In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 310
Online now 240 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
That's what the screen just said on Fox News about 10 minutes ago.
I'm pretty sure they just tried to out-alarm Alarming Ermann.
(btw, the story was just about if there were an asteroid heading for Earth, there's not a whole lot we can do in a short amount of time)
are you telling me we don't have a ragtag team of oil drillers ready to go?
Let me start then:
Wow. This is NOT roomy!
Was Kent Brockman the anchor man?
Seriously, though, why should the US be responsible for stopping asteroids?
Figure out the cost of searching for, and stopping one, then divide it by the likelihood of it damaging the cities of those countries who want to participate.
Of course, no one else will contribute, so...too bad, it doesn't get done.
I don't think you're being serious, but:
1. We can't guarantee that we won't suffer the catastrophic harm of a direct asteroid strike on a US city;
2. Even if the asteroid lands in another country, catastrophic harm to other countries is almost guaranteed to negatively impact the US given today's inter-connected world; and
3. Even if the asteroid lands in water, I'm not sure we want to deal with the all-time great tsunami associated with a major asteroid strike in the Pacific or Atlantic.
Well, I'm not TOO serious, but it's about time the rest of the world stopped expecting us to cover for them. I wouldn't want the UN doing the research et al, but I'm damned if I want to spend my money to save some Siberian shit hole. Let the Big Brains figure out how to get the rest of the world to pay us to protect them.
This would be the right hill to die on imo!
NASA released a statement today saying that there are no eminent threats of asteroid strikes anywhere in the world....and nobody should be alarmed or draw any conclusions regarding the 50,000 free souvenir helmets being given away in the greater Sheboygan Wisconsin area. Purely a coincidence.
This post was edited by Dean Wormer 13 months ago
Just on odds alone, I'm willing to take the chance.
How generous of you for the rest of us!
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Live every day as if it were your last.
I root for Maryland basketball, so I pray that every day IS my last.
Here's a screenshot to show I wasn't exaggerating:
That does rate an uv.
Ha. Fox News cut half the quote.
NASA said "pay now or pray later".
Leave it to Fox News to say "pray" and leave out "pay".
That's foxes spin on the story.
The real story is that if you want to save the world from a future asteroid, you'll have to start investing in solving the problem today rather then waiting for an impeding hit.
Nasa full quote: "pay now or pray later"
The whole idea of landing on an asteroid and steering it out of harm's way is so Buck Rogers to me.
And I agree with SATerp that I"m tired of this sort of thing always landing in the US's lap.
Well, you know it would be in our economic benefit to land on an asteroid, so that we can mine it. They contain lots of minerals.
In addition, I do not believe that this country or ANY other country would invest in this type of thing unless it is in their best interest. Having said that, would you rather have those minerals fall on the laps of the Russians, the Chinese, Japanese, or any other foreign power?
NASA advice: start drinking heavily
Yes, minerals we already have on Earth.
No Earthbound material is so valuable as to be worth multi-multi-billion-dollar efforts to retrieve it from space. Even gold and platinum aren't economically feasible to mine from an asteroid and return to Earth.
The only time it makes sense to source materials from space is when you plan to use them in space. Aside from small, limited sample return missions with tremendous scientific value, you have to use it in space to make it worthwhile.
So, someday, maybe. Not now though, and not in the foreseeable future.
Right now we're talking about an asteroid that's going to crash into earth, which likely wouldn't afford much time for mining. I have no objection to companies doing asteroid mining though. Name the first ship Nostromo.
So, since we don't "need it now" because they are minerals "we already have on Earth," are you suggesting that we should wait until we need it to start investing in technology to be able to land or divert asteroids later, not now?
I'm not a scientist and this comment may be ignorant, but I would think that scientist would like to find solutions to those problems right now, rather than later. Besides, if you take out the economic benefit from mining asteroids, I think it is still in our benefit to invest in this because one asteroid could mess up any of our cities and/or cause damages on a global scale.
Btw, the mining project would be funded from the private sector.
If an asteroid impact in Rio or Ukraine or Seoul or mid-ocean held no potential to ruin our lives here, I doubt I'd be interested in seeing us spend much money on preventing it.
But big hits aren't exactly localized events. They wreck shit for everyone. It's in our own self interest to stop big hits everywhere.
The money ought to go into detection tech first, though. I don't know what the curve looks like, but I bet the cost of useful large-asteroid-avoidance tech infrastructure decreases by an order of magnitude for every 12 month increase in warning time we can guarantee. That must at least be true in the vicinity of our current place on the curve (i.e., all the way over to the left, where even a species-wide effort might not prevent a massive impact 3 months out).
No. I'm talking about having an economic benefit on the radar screen before mining asteroids with economic ends in mind. I say that as a big fan of space tech and exploration.
And are you specifically talking about mining asteroids, or diverting them? Both may involve flying to and landing on one, but they are VERY different endeavors. One is about money, access, and convenience; the other is about averting human extinction.
Private industry can knock themselves out mining asteroids if they like. It's exciting to watch and possibly a nice way to develop some pieces of pusher tech in case we need it one day to save ourselves. But in that case, isn't it better for the human race if we take the asteroid-drill design team and commit them to designing the asteroid-pusher system instead? No need to let a for-profit concern inject designed delays into the heart of our efforts to avert human extinction.
I was talking about mining. I just think that if American private industry and government will do something to stop asteroids they should also invest in technology to retrieve the minerals and get something in return.
But in the end, I agree with not wanting the human race to become the next dinosaurs.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports