• Russia to spend $2bn on defeating asteroids
    53 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Moscow believes an operable national defense against threats from outer space can be built within 10 years’ time. The 500-kiloton explosion of a space bolide above the Urals region has sped-up allocation of some $2 billion to prevent future threats. Russian scientists have presented a federal program designed to counteract space threats. Elaborated by the Institute of Astronomy at Russia’s Academy of Sciences and the Central Engineering Research Institute, Russia’s leading space industry enterprise, the program has already been approved by Roskosmos, the national space agency. The program has nothing to do with Hollywood sci-fi movie scenarios; no lasers, annihilators or Bruce Willis drilling a huge peace of rock rushing towards Earth. The system will consist of a network of robotic telescopes monitoring space around our planet, some of them delivered to orbit, others operating from the surface. Destruction of an asteroid in emergency cases may be performed by a rocket with a powerful megaton-class thermonuclear warhead. If the threat is detected early, more advanced means of changing an asteroid’s orbit may be considered. The program costing 58 billion rubles (over $1.9 billion) has already been handed over to the head of Russia’s defense industry, Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin who is expected to present it to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Lidia Rykhlova from the Institute of Astronomy (RAS) who presented the project, reported that Russia will need to modernize and fully computerize the 60 cm lens telescopes it already has. Several larger telescopes with 2 meter lens will have to be additionally installed. Rykhlova announced that an analytical center will be created to collect the data from various sources and analyze it in real time mode. Professor of the Moscow State University, head of the laboratory for space monitoring Vladimir Lipunov told Interfax news agency that it will take about two years to modernize all Russia’s existing nine telescopes with the diameter of the lens of 40 centimeters and unite them into one network. A network of larger telescopes across the globe could be ready in five years.[/QUOTE] [url]http://rt.com/news/russia-billions-asteroid-protection-502/[/url]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39643239]no lasers, annihilators or Bruce Willis drilling a huge [b]peace[/b] of rock rushing towards Earth.[/QUOTE] eugh I wish people could talk about asteroids and the like without bringing up that crappy movie for once
i get the feeling this is just an excuse to increase spending in space related stuff space race 2.0
Estovakia 2.0
That thing was 500 kilotons?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39643303]That thing was 500 kilotons?[/QUOTE] It exploded with the force of 500 kilotons.
[quote]500-kiloton[/quote] read as [b]megaton[/b] at first glance. Wondered why the world didn't end
Russians will save the world.
Russia is the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now
Im sure we could make some sought of guided missile to take it out. like attach a grenade to some flying robot
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39643271]i get the feeling this is just an excuse to increase spending in space related stuff space race 2.0[/QUOTE] That would be great
They're seriously going to waste $2bn on a threat that arose twice in over 100 years instead of actually improving their country? I am so ashamed in my motherland sometimes, it hurts.
[QUOTE=NotMeh;39643502]They're seriously going to waste $2bn on a threat that arose twice in over 100 years instead of actually improving their country? I am so ashamed in my motherland sometimes, it hurts.[/QUOTE] Implying asteroid defence doesn't improve the country? It secures jobs and generates economic activity. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] $2bn isn't much for Russia, this isn't Estonia. Christ.
Russia has 2 billion dollars?
[QUOTE]Destruction of an asteroid in emergency cases may be performed by a rocket with a powerful megaton-class thermonuclear warhead[/QUOTE] Isn't setting off nukes near the earth [B]a really bad idea?[/B] Wouldn't it fry most of the electronics on the side of the planet facing the explosion?
[QUOTE=Armandur;39643673]Isn't setting off nukes near the earth [B]a really bad idea?[/B] Wouldn't it fry most of the electronics on the side of the planet facing the explosion?[/QUOTE] Didn't you ever see the movie Armageddon?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39643511]Implying asteroid defence doesn't improve the country? It secures jobs and generates economic activity. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] $2bn isn't much for Russia, this isn't Estonia. Christ.[/QUOTE] Surely there are better ways to generate jobs and economic activity then spending 2 bil on a rock-blaster.
[QUOTE=Armandur;39643673]Isn't setting off nukes near the earth [B]a really bad idea?[/B] Wouldn't it fry most of the electronics on the side of the planet facing the explosion?[/QUOTE] The idea of using thermonuclear weapons against asteroids is to push the thing off coarse, so it has no chance of hitting Earth. They don't need to be close to Earth, as we will know in advance with the right telescopes. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NotMeh;39643686]Surely there are better ways to generate jobs and economic activity then spending 2 bil on a rock-blaster.[/QUOTE] It will modernize scientific equipment and put more money into their space sector. If anywhere, 50bn rub deserves to be thrown at science. Better start early rather than later.
I wonder how you could actually alter the course of such massive things, using traditional explosives or even thermonuclear warheads I don't believe will work well. Much of the damage caused by these things is performed by a shock wave that throws debris around in a whirlwind of shrapnel. However, in space, there isn't much air around, so there won't be a shock wave and thus it will be mostly the kinetic energy of the rocket impacting the surface, and perhaps the directed and not dispersed power of the fusion process that will push it. Meaning that there is little chance of destroying it outright, or even fragmenting it significantly.
2 billion would be better off spent on reparing damages done by the previous asteroid and also the people that were harmed by it.
[QUOTE=Akasha;39643755]2 billion would be better off spent on reparing damages done by the previous asteroid and also the people that were harmed by it.[/QUOTE] They already paid for that though, it cost $33mn in window glass.
[QUOTE=Armandur;39643673]Isn't setting off nukes near the earth [B]a really bad idea?[/B] Wouldn't it fry most of the electronics on the side of the planet facing the explosion?[/QUOTE] Yeah, detonating a nuclear warhead in space near the earth can cause an EMP, never mind the fact that it would be fucking useless for stopping an asteroid.
It's a pretty useful investment if done right. I hate when countries spend millions on weaponry for war, when it's hardly even going to be used right now. At least by this act, they're doing it in "defence of the earth" in case one day there's one that approaches which causes an apocalypse.
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;39643776]It's a pretty useful investment if done right. I hate when countries spend millions on weaponry for war, when it's hardly even going to be used right now. At least by this act, they're doing it in "defence of the earth" in case one day there's one that approaches which causes an apocalypse.[/QUOTE] Exactly, imagine what the world could do if even just a bit of the worlds global riches was pooled into science and thus peace.
[QUOTE=NotMeh;39643686]Surely there are better ways to generate jobs and economic activity then spending 2 bil on a rock-blaster.[/QUOTE] Making a 2bil rock blaster involves a lot of people and has the capacity to show some improvement in our "getting things into space" technology I don't see a problem with it
Hopefully all this development won't turn into asteroid weaponization.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39643271]i get the feeling this is just an excuse to increase spending in space related stuff space race 2.0[/QUOTE] You say that as if it's a bad thing.
[QUOTE=Armandur;39643673]Isn't setting off nukes near the earth [B]a really bad idea?[/B] Wouldn't it fry most of the electronics on the side of the planet facing the explosion?[/QUOTE] Let Neil Dgrasse Tyson talk about this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ReuLZ2quc[/media]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39643979]Hopefully all this development won't turn into asteroid weaponization.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it be pretty silly idea, considering that we have more accessible weapons already.
A nuclear explosion far away from earth close to an ateroid is enough to nudge it off course, If we don't spot it early enough, blowing up an asteroid is still the better option that having one massive piece getting down to earth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.