This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

As the earlier impact in Russia shows, we are VERY vulnerable to meteorites.

#21Mr_Red_HerringPosted 2/15/2013 12:24:46 PM
Anarchy_Juiblex posted...
You honestly think it's possible to watch the whole sky and find small objects going 19 miles per second and intercept them? llolololo

The cost would be great than potential damages.


Nice to see you FINALLY admit that you think human life is cheap and just another disposable commodity to be consumed and traded.
---
http://tinyurl.com/mr-red-herring
#22goatthief(Topic Creator)Posted 2/15/2013 12:24:49 PM
Goldice posted...
There really isn't much we can do. Whatever the meteor consisted of wasn't known about prior and exploded in the sky.

What the hell are your prevention methods for that?


Better detection technology.
#23MercuryEnigmaPosted 2/15/2013 2:47:08 PM
Conservative logic here: "We don't have good detection methods so we shouldn't bother spending money to create better detection methods!"

It's funnier when you combine it with conservative military logic: "We already have the best military in the world by a large margin, but we must spend MORE money because some mountain men on the other side of the world might get lucky some day."
---
Live. Love. Be. Believe.
Not changing my sig until LostWinds gets a third installment.
#24Mr HangmanPosted 2/15/2013 8:07:22 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Synoptic_Survey_Telescope

The more magnified a telescope is, the smaller its field of view. Most telescopes can only see a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the sky, and so they're pretty useless for seeing anything that you don't already know where it is. This telescope, the LSST, is designed to take automated snapshots of the entire sky, at a rate of one full picture every three days. The idea is to look for changes and hopefully spot near-Earth asteroids. It won't be operational for about 9 years probably, but hey, large asteroids don't hit that often, right?
---
What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? -Dune
#25goatthief(Topic Creator)Posted 2/18/2013 12:20:38 PM
Mr Hangman posted...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Synoptic_Survey_Telescope

The more magnified a telescope is, the smaller its field of view. Most telescopes can only see a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the sky, and so they're pretty useless for seeing anything that you don't already know where it is. This telescope, the LSST, is designed to take automated snapshots of the entire sky, at a rate of one full picture every three days. The idea is to look for changes and hopefully spot near-Earth asteroids. It won't be operational for about 9 years probably, but hey, large asteroids don't hit that often, right?


This is really, really cool. Thanks for linking to it.
#26CC RicersPosted 2/18/2013 12:28:49 PM
It would take a lot of energy to rendezvous with a meteorite that small but the dangerous ones are so far and few that it shouldn't cost us as much in the long run.
---
Those loonies are gonna blow up the ocean
#27mikmalotPosted 2/18/2013 2:17:49 PM
This makes me want to watch Armageddon and Deep impact. I've never actually seen either of those movies.
---
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he wants another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.
#28itcheynessPosted 2/18/2013 2:23:55 PM
From: mikmalot | #027
This makes me want to watch Armageddon and Deep impact. I've never actually seen either of those movies.

Good, don't.
---
Mankind has had ten-thousand years of experience at fighting and if we must fight, we have no excuse for not fighting well. -Thomas Edward Lawrence
#29CC RicersPosted 2/18/2013 2:34:16 PM
I have only watched Armageddon but from what I've heard they are both very different movies. Deep Impact doesn't have the gung-ho fast action as Armageddon and considered more scientifically accurate.
---
Those loonies are gonna blow up the ocean