Talk:Asteroid impact avoidance/Archive 1

1883:

electro-magnets to maintain and change satellite attitude. The author believes that widespread application may be limited by the orbital perturbation that would result from earth field/satellite field interaction. Electro-magnetic attitude control, without an Electro-magnetic orbital maintenance regime, would require expenditure of thruster fuel to maintain orbital station. To make electro-magnetic attitude determination and control a viable application, a means of offsetting the orbital perturbation using electro-magnetic propulsive technology rather than chemical thrusters must be developed. Also, the mass and volume fractions of electro-magnetic attitude determination and control technologies must be brought to values where the advantages of the technology offset the mass and volume fractions required. A primary advantage of Electro-magnetic propulsive methods for this application is that it can be accomplished without the complex mechanical components as required in momentum and reaction wheel technology or the fuel and valving required for thrusters. This resulting increase in reliability will serve as further incentive to apply electro-magnetic technology to attitude control.

1411:

it would have not been noticed if it was a stony asteroid without and coma & tail. And a 1-2 km body has a 100 times larger surface and thus is 5 magnitudes brighter than a Tungsuka-equivalent body. I am not talking about active comets here but about bodies without and coma and tail, e.g. scattered asteroids or dead comets. Are there any radar surveys that might detect an approaching body? What is the typical radar detection range if scanning the sky for any yet unknown approaching body (not to be mistaken with radar observations of known bodies to get their accurate position and velocity)? As far as I know it is possible to detect man-made space debris down to centimetre scale at LEO or at lest to metre scale at 36000 km this way. If we assume that the reflection of a 10cm body at 36000 km is just sufficient to be detected by a random survey, this means that a 1-km body could be detected at up to 3.6 Mio km (since both the angular cross-section and the radar beam intensity drop with 1/r^2) — this would allow only a couple of days warning time...--

3641:

circling round us like a shark. What do you propose to do with that? Sure, if it is useful we could mine it etc, but if it's not, we'd have no other choice but to keep up these gravity tractor missions for even more decades until we're satisfied it is far enough away with little to no chance of ever coming back. That doesn't strike me, nor anyone who has thought about it as a great solution. As the alternative argument that will no doubt be issued is: We could do that, or we could go with the cheaper-faster-better route of giving it a good NED push to begin with. A solution that isn't open to clandestinely moving NEOs/asteroids back onto collision courses with Earth - a real possibilty that is open to all the other options, as they can steer asteroids around.

1989:

multiple field sources; will utilize the relationship of reaction field range, reaction field angle, and time span of power input to sum the force vectors from two or more reaction fields to obtain the desired net force vector. An example would be to act in repulsion of earth field for a fixed time at a fixed power and then act in attraction to Sun field for a fixed time at a fixed power. The net vector force would be the vector sum of the two forces. Because of the cosine relationship of repulsion/attraction force to the relative angle between the propulsion coil(s) and fields of the Sun, Earth, Jupiter, or other reaction fields, and if those fields are offset at a substantial angle relative to each other; effective impulse vectoring can be accomplished.

1866:

to the maximum repulsive position. In doing so, some of the electrical energy supplied to the field coil will be converted to kinetic rotational energy of the package. As the field coil rotates towards the equilibrium position, the accelerometer reading acceleration along the line of the orbital radius will sense zero acceleration as the angular relationship between the field coil and the earth’s North/South polarity reaches 90 degrees relative to the maximum repulsion or attraction position. The coil polarity control circuit is designed to reverse the polarity of the field coil at this position, thus maintaining a repulsive relationship as the rotational inertia carries the coil package through the 90 degree position.

1833:

parameters remain severely limited by dependence upon the same Newtonian Propulsion methods used by the ancient Chinese to power their rudimentary rockets. Even Ion Propulsion, which uses electro-magnetic acceleration of the ion fuel to achieve impulse, is still a type of Newtonian Propulsion where the total energy imparted is limited by exhaust velocity and total available fuel mass; as defined by Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. Newtonian Propulsion may have gotten us to earth orbit and beyond; but it will be Electro-magnetic propulsion that will carry us to the stars. In the mean time, its development will allow us to achieve flight parameters unimaginable when considering only chemical propellants.

3608:

and simulations are they permitted to choose their asteroid. The potential yield of any specific bomb design is limited by the laws of physics. I'm not interested in what the Russians may or may not have laying around in storage, because the sources don't seem to care, they all use B63s. "Easy to quickly make" is unrealistic and OR, please stop making the article imply that that's the case. Sources are talking about a warning of five years or less, potentially down to a few months, combined with a necessary intercept time of at least 200 days before impact for a 1 km target. You're making the article say: "No problem!". I object to that, because none of the sources even remotely agree with it.

3637:

notice small threats. The article does get this across, I hope? Secondly. "nukes"/nuclear technology is proposed in every major and therefore credible option. From getting kinetic impactors up to speed, to powering tugboats/gravity tractors for decades on end, so the "only in an emergency" thing is just plain wrong, as even when a tugboat would work, a large chunk of "nukes/nuclear material" would still be used. Chemical and solar power are just not up to muster for all but the smallest of threats. If you've read anything more than a little on these non-detonating approaches you'd know they are also generally "nuke" powered at heart.

1855:

strength at the range of the experimental package. It would be most advantageous if the coil length is as great as possible. The coil is circuited in series with the polarity reversing switch and the power source. The accelerometers serve to activate the polarity reversing switch. The experiment is then suitably packaged and conventionally launched to a low inclination orbit defined by the optimum induction flux angle. The experimental package is then positioned so that the field coil of the package is aligned so the coil will be at maximum repulsion with earth’s electro-magnetic field when the coil circuit is initially energized.

1873:

potential and rotational kinetic energy. That the linear force acting along the line of orbital radius will vary as the cosine of the relative field angle while the force translated to torque about the center axis of the coil will vary as a sine function of the relative field angle. The linear force will approximate the force at 0 degrees (maximum repulsion) times the cosine of the relative field angle. The force imparting torque about the center axis of the field coil will approximate the force imparting torque about the center axis of the field coil at 90 degrees (maximum torque) times the sine of the relative field angle.

3335:

weapon. Suggesting that we could just design a bigger warhead is not realistic when Weaver and Wie are both focusing on short-notice events. Your effort to extrapolate their work to cover all possible asteroids is misleading, especially when your source for Weaver has Weaver suggesting nukes are a last option. All of this means that "could" is a better term (and your accusations of FUD, which I understand is considered a type of propaganda) are not only absurd, but probably a violation of behavioral guidelines. So if you can't help but put nonsense in the article, please at least refrain from being obnoxious in the process.

1339:

sending any humans up there to do something, we no longer even have any rockets powerful enough even to go to the moon. Meanwhile, he quotes Ray Anderson of the University of Iowa, a geologist with expertise in meteorite impacts, who says it is quite possible no one would even notice a large asteroid coming until it started to enter the atmosphere and heated up. It is quite possible no astronomer would have been looking at the right bit of sky to see it coming soon enough for us to try to do anything about it. Should these sort of problems be mentioned more in the article, do you think?

1942:

impulse during the entire orbital period, or applying bit impulse relative to apoapsis and periapsis, the orbit can be stepped up and eccentricity controlled. If using conventional chemical propellants, stepping up the orbit is accomplished by increasing the velocity component, translating to gravitational potential, with the impulses timed relative to apoapasis and periapsis to control eccentricity. Experimentation with generating magnetic field in attraction to earth field may yield some surprising results. How will the circuit energy be conserved?

2008:

supplying impulse. It will allow mankind to use the orbital energy of the asteroid itself as the prime source of energy for deflection through an integration of Electro-dynamic braking, vectored electro-magnetic impulse, and for powering Newtonian Propulsion Systems that use scavenged mass from the asteroid and accelerate it using propulsion coils. Perhaps, it will cause a re-evaluation of the decision to use nuclear explosive deflection and fractionation as the preferred approach to this impending challenge.

3829:

target made out of rubble(which transpires in their hypothetical scenario). Instead, have, if not as the initial attempt, but at the very least have as an immediate back-up, the ability to hit the threatening object with a series of stand-off nuclear detonations until sufficient deflection is achieved. That's the take home message I read in that article. Lastly, how exactly would it be seen as not saving someones world, but "target practice" if a small asteroid was deflected? I really don't follow you there.

1961:

supply the rate of change component. This induction process will generate a braking force as is inherent in any electro-magnetic induction process. The induced energy will then be dissipated through circuits designed to generate heat for radiative dissipation, conversion to vectored propulsive impulse, or stored for peak power/subsystem applications. Applications of Electro-dynamic braking will include adjustments in semi-major axis and eccentricity; as well as braking to orbit in planetary missions.

1363:

Solar System most of the time) that remains undiscovered until its final orbit that ends with an impact. Still it may be expected that there will be at least a warning of several years or months if the body is randomly detected. The question, for which I could not find a clear answer in the web, is: At which time or distance from Earth will the asteroid probably be detected (let's say in more than 50% of cases)? Is an 'impact without warning' scenario still reasonable even for global events (: -->

3113:"All this depends obviously on exactly where the intercept is done, how far away from the Earth it is, how much time we have left--and all of these are unknowns until we discover a threatening asteroid," Weaver says. "All of these assumptions are assumptions. What I think I'm bringing to the table for the first time are truly validated simulations of these non-uniform, non-circular compositions that will hopefully give policy makers a better understanding of what their options are." 1972:

the spacecraft will approach and then exceed the escape speed at range, thus allowing the spacecraft to “escape” the gravitational sphere of influence of the prime focus body (planet or Sun). Using such a method, a satellite may be given Excess Hyperbolic Speed, not by imparting additional velocity, but by imparting additional gravitational potential until the energy of the spacecraft exceeds that needed to escape the gravitational sphere of influence of the prime focus body.

2310:

time, engines which already had gone through hundreds of hours of ground testing. Since one of your associates allegedly worked on the vehicle, you could ask him what took up the majority of the time to get to launch ready status? Regardless of our difference of opinion in the exact amount of time it could be done in, the essence of the point I was trying to make above was exactly what you just said -"since no longer exist, they are not even available for this application."

1089:

1 ton/cubic meter density (water ice). Let's assume that average speed of ejecta is 1 km/s. The total impulse of so much material leaving the asteroid is 200 000 000 m^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 * 1000 m/s = 200 000 billion kg * m/s. For 6 kilometer wide water ice asteroid (mass approx 200 000 000 000 000 kg) it changes its velocity by 1 m/s. Even if my assumptions (density, amount and speed of ejecta) are seriously off, such nuke should be enough to deflect kilometer-sized objects.

31: 1173:

effect, maintaining a constant close distance so gravity can do its work. By using gravity to pull the asteroid, this can save us from near earth objects that have the consistency of piles of rubble, which if detonated just changes distribution of the rubble still headed towards us, or high rotation that is difficult to mount a pusher on. The gravity tractor would have to spend approximately a year beside the asteroid to be effective.

4321:

article has "benefited" from a flame war, so I'll leave my other comments aside - other than to remark that a lot of it is quite opinionated and appears to rely not only on the editors' opinions, but puts forward statements in editorial and opinion and advocacy writings as if they are established fact. We have a better method of determining what is fact and what is opinion (and what is false): its' called peer review.

792: 660:“The dangers posed by such collisions go beyond the physical destruction caused by the impacts themselves. A nation hit by less than extinction-destructive force may, depending on their military political situation, think they are being attacked by another nation and retaliate. If this had happened to a superpower during the Cold War, it may have thought it was under nuclear attack and "returned" fire.” 1894:

gravity well. This offsetting force would leave more residual or “Hyperbolic Excess Speed” as the space craft leaves the gravitational sphere of influence. If the magnetic repulsive force exceeds the gravitational force, then this force would continue to accelerate the space craft. The additional energy imparted would approximate the applied circuit energy calculated as applied power times time.

3662:"and we'd rely on the russians if the shit hit the fan!", which would be politically unwise to report. Although in this document, by none other than Weaver himself, on the last or 2nd to last page, Weaver actually does hint at asking the Russians/the international community for making the right choice on which specific NED to use, in an actual real-world asteroid-incoming scenario. 267:

someone's math, it is more likely to be killed by a falling asteroid than die in a plane crash, but they both still have a very, very low probability. So comparing them is somewhat silly. (IMHO) I think we should reduce the "likelihood of an impact" and "effects of an impact" topics no more than one paragraph each and spend most of the article dealing with the stated topic. –

3714:. It's a 7 MT explosion. Not impressive, you simply evacuate the local population 50 miles or so, this is a lot easier than space travel, especially on short notice. The only problem is if some moron tries to nuke it, and alters the landing site just before impact, as happened in a war game that took place at the recent, much-discussed planetary defense conference. Source: 2878:, which only says that they ignored everything but thermal x-rays. They ignored everything else according to Source 1 because the compositions of asteroids is not well known and because the radiative output of the bomb is classified, and they were limited to unclassified material. Read the sources before edit warring over them, and try to use them accurately. 1228:- Proposed by NASA scientists Edward Lu and Stanley Love, this plan calls for a huge, ~20 ton spaceship to hover near the asteroid, years before it comes close to hitting Earth. With the heavy end of the spaceship facing the asteriod, this should be enough to "pull" the asteriod into a slightly different orbit, that years later will save earth. 1145:

fundamental forces; perhaps this deflection method could be augmented by the addition of an electron-gun/accelerator on the tractor, such that the electrostatic force could be added to the gravitational force in the tractor. I've not done even preliminary calculations on this, though, so I don't know if it could produce a usable effect.

