[finasteridonline]

Himalaya maybe. A lucky (lol lucky) hit and the pointy mountains would perhaps make a crumple-zone effect which may reduce the shockwave-effeck on the rest of the planet.

However, the changes in the mountains might dramatically change the way the weather in large parts of the world operates, causing more deserts for example. Or maybe it changes for the better.

[lXvtm0ox]

Anywhere apart from Wales,

Preferably North Yorkshire, Kent or Minnesota. /joking

Or where Chuck Norris is standing, Then he can roundhouse it and make it go into the sun.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Anywhere apart from Wales,

Preferably North Yorkshire, Kent or Minnesota. /joking

Or where Chuck Norris is standing, Then he can roundhouse it and make it go into the sun.

Theoretical question, what would happen if an asteroid big enough to actually impact the sun's surface ( eg withstand the corona sphere ) would.. well hit it lol?

[Nicihntm]

what would happen if it hit at such an obliqe angle then

[pharmablogger]

Comets sometimes smack into the Sun - the usual effect is burst of particles from the impact site, which then spray out everywhere as the Sun rotates - but it's only ever been recorded "live" once. Asteroids rarely travel in such similar orbits to comets but if one did strike the Sun (and the surface isn't really a surface, just a boundary that marks where the plasma becomes dense enough to be optically opaque) then the effect is likely to be the same.

[Roneyslelry]

Theoretical question, what would happen if an asteroid big enough to actually impact the sun's surface ( eg withstand the corona sphere ) would.. well hit it lol?

I don't think the sun is as solid as earth except for maybe the core. I think most of its volume is fluffy flame. Still, I'd like to hear an educated response to this.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Comets sometimes smack into the Sun - the usual effect is burst of particles from the impact site, which then spray out everywhere as the Sun rotates - but it's only ever been recorded "live" once. Asteroids rarely travel in such similar orbits to comets but if one did strike the Sun (and the surface isn't really a surface, just a boundary that marks where the plasma becomes dense enough to be optically opaque) then the effect is likely to be the same.

I don't think the sun is as solid as earth except for maybe the core. I think most of its volume is fluffy flame. Still, I'd like to hear an educated response to this.

You got beat by one minute

Neeyik thanks for that link [thumbup]

About density and solid state, I thought there is a density at which the superheated plasma acts like a solid?

Edit: I mean under influence from the sun's gravity couldn't the density become so great it would effectively become a solid?

[pharmablogger]

About density and solid state, I thought there is a density at which the superheated plasma acts like a solid?

Edit: I mean under influence from the sun's gravity couldn't the density become so great it would effectively become a solid?

The average density of the Sun is only around 1.5 times that of water, so it should tell you something about how temperature can compensate for the effects of gravity; even at the core, which is around 150 times denser than water, the temperature is so high, it behaves as a fluid.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

The average density of the Sun is only around 1.5 times that of water, so it should tell you something about how temperature can compensate for the effects of gravity; even at the core, which is around 150 times denser than water, the temperature is so high, it behaves as a fluid.

True didn't think off that sorry. It's always such an pleasure having someone like you around, almost makes me wish I didn't spend my childhood the way I did Well that and maybe get rid of these memory problems LOL

[Barbshowers]

The average density of the Sun is only around 1.5 times that of water, so it should tell you something about how temperature can compensate for the effects of gravity; even at the core, which is around 150 times denser than water, the temperature is so high, it behaves as a fluid.

Still all plasma

It would be one hell of a sight to see an asteroid attempt to "hit" the sun, given it would probably vaporize before it actually touches the surface. If one was large enough, and traveled fast enough at it, and if the sun was not spouting prominences and flares in its direction, it should look like a big splash.

But then again, the Sun is roughly 1 million times larger in volume than the earth. And an asteroid that we are talking about is....how much smaller? 1 million times smaller than that? So an asteroid that would even show a "splash" has to be a trillion times larger than a regular dinosaur-eliminating asteroid.

