71–80 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but they didn't give it in meters per second, they gave it in micrometers per second. Converting to micrometers per second is exactly as much arithmetic as converting to meters per day.
No, it is not. It is in fact no arithmetic at all, if you understand how SI works.
Wild that we went from "can we even deflect an asteroid" to measurably changing a solar orbit. 150 milliseconds sounds tiny until you realize compounding over decades makes that a meaningful trajectory shift. The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive.
> The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive. Is it? Isn’t it the case that we can’t even detect the vast majority of objects on a potentially problematic intersection path with earth? I feel like the most likely scenario is that by the time we realize we’re about to get slammed by an asteroid, it’s way too late.
Before this, even if we spotted one, we didn’t know if we could prevent impact.
Detection honestly feels like an easier problem, especially as networked sensors and space-lift capacity has improved.
Wild that we went from "can we even deflect an asteroid" to measurably changing a solar orbit. 150 milliseconds sounds tiny until you realize compounding over decades makes that a meaningful trajectory shift. The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive.
I find it mesmerizing how predictable orbital mechanics are. We can tell where celestial body will be years ahead with meter accuracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive. Is it? Isn’t it the case that we can’t even detect the vast majority of objects on a potentially problematic intersection path with earth? I feel like the most likely scenario is that by the time we realize we’re about to get slammed by an asteroid, it’s way too late.
Two different problems: detection, deflection. Before this, even if we spotted one, we didn’t know if we could prevent impact. Detection honestly feels like an easier problem, especially as networked sensors and space-lift capacity has improved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a parsing error. "in-" is also a prefix to create verbs from a name or another verb like inhume, inflame, induce, incite, inject, infiltrate. Inflammable is (inflame)-able and not in-(flammable)
I agree, but it’s ambiguous, hence the problem. There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”. The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended. Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (a…
They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why exactly? I think the US ought to spend a few trillion on an actual space battleship - one that never comes down to the surface, just sits in orbit. There was a project regarding dropping telephone pole sized pieces of metal from space as an offensive weapon - put something like that on the space battleship and... That is simply "Assured Destruction" with absolutely no mutual drawbacks or lingering consequences li…
> That is simply "Assured Destruction" with absolutely no mutual drawbacks Nuclear countries would simply declare that they will launch nukes if any rod comes down on their territory. Even if you had thousands of projectiles in orbit (at considerable cost per projectile) this would not be significantly different from 60s-style MAD: put nukes in bunkers, in the air and in the sea to ensure they can't all be taken out.…
Plus - if countries don't do space wars - this will still happen 100%. It will just be a non-state actor - who do you nuke if Austin Powers is the bad guy from space?
Also, there seems to be a prevailing sense of "we'll just shoot it down" and that is actually extraordinarily unlikely - bc of all the space, in space. I wouldn't sit in orbit with my Space Battleship - maybe a lunar orbit.
Let's say I park halfway to the moon - ALL of my missiles will still hit earth, I don't think current defense systems would have any better odds - whats the difference between an ICBM that enters the atmosphere from space - shot from a silo or a spaceship?? Not much, functionally identical to the Space Battleship... missiles from earth tho, will be like in slow motion, the space battleship ought to be able to literally shoot them down with bullets - none will be able to surprise the space battleship, how do you even do a missle defense overwhelm tactic in such a situation - I can move the spaceship you know.
I may sound like I'm being unserious, but in reality, this is absolutely the future of warfare 100% - I can't be more serious, the humor is bc this topic makes me legitimately nervous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it was seriously considered at the time it was discussed. Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be, that is very significant. Earth is spinning in a giant circle around the sun. Thats facts. "aiming an asteroid" is less of making a rock a missile - and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid - not anything compli…
> Space Stations are in orbit - the space battleship doesn't have to be I mean, you did say: > space battleship - one that never comes down to the surface, just sits in orbit. So I think it's understandable for people to take that at face value. Furthermore, if it isn't in orbit, then where would it be? > and a lot more of tug-boating it into the exact right spot, in the way of earth, so that earth hits the asteroid…
What if I make that the space battleship's job? What if a drone can do that?
Im not really worried about resupplying the space battleship holding earth hostage -> someone will "volunteer" to do that, bc they want to live life.