2845:

somehow preheated the comet nucleus to the vaporization point, you still have to transfer the heat from the warhead into the nucleus at at least 25% efficiency, which is not possible. Vaporizing a stoney body with no iron is risible. More importantly, it isn't in the source. And there are other problems as well, including WP:PRIMARY.

1904:

Hyperbolic Excess Speed of the space craft relative to the assisting planet remains unchanged. The reason for this is the relative velocity between the space craft and the assisting planet gained by the acceleration of gravity on the approach trajectory is lost to that same gravitational force on the departure trajectory.

1946:

and apoapsis the orbit can be stepped down and eccentricity controlled. Using chemical propellants stepping down the orbit is accomplished by impulse opposite the velocity vector, slowing the spacecraft. The timing of braking impulse relative to periapsis and apoapsis will allow control orbital eccentricity.

1930:

velocity vector the Specific Mechanical Energy can be either increased or decreased with the timing of the impulse relative to periapsis or apoapsis determining orbital eccentricity. Changes in apoapsis are made by imparting impulse at periapsis while impulse to change periapsis is imparted at apoapsis.

3570:

Secondly, you're contradicting yourself, on the one hand you've thankfully acknowledged "Weaver will next turn to simulating larger and larger rocks of varying compositions up to the size of a “dinosaur killer”", yet on the other hand you have the unrelated, contentious and un-supported argument that

3411:

From Fig. 1.8, we notice that a 1-Mt nuclear disruption mission for a 1-km NEO requires an intercept-to-impact time of 200 days if we want to reduce the impact mass to that of the Tunguska event. A 270-m NEO requires an intercept-to-impact time of 20 days for its 300-kt nuclear disruption mission to

3375:

Thus, for the most probable mission scenarios, in which the warning time is shorter than 5 years, the use of high-energy nuclear explosives in space will become inevitable. A scenario in which a small (e.g., 50 to 150 m) Earth-impacting NEO is discovered with short warning time is considered the most

3193:. I have done this expressly so as to remove the need for inserting the misleading and weasel-esque "could" & maybe" sentiments, that others have taken it upon themselves to inject into the section, and done so without authoritative sources to back-up this editorializing/altering of the sentiment. 2493:

Hello. The reference was not introduced by me. What I noticed was that the exact same reference was introduced 3 times in the article so I only changed the format used for multiple citations of the same reference. I admit I did not read the reference nor check that it was used in the correct context.

2060:

Asteriods are most likely very loose objects, so if we can disperse the thing, a lot of small pieces < 1m will just burn up in the atmosphere, and the bigger pieces will hit over a large area, but each will be much less dangerous. The gravity on such an asteroid is very small, so it shouldn´t have

1999:

In all cases, the minute field strengths of the reaction fields at range become usable when the propulsion system is capable of generating extremely strong fields or, in the case of dynamic braking, the induction circuit is capable of maintaining extremely high acceptance when dissipating high power.

1981:

A space craft approaching Jupiter, or other target body, may have too much energy to establish orbit. By using Electromagnetic Propulsive methods it may be possible to alter both the magnitude and vector of the approach velocity; thus giving an alternative to using chemical propellants or atmospheric

1971:

Escape speed, as given in reference material, gives the escape speed at the surface of the body referenced. This escape speed decreases as the radius of orbit increases. If an orbiting spacecraft is given continual magnetic impulse to step up the orbital radius, at some point, the orbital velocity of

1945:

Electro-magnetic Induction Braking (Electro-dynamic Braking) of the space craft will impart a braking force along the vector of orbital velocity, decreasing the orbital energy, and translated to a reduction in gravitational potential. By timing the Electro-dynamic braking inputs relative to periapsis

1820:

Space propulsion has changed little since mankind took its first tentative steps into space. Even with the incremental advances in the efficiency of chemical fuels; the basic nature of rocketry is still defined by the basic Delta V Rocket Equation with all its limitations; be it the powerful boosters

1177:

Dawn: ~1 ton, total dV 11000m/s (achieved in 2000 days of thrusting). If we impart the same impulse onto 1 cubic km asteroid with density 1 ton/m^3 (density of water) by making Dawn-like spacecraft to hover upon it as described, velocity change will be something like 0.000011 m/s, or 0.011 mm/s. This

1104:

If we have lots and lots of little asteroids, it might not be too bad- if they were small enough, they'd burn up in the atmosphere. You'd need to be careful that they don't smash into satellites. You coudl break it up, but personally I'd rather redirect it somewhere away from Earth. In the worst case

945:

Spend serious money budget to send expeditions to some of those asteroids and comets that cross earth orbit, to learn as much as we can about their composition, what it would take to divert them. We need to know as much about them, if not more, than we know about all other bodies in the solar system

941:

Stick eyes in the sky to see the menace long before it gets here, like a satelite on the dark side of the moon, in the equivalent of a 24 hour orbit over planet Earth where satelite in fixed point in sky. So these satelites are used to map what's coming at us from all directions, and where the risks

125:

Each time one of these is discovered, the news media cries "wolf" making it sound like the scientists do not know what they talking about. Then as the scientists get more and more info, getting better and better estimates, and the news media reports this, it sounds like they did not get it right the

3828:

they like pushing), actually seems to be making the point that; if humanity is going to conduct a deflection mission, we better make it an international affair and with that, do it right the first time round. That is, not hold back/"be a moron" with puny kinetic impactors that may not work against a

3656:

shelf for a number of reasons. While no US report that I know of, examines in-depth the possibilty of using Russian NEDs, with the explanation for that probably foremost being that they have detailed information about the performance of US NEDs, and so naturally producing reports on what US NEDs can

3607:

All the sources indicate that nukes are being proposed as an emergency option for short notice issues, if the article fails to get that across, it violates the Neutrality policy. And that's not a contradiction: Weaver and Wie still have to work with what's available off the shelf, and only in papers

3552:

Your suppositions are incorrect. The most glaring of them is your repeated attempts to draw in the fact that nuclear-use would be the emergency option with the entirely unrelated issue of what the Cielo computer results of Weaver state. When to the un-biased eye, it really doesn't matter what humans

3334:

The available physics packages will only deliver a yield up to a particular size. Basically what's happening here is that if "asteroid" can cover objects from a few meters up to 20 km in size, then there must exist some category of asteroids sufficiently small that they can be destroyed by a nuclear

2516:

According to a book in 1964. My understanding is that about that time nuclear warhead design yields became smaller so that they could fly on precision-guided ICBMs, rather than being dropped imprecisely from strategic bombers. Also a number of arms control pacts have been signed since. The statement

2248:

No Saturn V ever sat around in the VAB awaiting some random mission to show up. Each was committed to a specific launch before being assembled. Taking one from VAB to pad required an entire working day--that just got it to the pad, not launch ready--that may be the 'one day' you had heard of. One

1865:

The other force acting on the field coil will translate to torque causing the field coil to begin to rotate about the central axis of the coil length as it begins to align towards the magnetic equilibrium position relative to earth field; that being one of maximum attraction and 180 degrees relative

1410:

Hmm, I don't think that one can take the Tunguska Event as an example here. Even if we neglect the existing doubts about its cosmic origin there was nothing like the Spaceguard program active that time, nor was an impact even being discussed as a threat. Even if it hat approached from the night side

1088:

Here is a bit of "sort of mathematics" for you. Let's say we build, send and blow up a 2 ton thermonuclear device on the surface of the asteroid. It delivers 12 MT blast. Such blast creates 4 sq.km. by 50 m crater on Earth, in other words, it ejects 200 000 000 cubic meters of material. Let's assume

953:

There are some SF movies that involve shooting nuclear missiles at these rocks. I would like to see some scientific analysis of the validity of the "science" in those movies. If we tried that in real life, I expect that instead of a huge rock on a collision course with Earth, there would be a huge

310:

University of Queensland devised a plan utilising advanced polymer technology in 2005. The polymer-metal compound produced is engineered into several giant tensile springs, each approx 1km in length. They are then assembled to a trampoline megastructure designed to bounce the incoming comet back out

2983:

By all means, request for a comment if you wish, however I may be seeing a glimmer of hope in you. Are you saying that now you see the graph? Great! Secondly, there is no "primary source problem" as these papers are all peer-reviewed. Thirdly, I supplied the report that has the authors stating this

2917:

I added to stop your tendentious tagging, displays the fact that the 2007 NASA study, that you acknowledge "says that they ignored everything but thermal x-rays". Also has, right next to this very sentence that you acknowledge is in there, a graph plainly showing that this NASA study that remember

2776:

Therefore the only way you could convince me that the article does have some kind of endemic "typo" as you suggest, is, if you track down the best estimates for the diameter of Charon, in or around the year 1993-5, and those estimates are not anywhere close 100 km. Is this not a reasonable level of

2383:

I came up with the solar sail proposal in 2004, and sent it to NASA. I never received a reply email, but I've seen this scenario posted at a couple of different discussion groups. I'm not sure if I should be pleased, or pissed that I was never credited with the original idea. I guess my small claim

2056:

The possibility of altering the course of an asteriod if it´s found months or years in advance is obvious. Blast a few thermonuclear explosion near it, equip it with a sail, the like. But the article carefully circumvents showing the options if the thing is only detected a day before impact, which

1952:

All electro-magnetic induction processes are composed of three primary components; the excitation field, the inductor, and rate of change. The rate of change can be supplied by velocity of the inductor relative to the excitation field, the oscillation of the excitation field in the presence of the

1925:

Orbital Energy, often described as “The Specific Mechanical Energy”, has two components. These are the kinetic energy per unit mass and the gravitational potential per unit mass. The sum of these two variables equals the specific mechanical energy. In a mass constant orbiting object, when not acted

1854:

A simple space based experiment to demonstrate the basic principles of electro-magnetic propulsion is easily imagined. In this experiment a simple coil, a number of accelerometers, a polarity reversing switch, power source, and radio telemetry is used to determine the earth’s electro-magnetic field

1824:

In earth orbiting satellites, the electronics of the satellite may last indefinitely; but the useable lifespan of that satellite is limited by the availability of on-board propellants used for orbital maintenance. Once the chemical propellant is exhausted, the satellite no longer has the capability

1457:

which would detect a +6 or +8 mag object within a couple of days? Even those should fail if a previously unknown body would approach from the direction of the sun (i.e. on an eccentric orbit which, shortly before the collision, has about the same tangential but different radial velocity component.--

1362:

The article mainly treats the search for unknown asteroids and subsequent determination of its orbit, with respect to possible collisions with the Earth. However, as already mentioned for comets, there may still be the case of an asteroid or dead comet on an eccentric orbit (i.e. it is in the outer

1358:

Are impacts of considerably large asteroids (let's say Tunguska equivalent and larger) without warning still possible? And given a 1-mile (1.6 km) previously unknown asteroid (or dead comet without coma and tail) heading towards Earth - at which time will it be most probably be detected by existing

1051:

You'll have to explain what you mean by "absorbing the explosion." So long as the blast hits the asteroid, conservation of momentum is unavoidable, but I guess it's possbile some might break off little pieces, and then we have a lot of little asteroids headed for the Earth. Well, getting hit with

663:

I think this paragraph/rambling should be deleted: it reads like someone thinking out loud, and makes little sense. A nation hit by a massive asteroid impact will not confuse it with a nuclear attack due to, among other things, the singularity of the impact (as opposed to several smaller warheads),

3731:

This makes that glib assertion in the article that everyone will be fine, legally, with using a nuke against any old asteroid that might be a threat very questionable. Nuking a big asteroid will look like saving the world, nuking a small one will look like target practice. This article continually

3640:

In that vein, even if we have decades to deal with a moderate sized asteroid and humanity decides to go with the tug boat/gravity tractor mission option, that would conceivably prevent an earth impact, but only by a close shave, we'd still have an asteroid with an orbit dangerously close to earth,

3392:

When the warning time is very short, disruption is likely to become the only feasible strategy, especially if all other deflection approaches were to fail, as was concluded in the 2010 NRC report . However, it is again emphasized that non-nuclear techniques should be preferred for non-destructive

2298:

Yes I've helped edit the SLS page, pretty much all the pictures were added by me, as was the booster competition section and upper stage section, fingers crossed NASA will keep getting funding and the project doesn't get cut - which is the reason why they are often regarded as better at "proposing

2068:

I see that it´s quite ugly, but we´ve blow up hundreds of nuclear bombs in our atmosphere, so the added radioactivity, very finely dispersed, will not be a problem. There will probably be thousands of people being hit by meteorites. Sucks for them, but half of them would probably have died anyway,

1988:

Force vectoring will be obtained by very precise control of field strength, field angle, and action time relative to the reaction fields of planets having significant field, the Sun, and once beyond the heliopause; the galactic field. Vector control, when within the magnetic sphere of influence of

1960:

In Electro-dynamic Induction braking applications the solar or planet field will provide the excitation field while coils aboard the spacecraft, or the spacecraft/asteroid body itself, serves as the inductor. The spacecraft/asteroid velocity cutting the flux lines of the Solar or Planet field will

1921:

By using properly timed Electro-magnetic Impulse, in repulsion and in attraction, possibly combined with Electro-dynamic braking; total orbital energy and eccentricity of orbit may be altered. Conceptualization of this regime involves both magnetic impulse and dynamic-braking at specific points in

1882:

Using the Earth’s magnetic field as a reaction field in attitude determination and control of earth orbiting satellites was first proposed early on in space science applications history. Current applications include the sensing of relative field angle to determine satellite attitude and the use of

463:

I reinstalled that paragraph. I checked history - first it is not a volunteers, just one anonym. Looks like he simply do not understanding idea and do not believe in that strategy. And do not bother to check sources. And, now I noticed that Gravity Proposal was mentioned here(discussion page), and

3668:

With respect to "No problem!"? Where did I write that? While I am accurately summarizing the various reports, it may appear that I am saying "no problem" as nuclear explosive devices(NEDs) are the most versatile of all the avoidance solutions (which the NASA quote in the article even supports). I

1956:

For those of you who may have had the opportunity to empirically experience the fundamental physics of induction through experimentation with a simple hand crank generator, that lesson showed the relationship of circuit load to cranking force, and can be extrapolated to the inductive braking of a

1911:

As the space craft begins its departure trajectory from the assisting planet, the relative polarity is reversed and maintained in repulsion. This offsets the deceleration imparted by gravity, and increases both the Hyperbolic Excess Speed of the spacecraft relative to the assisting planet and the

1843:

The ampere was redefined in 1948 as the amount of unvarying current, that when being carried by two infinitely long conductors separated by one meter, would generate a magnetic force between the conductors of 2 X 10-7 Newton per meter of length. This is the Standard International definition of an

1487:

asteroid scare of 1998. As I recall the incident, an astronomer announced to the press, rather than keeping it among his colleagues, that in 2028 an asteroid might hit the earth, "destroying human life as we know it". It made headlines for a couple of days, and many people went to see a couple of

1437:

Tunguska Event may or may not be detected. Since current surveys do not cover the whole sky in a single night, if a telescope is not pointed in the direction that a small ~50 meter impactor is coming from, it simply will not be detected before impact. Both of these impactors were to small to be

972:

Just beautiful. You think it's plausible to "tow some" asteroids here and then "acelerate it up to rammming speed, at a collision angle" (reality check - do you have a slightest idea how much asteroids weigh??) but at the same time you think deflecting an asteroid with surface nuclear blast(s) is

881:

Totally agree. These wimpy methods of placing vapor cloud in the path of an asteriod and the like are ridiculous. It's an ASTEROID for crying out loud! We are talking about cubic miles of rock here! For computationally challenged I translate - a cubic mile of rock (or even ice) weighs BILLIONS of

4320:

140 m) will be identified and monitored (whatever that means) by 2020 C.E. This claim is blatant nonsense; we can not identify "all" of them because the number of them is constantly increasing ( or 'constantly changing' if you remove objects which are no longer part of that category). I see this

3636:

40 m sized incoming asteroid would always be an emergency, unless we had decades, then it'd be just a smaller emergency depending on its exact size. Furthermore, all the sources indicate that NEDs(nuclear explosive devices) are proposed for dealing with both long-distance large threats AND short

2844:

Optimal scenario, a water comet pre-heated to the vaporization temperature: 1 km sphere of ice = 5.2*10^11 L =~ 5.2*10^11 Kg of ice, requiring 2.2*10^6 J/Kg specific heat of vaporization, or 1.1*10^18 J. The energy equivalent of 1 gigaton of TNT is only 4.2*10^18 J. In other words, once you have

2309:

1 Saturn V had a VAB rollout on 16 April 1973 and was launched on May 14th. - Less than a month and that was a first of it's kind payload. If I'm not mistaken, most of the checks necessary on the launch pad were for the payload (which was often carrying humans) and not on the engines and tanking

2007:

A most important ramification of Electro-magnetic Field Reaction Propulsion and Electro-dynamic Braking in Space Applications may be the fundamental change in the logistics of asteroid deflection. This technology will negate the need to carry chemical fuel mass to the asteroid for the purpose of

1861:

Since the coil is aligned in repulsion with earth field, one force will be acting along a line that is perpendicular to the earth’s North/South polarity (approximating the line of orbital radius) and will translate to an acceleration vectored along the orbital radius converting circuit energy to

1828:

The International Space Station is dependent upon chemical propellants to offset orbital decay. The need and use of these chemical propellants increases the potential for catastrophic accident, increases the cost of operational maintenance, and requires the commitment of launch capacity for that

1456:

Sounds plausible. However, what about 1 to 2 kilometre-sized bodies? Even those should be overlooked if nobody's looking at them, and such a body will be invisible to the naked eye beyond about 1 million km of distance even if fully illuminated. Or are there low-resolution whole-sky observations

1172:

one article about their proposal. The craft was originally designed for another mission, uses electric thrusters, using electric power to heat a gas to extremely high temperatures and squirt jets to the sides of the asteroid, not directly at it, which would undermine the desired gravity tug boat

282:

I plead guilty to adding content to show that there is a definite risk out there, against which the planet needs to defend itself. I feel that such content belongs someplace in Knowledge (XXG), but perhaps in other articles. I do not have a good feel for all the related articles that do exist,

1929:

Introductory texts on Astro-dynamics teach that in most cases, a change in the Specific Mechanical Energy of a satellite is accomplished by imparting impulse along the velocity vector. This change in velocity translates to a change in the semi-major axis of orbit. By imparting impulse along the

1903:

A number of deep space missions have used Gravity Assist to either increase or decrease the mechanical energy of the space craft. Although such maneuvers use the gravitational acceleration of the assisting planet to increase or decrease the heliocentric relative velocity of the space craft, the

1893:

It may be possible to increase the Hyperbolic Excess Speed by using magnetic repulsive force generated by propulsion coils aboard the spacecraft acting against Earth’s electromagnetic field. The repulsive force would offset the deceleration of gravity as the space craft moves out of the Earth’s

1832:

Interplanetary and deep space missions face similar limitations inherent to dependence on chemical propellants. Although gravitational assist has been a regular tool used in both navigation and imparting changes in specific orbital energy; obtainable velocities, launch windows, and other flight

1338:

In Bill Bryson's 2003 book A Short History of Nearly Everything, he says people assume we would blast an approaching asteroid with a nuclear missile, but he points out out missiles are not designed to leave the atmosphere and if they were we have no mechanisms to guide them across space; as for

3051:

Recently, I have had to repeatedly change the wording of the nuclear deflection strategem section to reflect what the sources themselves contain. As other editors, (who I now see here on this talk page, also have a history of personal antipathy towards this section of the article) continually

2003:

The use of Electro-magnetic Propulsion may negate the requirement of waiting for opportune alignment of Jupiter and Saturn for use in Gravity assist maneuvers. The launch windows now continuously open by the ability to use Solar Field in repulsion to give the space craft the kick up that would

1941:

In a properly inclined orbit, generating a magnetic field in repulsion with earth field will begin to impart impulse along the orbital radius, increasing the semi-major axis, thus directly increasing the gravitational potential component of the Specific Mechanical Energy. By imparting magnetic

1872:

As power is applied to the circuit, energy begins to be converted thru linear and rotational acceleration to the gravitational and rotational energy of the package. Without empirical proof, I suggest that the applied coil circuit energy will be the sum of the energy translated to gravitational

1270:

In the section "Poplular strategies" it says "Destruction concentrates on rendering the impactor harmless by fragmenting it and scattering the fragments so that they miss the Earth or burn up in the atmosphere. As will be shown, this does not always solve the problem, as sufficient amounts of

1995:

The Delta V imparted by a chemical rocket is limited by the attainable exhaust velocity of the rocket and total fuel mass available. In an Electro-magnetic Field Reaction Propulsion System capable of generating extreme field strength, the Delta V imparted will be limited only by the amount of

1937:

It is proposed that changes in the orbital energy of the space craft can be made using Electro-magnetic technology; increasing the orbital energy by increasing the semi-major axis directly through repulsive interaction with earth field or decreasing orbital energy by electro-dynamic braking.

266:

This could be an interesting article, full of pros and cons of existing or near-future technology plus speculative solutions. But unfortunately, a good portion of the article is already littered with sensationalistic "it could happen tomorrow!" kind of fear mongering. Perhaps, according to

1907:

By using Electro-magnetic Field Reaction Propulsion, both additional hyperbolic excess speed relative to the assisting planet and heliocentric relative velocity can be imparted when the assisting planet has a significant magnetic field. In this application the propulsion coil(s) are used in

1144:

Some here malign the gravitational tractor idea because of a perceived anti-nuke bias; however, the case for such a strategy (namely, the ability to affect 'awkward' asteroids with high spin or considerable debris clouds) seems valid. However, the gravitational force is the weakest of the

3412:

reduce the impact mass to that of the Tunguska 11 event. Therefore, it can be concluded that under certain conditions, disruption (with large orbital dispersion) is the only feasible strategy providing considerable impact threat mitigation for some representative, worst-case scenarios.

1889:

By definition, for an Earth orbital escape mission, the Hyperbolic Excess Speed is the residual speed that remains as the space craft climbs out of the Earth’s gravity well. Simply stated, it approximates the rocket burn out velocity minus the escape velocity at the range of burnout.

1964:

Because the orbital velocity of a satellite or asteroid is so high, significant voltage can be developed even though the excitation field may be very weak. The “tether” experiments flown on the space shuttle clearly indicate the validity and potential application of this technology.

3669:

actually think it would be a major problem to get the NEDs to the asteroid. As greatest impediment to every option, not least the nuclear deflection option is the lack of sufficiently large rocket vehicles. NASA are slowly getting back to building an outer-space vehicle with the

4015:, Why did you assume I was arguing about the exact size of craters? Seen as you used the explosive unit of "7 MT"/ megatons, I thought it was obvious we were discussing that figure & the resultant area of death & destruction it would cause. Melosh's quick-n-dirty impact 719:

and its references. The event did occur, but the size quoted in the article is exaggerated. The above web site refers to size estimates from 3 to 80 m in diameter, with impact energies (had the object hit straight on) being "Hiroshima-sized" at the lower end of that size range.

664:

the lack of radioactivity, the lack of any detectable delivery methods (no planes or missiles), the magnitude of the explosion, and the knowledge, even if gained only a few hours prior to the impact, that an asteroid impact is imminent. This adds no value to the article.

3579:

in storage, has a yield almost an order of magnitude greater than the 1.2 megaton device frequently modeled against the ~300 m Apophis, and it is "available", now that's just in the US. The Russians have a 20 megaton device in storage that was previously on top of their

702:

2. I added a portion to mitigate against the view that our detection strategies are (or soon will be) 100% efficient. At the very least, asteroids can have an approach plane which keeps them blocked by the glare of the sun, and that leaves them currently undetectable.

698:

1. The 'social problems' aspect appeared quite biased as holding the whole endeavour as a waste of funds. Gramatically, it was quite rambling as well. I believe I remedied both. I would prefer to make more sweeping changes, but I do see the utility of the viewpoint.

2431:

In their 2010 report Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, the US National Research Council (NRC) identified four broad mitigation options and classified them by NEO impactor diameter and the warning time available before

1359:(2010) techniques, if it approaches a) from the night side (i.e. fully illuminated, and within the observational sky area of optical telescopes), and b) from the direction of the Sun (+/- about 30 degrees, so that no easy detection from ground telecopes is possible)? 921:

Anyone who has read any science fiction (like me) knows about lots of other things that in theory could be done, that does not seem to be part of the near future science consideration. Would it make sense to have a "main artlce" on how this is solved in the world of

2064:

I´d rather have a few hundred or thousand craters less than 50m in diameter across half the planet, than a single hit, causing global nuclear winter, and probably wiping out a third of China in a big fire, or half of North America and Europe under a giant tsunami.

4020: 3712: 433:

I added this theory some time ago, with multiple links to show it was a valid theory from notable people, but other volunteers here kept deleting that material without good explanation. I not want to get in an edit war, so I leave it to consensus what belongs.

1847:

Electro-magnetic Field Reaction Propulsion and Electro-dynamic Induction Braking when combined with the now and near term future technologies related to super conductivity and other related technologies will introduce a new paradigm in space propulsion.

841:

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on

3206:

Now if you found reputable sources questioning Weaver's assumptions, only then would I agree to inserting shaky "could" sentiments about what he has found, until then however, it is needlessly misleading. Especially when I don't see the problem with saying

887:

Nice megaton-class surface or slightly above surface thermonuclear blast - that's the stuff which works. And by the way, it works not by "shattering the asteroid to pieces", but by vaporising and venting a lot of surface material, creating a rocket exhaust

949:

Send an expedition to the Asteroid belt, and tow some of them back here, to use as shields ... a big rock is hurtling towards us, so we take one of the shields and acelerate it up to rammming speed, at a collision angle that will take the debris away from

2941:

While I'm also frustrated with your editing style, you still don't seem to comprehend the issue. Part of the problem is that you're interpreting primary sources, which you ought not be doing. Obviously this will require some form of dispute resolution.

1821:

used to obtain orbital velocity or the low impulse Ion Thrusters used to power deep space missions. This ancient approach to propulsion limits both the potential flight parameters of deep space missions and the life span of earth orbiting satellites.

1391:

comet headed towards the Earth would likely be detected by the time it was about as far way as Jupiter (5AU from the Sun). But keep in mind a comet less than 0.5km in diameter would take longer to become active and would be a harder target to find. --

2249:

of my associates walked out every one of the Saturn Vs, and I am familiar with what had to happen. They typically sat on the pad for weeks before being launch ready. But since they no longer exist, they are not even available for this application.--

3631:

Again, I fail to understand your argument, how does the results of a computer simulation on nuclear detonation intercepts, need to be tempered with "could"s? Simply because, to you, what "would" happen solely depends on how humans decide to act?

3171:

has a great-deal of connection with this topic, as its objectives were to detonate nuclear explosive devices in space, and it achieved that. So it serves as somewhat of a precedent, and therefore meets the re-quirements for inclusion within the

2299:

projects than implementing them" - politics not engineering. As for the Saturn V, I notice you say "could", yes it could take that long, it could take even longer with a storm hitting Florida, but it could be done in a much shorter time span.

3305:(1)I don't need to address that, as Weaver doesn't either, precisely because what works on the medium scale with say explosive device of medium size, will work on the large scale with a similarly upscaled/tailored explosive being delivered. 1933:

In both cases, the impulse either increases or decreases the total orbital energy by imparting a change in orbital velocity. This change in velocity is then translated to a change in gravitational potential by altering the semi-major axis.

3983:? So there is no need to couch the whole thing with "coulds" everywhere, as if no one has done detailed supercomputer analyses and experimental tests on meteorites or anything. When they actually have. Are you still not satisfied with this? 2678:

Perhaps you could research and then write up the evolution of understanding about the nature and size of ChAron, specifically focusing on measurements prior to the year 1995, as a form of redemption, and report your findings in its article

163:

Significant historical impacts when, sequenced not chronologically but from greatest damage or potential threat, to less of a risk of harm. We can then see clearly how often planet Earth is placed at risk by impacts of various severity.

1000:

Hmm...with that last one- if the explosion was forceful enough, you could knock it out of its path. I'm not a scientist myself, but I have seen stuff on this. One concern is that the structure of some asteroids would absorb a lot of the

1271:

material hitting the Earth at high speed can be devastating even if they are not collected together in a single body." It never dose explain that and I was wondering if we should explain why it makes the problem a hundred times worse.

3255:(2) That Fishbowl detonations were done in "space" and any asteroid mission would be in "space" also is an extremely superficial similarity. This article is about asteroid deflection, nuclear weapons are only of passing interest here. 4030:

I recommend you get yourself up-to-speed on these modern publications before declaring your belief that his above site is super-accurate again. Really, it strikes me as odd that you're not aware of this as you actively edit both the

2656:. All this speculation that they were talking about ChIron is post-hoc without any contextual understanding of what was known about ChAron at the time of publication, moreover it is completely devoid of all adherence to the rules on 2995:

The analysis depends on only X-ray interaction with the asteroid. Neutron interaction is neglected as it is more difficult to predict spectrum and interaction with the asteroid, and that neutron interaction will occur after X-ray

1193:

I had originally started this writeup, then added to it, since I felt it was a notable effort by NASA scientists, reported in believable media, that was different from the write-ups that I found in the other solution strategies.

2174:

were launched at the incoming threat, as their penetration capabilities would more than make up for the B61's reduced yield. Of course humanity has very few of those in stock though as the RNEP got a lot of resistance from the

1839:

Prior to 1948 the ampere was defined, based on Faraday’s Law Of Electrolysis, as the amount of unvarying current, that when passing through a solution of silver nitrate, deposits silver at a rate of .00111800 grams per second.

893:

Again, for the computationally challenged - 1 ton thermonuclear device delivers ~6 MT blast. Delivery of such device to the asteroid is quite doable with todays launch vehicles. Deep Impact mission's impactor weighted 600 kg.

1073:"Absorbing the explosion" means that its structure will sort of crumple- but the blast won't actually stop it from moving towards us. It's sort of like punshing a really huge sponge- you can hit it all you like, it won't move. 2061:

time to reassemble, and if one thermonuclear explosion isn´t enough, the USAF Global Strike Command and their fellow bastards in Russia, China and France will finally have found a constructive use for their arsenal of ICBMs.

580:

is American, but how is it done in Australia, India, and elsewhere, particularly the nations that have active space programs (or is that space programmes?), and thus likely to have constructive contributions to this subject.

1140:

BTW, who was it that said that wed need ten years to prepare for a 200 m asteroid? That's ridiculous: as soon as it became apparent a 200m rock was heading our way, I reckon a few people might try and do soemthing about it.

3901:) 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Added later: Now I see the problem, you've confused Melosh with the models they use for small airbursts. It's apples and oranges; and a good cautionary tale about interpreting primary sources. 2464:

Notable the referenced page(77) that you put in support of the following section of the article is incorrect, that page discusses how nuclear deflection works, it does not discuss politics. Could you please correct this?

1926:

on by any other force than the gravity of the prime focus object; this Specific Mechanical Energy remains constant. In elliptical orbits this energy translates between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy.

1712:. On a general note, many merge efforts lead to massive clumsy articles, difficult to maintain, and worse, difficult to read to the average hurried reader who has a specific information need. Try to figure out what a 3892:

Melosh is probably the world's foremost expert in modeling the effects of impact events. If you've got a problem with those numbers, then Knowledge (XXG) isn't the place to fix it. Likewise for the rest of the above.

2549:

I am sure that if such situation develops, neither the Russians or Americans would complain or hesitate to use a nuke to save the planet,as it would not be a military mission but one of survival of the Homo species.

3491:“From my perspective,” he says, “the nuclear option is for the surprise asteroid or comet that we haven’t seen before, one that basically comes out of nowhere and gives us just a few months to respond,” says Weaver. 2267:

page for NASA's heavy lift proposal--bear in mind NASA is better at proposing projects than implementing them. According to NASA SP-4204, a Saturn V could sit on the pad for about 2 months before being ready for

74:

Some of the links, that I found, perhaps ought to be moved from this article on deflection strategies, to one of the related articles, that focus more on what the problems are that call for deflection strategies.

1806:

Having a less massive asteroid hit the Earth would most certainly be positive, but I have no idea what good a radiation blast does, besides possibly putting us out of our misery when we're not expecting it ;-)

1438:

detected by surveys when they were far from the Earth. I believe radar is too focused to be used as a early warning system since optical telescopes can scan much larger regions resulting in faster detection. --

419:(1 to 10000 chance to hit an Earth in 2036), if they could sent spacecraft by year 2029... They mention Russian Federal Space Agency; U.N. Office for Outer Space Affairs; JSR Space Report, article looks serious. 3507:

So a nuke "could" disperse a small enough asteroid. Not "would", and the article exaggerates the likelihood of success, the knowledge of asteroid composition, and the enthusiasm scientists have for this option

129:

By the time the human race is really threatened, the voting public will be so used to each news story being worse than the last story, then turning out to be nothing, that we humans will not take the real thing

489:

Hey guys - I'm glad you put that back in! I've reworded the section quite a bit, making it (hopefully) easier to understand; hope you like it. It could still use some 'polishing' by a native speaker, though...

396:

Actually, the sad fact is that most experts think comet impacts are essentially unpreventable, because their orbits would generally give almost no warning beforehand. You know, that should probably be in the

2958:

These effectiveness figures are considered to be "conservative" by its authors as only the thermal X-ray output of the B83 devices was considered, while neutron heating was neglected for ease of calculation

2869:

3308:(2)While the article is about asteroid avoidance this sub-section is about putting nuclear explosive devices in space, therefore as I've already explained to you. It meets the requirments to be within a 2128:

spread effect of asteroid rock raining down upon the planet as opposed to the majority of the chunks missing earth if hit with a Saturn V carrying a nice complement of mulit-megaton warheads. And to

3846:

Whatever successful method that will be used(eventually) will be described as "saving the world/livelihoods" of thousands/millions if the asteroid happened to be heading near your or "their" homes.

3055:

Furthermore, in their reversions of my edits, back to the original tone of "would" and "according to simulations" etc. They contend that the sources actually say "could" and that "we don't know".

759:

Does anyone think that a nuclear explosion, but a miscalculated one, will send smaller radioactive asteroid pieces to Earth instead? Should this be adressed as a "con" for nuking the asteroid?

3803:

house or country/world, am I right? No one would fault a country attempting to prevent an impending natural disaster, as long as they do the job right and don't put others in danger by doing so.

2703:

There has never been a 'Charon type comet' as mentioned in the referenced article; there are Chiron type comets. The article has a typo. Here is a 1989 reference mentioning Pluto's moon Charon:

838:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1897:

By thoughtful design, repulsion can be maintained without using an oscillating polarity strategy (as described in the Space Based Experiment), thus maintaining constant space craft attitude.

1817:+++ Oberth/Tsiolkovsky/Goddard meet Faraday/Henry/Weber/Maxwell ++ Electro-magnetic Field Reaction Propulsion and Electro-dynamic Induction Braking in Space Applications. – By Mark J. Carter 3553:

decide to do, that still doesn't change the fact that the simulations say what WOULD happen in the event of a nuclear interception that is energetically tailored to the size of the asteroid.

2875:

does not support it, it says that the figure is "conservative" because the bomb is good for 1.2 MT, not the 1.0 MT in their analysis (see page 15). There's nothing about it in this source:

1975:

By initiating high power Electromagnetic impulse in low earth orbit and maintaining this impulse during the outbound trajectory, very high Excess Hyperbolic Speeds might be achieved.

311:

to space upon impact. Some speacialists suggest having several people simultaneously jumping on the surface of the structure could help to "super-bounce" the comet with even greater force.

2704: 351:

Another asteroid, captured, attach space drive, then use that a number of ways, depending on how good precision of aiming. It is like shooting a bullet with a bullet. Can we do that with

2469:" This bill "to provide for a Near-Earth Object Survey program to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize certain near-Earth asteroids and comets" was introduced in March 2005 by Rep. 2124:

So it's the only possible last minute resort, but because of the rubbish launch vehicles in service now, it wouldn't be very effective at all, you would have your described shotgun like

3694:

and it was made in a couple of months(well before we had legacy codes and supercomputers). You can read his memoirs if you like, it's in that. So it's neither "unrealistic" nor "OR".

1869:

The timing of the polarity reversing switch is critical for maintaining repulsion; avoid dampening the oscillation, or allowing the package to continue increasing its spin velocity.

3094:

You're reading certainty into the source that just isn't there, that's editorializing. Why did you restore the link to Operation Fishbowl, which has nothing to do with this article?

2232:

and since it reportedly can achieve 50-60 meters of 5000 psi reinforced concrete penetration, it probably fulfils the RNEP design specifications. I'm both glad and disturbed by this.

4540: 4162: 601:

always being used to refer to a computer program. Therefore it's quite easy to understand the context (it's easy anyway for native English speakers, of course). I think in America

2809:

and I couldn't find the stuff about "instantly vaporizing" asteroids with 1 GT warheads in the LLNL workshop proceedings. That paragraph is getting silly, needs better sources.

133:

There are also political issues. Suppose an effort by nation-A to deflect fails, and nation-B gets hit. Assuming nation-B survives, what kind of liability is nation-A facing?

3276:. (Nevermind, I see it became a new paragraph--placing more weight on the popsci source, but without addressing the points I made above. What are your plans for the article? 2072:

So what´s the problem? Why is this not adressed, neither here nor elsewhere? Simply because it´s the obvious last-minute-resort, and there´s no chance to ever try it out? --

1383:

was caused by a small object less than 100 meters in diameter, a small undetected asteroid impacting during the day under the cover of the blinding Sun is very possible. A

415:

Could someone update wiki? The main idea is using gravitational force. They claim that it would be possible to slightly change trajectory of 50 million tons asteroid named

138:

We have various strategies proposed. What we do not have are the major pros and cons of each strategy. For which of them does the technology exist? What kind of expense?

4300:

seems to be about Detection efforts. Propose we separate out threat detection and impact prediction from deflection efforts (to avoid duplication with other articles). -

2988:

to only re-enforce the fact that, indeed the authors are conservative in their performance estimates as unlike many others before them, they did neglect neutron heating.

2922:, has drastically underestimated nuclear effectiveness when it is shown next to all the other peer-reviewed studies that DO include neutron heating, such as "Dearborn"'s. 2564:

My concern was not political refusal to fly a nuclear mission, but the availability of megaton-range warheads and their mass. But I see that according to this (Figure 4)

2407:: Not to mention that the Solar Sail idea was proposed at the beginning of the 1998 movie Armageddon, where it was quickly rejected given the timeline of (iirc) 18 days. 4582: 4578: 4564: 4422: 4418: 4404: 4238: 4234: 4220: 2744:

Secondly, you still haven't posted about what the best estimates on the diameter of Charon were in 1995. Were they greater than 100 km in diameter? Or pretty much 100?

170:

Number of Near Earth Objects of comparable or larger size, and frequency with which they cross Earth orbit, so we can see the rate at which we are playing this cosmic

556:

existed long before computer programs came along, and with the rise of computers, continued to be used quite heavily in many contexts unrelated to computers, such as

199:. An ocean strike was considered worse than a land strike because of risk of penetrating the magma on ocean floor and punching a hole in the planet's crsst, with a 1206:

Thanks, I see that someone has put the section back in, and phrased it much more elegantly than I had, but dropped the citations proving that the content is truth.

3661:

role is technically and politically their best option. While another factor may be that they probably get a "kick-back" from the gov/military for not saying--: -->

745:

I changed 'Icarus Project' to 'Project Icarus' which is the actual name of the book. Someone probably wants to create a page for it - there are good details here

3715: 1876:

Where the moment of inertia of the experimental package is known, Earth’s Electro-Magnetic Field Strength can be derived from acceleration and circuit power.

2873: 2461:

Hello, I am the IP editor that edited the above article a few days ago, I appreciate your attempt but your edit has now introduced a serious reference error.

1248:

As I commented above, the idea is ridiculous and is probably born out of irrational fear of using nuclear bombs for quick and efficient asteroid deflection.

2705:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DN-v0fQSfPkC&pg=PA869&dq=charon+class+comet&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_8gqVdPLLceXNrqegbgM&ved=0CKYEEOgBMFo

145:

had said that developing some of these strategies was potentially more dangerous than the threat they protecting against. Can we get the specific quote?

819:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 816: 4186: 3059: 2221:

unfueled and then be rolled out for launch in under a day. Please cite a reference that suggests otherwise, as I'm highly skeptical of your statement.

3238:(1) You haven't addressed that the Cielo simulations represent asteroids of a paticular size range, which you have represented simply as "asteroids". 1704:

is a large messy affair. I believe that we have enough info to have articles on detection and consideration about avoidance (your recent retitle to

843: 835: 831: 808: 3493: 1302:

a possibility remains that during the 2029 close encounter with Earth, Apophis will pass through a gravitational keyhole, a precise region in space

3475:

Weaver will next turn to simulating larger and larger rocks of varying compositions up to the size of a “dinosaur killer” (about 6.2 miles across).

2107:. Humanity once had a vehicle that could launch enough payload/ a large enough fraction of the Earth's nuclear weapon arsenal, in the form of the 4541:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080131081137/http://democrats.science.house.gov/media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/space/08nov/Yeomans_testimony.pdf

4530: 4163:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121106103756/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=278ed690-ccf5-4bdd-88ee-ce83eecb2db4&k=41066

1232:

This more elegant write up, without the earlier citations and additional detail, was also removed. I hope it was removed for improved re-write.

1105:

scenario (if it was really clsoe to Earth), I'd send it flying towards the moon. It's protected us form asteroids before (though not flawlessly).

179:

Human understanding has dramatically evolved in a relatively short time span. When I was in college in the 1960's there was a cover story in an

3680:

Although I think the article should indeed include that, but I've yet to come across a good source that really explains this obvious problem,

847: 2827: 2682: 2443: 2179:

media a few years ago and was never effectively developed, but who knows...maybe it was? Let's hope it was. Merry Christmas/Nollaig sona duit

1791:

If not completely vaporized, the resulting reduction of mass from the blast combined with the radiation blast could produce positive results.

877:

Its only the most powerful force creatable by man. I'm not sure they can make millions of tons high explosives much less get it into space.

605:

is not generally used in any context. However, maybe we should think about the alternative spellings as a way of differentiating the usages.

4550: 3939:

happen is, still, unknown. To use a somewhat faulty analogy, it's the difference between wind tunnel results & the actual aircraft...

1912:

Heliocentric Velocity; by adding the energy imparted by the electro-magnetic system to the specific mechanical energy of the space craft.

1569: 1340: 980: 901: 712:

Not disputing it, but I'd imagine something of this significance would be easier to obtain sources for. Anyone got anything more concrete?

1708:

is clearly an improvement). More to the point, there is enough 3rd party coverage, and enough potential, to justify a separate article on

4544: 4166: 1858:

So positioned, when the switch is initially closed and power is applied to the coil there will be two vector forces acting on the coil.

1026:

What about landing thrusters on it and using them to force the thing away (preferably into Jupiter or the sun, where it won't come back).

4322: 2780: 2477: 2313: 2235: 2073: 343:

I tend to agree with you. As phrased, that won't work. A debris field sounds like a rubble pile, which can cause same kind of damage.

2182: 1249: 1179: 1041: 1016: 4520: 1732:

is notable enough to expand and keep as a separate article. If no one else comments in about a week, I will remove the merge tag. --

1124:. Punch a sponge in the vacuum of space, it'll move. Though this is more accurately compared to throwing something at the sponge. 4560:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4400:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4097:

With that sentiment, I do agree. There appears to be unresolvable disagreement on what "could" & "would" mean in this context.

2824:

The "instantly vaporizing" of a 1 km wide body by a 1 gigaton NED(nuclear explosive device) is indeed in the LLNL document. Read it.

2536:

might readily divert an asteroid from its course. (Something the writers of "ST:TNG", & you, have evidently not considered...)

2087:

Yes I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head, it is the last "minute"/week resort. Problem is, there are presently no large

1982:

braking as the sole methods of reducing the energy of the spacecraft so that it can be captured by the intended prime focus body.

1908:

attraction polarity on the approach to the assisting planet. This increases the acceleration above that imparted by gravity alone.

2057:

is highly likely for a thing of 250m or so in diameter. There seems to be the credo "we mustn´t break it", but i ask myself why?

1293:

there is a slim chance that during the 2029 close encounter with Earth 99942 Apophis will pass through a "gravitational keyhole"

4510: 3658: 2171: 773:

The subsection "fiction" on this page overlaps with, but is less exhaustive than, the fiction section in Asteroids in fiction (

181: 160:

Time Line{s) ... there may already be relevant wiki articles ... if so need to link with this, if not perhaps need to add some

4360: 2195:

Saturn V never had a 1-week launch capability--not even close, only missiles with warheads had/have short launch capabilities.

1783:, theories should be published to be included here. A link to a researcher's personal homepage isn't a sufficient citation. 1701: 530:

is used on more than one occasion in this article. To assist people whose first language might not be English I propose that

167:

Indicate how much damage they would have inflicted had they arrived in a major city, rural area, ocean strike, other terrain.

47: 17: 3459:

The simulations suggest that a 1-megaton nuclear blast could deter a killer asteroid the size of Apophis or somewhat larger.

2494:

Please feel free to fix the errors you detect and make a note in the edit summary just before you save the page. Thank you,

2669:

I have since reverted your post-hoc reasoning. Desist in adding speculation without first corroborating it with references.

2442:

Could someone good with that computer ink graphics maker copy the general message of the image and put it in this article?

1512: 717: 412: 4500: 1764: 4319:

One of the bullet points in the Planetary Defense Timeline section claims that (as of 2007) ALL objects of concern (: -->

348:

The gravity tractor idea does not need a regular space craft, but it does need propulsion attached to the gravity source.

4625: 4465: 4281: 3584:

from 1976 and 1984. Moreover, much larger yield devices are easy to quickly make. Just ask the Soviet Union in 1961. -

2384:

to fame, if it helps everyone, should be just that. A small claim. I just hope it works if they go to use it. -Tercero

3796: 2225: 1543: 827: 799: 148:

Are there other efforts in space which, if perfected in time, can also help with the flexibility of solving this one?

1169: 4187:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071017105104/https://mitpress.mit.edu:80/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=6840

4176: 4172: 3376:

probable scenario because smaller NEOs greatly outnumber larger NEOs, and smaller NEOs are more difficult to detect.

3189:(2) With respect to Popsci & the Cielo computer simulations. I have included numerous times the sentiment that - 2152:

respectively, but now, all we could muster in a short space of time of about a week would be a handful of 1 megaton

2132:, large thermonuclear warheads are increasingly being dismantled in favor for smaller lower yield weapons, like the 1637:

The threatening object is a comet rather than an asteroid which is why I'm not sure whether it belongs here or not.

355:

technology, or does that really mess up the electronics of incoming missiles, and not truly have bullet hit bullet.

240:

existed on a volunteer basis around the world long before US Congress gudgeted funds, after many years of ignoring

38: 3663: 2992: 2517:

is ambiguous and source is out of date. Whether an off-the-shelf warhead could do the trick is (and was) dubious.

376: 244:

budget requests for planetary defense. Other nations, equally slow to respond to their relevant experts requests.

4484: 4344: 4136: 3799:

of an area and then the destruction of that area is all when and good on paper...as long as it's not going to be

2686: 2555: 2499: 2447: 2349: 2218: 2116: 1720:

up into sub-articles, leaving it at as an overview main-article, directing the reader to other relevant articles.

1717: 1705: 4581:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4421:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4237:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2741: 777:). Should these be condensed to a single article on asteroids colliding with Earth in fiction, instead of two? 3935:

Coming in a bit late, but it seems to me "could" is apt, here, since a live trial has never been done, so what

2831: 2436:

2112: 1573: 1121: 984: 905: 857: 4531:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110506052124/http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2036

4152: 3766:

are not accurate, decent for an approximation, but by no means accurate. Check the Brown quote I added on the

2391:

was invented in 1924. Somehow I don't think the idea of using them to deflect asteroïds waited 2004 and you.--

1344: 4394: 4326: 2784: 2755:

is what is discussed, and this spelling is used multiple times across a large number of disparate pages, yet

2317: 2239: 2136:, so if an asteroid was detected in 1969-1972, humanity would have been able to send hundred's of 25 megaton 597:

Yes, it might boil down to different versions of English. Here in England, the usage is as I described, with

4616: 4492: 4456: 4352: 4272: 4144: 4046: 3867: 3699: 3320: 3217: 3084: 3010: 2932: 2481: 2412: 2077: 1922:

the orbit and could include using the induced dynamic-braking energy to produce vectored magnetic impulse.

1642: 1388: 385: 1565: 1029: 1004: 976: 897: 4488: 2273: 2254: 2200: 2186: 2041: 1539: 1253: 1183: 1150: 1037: 1012: 931: 330:

Creating an artificial debris cloud in the object's path so that upon impact the object will be deflected.

3415: 2012: 4600:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4588: 4551:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060114085628/http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/NEO_Chapter_1.pdf?ID=113

4440:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4428: 4376: 4256:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4244: 4190: 4026:

3rd edition. In 2007 supercomputer analysis by Boslough proved that this is a crude approximation. Here

3825: 3571:"The available physics packages will only deliver a yield up to a particular size". That's just another 2033: 1638: 1158: 572:

Perhaps it would be more relevant to ask about spelling in different English speaking nations. I think

4640: 4491:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4351:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4143:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3315:(3)I'm glad you've ceased making false claims about that source and injecting the "could"s everywhere. 2914: 2876: 1652:

A comet is observationally a different object than an asteroid, so it probably should not be added. --

1165: 1033: 1008: 804: 4545:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/space/08nov/Yeomans_testimony.pdf

4534: 4167:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=278ed690-ccf5-4bdd-88ee-ce83eecb2db4&k=41066

4027: 3020: 1316:

90% of such objects that are 1 km or more in diameter will have been identified and will be monitored

4211: 4103: 3945: 3792: 2551: 2542: 2495: 2359:

This is all based on (Brown & al. Nature 503 238-241). They did not include infrasound data for

2345: 2129: 2104: 2091:'s that can really launch their nuclear warheads out of earth orbit. The heaviest lift (AKA) highest 1557:

I am not sure if this is included but I believe it should be included as a prototype defense device.

1276: 778: 774: 3711:

Here's a calculation of the physical effects from 50m asteroid impact, as viewed from 10 miles away

1480: 803:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

4651: 4630: 4470: 4388: 4382: 4330: 4309: 4286: 4105: 4092: 4050: 3947: 3910: 3871: 3741: 3726: 3703: 3677:

being brought back into service, even as a museum piece, standing ready for launch in a few weeks.

3617: 3540: 3517: 3425: 3344: 3324: 3293: 3221: 3154: 3129: 3103: 3088: 3031: 3014: 2970: 2951: 2936: 2907: 2887: 2854: 2835: 2818: 2788: 2723: 2690: 2635: 2616: 2577: 2559: 2544: 2526: 2503: 2485: 2451: 2416: 2400: 2372: 2353: 2321: 2277: 2264: 2258: 2243: 2204: 2190: 2081: 2045: 2025: 2015: 1811: 1800: 1769: 1741: 1689: 1673: 1661: 1646: 1616: 1577: 1547: 1523: 1519: 1501: 1466: 1447: 1420: 1401: 1373: 1348: 1328: 1280: 1257: 1239: 1213: 1201: 1187: 1128: 1060: 988: 964: 909: 861: 853: 781: 763: 731: 685: 671: 642: 609: 588: 546: 507: 494: 472: 458: 441: 427: 401: 390: 365: 337: 317: 294: 276: 256: 98: 82: 4521:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060103083009/http://www.obtronics.net/htc/technogy/elec/elmag_04.htm

2644:

I take it none of you actually went to the bother of just reading the reference that is attached?

2392: 973:

not? I propose you first study in depth how many letters "c" should be in the word "accelerate".

