Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Asteroid space weapon

  1. #1 Asteroid space weapon 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Im looking for quick guestimates about

    How much damage a car sized asteroid could do if propelled from the asteroid belt or from a gas giant moon so that it would impact months or years later at perfect angle?

    What size of asteroid (that travel at speeds comparable to comets) do you need to produce a] a ww2 V2 rocket explosion, and b] a sub hiroshima explosion (half of the first atom bomb)?

    thanks


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I have a guestimate

    from asteroid belt: 0.5*(8000meter/s*8000meter/s)*2380kg =76,160,000000joule = a nuke explosion space car
    from jupiter: 0.5*(48260meter/s*48260meter/s)*2380kg= 2771,562,148000joules = apocalypse doomsday car from space

    source: speed and weight of Galileo spacecraft approaching asteroid (wiki wiki)
    source: speed and weight of Galileo spacecraft crashing on jupiter (wiki wiki)
    ---for about 14 years transit in space...

    60,000,000000 joule/ ((914457600000m/s*914457600000m/s)*0.5 = 0.00000000000014 kg = a nuke dust from space!
    source: speed of Halley passing by earth, and energy for one WW2 nuke.
    ----

    Someone refute me please. It is too funny...


    EDIT:
    if 1 tonne dropped from jupiter orbit (with respect to sun) to earth orbit (with respect to sun) :
    1000kg*(964000,000000 meter)*274m/s/s= 264,136,000,000,000000 joule = lol energy


    Last edited by msafwan; August 27th, 2011 at 03:49 AM. Reason: I think the guesstimate is ridiculous
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    I have a guestimate

    from asteroid belt: 0.5*(8000meter/s*8000meter/s)*2380kg =76,160,000000joule = a nuke explosion space car
    from jupiter: 0.5*(48260meter/s*48260meter/s)*2380kg= 2771,562,148000joules = apocalypse doomsday car from space

    source: speed and weight of Galileo spacecraft approaching asteroid (wiki wiki)
    source: speed and weight of Galileo spacecraft crashing on jupiter (wiki wiki)
    ---for about 14 years transit in space...

    60,000,000000 joule/ ((914457600000m/s*914457600000m/s)*0.5 = 0.00000000000014 kg = a nuke dust from space!
    source: speed of Halley passing by earth, and energy for one WW2 nuke.
    ----

    Someone refute me please. It is too funny...


    EDIT:
    if 1 tonne dropped from jupiter orbit (with respect to sun) to earth orbit (with respect to sun) :
    1000kg*(964000,000000 meter)*274m/s/s= 264,136,000,000,000000 joule = lol energy
    One probem is that the minimum impact velocity is 11.2 km/sec due to earth's gravity alone, for an object with zero velocity relative to earth.

    An asteroid on an elliptical orbit from Jupiter land would be traveling probably 40 km/sec. Net velocity would be Square Root of the sum of 11.2 km/sec^2 plus 40 km/sec^2 or about 42 km/sec. (I don't have time to do the Latex stuff, dealing with impending nasty weather from Irene.)

    MW
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    20
    with respect to caculation ,first if you drop everything in space it would stay at its posiyion unless it eas not affected by gravity of another things{planet,asteroid..}(in this case it will fall on jupiter)-second you found the speed of space craft comparing ,and taking it as the same speed for car ,it can bring two situation first if they move freely ,their speed is optional and is according to speed you throw them but if they are in orbit their speed is depend on gravity between each two things (car and jupiter-spacecraft and jupiter)so in both circumstances the speed you (MSAFWAN) considered is wrong-third:how do you think an asteroid will hit the earth ? with right angle to surface negative it will hit it with any possible angle but not right one so based on that the energy of impact decreases -fourth:your car (asteroid)will loss a massive amount of mass when it is entering the atmosphere {decrease in impact energy}-fifth:around the earth is amagnetic fiels forcing anything from ions to asteroids to move in their direction ,based on metaloid car will be affected by that (if it was not ,it would be affected either)=cuases decrease in impact energy an so on (based on the place of impact{water,ground,....}-generally nothing will or can hit the earth but if it could the result is not based on amount of energy when it hit the earth but based on result that it cases{bloody climate change,change in sea level ,destroying a part of earth ,effect on central core}-conditions on planets are very persistent if you save it ,it goes that way if it is going to change ,everythings change[for caculations give me your options{your asteroid featuers} in 3 to 4 days iwill give you the results
    COGITO , ERGO SUM
    I Think , Therefore I Am
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    How much damage it causes depends on content and strictly on where on Earth it lands. Many break up in the atmosphere as gases, liquids and sometimes even some metals inside are superheated by the Earth's atmosphere, producing great pressure.

    I was in Mexico City one year when they had a display of meteorites, the largest being a 13 ton metallic one which was vaguely roundish and about six feet tall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Wow, so many misconceptions in a single post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    with respect to caculation ,first if you drop everything in space it would stay at its posiyion unless it eas not affected by gravity of another things{planet,asteroid..}(in this case it will fall on jupiter)
    You are missing the largest player in the gravity game, the Sun. Everything in the Solar system is in the Sun's gravity field. "Dropping" an asteroid from the belt just requires altering its orbit to one that intersects with the Earth. Doing so from a gas requires the extra velocity needed to reach escape velocity of the planet.

    -second you found the speed of space craft comparing ,and taking it as the same speed for car ,it can bring two situation first if they move freely ,their speed is optional and is according to speed you throw them but if they are in orbit their speed is depend on gravity between each two things (car and jupiter-spacecraft and jupiter)so in both circumstances the speed you (MSAFWAN) considered is wrong-third:
    As any object travels from the outer solar system to the inner system, it falls through the Sun's gravity and picks up speed. The Earth itself orbits the sun at 30 km/sec (so even if the asteroid was just sitting in space in the Earth's orbital path, it would hit at 30 km/sec + 11 km/sec (due to Earth's gravity). Since the asteroid will have gain velocity falling in toward the Sun, it could be greater than that.

    how do you think an asteroid will hit the earth ? with right angle to surface negative it will hit it with any possible angle but not right one so based on that the energy of impact decreases
    By using the proper intersecting path for the asteroid, nothing prevents you from having choosing a right-angle impact. And unless the asteroid actually skips off the surface of the Earth, continuing back out into space. (a very unlikely scenario), the energy of the impact will not be effect by the angle of impact. The energy of impact depends on the mass and speed of the object, and unless, as I said before, the asteroid carries some of it back into space, the Earth will absorb all of that energy.

    -fourth:your car (asteroid)will loss a massive amount of mass when it is entering the atmosphere {decrease in impact energy}
    That really depends on the initial size and speed of the asteroid. Small slow moving bodies can bleed off quite a bit of its energy, while larger, faster objects can punch through with less energy loss. Larger objects having a smaller surface area to mass ratio and faster objects spending less time passing through the atmosphere. [/quote]
    -fifth:around the earth is amagnetic fiels forcing anything from ions to asteroids to move in their direction ,based on metaloid car will be affected by that
    [/quote]The Earth's magnetic field is way too weak to prevent impact of an asteroid or even a magnetized object. Hell, it can barely get a magnetized needle of a compass to point North.

    (if it was not ,it would be affected either)=cuases decrease in impact energy an so on (based on the place of impact{water,ground,....}
    By choosing the proper intersection orbit and timing, you could place the asteroid pretty much where ever you wanted.
    -generally nothing will or can hit the earth
    Yet things do everyday. It's mostly small stuff, but that is only because the Earth has cleared the vast majority of the big stuff out of its orbit already. Nothing prevent anyone in the position of doing so of directing a sizable object into a collision course with the Earth.
    but if it could the result is not based on amount of energy when it hit the earth but based on result that it cases{bloody climate change,change in sea level ,destroying a part of earth ,effect on central core}-conditions on planets are very persistent if you save it ,it goes that way if it is going to change ,everythings change[for caculations give me your options{your asteroid featuers} in 3 to 4 days iwill give you the results
    Any after effects would be a direct result of the energy of impact, so this makes no sense. (Actually most of this statement quite literally doesn't make any sense.)
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Wow, so many misconceptions in a single post.
    *misconception*,I am sorry,there is nothing here refute my idea .everything we are saying here is just hypothesis it does not imply that yours is true mine is wrong ,so let`s talk about it{have you read my replay?}
    You are missing the largest player in the gravity game, the Sun. Everything in the Solar system is in the Sun's gravity field. "Dropping" an asteroid from the belt just requires altering its orbit to one that intersects with the Earth. Doing so from a gas requires the extra velocity needed to reach escape velocity of the planet.
    the sun ,difinitely you are right in matter that gravity of sun even affect that asteroid but it is very small[the graviry between two objects is dependant of multiplication of their mass and reversed form of sequerd distance between them ,so their distance is much more than it can cuase an asteroid with shall we say profound effect] ,smaller than gravity between between asteroid and earth or asteroid and jupiter [generally if an asteroid is not under the gravity influence of another planet ,and you put it just in solar system it will staying in its position in other word just turning around the sun for instance consider the asteroid belt between jupiter and mars]-so the sun gravity must be consiidered[as you said]but it is small otherwise it forced the asteroid to turn around it -that in every case you need extra power to release the asteroid from planet or sun`s gravity
    As any object travels from the outer solar system to the inner system, it falls through the Sun's gravity and picks up speed. The Earth itself orbits the sun at 30 km/sec (so even if the asteroid was just sitting in space in the Earth's orbital path, it would hit at 30 km/sec + 11 km/sec (due to Earth's gravity). Since the asteroid will have gain velocity falling in toward the Sun, it could be greater than that.
    this part is a little confusing if an asteroid is going to hit the earth it has nothing to do with the speed of moving earth[the speed of earth does not affect the asteroid speed but it decrease the energy of impact when it lands on earth ]the second number 11 km\sec is the speed needed for leaving the earth gravity and it is minimum amount so if an asteroid wants to hit the earth its speed will be the starting speed+speed it gained until entering atmosphere{under any influence}+the force of falling an object on top of our atmosphere under our gravity{difinitely different with 11km/sec}
    By using the proper intersecting path for the asteroid, nothing prevents you from having choosing a right-angle impact. And unless the asteroid actually skips off the surface of the Earth, continuing back out into space. (a very unlikely scenario), the energy of the impact will not be effect by the angle of impact. The energy of impact depends on the mass and speed of the object, and unless, as I said before, the asteroid carries some of it back into space, the Earth will absorb all of that energy.
    brother ,first we are talking about space (reality)you can not choose trajectory of asteroid,and under any circumstances it will hit the earth with acute angle {less than 90}and you know why because the earth is turning around itself gravity constantly affect the things around the earth {one moving object should obey the gravity so impact will be with acuteangle-and of course it is about the energy and earth absorbs impact energy that is why we consider the place of its landing,that is why different asteroids have different consequences.

    That really depends on the initial size and speed of the asteroid. Small slow moving bodies can bleed off quite a bit of its energy, while larger, faster objects can punch through with less energy loss. Larger objects having a smaller surface area to mass ratio and faster objects spending less time passing through the atmosphere. [/QUOTE]if an asteroid enters atmosphere it loses the mass based on its speed,and mass {small slow moving objects have little energy and they loss less energy than large fast moving objects-time plays nothing in this case ,time does not specify the amount of mass and energy an asteroid loses

    [/quote]The Earth's magnetic field is way too weak to prevent impact of an asteroid or even a magnetized object. Hell, it can barely get a magnetized needle of a compass to point North.
    oh no it is not, it can change the direction of protons an d notrons coming from the sun and it can affect every thing in its premiter to assert that in year 2000{if i am right} nasa reported that an asteroid change its path because of this magnetic belt before entering atmosphere -it is weak if you compare it to gravity of earth that pulls the asteroid or force with which asteroid pushed towards us.
    By choosing the proper intersection orbit and timing, you could place the asteroid pretty much where ever you wanted.
    of course that an asteroid may fall where ever its trajectory implies.the point is if it falls in ocean much of its destructive power will be absorbed than falling on continents{please consider the consequenses }
    Yet things do everyday. It's mostly small stuff, but that is only because the Earth has cleared the vast majority of the big stuff out of its orbit already. Nothing prevent anyone in the position of doing so of directing a sizable object into a collision course with the Earth.
    i am insisting on my idea that only very big asteroid can hit the earth the simplest example is moon full of trails of asteroids take a look at earth we do not have such a things because of our atmosphere ,our megnetic field,and also our environment on the location of impact


    Any after effects would be a direct result of the energy of impact, so this makes no sense. (Actually most of this statement quite literally doesn't make any sense.)
    so based on your idea it does not matter if an asteroid with small amount of energy hit the place on crust that is thinner than other parts ,it has no effect on central core and direction of moving magma{that makes gravity on earth withsolid core} and all of this is less dangerous than big asteroid falls in ocean-the point is for destroying a planet with asteroid ,energy is mandatory but not sufficient -please i need to know your opinion .
    COGITO , ERGO SUM
    I Think , Therefore I Am
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I know it's pedantic, but even the sun orbits the barycenter of the solar sytem, as does every other "heliocentric" (a misnomer) object.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    I know it's pedantic, but even the sun orbits the barycenter of the solar sytem, as does every other "heliocentric" (a misnomer) object.
    every two object have bilateral gravity to each other ,sun is not the barycenter of the solar system,pretaining solar system as this form is due to gravity between it and our galaxy{exactly its components other systems}-existance of sun just define the type of this system and with gravity between planets{teir mass,type of planet...} it defines the orbit for each planet and their distance from sun-by the way it is not pedantic brother it must be based on true science
    COGITO , ERGO SUM
    I Think , Therefore I Am
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    COGITO , ERGO SUM
    I Think , Therefore I Am
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    Because Jupiter is soo heavy: the sun are also attracted to Jupiter. This mutual attraction caused the sun to move around a little bit, perhaps like a very small orbit. So, the sun will appears to orbit an empty space!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    The context, if it helps, lets assume that

    a space faring alien race reaches our solar system and wants to attack earth by remaining hidden in the asteroid belt (between mars and jupiter) and propelling asteroids to intersect eath's path. The aliens use matter available there, either using actual small asteroids or processing the material to make ceramic equivalent coated metal core projectiles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    Because Jupiter is soo heavy: the sun are also attracted to Jupiter. This mutual attraction caused the sun to move around a little bit, perhaps like a very small orbit. So, the sun will appears to orbit an empty space!
    Sometimes the barycenter is below the sun's surface, sometimes it's not:

    638px-Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    Because Jupiter is soo heavy: the sun are also attracted to Jupiter. This mutual attraction caused the sun to move around a little bit, perhaps like a very small orbit. So, the sun will appears to orbit an empty space!
    Sometimes the barycenter is below the sun's surface, sometimes it's not:

    638px-Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.jpg

    Even with Jupiter, the barycenter is just barely above the Sun's surface.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    I know it's pedantic, but even the sun orbits the barycenter of the solar sytem, as does every other "heliocentric" (a misnomer) object.
    But isn't that barycenter close enough to the sun's center that its below the sun's surface giving the sun a severe wobble?

    --

    thanks Janus....our post hit about the same time.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    *misconception*,I am sorry,there is nothing here refute my idea .everything we are saying here is just hypothesis it does not imply that yours is true mine is wrong ,so let`s talk about it{have you read my replay?}
    No, your statements are based on a poor grasp of orbital mechanics, while mine is based on the same orbital mechanic used to successively launch space probes to the other planets
    the sun ,difinitely you are right in matter that gravity of sun even affect that asteroid but it is very small[the graviry between two objects is dependant of multiplication of their mass and reversed form of sequerd distance between them ,so their distance is much more than it can cuase an asteroid with shall we say profound effect] ,smaller than gravity between between asteroid and earth or asteroid and jupiter [generally if an asteroid is not under the gravity influence of another planet ,and you put it just in solar system it will staying in its position in other word just turning around the sun for instance consider the asteroid belt between jupiter and mars]-so the sun gravity must be consiidered[as you said]but it is small otherwise it forced the asteroid to turn around it -that in every case you need extra power to release the asteroid from planet or sun`s gravity

    The furthest orbiting known Jovian moon orbits at a distance of 29.540,000 km. At that distance, it orbital speed is ~ 2 km/sec. Escape velocity form Jupiter at that distance is ~ 2.8 km/sec, meaning that in order to remove this moon from Jupiter's orbit you would have to supply a boost of 0.8 km/sec.

    Now if we want to drop this moon to the inner solar system, we have to cancel some of its orbital velocity around the Sun to put it into a new orbit. If we just want to put it into an orbit that grazes the Earth's orbit, we have to reduce its velocity to ~7.4 Km/sec. Jupiter's orbital velocity is ~13 km/sec so you are going to have affect a velocity change of ~ 5.6 km/sec or 7 times that which you needed to remove the moon from Jupiter orbit. (if you want to drop the moon straight in, you would have to kill all of its 13 km/sec orbital velcoity). Ergo, the amount of energy needed to remove the moon from Jupiter is small compared to the energy you need to drop the moon into the lower Solar system. And just because this is the Furthest known moon at this time, doesn't mean that there aren't other moons further out that would be even easier to nudge out of orbit.


    this part is a little confusing if an asteroid is going to hit the earth it has nothing to do with the speed of moving earth[the speed of earth does not affect the asteroid speed but it decrease the energy of impact when it lands on earth ]the second number 11 km\sec is the speed needed for leaving the earth gravity and it is minimum amount so if an asteroid wants to hit the earth its speed will be the starting speed+speed it gained until entering atmosphere{under any influence}+the force of falling an object on top of our atmosphere under our gravity{difinitely different with 11km/sec}
    Both the asteroid and the Earth are following trajectories around the Sun, it is the combined velocites these trajectories at the point of intersection that detemines impact velocity relative to the Earth. For example, assuming the "Straight in" from Jupiter trajectory. The asteroid, upon reaching Earth orbit, will be moving at 38 km/sec. The Earth will be moving at a right angle to this trajectory at 30 Km. The relative velocity between Asteroid and Earth would then be
    km/sec

    Escape velocity is also the velocity that an object at rest with respect to the Earth and dropped from deep space would hit the surface of the Earth due to falling through Earth's gravity. This is also the velocity that would be added on top to the velocity any object already moving towards the Earth from deep space before it impacts. Thus the actual surface impact velocity would be 49.4 km/sec.

    The only time that the Earth's orbital velocity would subtract from impact velocity is if the asteroids trajectory was such that it came up from behind the Earth in its orbital path.

    brother ,first we are talking about space (reality)you can not choose trajectory of asteroid,
    Of course we can! It is just a matter applying the proper boost in the proper direction at the proper time and then letting physics and orbital mechanics do the rest. It is no different in principle from when we launch space probes. They are given the proper push on their way and then Newton's laws take over.

    and under any circumstances it will hit the earth with acute angle {less than 90}and you know why because the earth is turning around itself gravity constantly affect the things around the earth {one moving object should obey the gravity so impact will be with acuteangle-and of course it is about the energy and earth absorbs impact energy that is why we consider the place of its landing,that is why different asteroids have different consequences.
    The effects of Earth's rotation and gravity can easily be accounted and corrected for. These are known regular quanities. Again, we do this with space probes all the time. We launch probes so that they make multiple passes by planets, using their gravity to alter the probe's trajectory and speed by just the right amount to meet up with another planet so that it can do the same. The type of precision this takes would make landing an asteroid at 90° to the Earth's surface seem like child's play.

    if an asteroid enters atmosphere it loses the mass based on its speed,and mass {small slow moving objects have little energy and they loss less energy than large fast moving objects-time plays nothing in this case ,time does not specify the amount of mass and energy an asteroid loses
    The smaller the object, the greater its surface area to volume ratio. Since surface area determines how much drag the atmosphere produces on the object and the volume the mass and inertia of the object, a Small object will lose a much larger percentage of its energy passing through the atmosphere than a larger object will. Time of passage is a factor. It is very simple. Assume you have two identical objects traveling thorugh a resistance for a distance D that slows them down at a rate of A. Object 1 starts at V and object 2 starts at 2*V.
    The velocity each loses to the resistance is equal to A*t where t is the time it takes for the the object to travel distance D. Since object 2 starts with a higher velocity, it will take less time to travel D and t for it will be smaller, which means that A*t will be smaller for it and it will lose less velocity passing through the resistance than object 1 does. This is simple Newtonian Physics.

    oh no it is not, it can change the direction of protons an d notrons coming from the sun
    Protons with a low mass to charge ratio are one thing, macroscopic objects with the opposite ratio are entirely something else.

    and it can affect every thing in its premiter to assert that in year 2000{if i am right} nasa reported that an asteroid change its path because of this magnetic belt before entering atmosphere -it is weak if you compare it to gravity of earth that pulls the asteroid or force with which asteroid pushed towards us.
    Unless you can produce that report, I'm disinclined to beleive that you are accurately recalling it.

