identify likely threats. As Wayne noted there is quite a bit of progress on this front, and probably more on the way. Second determine through study what might be required in terms of a momentum change, and time for application of that change to avoid a problem. Third do a sensitivity study to make sure that the action taken will not in itself create a problem (for instance a small nudge very early on might either avoid a collision or create one). Fourth determine how one might effectively, will available technology, actually take action. THEN one can think about starting to prepare physically.</p><p>You probably ought to start practicing something. I doubt sophistry will help much. Might I suggest brushing up on your physics ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am saying that a little bit of thought beats gobs of mindless undirected action.</DIV></p><p>So your position is that prepositioning strategic supplies equates to "mindless undirected action" </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you don't know what you are going to do then you don't know what supplies are appropriate.</DIV> </p><p>Are you saying that millions of tons of propellent would be inapropriate given the parameters of the problem? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wasting precious launch resources putting up things that can't or won't be used is counter-productive.</DIV></p><p>Do you believe that, the propellent couldn't be used for other valuable purposes? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am saying that there is no merit in action without a plan.</DIV></p><p>And I am saying that to have a workable plan we need to take actions before we get the news that something big is gonna hit in 20 months or less. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is lots of merit in formulating a plan.</DIV></p><p> A plan starts with concepts. This is a concept.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I already gave you an idea. First identify likely threats. As Wayne noted there is quite a bit of progress on this front, and probably more on the way. Second determine through study what might be required in terms of a momentum change, and time for application of that change to avoid a problem. Third do a sensitivity study to make sure that the action taken will not in itself create a problem (for instance a small nudge very early on might either avoid a collision or create one). Fourth determine how one might effectively, will available technology, actually take action. THEN one can think about starting to prepare physically.</DIV></p><p>I hope you are *planning* for the other side if I ever have to go back to war. Strategic thinking is obviously not one of your strong suits. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You probably ought to start practicing something. I doubt sophistry will help much. Might I suggest brushing up on your physics ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Why do your physics say that its better to start off at ground zero with nothing, than with a million tons in orbit? Can you help me with the math on that one?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..; Strategic thinking is obviously not one of your strong suits. Why do your physics say that its better to start off at ground zero with nothing, than with a million tons in orbit? Can you help me with the math on that one? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Recognition of strategic thinking seems to be a problem for you. It is better to start off with what you need at ground zero than to start by squandering available launch capability to pua million tons of ultimately useless junk into orbit. The math is simple. A starting point of zero, but with available resources trumps a negative starting point with resources already expended.</p><p>There is a great difference between a well-planned approach to solving a problem and mindless motion. There is a tremendous difference between speed and velocity -- it is called direction.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
FAA to conduct new environmental review for SpaceX's Starship operations in Florida- Started by Admin
- Replies: 9
-
Question How does Earth have a magnetic field when it doesn't meet the electromagnetic requirements (an iron core is insufficient)?
- Started by Space Crumpet
- Replies: 1
-
Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 67
-
Warp drives' may actually be possible someday, new study suggests
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 30
-
Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 6
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram