backtop


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


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/9/2012 10:06:24 PM , Rating: 4
"United States government just asked us to save the world. Anybody wanna say no?"




RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By FITCamaro on 8/9/2012 10:53:19 PM , Rating: 4
Given who's in charge we'd never get off the ground anyway.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/2012 11:11:02 PM , Rating: 3
lmao!

Day 1:
Under Direction of President Obama, Senate speaker Harry Reid introduces the "Galactic Nuclear Nonproliferation Act", which prevents NASA from using Nuclear weapons in space and on asteroid "Dottie".

Days 2-17:
House and Senate cannot reach agreement on Senate bill S.345R (GNNA). Republicans are blamed for partisan gamesmanship and "obstructionism", and trying to "warmonger outer space".

Day 18:
Asteroid "Dottie" impacts Earth and wipes out all life.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By whitt107 on 8/10/2012 3:28:18 AM , Rating: 5
Day: 18: Right before the asteroid wipes all life off earth, Chuck Norris travels back in time, gathers all politicians together; Then, uses the combined hot air to launch himself into space where he roundhouse kicks the asteroid with 800 trillion terajoules of energy, thus, saving the world.

There, it's up to Chuck Norris now.


By TSS on 8/10/2012 6:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunatly that will never work. As long as Chuck Norris is alive, asteroids are too afraid to crash on earth. If asteroids cannot feel fear, then Chuck Norris shall give them conscience so they might fear him.

Well... I say alive, but since death fears Chuck as well it's more a case of "while he's not needed elsewhere".


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By gamerk2 on 8/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By dgingerich on 8/10/2012 9:07:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You really are an idiot reclaimer, you know that don't you?


Honestly, I think his version would be the closest to reality, except the Japanese would have something in reserve that would save us at the last minute while US politicians are still 'discussing' things.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By whitt107 on 8/10/2012 3:52:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
except the Japanese would have something in reserve that would save us at the last minute while US politicians are still 'discussing' things.


Godzilla?


By jvillaro on 8/12/2012 3:50:23 AM , Rating: 5
Gundams!


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By corduroygt on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By slunkius on 8/10/2012 1:00:58 AM , Rating: 3
Woohoo! here comes armageddon! we were right all along you non-believing bastards!


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By WalksTheWalk on 8/10/2012 11:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Just recant your non-believing ways at the last minute and you'll cover at least a couple of bases.

"Tonight at 11: Which religion is the one, true, religion?"


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By jeffkro on 8/11/2012 1:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
I think south park said it was Mormonism


By SlyNine on 8/11/2012 6:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
LOL loved that part.

Hell director "You picked the wrong religion as well"

crowd "well who was right, who gets in to heaven?"

hell director "I'm afraid it was the mormons, yes the mormons was the correct answer"

crowd "AWWWWW"


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By perspicacity on 8/10/2012 8:32:11 AM , Rating: 4
There's what's wrong with American politics. It's not about the ideals of the party you associate with, but with what groups associate with the party.

You can't infer that you're a Republican, without some jackass assuming you are a right-wing religious extremist... or that you're a Democrat, without some other jackass assuming you are a left-wing socialist.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By Dr of crap on 8/10/2012 9:46:51 AM , Rating: 4
Which is why you shouldn't associate with EITHER party!

WHY does everyone NEED to be hooked to some political party?? Is it like facebook, if your not in with everyone then your nothing?

I refuse to be linked in any way to ANY political party, especially to the Reps or the Dems!


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By invidious on 8/10/2012 12:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Our country has a two party government and not supporting either party is equivilant to sticking your head in the sand. If moderates don't take part in either party then the only people in either party will extremists. This will only serve to worsen partisan deadlock.

Try thinking your world views out to their logical conclusions before you start preaching them.


By jRaskell on 8/10/2012 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 4
On the flip side, joining either party is basically just becoming a part of the problem.

Sorry, the system just can't be fixed from the inside. I don't believe it can be fixed at all. I'm not sticking my head in the sand so much as acknowledging it's a lost cause.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By JediJeb on 8/10/2012 3:21:22 PM , Rating: 4
George Washington said we should never have political parties and there were none active until after he left office. That was probably the best eight years of this countries political history.

As for needing to be a part of one of the two major parties (there are many more, just none carry any clout, yet) that really isn't so. The major parties have changed more than once since the country began. If a party goes terribly left or right, an new one will form and the old one will die out. I myself register as Independent only because to register I had to choose a party, otherwise I would have left it blank. The only thing I lose is the ability to vote in a primary election. I can still be politically active behind what ever candidate I wish and if I wish to support candidates from multiple parties I can, say a Democrat for Senate and a Republican for the House. I support whoever I believe is the best person for the job, not what their political party may be.

My biggest gripe with the media is when they put the party designator beside peoples names when they show them on tv. It should just say Harry Reid if they are interviewing him not Harry Reid(D). If I like what he says I will support him, if I don't like what he says then I won't. The media probably does more to promote there only being two parties than anyone else. If we had ten parties of near equal parity in power, then the media would not have anyone to rally behind as a group. I think people are beginning to become fed up with how the two parties currently are becoming more and more alike in policy since there are now more people registered as Independents than ever before. There will be a tipping point soon that will start the rise of a third party or the replacement of one of the current ones just as has happened in the past.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By amosbatto on 8/10/2012 5:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
George Washington said we should never have political parties and there were none active until after he left office. That was probably the best eight years of this countries political history.

What? Have you ever heard of Shay's rebellion? What about Alexander Hamilton being killed by Aaron Burr? Basically these events which should have been channeled through political parties. When there are no political parties to give voice to people's conflicts over policy, people turn to violence. The problem in these cases was that the poorer classes had nobody representing their interests. With political parties, the Democrats would have taken the side of the Western Massachusetts farmers like Daniel Shay who were loosing their farms and the working people how hated Hamilton's bank. The Republicans would take the side of Washington and Hamilton and the conflict would not have turned to violence.

The problem is that the US has horrible winner-take-all system which prevents more than 2 political parties, and those political parties have been corrupted by money and special interests, so they no longer represent the views of the majority of Americans. People feel that there is no point in voting, because the parties have been bought. When most Americans feel alienated from the political process and feel that it is corrupt, it creates a real crisis for the republic, which could eventually bring it down.


By jeffkro on 8/11/2012 1:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
Corruption and political machines have been entrenched in US politics going almost all the way back. Its nothing new.


By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically these events which should have been channeled through political parties. When there are no political parties to give voice to people's conflicts over policy, people turn to violence.


Well the Civil War happened after we had political parties, so maybe they don't do that much for us after all. Without political parties you deal with small groups who disagree, with them you deal with large groups who disagree and through their bonding together even when they do not completely agree on ideas but simply to support their party they cause gridlock within the system.

Without political parties you would have something similar to what Europe has with their multiple parties where on certain topics you would see temporary alliances form around the topic with people of similar ideas (though truthfully it should be representatives who constituent's ideas are similar) to work together until that topic is settled, then the disband. When another topic comes up more alliances form representing the public's ideas and the situation repeats. Permanent alliances such as we have now with the two party system leads to the public's voice not being heard clearly since the representatives feel they should support the beliefs of their party more than the beliefs of their constituents if the people they represent do not feel the same as their party does. In the current Democratic Republic we currently have when the elected representatives strictly follow party lines instead of the will of their constituents then they have failed in their duty to represent the people who have sent them for that purpose. Being free of a political party frees the representative to truly represent the will of the people.


By jeffkro on 8/11/2012 1:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Moderates determine elections as their vote can be won. Die hards for either party just always vote for their own party, so they can be taken for granted.


By kattanna on 8/10/2012 1:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't infer that you're a Republican, without some jackass assuming you are a right-wing religious extremist... or that you're a Democrat, without some other jackass assuming you are a left-wing socialist.


thats because 2 things RARELY ever meet

Thinking.. and posting on the internet


By corduroygt on 8/10/2012 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I know that he is one, that's why my reply was to him and not to Reclaimer77 who is also a republican.


By Ringold on 8/10/2012 3:02:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why would you care? Your ilk would welcome this event with open arms, calling it the second coming and all...


Okay, fire with fire then..

Your communist/"green" ilk would as well, calling it returning the Earth to its natural state and removing the human scourge from the universe and all...


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By Belard on 8/10/2012 8:42:54 AM , Rating: 3
Proof of unintelligent life.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By geddarkstorm on 8/10/2012 12:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.


By Belard on 8/10/2012 5:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
Man! I wish we could RATE even if we posted.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By anactoraaron on 8/10/2012 8:47:31 AM , Rating: 1
....riiiight... and Bush did such a spectacular job with Katrina. Welcome all who only have a two year political memory.