In the end it would probably look like a sparkler firecracker when it gets about halfway past the orbit of Mercury (between Sun & Mercury).

We can also just send Chuck Norris to the moon and flying side-kick it out of orbit in the direction of the Sun. He'll have to do it at least 2 more times though to get past Venus and Mercury (unless of course they aren't nearby to begin with).[rofl]

As for where to hit on the earth....Antarctica. Preferably as perpendicular to the ground as possible (to melt in the atmosphere more), and aiming at England. This way the majority of the shock waves won't hit any land until it reaches Greenland. Also, if it was during our winter season that would be better, since it would be the summer season in the south pole and thus a hotter atmosphere to begin with.

And as for protection, that is what a Hydrogen bomb is for. It can do more damage in the vacuum of space than an atom bomb can do (I believe it's because the H-bomb is a neutron bomb / fusion bomb). Who am I kidding? We will just use about 6. Hell, even detonate it after it enters about 1 mile in or something. "Deflection" works if it is far enough away, but after it passes the Earth, it NEEDS to be destroyed since the new orbit it would have plotted may dump it back onto us again someday.

[pharmablogger]

Still all plasma

There's nothing "special" about it being plasma though, so why the wink?

It would be one hell of a sight to see an asteroid attempt to "hit" the sun, given it would probably vaporize before it actually touches the surface. If one was large enough, and traveled fast enough at it, and if the sun was not spouting prominences and flares in its direction, it should look like a big splash. It wouldn't be a "splash" at all - the density of the photosphere is less than 1% of the Earth's ground atmospheric pressure. Look at the link I gave in an earlier post; the impact of two comets just causes a burst in particles.

But then again, the Sun is roughly 1 million times larger in volume than the earth. And an asteroid that we are talking about is....how much smaller? 1 million times smaller than that? So an asteroid that would even show a "splash" has to be a trillion times larger than a regular dinosaur-eliminating asteroid. Again, looking at that previous video, the asteroid only needs to be in the order of a typical comet nucleus - just a few km in size.

In the end it would probably look like a sparkler firecracker when it gets about halfway past the orbit of Mercury (between Sun & Mercury). Not really. Although the corona has an incredibly high temperature (over 1 million Kelvin), it's density is so low that particle interactions are quite rare. The reason why we haven't sent any spacecraft really close to the Sun is the effects of the high energy particles, which would just fry an circuitry in an instant, rather than the effects of temperature.

As for where to hit on the earth....Antarctica. Preferably as perpendicular to the ground as possible (to melt in the atmosphere more), and aiming at England. This way the majority of the shock waves won't hit any land until it reaches Greenland. Also, if it was during our winter season that would be better, since it would be the summer season in the south pole and thus a hotter atmosphere to begin with. Unlikely to hit there anyway, as virtually no large asteroids orbit the Sun at such an angle to the ecliptic. Of course, the large mass of meteorite samples in Antarctica shows that some do get through, albeit rather small samples. The most destructive of seismic waves travel through the crust (L-waves, in particular) so any strike in that area will mean utter devastation for South America, South Africa and Australia in a matter of moments. Basically, there's nowhere safe on Earth against a large asteroid or comet impact.

And as for protection, that is what a Hydrogen bomb is for. It can do more damage in the vacuum of space than an atom bomb can do (I believe it's because the H-bomb is a neutron bomb / fusion bomb). Who am I kidding? We will just use about 6. Hell, even detonate it after it enters about 1 mile in or something. "Deflection" works if it is far enough away, but after it passes the Earth, it NEEDS to be destroyed since the new orbit it would have plotted may dump it back onto us again someday. Hydrogen bombs are fission/fusion bombs - a fissile weapon provides the necessary heat to drive the fusion reaction. The weapons need to detonate on impact, not just in space, because there is no atmosphere to carry the explosion forces. Your estimate for the number of current nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy an asteroid enough to remove all trace of potential threat is far too short.

[Barbshowers]

There's nothing "special" about it being plasma though, so why the wink?

My answer was shorter, that's all lol [rofl]

Not really. Although the corona has an incredibly high temperature (over 1 million Kelvin), it's density is so low that particle interactions are quite rare. The reason why we haven't sent any spacecraft really close to the Sun is the effects of the high energy particles, which would just fry an circuitry in an instant, rather than the effects of temperature.

Which is why prominences and flares aimed at anything is a bad thing. Except for Star Trek starships which can remarkably handle all that particle interference with their "shields." Oh and I forgot about aurora borealis...so there is one good thing after all. God forbid if we did not have a strong magnetosphere...And speaking of which, it is *incredible* how far the sun's extends in space against the interstellar "wind."

When is Voyager 2 fully going into the interstellar wind? As of now it should be on the fluctuating horizon, between the "wind" and the solar system boundary...

Unlikely to hit there anyway, as virtually no large asteroids orbit the Sun at such an angle to the ecliptic. Of course, the large mass of meteorite samples in Antarctica shows that some do get through, albeit rather small samples. The most destructive of seismic waves travel through the crust (L-waves, in particular) so any strike in that area will mean utter devastation for South America, South Africa and Australia in a matter of moments. Basically, there's nowhere safe on Earth against a large asteroid or comet impact.

Actually I did not think it would cause damage that quickly because of the steep inclination which would mean more atmosphere and more ice/earth to bust through. It is not much with the heat given off of the front of the rock but its the only way it can possibly cause the "least" amount of damage. Unless of course (not expecting to ever occur..) it can orbit the earth while remaining in our atmosphere enough to burn off most of it before it crashes into Antarctica. However that would not bode well since we won't have much of an atmosphere left behind.[rofl]

Hydrogen bombs are fission/fusion bombs - a fissile weapon provides the necessary heat to drive the fusion reaction. The weapons need to detonate on impact, not just in space, because there is no atmosphere to carry the explosion forces. Your estimate for the number of current nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy an asteroid enough to remove all trace of potential threat is far too short.

True, but I didn't believe a thermonuclear explosion would cause any apparent damage (hence why I didn't mention an A-bomb). It is a vacuum - so I figured the neutron particles from the H-Bomb would do more destruction. And I don't think 6 is too few to deflect or split a large chunk off... it is all about placement after all (did I say otherwise earlier? oops). I am assuming we both would agree that disintegration with the trajectory of the material aimed at Earth would not be a good idea. So shattering it enough to mine the material after it passes the planet would be better. It would be good if we can just give it a shove to the Sun but now we are talking about using more nukes than what the gov. may intend on using.

Can anyone imagine what would occur if the impact was right dead into the deepest areas of the Mariana Trench? An approximate 7 mile drop below sea level...talk about major tectonic plate shifts ! The Philippines may end up on India's beach lol. (exaggeration of course since the plates have "roots" lower than the trench can ever reach)

Oh and thanks Neeyik for making me think - I was getting bored doing my programming homework lol

[pharmablogger]

Actually I did not think it would cause damage that quickly because of the steep inclination which would mean more atmosphere and more ice/earth to bust through. It is not much with the heat given off of the front of the rock but its the only way it can possibly cause the "least" amount of damage. Unless of course (not expecting to ever occur..) it can orbit the earth while remaining in our atmosphere enough to burn off most of it before it crashes into Antarctica. However that would not bode well since we won't have much of an atmosphere left behind.[rofl]

For a sizeable asteroid (say a few miles in diameter), the angle of impact is almost irrelevant - the atmosphere, in relation the object's size, wouldn't do much to it. Basically, the best place for an asteroid or comet to hit is the Moon.

True, but I didn't believe a thermonuclear explosion would cause any apparent damage (hence why I didn't mention an A-bomb). It is a vacuum - so I figured the neutron particles from the H-Bomb would do more destruction. A hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear weapon; neutron-releasing bombs are just a variant of them. The emitted neutrons would have little impact on the asteroid - their main effect, as a weapon, is on living tissue; on rock and metal, they'd do pretty much nothing. The actual explosive effect of a thermonuclear weapon comes from the emission of heat into the surrounding medium; this causes the particles' temperatures to rise massively, causing the medium to expand in line. In space, the only medium the weapon has to work against is the asteroid itself, so for a thermonuclear bomb to be of any use against an asteroid, it would need to be inserted into it. However...

And I don't think 6 is too few to deflect or split a large chunk off... it is all about placement after all (did I say otherwise earlier? oops). I am assuming we both would agree that disintegration with the trajectory of the material aimed at Earth would not be a good idea. So shattering it enough to mine the material after it passes the planet would be better. It would be good if we can just give it a shove to the Sun but now we are talking about using more nukes than what the gov. may intend on using. Nukes wouldn't really deflect an asteroid because the release of energy is too sudden; a more effective solution is to detect an Earth-bound object early, and then attach thrusters to it, using long-term forces to manipulate its trajectory. Breaking off any parts, before or after it passes Earth, would be too risky as it would be almost impossible to determine what path they would take after detonation.

[Xxmlqevq]

Someone may have already mentioned it, but the real question is, how much time would we have to react? I believe that current technology allows us to monitor about 1% of the sky carefully enough to give us years or months warning. But the odd are that if we see something coming our way, we'd only have a few hours to respond, at best.

[kiosokkn]

Someone may have already mentioned it, but the real question is, how much time would we have to react? I believe that current technology allows us to monitor about 1% of the sky carefully enough to give us years or months warning. But the odd are that if we see something coming our way, we'd only have a few hours to respond, at best.

Any asteroid that poses a threat of impacting earth is an asteroid that has come our way thousands if not millions of times already.

Current technology allows us to assess a lot of possible collisions, for anything deemed a serious threat of actually impacting us anytime in the future. Since everything that has happened in the field of near earth asteroid collisions detection we could safely say that we will have a warning in the region of a few decades.

I never actually payed attention to this thread but there isnt a doubt in my mind that the ridiculous armageddon movie solution has been thrown around.
Right now, there is no absolute solution, if a collision was iminent we would be completely defenseless although the task seems simple, deflecting an asteroid in time is currently not possible, given how far the asteroid would have to be from us to make a correction in its trajectory actually matter.

Even a minor deflection, or even seemingly negligable would do the job if we could pull it off, the real question is for how long. if we had 10 or 20 years warning and had the means to slow down or speed up an asteroid on its trajectory by just 1 mile an hour. the asteroid would come no where near us and would completely miss earth. for 10 years that would be a difference of 87,650 miles or for 20 years it would be 175,300 miles. Hell given enough time slowing one down by an inch an hour could make a huge difference.

The only way a nuke would be used was if they could guarantee that the asteroid would remain intact. the nuke could detonate far enough away from the asteroid to just hit it with enough force to barely slow it down. Only problem i can see is guiding a nuke through space for such a long time, were talking maybe 10 plus years to make a tiny nudge matter in the long term trajectory.

An actual asteroid impact would no doubt kill thousands or millions in an area. Right now our only way of saving lives is to evacuate where ever the asteroid may strike. knowing its trajectory, speed, size and composition is really important.

If anyone was stupid enough to blow up an asteroid on a collision course with earth into hundredths, thousands or millions of pieces, it would be worse than any one asteroid. an area can be evacuated. having millions of smaller pieces of it coming at us would devastate much more than 50% of the earths surface (accounting for the ones that would almost miss us and be pulled in by earths gravity i'd say it could be closer to 80% of earths surface at risk from such a threat).

If we ever do have to face celestial bombardment then hope its one big chunk of rock and not thousands or millions coming at us.

[Barbshowers]

In space, the only medium the weapon has to work against is the asteroid itself, so for a thermonuclear bomb to be of any use against an asteroid, it would need to be inserted into it.

Agreed. Reminds me of "Armageddon." Although an approach similar to that one spacecraft (forgot the name) which was put in the path of a comet nucleus , should be used. However, to prevent premature detonation it would be a good idea to get its velocity within appreciable limits.

If the body of the nuke was similar to the UK-designed/US-improved version of the bomb that was designed to cause earthquakes for damage (name? Big Momma or something), that should help it with entry into the asteroid and cause sufficient damage.

Nukes wouldn't really deflect an asteroid because the release of energy is too sudden; a more effective solution is to detect an Earth-bound object early, and then attach thrusters to it, using long-term forces to manipulate its trajectory. Breaking off any parts, before or after it passes Earth, would be too risky as it would be almost impossible to determine what path they would take after detonation.

Agreed. Which is why we do that, but then destroy it after it passes us to the point it won't pose a risk. Any chunks can make it swing back to us the next time given it most certainly was affected by Earth's gravitational pull, and not just the Sun's. Or we can just readjust its trajectory to head directly into the sun.

Or rather direct it to Venus. It would be interesting to see that !

[PPActionnGuys]

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

Test for yourself [thumbup]

Edit: Here's a good question that is not modelled there. What kind of nasty stuff would happen when the transient crater from the impact is deep enough to puncture Earth's crust and bring up lava from the upper mantle?
Tsunamis are also not modelled there but I imagine a large ocean impact in the Pacific could do more total damage casualty-wise than any land impact due to the massive tsunami that would devastate costal areas where people tend to congregate.

[pharmablogger]

An asteroid big enough to puncture an impact crater deeper than several kilometres (which would be needed to open up the crust) would be... err, pretty serious. Chicxulub serious. Lava would be the least of your worries.

[PPActionnGuys]

Yes, according to that calculator, which of course is only very simplistic and based on models, you would realistically need an asteroid about 25-50% larger than Chicxulub travelling at 25 km/s to puncture even the thinnest crust on any land mass.

If such an event were to happen, it might not add to the immediate effects since much of anything in the surrounding area(~2000 km) would be vaporized, burnt up, or shaken/blown down/apart. Rather it would add to the long term effects similar to those associated with "supervolcanos" like volanic winter. Of course it's all just speculation and something we can never really know unless it were to happen and let's hope it never does until we have the technology to effectively deal with such a threat.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

Test for yourself [thumbup]

Edit: Here's a good question that is not modelled there. What kind of nasty stuff would happen when the transient crater from the impact is deep enough to puncture Earth's crust and bring up lava from the upper mantle?
Tsunamis are also not modelled there but I imagine a large ocean impact in the Pacific could do more total damage casualty-wise than any land impact due to the massive tsunami that would devastate costal areas where people tend to congregate.

An asteroid big enough to puncture an impact crater deeper than several kilometres (which would be needed to open up the crust) would be... err, pretty serious. Chicxulub serious. Lava would be the least of your worries.

Didn't you already say the biggest effects would be the earthquakes and volcano eruptions occurring after an impact? Also, from going with that the most likely impact won't consists off anything with a higher density then compact rock wouldn't the energy released by impact ignite the atmosphere? Just something I assume from that link Insane gave before, as when the mass is high enough but the density isn't set to near iron levels, the results indicate a much larger percentage of the earth would melt when compared with an impact off greater density.

Idk, maybe a greater density means a smaller area off effect, and more noticeable changes in orbit and and rotational shift. Still sounds better to me then being hit with an astroid off the same size but lesser weight, as 100.00 percent of the Earth is melted is something that looks more serious then a small rotational shift, think the human race could cope with changing climate bands allot better then... well a burnt atmosphere?