Check out some similar questions!

nykkyo · Sep 6, 2012, 09:24 AM

What would be the best way to redirect a comet around Earth, with about two years lead time and a volatile coma surrounding the nucleus of the comet and a speed of 27 km/s when it was detected? Its speed will probably increase as it approaches Earth. It would be a pretty good idea to not break the cohesion of conglomeration of ice and rocks, that is the nucleus; otherwise Earth will be pelted like a shotgun blast.

smoothy · Sep 6, 2012, 11:28 AM

Fire up your deflector shield... THey have them on Star Trek.

ebaines · Sep 6, 2012, 11:30 AM

Actually breaking up the comet into smaller pieces would probably be the best course of action:

- if the pieces are small enough they burn up in the atmosphere and never reach the ground
- if some pieces are still too big to completely burn up on entering the atmosphere at least a larger percentage of each piece would get burned up (smaller pieces have more surface area per Kg than do larger pieces - and hence more completely burn up). Plus it's better to be hit by a few smaller pieces than one big one - it spreads smaller amount of damage across a wider impact area, lessening the chance of catastrophic impact.

nykkyo · Sep 6, 2012, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by smoothy

Fire up your deflector shield.....THey have them on Star Trek.

Don't think that would work! Waitng two years, without doing anything is cowardly.

smoothy · Sep 6, 2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by nykkyo

Don't think that would work! Waitng two years, without doing anything is cowardly.

And given the size of a Comet, breaking it up into even 10 or 100 smaller chunks heading into the earths atmoshere would still result in the same extinction level event.

nykkyo · Sep 6, 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by ebaines

Actually breaking up the comet into smaller pieces would probably be the best course of action:

- if the pieces are small enough they burn up in the atmosphere and never reach the ground
- if some pieces are still too big to completely burn up on entering the atmosphere at least a larger percentage of each piece would get burned up (smaller pieces have more surface area per Kg than do larger pieces - and hence more completely burn up). Plus it's better to be hit by a few smaller pieces than one big one - it spreads smaller amount of damage across a wider impact area, lessening the chance of catastrophic impact.

Maybe; but the devistation will be catastrophic. If water is impacted, giant tsunamis will wipeout coastal and low lying area. Radius of desolution will be heavily dependent on kinetic energy. If the nucleus is blown up the resulting fragments will probably have an increase in kinetic energy, due to conservation. Wider areas of desolation may make it harder for photosynthesis to take place because sun light may not reach the ground; thus greatly impacting the food chain. Besides more infrastructures will be damaged (provided the events are not EL). All the foregoing is moot if ELE.

smoothy · Sep 6, 2012, 11:56 AM

A huge chunk of ice hitting (or even rock) the atmoshere at 100,000+ mph would cause an explosion that would likely incinerate everything not in the deep sea in a matter of momets even if it didn't actually stay intact enough to impact the Ocean.

nykkyo · Sep 6, 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by smoothy

a huge chunk of ice hitting (or even rock) the atmoshere at 100,000+ mph would cause an explosion that would likely incinerate everything not in the deep sea in a matter of momets even if it didn't actually stay intact enough to impact the Ocean.

Another saying is stupidity is regurgitating what other people said and not thinking for oneself.

smoothy · Sep 6, 2012, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by nykkyo

Another saying is stupidity is regurgitating what other people said and not thinking for oneself.

What's stupid about that exactly?. there is ample geological evidence of that happening on a smaller level a number of times just during recorded history, and not just geological history.

The latest in Russia were over 1,000 square miles of forest were leveled... and from what they have discovered about that event so far points towards such a thing.

Stupid is assuming everone has always been wrong for no valid reason without ample evidence to the contrary..

nykkyo · Sep 6, 2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by smoothy

Whats stupid about that exactly?....there is ample geological evidence of that happening on a smaller level a number of times just during recorded history, and not just geological history.

The latest in Russia were over 1,000 square miles of forest were leveled.....and from what they have discovered about that event so far points towards such a thing.

Stupid is assuming everone has always been wrong for no valid reason without ample evidence to the contrary..

Does that apply to creationists?

smoothy · Sep 6, 2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by nykkyo

Does that apply to creationists?

What are you talking about and what does that have to do with an Imaginary comet that's supposedlty going to hit the earth?

ebaines · Sep 6, 2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by smoothy

What are you talking about and what does that have to do with an Imaginary comet thats supposedlty going to hit the earth?

Smoothy: as G.B. Shaw once said, there's not much point in wrestling with a pig - you get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. Nykkyo has said he's writing a screenplay, which from this thread seems to be a rehash of "Deep Impact" or "Armageddon." All of this talk of "ELE" is pure speculation, as he has not said how big this comet is (though in a previous post he suggested it would be miniscule).

smoothy · Sep 6, 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by ebaines

Smoothy: as G.B. Shaw once said, there's not much point in wrestling with a pig - you get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. Nykkyo has said he's writing a screenplay, which from this thread seems to be a rehash of "Deep Impact" or "Armageddon." All of this talk of "ELE" is pure speculation, as he has not said how big this comet is (though in a previous post he suggested it would be miniscule).

Where did he say that about the screenplay?. I never saw that in this thread? Maybe it was a different one. No I don't always go looking up previous threads on most posts I read. That would totally change the premise of the thread however.

ebaines · Sep 7, 2012, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by smoothy

Where did he say that about the screenplay?....I never saw that in this thread?

It was in an earlier thread here in the Physics forum:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/physics/comet-698109.html