As long as any of the political blowhards this generation of politicians are seemingly aspiring to be (dem or rep) are running the show we're all doomed.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By Ringold on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By anactoraaron on 8/10/2012 8:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blame that on Bush too though, sure.

quote:
Democrats like to forget there are different levels of government and individual states,


You seem to imply somewhere from something that I have said that I am a Democrat. I am not.

The post I replied to was:
quote:
Given who's in charge we'd never get off the ground anyway.

which, giving who it was from and based on their history of posting political statements, made me interpret that was some kind of shot at the current president. I was not the only one to interpret that so as the first reply was someone taking a shot at (D) Harry Reid and President Obama.

So my response was to show neither party these days could actually get anything done, let alone in the face of some catastrophe. Thus my saying:

quote:
As long as any of the political blowhards this generation of politicians are seemingly aspiring to be (dem or rep) are running the show we're all doomed.


But what you say is true though
quote:
but states do exist and they do have their own responsibilities

which is why I don't understand with how volatile the weather has been in recent years the decision was made to not improve the current levy system.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 9:25:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
which is why I don't understand with how volatile the weather has been in recent years the decision was made to not improve the current levy system.


I'm from New Orleans, which pretty much has a tradition for crooked Governors. Trust me, money has been given to New Orleans for levy improvements for decades and decades before Katrina.

Now what that money actually went to, well, I'll let you figure that out. However a project was underway years before Katrina to upgrade the Ninth Ward floodwall, one that gave way after a runaway barge collided with it and caused flooding. Guess what? Residents complaining about the noise sued to have the project stopped! DOH! Good going. If it was fully upgraded it might have held.

As you can imagine, Katrina is a sore subject for me. Seeing your hometown almost destroyed is bad enough. Watching it become a political chew toy and seeing it used by the media and the Democrats to somehow blame the President before the bodies were even cold...unacceptable.

So no offense, but when I see some jackass make some Bush-bashing comment about Katrina, it's not appreciated. Katrina would have played out exactly the same, no matter who was in office.

Here are more facts about what actually happened to cause the flooding. Not the usual media spin. Katrina was a systematic failure of the local and state bureaucracy.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/...


By anactoraaron on 8/11/2012 3:28:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So no offense, but when I see some jackass make some Bush-bashing comment about Katrina

Sorry for offending you in such a personal way. My intent was to show exactly what you also said :
quote:
Katrina would have played out exactly the same, no matter who was in office.

So would Armageddon (which was my point in my op). So would a lot of other things (we got Osama! etc). Whoever is in office gets to take the praise or persecution of whatever happens regardless of their involvement. What truly goes on is the works of a great many people behind the scenes and out of the media spotlight. So bashing specific Dems or Reps is silly, as these days almost all politicians are crooked and no good.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By mfenn on 8/9/2012 11:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently Willis ad libbed that line too


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/9/2012 11:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, same thing I heard according to the DVD extras on the FX channel. They play it at least a couple times a month on that channel.


By bh192012 on 8/10/2012 1:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
and is "the size of Texas" is clearly slang and exaggeration. Like "the BLT I ate yesterday, was the size of Texas." Later in the movie they describe the damage it would do, and it's clearly not a (dwarf) planet made of iron. (That would turn the earth into 100% exploding lava.) The damn thing in the paper we're discussing would have a mass somewhere between Pluto and Mercury.


RE: All-go-no-quit big nuts Harry Stamper
By AntiM on 8/10/12, Rating: 0
By JediJeb on 8/10/2012 4:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or the next go round could be even worse than what we currently have by many orders of magnitude. A world destroying event is more like pulling the lever on a slot machine than hitting a reset button, you pays your money, you takes your chances.


Great Movie
By aurareturn on 8/9/2012 10:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
Great movie, bad science.

I find it a little hard to believe that it'd take a bomb 8 billion times stronger to blow up an asteroid.




RE: Great Movie
By Reclaimer77 on 8/9/2012 10:41:22 PM , Rating: 1
That's because their theoretical asteroid has the size and mass of something far larger than anything we've observed coming close to Earth. I wish they had used something far more relevant and realistic, like 99942 Apophis. A near-Earth asteroid that came damn close to hitting us last time around.

But I mean, sheesh, Armageddon isn't exactly a hot item anymore. Was this their idea of a fresh topic? I guess UK students are an unchallenged as ours lol.


RE: Great Movie
By silverblue on 8/10/2012 3:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
The University of Leicester is Europe's biggest academic centre for space research. They've a vested interest in the area, though discussing whether Harry Stamper could've nuked an asteroid was probably a lunchtime topic. Still, nice to know it cannot be done. :)


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. :>


RE: Great Movie
By tng on 8/12/2012 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish they had used something far more relevant and realistic, like 99942 Apophis. A near-Earth asteroid that came damn close to hitting us last time around.
And according to the scientists who watch the NEOs Apophis will make another near earth pass in 2029 or 2039 (can't remember which). Six months after that, due to it's slight change in course due to Earths gravity on the first pass, it will come even closer and they still don't know if on that pass it will hit the Earth.

The Russian space agency has actually proposed a joint mission with NASA and the ESA to eliminate the threat somehow. They are taking it very seriously, we probably should be as well, cause now it the time, not 2 months before it may hit.


RE: Great Movie
By Helbore on 8/10/2012 5:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, these students' maths are wrong. They forgot to factor Bruce Willis into the equation. When you do that, the numbers add up.


RE: Great Movie
By kattanna on 8/10/2012 10:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great movie, bad science


LOL, as someone who works here in hollywood, I can tell you that real science rarely, if ever, makes it into a show/movie. I have come across some shows that were space shows that were AMAZINGLY bad at their "science". Most production companies do not hire people with actual science training, they are filled with lowly interns who are usually more focused on the "art" aspect of film making.

One BIG exception to that was the people who are doing "through the wormhole" I enjoyed my time with them as they were knowledgeable people. I could hang out with them and talk about the science with them for hours. a RARE exception


RE: Great Movie
By WalksTheWalk on 8/10/2012 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Great Movie
By 91TTZ on 8/10/2012 10:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
Also keep in mind that even if you manage to split an asteroid into chunks, the gravity of them will make them come back together into one mass again. The bigger the asteroid the faster you'd have to fling the pieces to make sure they don't rebound. I'm sure that some of the small pieces ejected by the explosion would escape its gravity but the larger chunks will just come back together.


RE: Great Movie
By geddarkstorm on 8/10/2012 12:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Gravitational binding energy is a beautiful thing.


The whole movie is stupid.
By Belard on 8/10/2012 8:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
First, this is a Michael Bay movie... so from start to finish, you have to remove the brain and set it down in your lap.

Entertaining, yes... Perhaps the LAST Michael Bay movie ever worth watching (The Rock was quite good). But yeah, in the theaters with the twin shuttles docking at the space station MIR (but somehow 3X the modules but with only a single guy on it) to "refuel"?! And they dock at 100 MPH! Watch an actual docking... its very slow.

Then they SPIN it for gravity? "To make it easier"?!

The whole movie was stupid, but it was fun.

Perl Harbor, very bad... his version of James Cameron Titanic... but BAD, super inaccurate and insulting. Watch TORA TORA TORA.

Transformers 1, somewhat entertaining... my Son was 4 when that movie came out... I bought the DVD for him, he watched it 2-3 times. He'll watch the new Star Trek movie or Tron Classic and Legacy anytime... at least 20x each so far.

Glad I didn't spend a dime seeing TF2... it was boring and stupid, a mess of silver and EXPLOSIONS! Couldn't pay me to watch another frame of that crap.

While not M.Bay, but many of the same people... BattleShip was stupid, but easily better than anything M.Bay has made in his life. They even paid actual homage to the stupid board game. Kid liked it... I am surprised I liked it at all.

In reality, something that big requires firing off enough nukes to slow it down slightly or change its trajectory by a fraction is all that would be needed. We'd need many years to prepare for it.

Luckily for us, the solar system is pretty much done with huge rocks... but doesn't mean there is a giant killer out there. A rock the size of Manhattan would kill us all. We've been around for a blink of an eye, compared to the dinosaurs. (Flat-Earth believers, don't respond)




RE: The whole movie is stupid.
By geekman1024 on 8/10/2012 9:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Glad I didn't spend a dime seeing TF2...


He...he made a movie about Team Fortress 2???


RE: The whole movie is stupid.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 10:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah the problem with Armageddon, at least to me, is that it starts off great as a summer action fun movie. The setup works, the characters work, the early tension of the asteroid scenario is great... And then it turns into an "epic" tragedy movie in the second half, with a bit too much Aerosmith for my tastes. The funniness and humor is just gone, replaced with absurd action, characters dying, men crying, daughters crying, Billy Bob Thorton trying to emote....Donnie from Big Liebowski in space with a mingun. Wait, wtf did they bring a mingun in space for exactly?

But yes the Michael Bay'ness is a bit much at times. Shuttles launching into space in a tight formation seconds apart!!?? I guess NASA just knows those ejected rocket boosters won't slam into the other shuttle? Come on.

But God, women just LOVE that movie for some reason. In fact I guaran-damn-tee you my girlfriend will want to watch it this weekend. AGAIN! :(


RE: The whole movie is stupid.
By Belard on 8/10/2012 5:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
because he was willing to die for his GF... and her dad died to save them both... tear tear tear... waaa.

Even the people going crazy and getting killed was fun in its own way... again, stupid movie. I saw it once in the theater, seen it once in full on cable... the rest... here and there when it happens to be on.

Good movies, I'll watch again. I saw Avatar 5 times in the theater, seen Bladerunner at least 4-5 times. Prometheus, twice. Star Trek 3 times. A good sci-fi move to see, a hidden gem... "Pandorum" with Dennis Quaid. A mid-budget movie that made no money. "Sunshine" is an excellent sci-fi movie... no aliens.

"Moon" is an amazing movie... a must see.


By siconik on 8/10/2012 11:18:48 AM , Rating: 5
LOL, we are seriously discussing science in the movie based on the premise that it is easier to teach a bunch of hydrological drill operators how to perfom unprecedented feats of space exploration than it is to teach life-long professional astronauts how to operate drilling equipment?

I wonder how that would work in other fields anyway...

Air Force commander: "We need more pilots to fly areal refueling tankers. Some idiot suggesting recruiting fighter and cargo pilots, when the obvious choice are... the New Jersey gas station attendants front that Shell on the turnpike, the real pros of the fueling game. Bring them in, stat!"




By zero2dash on 8/9/2012 11:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
The guy's main objective is explosions and special effects.

E=MC^2? More like TNT*100000000000000000 > E=MC^2.




By augiem on 8/10/2012 3:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
TNT*100000000000000000 = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


5 megawatts by mid-May!
By Apone on 8/10/2012 11:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if NASA or [insert your favorite international space agency here] is also examining other platforms to shoot down asteroids. One that comes to mind is the 1985 classic Val Kilmer flick, Real Genius, where they developed a 5 megawatt laser which was then mounted on a B-1 bomber for the USAF. Granted, this concept wasn't just movie fiction (Northrop Grumman's prototype is designed to shoot down inbound ballistic missiles) and I think it could be adapted to shoot down bigger targets like Texas-sized asteroids...




RE: 5 megawatts by mid-May!
By MozeeToby on 8/10/2012 1:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
There's lots of possibilities, but virtually all of them involve detecting the asteroid well before it's going to get here. The most likely solution is to launch up some nukes, detonate them above the asteroid's surface so that some of the rock boils away. The boiling rock will push the rest of the mass just a touch in the opposite direction.

Repeat that 20 or 30 times, and 20 or 30 years before the asteroid is scheduled to arrive, and you'll have changed the course by several million miles, enough to guarantee Earth's safety. And as a bonus, the technique works with 'rubble pile' asteroids ass well (loose collection of small rocks clumped up in one place).

If for whatever reason that won't work, there's gravity tractors (piloting a mass large enough to pull the asteroid off course), ion engines (landed on the surface pointing outward), mass drivers (throw small chunks of asteroid as your reaction mass), solar sails (anchoring a sail to the asteroid), and even just painting half the asteroid black and half white (letting light pressure do the work).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_deflection#C...


RE: 5 megawatts by mid-May!
By Apone on 8/10/12, Rating: 0
Don't worry,
By geekman1024 on 8/10/2012 7:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
if Bruce failed, Optimus Prime will save us.




Just use the Futurama solution
By DiscoWade on 8/10/2012 8:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
Gather up all the trash on earth, put it on a rocket, and launch at the asteroid to alter the direction of the asteroid in such a way that the asteroid burns up by our sun. Problem solved. Of course, then we will have to deal with a large ball of garbage heading toward earth in future generations, but Futurama provided the answer to that too. Let future generations worry about it.




Just in case...
By nafhan on 8/10/2012 10:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
...anyone feels like wasting a bit of time. Here's an asteroid impact calculator:
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

I think that's been around for a while, but it's still interesting. After messing with that for a while, I learned that a VERY large asteroid is much more likely to blast Earth into rubble than it is to significantly change Earth's orbit. Also, an asteroid has to be bigger than I expected to even make it down to Earth's surface and leave a crater at all.




Physics
By adiposity on 8/11/2012 10:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
My physics teacher in college gave us this problem to solve when the movie came out. We concluded that it was impossible. But I'm glad it has been made "official."




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki