Print 70 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Aug 13 at 1:48 PM

A new study shows that the movie's idea of blowing up the asteroid is way off

If Bruce Willis' ability to destroy life-threatening asteroids put your mind at ease about the end of the world, here's a study to bring you back to reality.

Michael Bay's 1998 hit movie Armageddon depicted Bruce Willis and a team of oil drilling heroes setting off nuclear bombs on an asteroid that was rushing toward Earth, thus saving all of humanity from the end of the world -- aka Armageddon.

A class of physics students from the University of Leicester in the UK decided to look into whether this kind of scenario would ever be possible. The short answer is no, but they provided some evidence as to why.

To debunk this mystery, the class first gathered basic information about the asteroid itself (which were mentioned in the film), such as the total volume of the asteroid pieces, the clearance radius (radius of Earth plus 400 miles), its distance from Earth at detonation, the asteroid's pre-detonation velocity, and the density of the asteroid pieces.

Harry Stamper is not amused

Using this information, they created a formula to find the total amount of kinetic energy needed to blow the asteroid to smithereens. As it turns out, 800 trillion terajoules of energy would be needed to break the asteroid into two pieces, allowing it to bypass planet Earth. This means that any bomb used would have to be a billion times stronger than any bomb ever detonated on Earth.

FYI -- the largest bomb ever detonated on Earth was the Soviet Union's "Big Ivan," which was a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb that only had an energy output of 418,000 terajoules.

From there, issues arose with the time needed to detect the asteroid in order to be able to successfully blow it up. It would need to explode at the point in which it is detected at 8 billion miles.

"A series of assumptions must be made due to limited information in the film," said the class paper titled, 'Could Bruce Willis Save the World?' "First, the asteroid is approximated as a spherical object 1000km in diameter (the asteroid is quoted being the size of Texas) that splits into two equal-sized hemispheres. The asteroid in the film reaches a clearance either side of the Earth of 400 miles (640km) which is the assumed value for our calculation."

Source: Network World

 Comments Threshold -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

RE: Great Movie
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 8:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
It couldn't be done on an asteroid the size of Texas, sure. But Apophis is about 2 football fields in length with a mass of 2.7×10x10 kg. And it is a real threat. I would have been much more interested to hear solutions to this very real potential problem, rather than a made up movie asteroid.

RE: Great Movie
By bh192012 on 8/10/2012 1:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
While we're at it, an iron ball the size of Texas is called a planet. Like I mentioned in another post above, they took some slang "the size of Texas" out of context and proved it wrong. Next thing, they'll be doing a paper proving that a nuclear explosion that would make a vapor cloud the size of Nebraska would have actually killed Ripley.

RE: Great Movie
By Ringold on 8/10/2012 3:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, makes their whole study irrelevant to me. If there was something floating around that, in and of itself in a different situation would be big enough to possibly be called a planet, I think we'd of noticed it directly or via its gravitational effects.

Unless some ejected exoplanet just happened to zoom through our solar system, but.. not likely..

RE: Great Movie
By JediJeb on 8/10/2012 5:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
If there was an object that size orbiting in the Ort Cloud I doubt we would have seen it yet. Also considering at 1000km diameter as the assumption, it is only half the size of Pluto which is not longer considered a plant. It took a lot of searching to find Pluto, to find one half that size would not be easy, even once it started moving towards us. It takes several observations of the same portion of sky over several nights to spot non-stellar objects with such a low visual magnitude as this would have.

Another problem would be if it was coming in at us from the Sun side of the solar system relative to Earth. If that were the case it could be practically on top of us before it was spotted unless we have a sky survey program operated for orbit which we don't have yet.

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Check here near the bottom of the page to see the count of Near Earth Asteroids currently known. That number changes pretty much on a weekly basis as more are discovered. There have been many listed there that passed within less than half the distance to the Moon and we still needed a telescope to see them. It is rather frightening to check that table often and see what is coming near on a regular basis.

RE: Great Movie
By bh192012 on 8/13/2012 1:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's like saying a dwarf human is not a human. Regardless, "the size of Texas" was slang for "big" and not the actual size of the asteroid in "Armageddon."

Lastly, if an object that massive is comming, we're screwed, period. That's like getting hit by the moon. We're not going to be diverting moon mass objects anytime soon. Fortunately hits like that come once every 10 billion years. So we're probably good for a while. :>

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki