Well almost.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...xtinction-NASA
Keeps the proles amused.

If it was gonna hit us, I feel sure it would be kept secret so the
politicians could retire to their nuclear bunkers.

There are enough freelance watchers around to make keeping it secret a bit
hard.
however, we do have some mitigation ideas if it is actually coming here.
If its found more than a couple of months away, then it could be done with
nukes, but any closer and the debris, now radioactive might be a big
problem. You could as a person wrote recently, pant one side black and the
other white, and over about three years it would move due to the suns light
re radiating. Not sure I'd trust that one myself, what if its spinning?

One of the stated aims of sending men to a captured asteroid is to try
various methods of defendinthe earth against space rocks, but sods law might
dictate that we get hit before they start playing with a rock.


Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy everything.
brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
Well almost.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...xtinction-NASA
Keeps the proles amused.

If it was gonna hit us, I feel sure it would be kept secret so the
politicians could retire to their nuclear bunkers.

On 11/05/2015 08:15, Brian-Gaff wrote:


Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy everything.
brian



The radiation wouldn't be a problem anyway, just how many people have
suffered following the tests that weren't directly exposed?

You wouldn't explode a nuke to shatter it anyway, you want to explode
near it so the heat vaporises some of it and pushes it onto a different
trajectory. If that's done a few weeks/months out you need less energy
and the high level waste will have decayed. You have to remember this
would be the real world and not harry world.

On 10/05/2015 19:33, harryagain wrote:
Well almost.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...xtinction-NASA
Keeps the proles amused.

If it was gonna hit us, I feel sure it would be kept secret so the
politicians could retire to their nuclear bunkers.


Nuclear bunkers wouldn't be much protection if it did hit. However, it
is expected be marginally further away than when it last passed us in
1999; 0.07au rather than 0.06au. Then it was picked up by radar
telescopes almost as it was passing by, its approach having been missed.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 10/05/2015 19:33, harryagain wrote:
Well almost.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...xtinction-NASA
Keeps the proles amused.

If it was gonna hit us, I feel sure it would be kept secret so the
politicians could retire to their nuclear bunkers.

Nuclear bunkers wouldn't be much protection if it did hit.

That's not right if you are on the opposite side of the world to where it
hits.

However, it is expected be marginally further away than when it last
passed us in 1999; 0.07au rather than 0.06au. Then it was picked up by
radar telescopes almost as it was passing by, its approach having been
missed.

On 11/05/2015 08:47, Dennis@home wrote:
On 11/05/2015 08:15, Brian-Gaff wrote:


Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy
everything.
brian



The radiation wouldn't be a problem anyway, just how many people have
suffered following the tests that weren't directly exposed?

You wouldn't explode a nuke to shatter it anyway, you want to explode
near it so the heat vaporises some of it and pushes it onto a different
trajectory. If that's done a few weeks/months out you need less energy
and the high level waste will have decayed. You have to remember this
would be the real world and not harry world.

Another option would be to coat one side with white or black dust and
allow the solar wind to deflect it. We've known the trajectory of this
one since 1999, when it came even closer, so it would be a good
candidate for trials. However, at the moment, it is probably best left
alone.

I quite like the long term solution of sending up nuclear powered robots
to mine the asteroid into smaller bits.


--
Colin Bignell

On 11/05/2015 09:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 10/05/2015 19:33, harryagain wrote:
Well almost.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...xtinction-NASA

Keeps the proles amused.

If it was gonna hit us, I feel sure it would be kept secret so the
politicians could retire to their nuclear bunkers.

Nuclear bunkers wouldn't be much protection if it did hit.

That's not right if you are on the opposite side of the world to where
it hits.

Could be the worst place to be. This is a 1km wide rock, which is large
enough to cause global, rather than local effects. One possible effect
that has been predicted is a shock wave propagating through the earth
and triggering a super volcano on the opposite side.

Even without that, nuclear bunkers are typically only designed to keep
the occupants alive for about three months. An impact winter is likely
to last a lot longer than that and, when you do emerge, the food chain
will have been destroyed. That is, of course, assuming that you have not
been flooded out by a tsunami. An ocean impact is more probable than one
on land and an asteroid of this size would produce an 18m high tsunami
at a range of 1000km.


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 11/05/2015 09:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 10/05/2015 19:33, harryagain wrote:
Well almost.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...xtinction-NASA

Keeps the proles amused.

If it was gonna hit us, I feel sure it would be kept secret so the
politicians could retire to their nuclear bunkers.

Nuclear bunkers wouldn't be much protection if it did hit.

That's not right if you are on the opposite side of the world to where
it hits.

Could be the worst place to be.

No evidence for that.

This is a 1km wide rock, which is large enough to cause global, rather
than local effects.

Sure, but when on the other side of the world,
a nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing.

One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave propagating
through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing.

Even without that, nuclear bunkers are typically only designed to keep the
occupants alive for about three months. An impact winter is likely to last
a lot longer than that and,

Yes, but you don’t have to stay in the bunker for those 3 months.

when you do emerge, the food chain will have been destroyed.

Unlikely. And there will still be plenty more than 3 months
supply of viable food outside the bunker anyway.

That is, of course, assuming that you have not been flooded out by a
tsunami.

Most nuke bunkers would survive that fine.

An ocean impact is more probable than one on land and an asteroid of this
size would produce an 18m high tsunami at a range of 1000km.

And that wouldn’t matter a damn if you were
in a nuke bunker on the other side of the world.

On Mon, 11 May 2015 08:15:39 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy
everything.

Not much difference IMHO.

Think single bullet or shotgun, both make a big hole.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/05/2015 11:50, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2015 08:15:39 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy
everything.

Not much difference IMHO.

Think single bullet or shotgun, both make a big hole.


If it is blown up far enough away, with sufficient force, most of the
bits might miss us. Think shotgun at half a mile range.

On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
....
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.


--
Colin Bignell

On 11/05/2015 14:35, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.


Yup, Yellowstone is due at any time from now if the past calcs are correct.

On 11/05/15 14:59, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2015 14:35, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.


Yup, Yellowstone is due at any time from now if the past calcs are correct.

anytime from now = some time in the next 50,000 years


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 11/05/2015 15:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/05/15 14:59, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2015 14:35, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.


Yup, Yellowstone is due at any time from now if the past calcs are
correct.

anytime from now = some time in the next 50,000 years


Yup.

On 11/05/2015 15:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/05/15 14:59, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2015 14:35, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.


Yup, Yellowstone is due at any time from now if the past calcs are
correct.

anytime from now = some time in the next 50,000 years

It is also said to be about 50,000 years overdue for one. That is any
time now, in geological time scales.

--
Colin Bignell

On 11/05/2015 16:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 11/05/2015 14:35, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.

Yup, Yellowstone is due at any time from now if the past calcs are
correct.

Then there's Betelgeuse due to go supernova. That will ruin the vision
of ****loads of people, because they'll all go look at it. It'll be a
bit brighter than the moon, in luminosity terms, but as a point source,
so will burn scribbly lines all over their retinas.

Blimey!

On Monday, 11 May 2015 16:04:04 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 11/05/2015 14:35, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano. The expectation
is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500 miles will be
destroyed and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic
ash as a result. Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the
actual eruption or the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of
feet of ash would pose a significant problem.

Yup, Yellowstone is due at any time from now if the past calcs are correct.

Then there's Betelgeuse due to go supernova. That will ruin the vision
of ****loads of people, because they'll all go look at it. It'll be a
bit brighter than the moon, in luminosity terms, but as a point source,
so will burn scribbly lines all over their retinas.

Can;t believe that, the moon is dark anyway, it's the suns light that makes it look bright and even then it's not that bright. -12 the sun is -26.

and I didn't think Betelgeuse was due for another 100,000 years.

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

Then there's Betelgeuse due to go supernova.

It may have happened already, the light from it just hasn't reached us
yet

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave propagating
through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano.

Nope, and there is no evidence that it would produce a super
volcano anyway.

The expectation is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500
miles will be destroyed

Not those in a nuke bunker.

and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic ash as a
result.

And that is only a small part of that half of the world.

Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the actual eruption or the
magma field, getting out from under hundreds of feet of ash would pose a
significant problem.

There wouldn’t be hundreds of feet of ash over
much of the US, let alone that half of the world.

On 11/05/2015 20:53, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano.

Nope, and there is no evidence that it would produce a super
volcano anyway.

There is evidence that it may have happened with past asteroid impacts.

The expectation is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with
500 miles will be destroyed

Not those in a nuke bunker.

You think it would float out on a sea of magma?

and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic ash as a
result.

And that is only a small part of that half of the world.

Big enough for 'close' to be a very large distance.

Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the actual eruption or
the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of feet of ash would
pose a significant problem.

There wouldn’t be hundreds of feet of ash over
much of the US, let alone that half of the world.

The largest known super volcano threw out enough ash to cover the entire
USA to an even depth of 3 metres. Obviously, it would not be an even
depth and your nuclear bunker would not need to be particularly close to
the eruption to be buried deep enough that the occupants would not be
able to dig themselves out.


--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

One possible effect that has been predicted is a shock wave
propagating through the earth and triggering a super volcano on the
opposite side.

Very unlikely to be close to the nuke bunker and even if it
was, the nuke bunker would be a lot better than nothing...

I think you underestimate the power of a super volcano.

Nope, and there is no evidence that it would produce a super
volcano anyway.

There is evidence that it may have happened with past asteroid impacts.

Very little evidence of that in fact.

The expectation is that, when Yellowstone next erupts, anything with 500
miles will be destroyed

Not those in a nuke bunker.

You think it would float out on a sea of magma?

There would be no sea of magna getting anywhere near
any nuke bunker that any of the pollys would be in.

and most, if not all, of the USA would be covered in volcanic ash as a
result.

And that is only a small part of that half of the world.

Big enough for 'close' to be a very large distance.

But not with enough depth of volcanic ash
to be a problem for those in a nuke bunker.

Assuming the bunker was not within the area of the actual eruption or
the magma field, getting out from under hundreds of feet of ash would
pose a significant problem.

There wouldn’t be hundreds of feet of ash over
much of the US, let alone that half of the world.

The largest known super volcano threw out enough ash to cover the entire
USA to an even depth of 3 metres.

That is nothing even remotely like hundreds of feet deep.

Obviously, it would not be an even depth and your nuclear bunker would not
need to be particularly close to the eruption to be buried deep enough
that the occupants would not be able to dig themselves out.

BULL****. And none of the nuke bunkers being
discussed are anywhere year Yellowstone anyway.

On 11/05/2015 08:15, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy everything.
brian

Actually it isn't. One really big one will cause a lot of damage where
it lands - think Tunguska but will leave everywhere else untouched
(unless it is incredibly rare and in the large extinction event class).

A large number of objects which is what you end up with if you fragment
a 1km object will have the same effect as cluster bombing with kT yield
devices over a very wide area. Most meteors are little more than a grain
of sand. A few kg on entry will be a ground impactor.

Much better to deflect its path slightly so it skims off the upper
atmosphere like a pebble off the surface of a pond.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/05/15 09:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 11/05/2015 08:15, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy
everything.
brian

Actually it isn't. One really big one will cause a lot of damage where
it lands - think Tunguska but will leave everywhere else untouched
(unless it is incredibly rare and in the large extinction event class).

A large number of objects which is what you end up with if you fragment
a 1km object will have the same effect as cluster bombing with kT yield
devices over a very wide area. Most meteors are little more than a grain
of sand. A few kg on entry will be a ground impactor.

Much better to deflect its path slightly so it skims off the upper
atmosphere like a pebble off the surface of a pond.


well it all depends whether all of the fragments hit or not, if you blow
it up




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/05/2015 09:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 11/05/2015 08:15, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Myself, I'd trust the nukes, after all, better to have a load of small
radioactive rocks than one bloody great one that could destroy
everything.
brian

Actually it isn't. One really big one will cause a lot of damage where
it lands - think Tunguska but will leave everywhere else untouched
(unless it is incredibly rare and in the large extinction event class).

This particular one is probably just large enough to cause global
effects, if it did hit.

A large number of objects which is what you end up with if you fragment
a 1km object will have the same effect as cluster bombing with kT yield
devices over a very wide area. Most meteors are little more than a grain
of sand. A few kg on entry will be a ground impactor.

Much better to deflect its path slightly so it skims off the upper
atmosphere like a pebble off the surface of a pond.

Even better to get it to miss entirely, although that would depend upon
how early it was detected.

--
Colin Bignell