4042: 4036: 3863: 3767: 3695: 3316: 3213: 3168: 3137: 3080: 3006: 2928: 2894: 2612: 2596:

For comets in the range of the then estimated 100 km diameter, ] served as the potential example.

2408: 1609: 1320: 871:

The anti-nuclear tilt is too obvious. Maybe some Wiki-ist can resist beating the anti war drum.

4585:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4554: 4425:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4241:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1886:

Increasing Hyperbolic Excess Speed in departure from Earth’s sphere of gravitational influence:

380: 4601: 4441: 4257: 2427: 1535: 155:

could make it more inexpensive to get the anti-asteroid weapons and fuel to escape earth orbit.

4088: 3906: 3898: 3737: 3722: 3613: 3536: 3513: 3421: 3340: 3289: 3281: 3150: 3125: 3099: 3027: 2966: 2947: 2903: 2883: 2850: 2814: 2719: 2631: 2573: 2522: 2396: 2368: 2269: 2250: 2196: 2037: 1797: 1760: 1737: 1657: 1605: 1497: 1484: 1462: 1443: 1416: 1397: 1369: 272: 195:

from prior impacts and compared their energy signature with major volcanic eruptions, such as

4511:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080122123731/http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=168

2565: 2470: 2022: 1808: 1685: 1324: 1125: 1057: 1052:

buckshot is probably better than getting hit with a tank shell, but getting hit by buckshot

760: 491: 334: 314: 171: 4608: 4448: 4361:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120910234035/http://b612foundation.org/media/sentinelmission/

4264: 4083:

I think that trying to explain this to you further will only generate diminishing returns.

2806: 874:"Nuclear scientists are simply trying to find new excuses to keep nuclear missiles around" 4647: 4524: 4305: 4098: 3976: 3940: 3687: 2567:

an Icarus-sized asteroid could be deflected by a nondescript nuclear warhead if done : -->

2537: 1272: 1237: 1211: 1199: 1168:

using a large heavy unmanned spacecraft to pull an asteroid into a non-threatening orbit.

962: 923: 586: 439: 363: 292: 254: 208: 116: 96: 80: 2657: 1780: 820: 3371:

Now, some salient quotes from Wie's NIAC Phase II study to illustrate my argument above:

2660:

for you editors to have inserted ChIron on the grounds of your own personal speculation.

2341: 413:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/da8309cdd1919010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

4567:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4501:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110211071733/http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/index.html

4407:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4223:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3795:

to let an impactor hit earth with the destruction of property, as emergency evacuation/

3581: 1515: 1380: 942:

might be, instead of risk not find out about the thing before it is right on top of us.

726: 682: 636: 501: 466: 452: 421: 227: 223: 152: 4607:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4574: 4447:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4414: 4263:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4230: 791: 3763: 2608: 2601: 2533: 2302: 1613: 606: 543: 416: 211:

to most people, even though the race to the moon was on, and anyone who looks at the

200: 4514: 2592:

Could someone more familiar with this subject matter take a look at this sentence?

1996:

available applied electrical power and the time span that power is made available.

4364: 4084: 4012: 3902: 3894: 3733: 3718: 3609: 3532: 3509: 3417: 3336: 3285: 3277: 3146: 3121: 3095: 3023: 2962: 2943: 2899: 2879: 2846: 2810: 2715: 2627: 2569: 2518: 2364: 2176: 2092: 1753: 1733: 1653: 1493: 1458: 1439: 1412: 1393: 1365: 268: 3393:

deflection of hazardous NEOs whenever we have sufficient mission lead times (: -->

1879:

Attitude Determination and Control Applications On Board Earth Based Satellites:

614:

English is a second language for me. And I have never before saw(noticed?) use of

4177:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071222114100/http://www.spaceguarduk.com/scares.htm

4173:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080619153444/http://www.spaceguarduk.com/scares.htm

3572: 3079:

It's therefore plain as day that their preferred "could" is editorializing FUD.

2925:

So really, there's not much point going much further until you acknowledge this.

2645: 2623: 1713: 1681: 1489: 927: 398: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4504: 3635:

Moreover your above diatribe is grossly misleading. The detection of any : -->

930:

article which reads like science thinks that is plausible, with a main article

4643: 4573:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4413:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4301: 4229:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3691: 3585: 2388: 2036:. Theoretical work was done in the 1980s, with testing in subsequent years.-- 1729: 1709: 1677: 1319:

no offence but it is 2010 now. Quite a lot of data here is already a bit old.

1233: 1207: 1195: 958: 746: 668: 626:

and more understandable. Lets keep it simple. But i live in Canada, so i got "

582: 435: 359: 288: 250: 237: 219:

had also been plastered, was just not what a lot of people willing to believe.

142: 92: 76: 3732:

fails to make the distinction between little asteroids and threatening ones.

3145:, particularly since that only applies to asteroids of a certain size class. 2742:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/OJTA2dev/ojta/course1/comets/overview/oort_tl.html

1915:

If desired, the inverse process could be used to decrease spacecraft energy.

721: 622:

is way more popular - Google give 5,050,000,000 results vs 560,000,000 for

327:

I may be over-zealous this time, but I can't quite believe this would work:

4153:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110712085255/http://b612.boulder.swri.edu:80/

3981:"this would, according to computer models and experimental results, do xyz" 2757:

Chiron with an I is never mentioned at all in the entirety of the document!

499:

Yeah, thanx. I absolutely love your edit - it way more understandable now.

4395:

http://meteor.uwo.ca/~mcampbell/A9601/Chapter%2010%20-%20Comets%286%29.pdf

2111:, but in humanity's infinite wisdom (that's sarcasm),we presently have no 4180: 4032: 3771: 3674: 2532:

It really does depend on how it's employed. A small-yield nuke used as a

2170:

About the only thing that could make up for this is if B61 equipped RNEPs

2149: 2125: 2108: 1430: 196: 3979:

I thought we had this edit dispute sorted out ages ago by simply saying

4022:

is even acknowledged by the team in their attached pdf, to be based on

2437: 2360: 2100: 231: 204: 88: 2228:

probably could be retro-fitted/ or already is designed to contain the

2217:

The Saturn V did have a 1 week launch capability, it could sit in the

333:

You'd need one helluva lot of debris - where do you take that from? --

4377:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C843952%2C00.html

4191:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=6840

2306: 230:, human habitation becomes more at risk to risk of damage from giant 2956:

Let me post this again: the sentence that needs to be supported is:

1560: 4535:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2036

2069:

along with billions of others in the famine during global winter.

3824:

article,(cutting through their own editorializing nonsense on the

375:

They pose a threat too. Perhaps this article needs to be moved to

216: 192: 4039:

article, were I stationed this, & other references years ago.

3064:

Work: Destroying an Incoming Killer Asteroid With a Nuclear Blast

3019:

I've raised the question at the No Original Research Noticeboard

1900:

Increasing Hyperbolic Excess Speed in Gravity Assist Maneuvers:

1309:

tip: do not use precise numbers if you just don't really know :P

815:

Knowledge (XXG) article constitutes fair use. In addition to the

4389:

http://www.space.com/21333-asteroid-nuke-spacecraft-mission.html

4383:

http://www.space.com/21333-asteroid-nuke-spacecraft-mission.html

4370: 4156: 2161: 2145: 2096: 2088: 241: 212: 222:

Do we really know if the risk is about the same over time? As

3670: 3649: 3645: 3576: 3045: 2229: 2157: 2153: 2141: 2137: 2133: 464:

there was no need to create new section - totally mine fault.

352: 25: 4555:

http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/NEO_Chapter_1.pdf?ID=113

3272:(3) After I quoted the Popsci reference here, looks like you 2119:

don't come anywhere near to the Saturn V's lift capabilities.

1120:

Your analysis of "absorbing the explosion" doesn't work, see

4196:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2710: 2428:

http://www.neoshield.net/en/mitigation-measures/overview.htm

2004:

otherwise require a gravity assist trajectory or maneuver.

1536:

http://iaf.marisdev.com/iac/archive/browse/IAC-05/D1/1/2189/

1178:

is after ~5.5 years of "gravity tracting". Give me a break.

790: 87:

There needs to be a disambigous page for the asteroid named

3820:

Thirdly, the "war game" as you call it, relayed within the

283:

where the timeline may belong, and was contemplating other

4495:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4355:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4147:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3072:

work. Not "might" or "could" as they like to prefer, but

2751:

article does not appear to have a typo, as Charon with an

2652:

and indeed pages before and after it clearly state it as

1851:

The Fundamentals Described As A Space Based Experiment:

1750:

seems to be consensus and this discussion is months old.

1056:

by a tank shell would probably be even more unpleasant.

937:

Examples of what I mean by solutions in Science Fiction:

207:. In the 1960's the whole idea of extinction impact was 287:

where some detail could subsequently be transferred to.

4525:

http://www.obtronics.net/htc/technogy/elec/elmag_04.htm

4348: 4140: 3762:

based calculations-fudged-into-service-for-determining-

3673:(the block II variant) but really we could do with the 3274:

pulled it and substituted a more primary source instead

3143: 1918:

Orbital Station Maintenance and Altering Eccentricity:

630:

account" in my bank and I live not far from "Chinatown

3774:

page and how those calculations ignore "momentum" etc.

3445:

Quotes from a source on Weaver, to illustrate my point

3052:

editorialize the section with "coulds" and "maybes".

2961:

Please continue re-reading until you see the problem.

2740:

The moon Charon was/is considered a KBO/comet. --: -->

2711:

https://en.wikipedia.org/2060_Chiron#Cometary_behavior

215:

can see that it has been plastered, the idea that the

3682:

that every deflection technology intrinsically faces.

3359:

Some Wie quotes from a source, to illustrate my point

3686:

Lastly, nuclear explosive devices are easy to make.

2512:

Sufficient "megatonnage" to deflect asteroid exists?

203:

coming back out of it, triggering the mother of all

4577:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4417:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4233:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3644:On Weaver and Wie. They don't "all use" the 1.2 Mt 3076:work, according to the supercomputer simulations. 2167:

Makes you shake your head in disbelief, doesn't it?

2103:and even that struggles to lift 3 metric tons into 846:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 787:

Fair use rationale for Image:Deep Impact poster.jpg

3058:Yet the very sources they're referring to include: 2867:I need a source to verify the following sentence: 2303:http://apollomissionphotos.com/index_org_sky1.html 1164:- NASA astronauts Edward Lu and Stanley Love have 954:radioactive rock on a collision course with Earth. 122:Separate article on the public relations angle of 4515:http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=168 3690:produced a conservative design for the 50-100 Mt 4365:http://b612foundation.org/media/sentinelmission/ 3120:No need to trust his numbers more than he does. 1680:into this article; might be worth pondering. -- 3068:Which doesn't leave any room for doubt how it ' 2600:Can we confirm that this should be pointing to 657:Referring to this paragraph from the article: 4563:This message was posted before February 2018. 4403:This message was posted before February 2018. 4219:This message was posted before February 2018. 1610:Deep Impact (film)#Source_material_alterations 3209:this would, according to simulations do...xyz 3191:this would, according to simulations do...xyz 3142:Continuing to take the source out of context 2646:https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/232015.pdf 2622:Perhaps they were referring to comet/centaur 1716:is, for instance. I would suggest splitting 305:Nice try, anonymous :) Please put it back in 8: 4505:http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/index.html 3652:. Secondly they have to work with what's on 1219:Why was this removed by User:149.159.102.7 ? 836:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use rationale guideline 191:which identified scars on surface of planet 2984:fact*, then when you tagged it, I supplied 2626:? Charon is 1200 km and bound to Pluto. -- 747:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/175/1 3575:. Furthermore, US warheads, like the 9 Mt 3440: 3354: 2224:As for the RNEP, I think the conventional 775:Asteroids in fiction#Collisions with Earth 4483:I have just modified 6 external links on 4343:I have just modified 6 external links on 4135:I have just modified 4 external links on 1561:http://en.wikipedia.org/Ion_Beam_Shepherd 3657:do, specifically those intended for the 3044:The repeated use of the word "could" is 2342:Asteroid impact risks 'underappreciated' 1786:Also can someone clarify this sentence: 1700:. There is some overlap, mostly because 542:be used to describe a series of events. 408:Nice new article & nice new strategy 1985:Deep Space Propulsion and Navigation: 4181:http://www.spaceguarduk.com/scares.htm 3003:It's all right there in plain english. 2648:Planetary defense workshop LLNL 1995. 2568:15 years before impact. Removing tag. 2423:graphic of deflection methods compared 1953:inductor, or combination of the two. 1836:The Ampere Defined As Magnetic Force: 91:that will graze planet Earth in 2029. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4208:to let others know (documentation at 3110:Here we go. From the Popsci article: 1304:no more than about 600 meters across, 7: 2863:Failed Verification: Neutron heating 2438:http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12842.htm 1862:increased gravitational potential. 1676:in response to my proposal to merge 3648:, some that I've seen use the 9 Mt 1949:Electro-dynamic Induction Braking: 1968:Imparting Orbital Escape Energy: 115:Separate article on this topic in 24: 4642:, kinetic and nuclear options. - 4487:. Please take a moment to review 4347:. Please take a moment to review 4139:. Please take a moment to review 1606:The Hammer of God#Film_connection 946:other than the Earth and the Sun. 634:". So there is some differences. 2172:Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators 1825:of maintaining proper station. 1746:I have removed the merge tag as 1592:based on Arthur C. Clarke novel 1534:for geo or lagrange pt storage 834:. Using one of the templates at 567:convention or conference program 29: 4393:Corrected formatting/usage for 4387:Corrected formatting/usage for 4381:Corrected formatting/usage for 4375:Corrected formatting/usage for 4369:Corrected formatting/usage for 3659:Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 1488:asteroid disaster movies like " 182:Analog Science Fiction and Fact 4292:Separate out detection efforts 4024:the effects of nuclear weapons 3284:) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 2379:Not that anyone will care, but 2026:02:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 2016:23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 1702:Asteroid mitigation strategies 848:Media copyright questions page 18:Talk:Asteroid impact avoidance 1: 4371:http://b612.boulder.swri.edu/ 4157:http://b612.boulder.swri.edu/ 4106:02:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 2636:15:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 2617:14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 2504:01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2486:03:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 2452:13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 2191:17:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 2082:00:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC) 1672:I received this comment from 1530:new section asteroid catching 1479:I'd like to add a section on 1281:16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 965:06:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 862:21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 817:boilerplate fair use template 643:05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 610:17:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 589:10:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 547:12:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 508:20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 495:18:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 473:08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 459:07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 442:05:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 428:06:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 111:I think there may need to be 4631:20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC) 4310:14:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC) 4287:07:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 2322:03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2278:02:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 2259:21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 2244:04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 2205:22:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 2046:23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 1770:21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC) 1502:15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 1349:16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 1240:01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 1214:12:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 1202:00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 844:criteria for speedy deletion 800:Image:Deep Impact poster.jpg 402:19:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 391:03:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 377:Meteor deflection strategies 366:10:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 338:20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 318:14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 295:12:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 277:19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 257:07:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 99:06:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 83:02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 4093:23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 4051:22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 3948:18:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 3911:18:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 3872:23:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 3742:02:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3727:02:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3704:01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3618:22:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3541:19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3518:19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3426:19:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3345:18:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3325:05:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3294:17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3222:04:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3155:04:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3130:03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3104:03:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3089:03:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3032:01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3015:23:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2971:22:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2952:22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2937:22:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2908:21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2888:21:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2401:19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 2226:Massive Ordnance Penetrator 1467:11:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 1329:18:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC) 1312:It is now anticipated that 1295:approximately 400 m across, 782:20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 732:22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 4667: 4652:01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 4594:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4480:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4434:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4340:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4250:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4132:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3760:effects of nuclear weapons 2749:Planetary defense workshop 2724:20:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC) 2691:03:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC) 2457:ref name="defending Earth" 2373:02:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 2354:01:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 2117:Heavy lift launch vehicles 2021:Has this been published? 1801:13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 1604:loosely. If at all. See 1578:22:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC) 1538:(no better link sorry) ?-- 1448:16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 1421:09:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 828:the image description page 764:22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 707:The 1972 Near Impact Event 323:Yet another bogus strategy 4485:Asteroid impact avoidance 4471:00:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 4345:Asteroid impact avoidance 4331:16:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 4137:Asteroid impact avoidance 2913:Are you joking? even the 2855:00:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 2836:17:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) 2604:, or to something else? 2417:21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 2340:BBC News April 22, 2014: 2219:Vehicle Assembly Building 1957:satellite or asteroid. 1812:08:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1742:15:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 1718:Asteroid impact avoidance 1706:Asteroid impact avoidance 1690:07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1668:Spaceguard merge proposal 1662:03:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1647:03:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1548:09:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 1402:14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 1374:14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 1258:17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1188:17:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1129:06:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1061:08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 830:and edit it to include a 686:16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 672:16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 2819:03:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 2789:02:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 2578:00:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2560:23:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2545:22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2527:18:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2113:Super Heavy Lift Vehicle 2052:No short notice defense? 1354:Impacts without warning? 1149:Why was this removed by 1122:conservation of momentum 989:21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 910:21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 809:explanation or rationale 307:iff you find a source... 4476:External links modified 4336:External links modified 4128:External links modified 2920:ignored neutron heating 2805:The Tsar bomb stuff is 1617:17:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 1524:09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 1299:99942_Apophis article: 4171:Replaced archive link 3797:crisis relocation plan 3791:Secondly, it would be 2598: 932:Time travel in fiction 795: 3826:broken window fallacy 2594: 2034:Electrodynamic tether 1224:Gravitational Tractor 1159:Gravitational tractor 1032:comment was added by 1007:comment was added by 811:as to why its use in 794: 534:be used to descibe a 104:Separate sections or 42:of past discussions. 4636:Could mention HAMMER 4575:regular verification 4415:regular verification 4231:regular verification 3793:criminally negligent 3409:For larger targets: 2709:Chiron type comets: 2130:add insult to injury 2105:geo-stationary orbit 1435:astronomically small 1151:User 149.159.98.46 ? 755:Does anyone mention? 4565:After February 2018 4405:After February 2018 4221:After February 2018 4200:parameter below to 2265:Space Launch System 2263:Take a look at the 1674:User:Power.corrupts 681:and fix it ! ;: --> 188:Giant Meteor Impact 4619:InternetArchiveBot 4570:InternetArchiveBot 4459:InternetArchiveBot 4410:InternetArchiveBot 4298:Deflection efforts 4275:InternetArchiveBot 4226:InternetArchiveBot 4037:Chelyabinsk meteor 3768:Chelyabinsk meteor 3169:Operation Fishbowl 2115:, and our closest 1978:Braking to Orbit: 1775:Popular strategies 1266:What do you think? 832:fair use rationale 796: 653:Political dangers? 576:is British while 561:government program 371:What about comets? 4595: 4435: 4251: 3529: 3528: 3437: 3436: 2777:evidence for you? 1568:comment added by 1553:Ion Beam shepherd 1540:Beaucouplusneutre 1364:1 km diameter)?-- 1045: 1020: 991: 979:comment added by 912: 900:comment added by 867:Anti-nuclear bias 331: 312: 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4658: 4629: 4620: 4593: 4592: 4571: 4469: 4460: 4433: 4432: 4411: 4285: 4276: 4249: 4248: 4227: 4215: 4101: 4019:software here - 3943: 3457:And for Weaver: 3441: 3355: 3141: 2915:1 page reference 2898: 2588:Charon disambig? 2540: 2471:Dana Rohrabacher 2156:and 0.3 megaton 2144:on Saturn V's , 1758: 1756: 1631:Michael McCollum 1580: 1286:Typical glitches 1027: 1002: 974: 895: 807:but there is no 639: 536:computer program 504: 469: 455: 424: 329: 309: 172:Russian roulette 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4666: 4665: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4638: 4623: 4618: 4586: 4579:have permission 4569: 4493:this simple FaQ 4478: 4463: 4458: 4426: 4419:have permission 4409: 4353:this simple FaQ 4338: 4317: 4294: 4279: 4274: 4242: 4235:have permission 4225: 4209: 4145:this simple FaQ 4130: 4099: 3977:User:Trekphiler 3941: 3758:Firstly, Those 3688:Andrei Sakharov 3530: 3446: 3438: 3360: 3135: 3049: 2892: 2865: 2828:178.167.152.146 2803: 2801:Teller workshop 2683:178.167.254.173 2590: 2552:BatteryIncluded 2538: 2514: 2496:BatteryIncluded 2459: 2444:178.167.196.163 2425: 2381: 2346:BatteryIncluded 2338: 2054: 1777: 1754: 1752: 1728:: I agree that 1670: 1635: 1598: 1586: 1584:Fiction section 1563: 1555: 1532: 1509: 1481:Asteroid scares 1477: 1475:Asteroid scares 1429:An object like 1379:Given that the 1356: 1336: 1288: 1268: 1226: 1221: 1162: 1154: 1028:—The preceding 1003:—The preceding 924:Science Fiction 919: 869: 789: 779:Geoffrey.landis 771: 769:fiction overlap 757: 743: 730: 709: 696: 679: 655: 637: 564:project program 524: 502: 467: 453: 422: 410: 373: 325: 303: 285:main article(s) 264: 226:contributes to 209:science fiction 153:space elevators 117:Science Fiction 109: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4664: 4662: 4637: 4634: 4613: 4612: 4605: 4558: 4557: 4549:Added archive 4547: 4539:Added archive 4537: 4529:Added archive 4527: 4519:Added archive 4517: 4509:Added archive 4507: 4499:Added archive 4477: 4474: 4453: 4452: 4445: 4398: 4397: 4391: 4385: 4379: 4373: 4367: 4359:Added archive 4337: 4334: 4316: 4313: 4293: 4290: 4269: 4268: 4261: 4194: 4193: 4185:Added archive 4183: 4169: 4161:Added archive 4159: 4151:Added archive 4129: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4040: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3582:R-36 (missile) 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3448: 3447: 3444: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3372: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3211: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3107: 3106: 3048: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3004: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2986:the 1 page ref 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2954: 2926: 2923: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2839: 2838: 2825: 2802: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2778: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2745: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2713: 2707: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2680: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2639: 2638: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2513: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2475: 2474: 2458: 2455: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2404: 2403: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2311: 2300: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2261: 2233: 2222: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2180: 2168: 2165: 2140:and 9 megaton 2121: 2120: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2029: 2028: 2013:Mark J. Carter 1815: 1814: 1794: 1793: 1776: 1773: 1723: 1722: 1669: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1634: 1625:Another book: 1623: 1621: 1597: 1587: 1585: 1582: 1570:98.114.231.244 1554: 1551: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1508: 1505: 1483:, such as the 1476: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1451: 1450: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1405: 1404: 1381:Tunguska event 1355: 1352: 1341:88.165.185.189 1335: 1334:Practicalities 1332: 1314:by year 2008,' 1308: 1290:this article: 1287: 1284: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1243: 1242: 1225: 1222: 1220: 1217: 1191: 1190: 1161: 1155: 1153: 1147: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 995: 994: 993: 992: 981:89.102.207.196 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 926:. There is a 918: 915: 914: 913: 902:89.102.207.196 890: 889: 884: 883: 868: 865: 854:BetacommandBot 788: 785: 770: 767: 756: 753: 751: 742: 741:Project Icarus 739: 737: 735: 734: 724: 710: 708: 705: 695: 692: 690: 678: 675: 667: 654: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 592: 591: 569: 568: 565: 562: 558: 557: 523: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 445: 444: 409: 406: 405: 404: 372: 369: 357: 356: 349: 345: 344: 324: 321: 302: 299: 298: 297: 263: 260: 248: 247: 246: 245: 235: 228:sea level rise 224:global warming 220: 177: 176: 175: 168: 158: 157: 156: 146: 139: 136: 135: 134: 131: 127: 120: 108: 102: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4663: 4654: 4653: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4635: 4633: 4632: 4627: 4622: 4621: 4610: 4606: 4603: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4590: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4566: 4561: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4475: 4473: 4472: 4467: 4462: 4461: 4450: 4446: 4443: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4430: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4406: 4401: 4396: 4392: 4390: 4386: 4384: 4380: 4378: 4374: 4372: 4368: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4341: 4335: 4333: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4323:67.140.179.46 4314: 4312: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4291: 4289: 4288: 4283: 4278: 4277: 4266: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4246: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4222: 4217: 4213: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4133: 4127: 4107: 4104: 4102: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4043:Boundarylayer 4041: 4038: 4034: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4018: 4014: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3982: 3978: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3949: 3946: 3944: 3938: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3864:Boundarylayer 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3773: 3770:article, and 3769: 3765: 3764:impact events 3761: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3713: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3696:Boundarylayer 3693: 3689: 3684: 3683: 3678: 3676: 3672: 3666: 3665: 3660: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3638: 3633: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3494: 3492: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3477:(pdf page 4) 3476: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3443: 3442: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3416: 3413: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3377: 3373: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3357: 3356: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317:Boundarylayer 3313: 3311: 3306: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3214:Boundarylayer 3212: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3175: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3139: 3138:Boundarylayer 3133: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3112: 3111: 3109: 3108: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3081:Boundarylayer 3077: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3063: 3056: 3053: 3047: 3043: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3007:Boundarylayer 3005: 3002: 2998: 2997: 2990: 2989: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2955: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2929:Boundarylayer 2927: 2924: 2921: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2896: 2895:Boundarylayer 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2862: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2800: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781:31.200.157.49 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2605: 2603: 2602:Charon (moon) 2597: 2593: 2587: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2543: 2541: 2535: 2534:shaped charge 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2511: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2478:92.251.211.17 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2456: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2434: 2433: 2429: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2409:Zeldafreakx86 2406: 2405: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2335: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2314:86.44.238.236 2312: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236:86.44.238.236 2234: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2164:and the like. 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2074:129.13.72.198 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1799: 1792: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1782: 1774: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1749: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1721: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639:Loren Pechtel 1632: 1628: 1627:Thunderstrike 1624: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1595: 1594:Hammer of God 1591: 1588: 1583: 1581: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1562: 1558: 1552: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1507:Source issues 1506: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1482: 1474: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1360: 1353: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1333: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1315: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1291: 1285: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1265: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1223: 1218: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1146: 1142: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1062: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 999: 998: 997: 996: 990: 986: 982: 978: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 963: 960: 952: 948: 944: 940: 939: 938: 935: 933: 929: 925: 916: 911: 907: 903: 899: 892: 891: 886: 885: 880: 879: 878: 875: 872: 866: 864: 863: 859: 855: 851: 850:. Thank you. 849: 845: 839: 837: 833: 829: 826:Please go to 824: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 801: 793: 786: 784: 783: 780: 776: 768: 766: 765: 762: 754: 752: 749: 748: 740: 738: 733: 728: 723: 718: 715: 714: 713: 706: 704: 700: 693: 691: 688: 687: 684: 676: 674: 673: 670: 665: 661: 658: 652: 644: 641: 640: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 612: 611: 608: 604: 600: 596: 595: 594: 593: 590: 587: 584: 579: 575: 571: 570: 566: 563: 560: 559: 555: 551: 550: 549: 548: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 521: 509: 506: 505: 498: 497: 496: 493: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 474: 471: 470: 462: 461: 460: 457: 456: 449: 448: 447: 446: 443: 440: 437: 432: 431: 430: 429: 426: 425: 418: 417:99942 Apophis 414: 407: 403: 400: 395: 394: 393: 392: 389: 387: 382: 378: 370: 368: 367: 364: 361: 354: 350: 347: 346: 342: 341: 340: 339: 336: 332: 322: 320: 319: 316: 308: 300: 296: 293: 290: 286: 281: 280: 279: 278: 274: 270: 261: 259: 258: 255: 252: 243: 239: 236: 233: 229: 225: 221: 218: 214: 210: 206: 202: 201:super volcano 198: 194: 190: 189: 184: 183: 178: 173: 169: 166: 165: 162: 161: 159: 154: 150: 149: 147: 144: 140: 137: 132: 128: 124: 123: 121: 118: 114: 113: 112: 107: 106:main articles 103: 101: 100: 97: 94: 90: 85: 84: 81: 78: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4639: 4617: 4614: 4589:source check 4568: 4562: 4559: 4482: 4479: 4457: 4454: 4429:source check 4408: 4402: 4399: 4342: 4339: 4318: 4297: 4296:Most of the 4295: 4273: 4270: 4245:source check 4224: 4218: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4195: 4134: 4131: 4023: 4016: 3980: 3936: 3821: 3800: 3759: 3685: 3681: 3679: 3667: 3653: 3643: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3531: 3490: 3474: 3461:(pdf page 2) 3458: 3410: 3391: 3374: 3314: 3309: 3307: 3304: 3273: 3208: 3190: 3173: 3078: 3073: 3069: 3067: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3050: 2994: 2985: 2957: 2919: 2891: 2872:This source 2868: 2866: 2804: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2653: 2649: 2606: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2515: 2476: 2463: 2460: 2441: 2435: 2430: 2426: 2382: 2339: 2183:86.40.91.237 2177:anti-nuclear 2160:launched by 2095:ICBM is the 2093:throw weight 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1992:In Closing: 1991: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1798:Kymacpherson 1795: 1790: 1785: 1778: 1751: 1747: 1745: 1725: 1724: 1697: 1695: 1671: 1636: 1630: 1626: 1620: 1601: 1599: 1593: 1589: 1564:— Preceding 1559: 1556: 1533: 1478: 1434: 1384: 1361: 1357: 1337: 1318: 1313: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1292: 1289: 1269: 1250:89.103.91.47 1227: 1205: 1192: 1180:89.103.91.47 1163: 1143: 1139: 1053: 1034:211.30.132.2 1025: 1009:211.30.132.2 957: 936: 920: 876: 873: 870: 852: 840: 825: 812: 798: 797: 772: 758: 750: 744: 736: 711: 701: 697: 689: 680: 666: 662: 659: 656: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 602: 598: 577: 573: 553: 539: 535: 531: 527: 525: 500: 465: 451: 420: 411: 397:article...-- 383: 374: 358: 328: 326: 306: 304: 284: 265: 249: 187: 186: 185:magazine on 180: 151:For example 110: 105: 86: 73: 60: 43: 37: 4212:Sourcecheck 4028:Sandia 2007 3573:red herring 3394:10 years). 2996:interaction 2624:2060 Chiron 2336:In the News 2270:SpaceSailor 2251:SpaceSailor 2197:SpaceSailor 2038:SpaceSailor 2023:Someguy1221 1809:Someguy1221 1714:Lancet arch 1600:Only very, 1590:Deep Impact 1490:Deep Impact 1126:Someguy1221 1058:Someguy1221 975:—Preceding 928:Time travel 896:—Preceding 761:Brandonrush 522:Terminology 492:DerHerrMigo 335:DerHerrMigo 315:DerHerrMigo 141:I saw that 126:first time. 36:This is an 4626:Report bug 4466:Report bug 4282:Report bug 4100:TREKphiler 3942:TREKphiler 3692:tsar bomba 3586:Tsar Bomba 2539:TREKphiler 2389:solar sail 1829:purpose. 1730:Spaceguard 1710:Spaceguard 1678:Spaceguard 1513:Checklinks 1273:Skeletor 0 1234:User:AlMac 1208:User:AlMac 1196:User:AlMac 959:User:AlMac 917:More ideas 583:User:AlMac 436:User:AlMac 381:Revolución 360:User:AlMac 301:Trampoline 289:User:AlMac 262:Panic Now! 251:User:AlMac 238:Spaceguard 143:Carl Sagan 130:seriously. 93:User:AlMac 77:User:AlMac 4609:this tool 4602:this tool 4449:this tool 4442:this tool 4265:this tool 4258:this tool 3822:economist 3396:(page 16) 3378:(page 15) 2993:15 here, 2991:See page 2959:purposes. 2870:purposes. 2268:launch.-- 2150:Titan IIs 1844:Ampere. 1516:Viriditas 1157:Asteroid 683:Xenocidic 638:TestPilot 624:programme 616:programme 603:programme 574:programme 552:The word 540:programme 526:The word 503:TestPilot 468:TestPilot 454:TestPilot 423:TestPilot 61:Archive 1 4615:Cheers.— 4455:Cheers.— 4315:Timeline 4271:Cheers.— 4033:Tunguska 3772:Tunguska 3675:Saturn V 3414:source: 3310:see also 3176:section. 3174:see also 3134:Pinging 2609:KConWiki 2473:(R-CA)." 2126:buckshot 2109:Saturn V 1755:—Entropy 1614:Dmtipper 1566:unsigned 1494:Uncle Ed 1431:2008 TC3 1389:periodic 1166:proposed 1054:followed 1042:contribs 1030:unsigned 1017:contribs 1005:unsigned 977:unsigned 898:unsigned 821:fair use 805:fair use 677:be bold! 628:chequing 607:Arcturus 544:Arcturus 232:tsunamis 205:tsunamis 197:Krakatoa 4489:my edit 4349:my edit 4198:checked 4141:my edit 4085:Geogene 4017:effects 4013:Geogene 3903:Geogene 3895:Geogene 3734:Geogene 3719:Geogene 3610:Geogene 3533:Geogene 3510:Geogene 3418:Geogene 3337:Geogene 3286:Geogene 3278:Geogene 3147:Geogene 3122:Geogene 3096:Geogene 3060:How it 3024:Geogene 2963:Geogene 2944:Geogene 2900:Geogene 2880:Geogene 2847:Geogene 2811:Geogene 2716:Bkobres 2628:Kheider 2607:Thanks 2570:Geogene 2519:Geogene 2432:impact. 2393:Musaran 2365:Kheider 2361:2014 AA 2101:Dnepr-1 1734:Kheider 1696:Yes, I 1654:Kheider 1459:SiriusB 1440:Kheider 1433:or the 1413:SiriusB 1394:Kheider 1366:SiriusB 888:effect. 694:2 edits 620:Program 599:program 578:program 554:program 532:program 528:program 450:Hmm... 269:Shoaler 89:Apophis 39:archive 4206:failed 4035:& 3312:list. 2807:WP:SYN 2654:ChAron 2650:Pg 258 2307:Skylab 2305:- The 1748:oppose 1726:Oppose 1698:oppose 1682:Beland 1321:Egh0st 1170:Here's 1001:blast. 950:Earth. 632:centre 618:word. 538:, and 399:Pharos 4644:Rod57 4302:Rod57 4175:with 3937:would 3654:their 3074:would 3070:would 3062:Would 2679:page. 2658:WP:OR 2363:. -- 2344:. -- 2162:R-36s 2146:R-36s 1781:WP:OR 1492:". -- 882:tons. 669:Ron g 217:Earth 193:Earth 70:Links 16:< 4648:talk 4327:talk 4306:talk 4202:true 4089:talk 4047:talk 3907:talk 3899:talk 3868:talk 3801:your 3738:talk 3723:talk 3700:talk 3664:HERE 3614:talk 3537:talk 3514:talk 3422:talk 3341:talk 3321:talk 3290:talk 3282:talk 3218:talk 3167:(1) 3151:talk 3126:talk 3100:talk 3085:talk 3028:talk 3011:talk 2967:talk 2948:talk 2933:talk 2904:talk 2884:talk 2851:talk 2832:talk 2815:talk 2785:talk 2747:The 2720:talk 2687:talk 2632:talk 2613:talk 2574:talk 2556:talk 2523:talk 2500:talk 2482:talk 2448:talk 2413:talk 2397:talk 2369:talk 2350:talk 2318:talk 2274:talk 2255:talk 2240:talk 2201:talk 2187:talk 2158:B61s 2154:B83s 2148:and 2142:B53s 2138:B41s 2097:R-36 2089:ICBM 2078:talk 2042:talk 2032:See 1779:Per 1738:talk 1686:talk 1658:talk 1643:talk 1608:and 1602:very 1574:talk 1544:talk 1520:talk 1498:talk 1485:XF11 1463:talk 1444:talk 1417:talk 1398:talk 1370:talk 1345:talk 1325:talk 1277:talk 1254:talk 1184:talk 1038:talk 1013:talk 985:talk 906:talk 858:talk 813:this 727:talk 722:mglg 716:See 386:talk 379:? -- 273:talk 242:USAF 213:moon 4583:RfC 4553:to 4543:to 4533:to 4523:to 4513:to 4503:to 4423:RfC 4363:to 4239:RfC 4216:). 4204:or 4189:to 4179:on 4165:to 4155:to 3671:SLS 3650:B53 3646:B83 3577:B53 3046:FUD 2230:B61 2134:B61 1629:by 1385:non 353:ABM 4650:) 4596:. 4591:}} 4587:{{ 4436:. 4431:}} 4427:{{ 4329:) 4308:) 4252:. 4247:}} 4243:{{ 4214:}} 4210:{{ 4091:) 4049:) 3909:) 3870:) 3740:) 3725:) 3717:. 3702:) 3616:) 3539:) 3516:) 3424:) 3343:) 3323:) 3292:) 3220:) 3153:) 3128:) 3102:) 3087:) 3030:) 3022:. 3013:) 2969:) 2950:) 2935:) 2906:) 2886:) 2853:) 2834:) 2817:) 2787:) 2722:) 2689:) 2634:) 2615:) 2576:) 2558:) 2525:) 2502:) 2484:) 2450:) 2415:) 2399:) 2371:) 2352:) 2320:) 2276:) 2257:) 2242:) 2203:) 2189:) 2080:) 2044:) 2011:-- 1740:) 1688:) 1660:) 1645:) 1612:-- 1576:) 1546:) 1522:) 1500:) 1465:) 1446:) 1419:) 1400:) 1372:) 1347:) 1327:) 1279:) 1256:) 1186:) 1044:). 1040:• 1019:). 1015:• 987:) 934:. 908:) 860:) 823:. 720:-- 490:-- 313:-- 275:) 4646:( 4628:) 4624:( 4611:. 4604:. 4468:) 4464:( 4451:. 4444:. 4325:( 4304:( 4284:) 4280:( 4267:. 4260:. 4087:( 4045:( 3905:( 3897:( 3866:( 3736:( 3721:( 3698:( 3612:( 3588:. 3535:( 3512:( 3420:( 3339:( 3319:( 3288:( 3280:( 3216:( 3149:( 3140:: 3136:@ 3124:( 3098:( 3083:( 3026:( 3009:( 2965:( 2946:( 2931:( 2902:( 2897:: 2893:@ 2882:( 2849:( 2830:( 2813:( 2783:( 2759:. 2753:A 2718:( 2685:( 2630:( 2611:( 2572:( 2554:( 2521:( 2498:( 2480:( 2446:( 2411:( 2395:( 2367:( 2348:( 2316:( 2272:( 2253:( 2238:( 2199:( 2185:( 2099:/ 2076:( 2040:( 1796:— 1767:) 1765:C 1763:/ 1761:T 1759:( 1736:( 1684:( 1656:( 1641:( 1633:? 1596:? 1572:( 1542:( 1518:( 1496:( 1461:( 1442:( 1415:( 1396:( 1387:- 1368:( 1343:( 1323:( 1275:( 1252:( 1236:| 1210:| 1198:| 1182:( 1036:( 1011:( 983:( 961:| 904:( 856:( 729:) 725:( 585:| 438:| 388:) 384:( 362:| 291:| 271:( 253:| 234:. 174:. 119:. 95:| 79:| 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index