    of course that an asteroid may fall where ever its trajectory implies.the point is if it falls in ocean much of its destructive power will be absorbed than falling on continents{please consider the consequenses }
    An impact in the ocean can have more wide spread effects, via produced tsuamis and the amount of water vapor pumped into the atmosphere. But that is neither here nor there, the original question only delat with the energy of impact ( which is the same on land as on Sea, the Sea just distributes the energy differently), not with the effect of such an impact at different points of the Earth.

    i am insisting on my idea that only very big asteroid can hit the earth the simplest example is moon full of trails of asteroids take a look at earth we do not have such a things because of our atmosphere ,our megnetic field,and also our environment on the location of impact
    The Moon does not have erosion effects or geological activity which tends to erase impact craters. The craters you see are ancient ones from when the Solar system was young and full of debris The Earth took its share of hits at that time too. Various forces have, over time, erased the evidence. While our atmosphere provides some protection agianst the smaller stuff.

    so based on your idea it does not matter if an asteroid with small amount of energy hit the place on crust that is thinner than other parts ,it has no effect on central core and direction of moving magma{that makes gravity on earth withsolid core}
    Magma movement has nothing to do with gravity.

    and all of this is less dangerous than big asteroid falls in ocean-the point is for destroying a planet with asteroid ,energy is mandatory but not sufficient -please i need to know your opinion
    My objection was with the statement that Impact energy doesn't matter. And again you are getting far and afield from the original question which dealt with impacts of small nuclear weapon energy ranges and not crust-piercing planet-buster impacts.

    Now a little constructive crititism
    Learn how to use the quote function.
    Periods, paragraphs and spacing go a long way to making one's posts readable.
    People form opinions about you from the way you write. Long, disorganized, run-on sentences give the impression that the writer's thought processes are equally disorganized.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    Because Jupiter is soo heavy: the sun are also attracted to Jupiter. This mutual attraction caused the sun to move around a little bit, perhaps like a very small orbit. So, the sun will appears to orbit an empty space!
    Sometimes the barycenter is below the sun's surface, sometimes it's not:

    638px-Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.jpg

    Even with Jupiter, the barycenter is just barely above the Sun's surface.
    OK, if you think greater than the radius of the sun is "just barely above the Sun's surface", I guess that's semantics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    Because Jupiter is soo heavy: the sun are also attracted to Jupiter. This mutual attraction caused the sun to move around a little bit, perhaps like a very small orbit. So, the sun will appears to orbit an empty space!
    An orbit is an ellipse with the 2 foci determined be the speed and mass of the objects in orbit. The mass of Jupiter is so small compared to the Sun, that the focal point nearest the Sun is in fact inside the Sun. Perhaps the Sun's orbit of Jupiter is in a circle 1,000 meters in diameter right down near the center of the Sun. So for all purposed we can ignore that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Im looking for quick guestimates about

    How much damage a car sized asteroid could do if propelled from the asteroid belt or from a gas giant moon so that it would impact months or years later at perfect angle?

    What size of asteroid (that travel at speeds comparable to comets) do you need to produce a] a ww2 V2 rocket explosion, and b] a sub hiroshima explosion (half of the first atom bomb)?

    thanks

    Earth Impact Effects Program
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by chinajon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The sun orbit an empty space; because the center-of-mass of our solar-system is not on the sun but on at that empty space. So the sun is actually (strangely) orbiting an empty space!!
    may you explain more please
    Because Jupiter is soo heavy: the sun are also attracted to Jupiter. This mutual attraction caused the sun to move around a little bit, perhaps like a very small orbit. So, the sun will appears to orbit an empty space!
    An orbit is an ellipse with the 2 foci determined be the speed and mass of the objects in orbit. The mass of Jupiter is so small compared to the Sun, that the focal point nearest the Sun is in fact inside the Sun. Perhaps the Sun's orbit of Jupiter is in a circle 1,000 meters in diameter right down near the center of the Sun. So for all purposed we can ignore that.
    Try looking at the diagram in post # 14 (click on it to make it larger).

    So you are WRONG.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Resonance Weapon?
    By x(x-y) in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 10th, 2014, 10:03 PM
  2. Resonance Frequency Weapon
    By blkbishop in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 7th, 2011, 04:21 PM
  3. Bird Flu - Biological weapon?
    By Theoryofrelativity in forum In the News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 17th, 2010, 09:55 AM
  4. Sensor Fused Weapon and more.
    By Shaderwolf in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 28th, 2009, 04:31 PM
  5. Name the Weapon
    By zinjanthropos in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 5th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •