Pumping more energy into the launch of the projectile will just result in it hitting the atmosphere harder and disintegrating quicker.
Provided you have bad aerodynamic design of a projectile and small thermal resistance - which i dont think will be if a system based on this technology will ever be implemented.
That is why I suggested an ion engine... a big tank of fuel for an ion engine is a couple of litres. It gets its power from the very high velocity of the ionised particles it directs.
Yes but you forgot to mention that is a fuel tank for engine that is supposed to propel a object with couple of tons.
In our case we need to move 10k or 20k of Tons - a "little" difference
You aren't getting it... what is an explosion? An expansion of gas at supersonic speed. Supersonic speed being 1/3rd of 1km/s. We are talking about play dough hitting the ground at 60 times the speed of a fragment from an explosion... there is not explosive involved but the energy is actually the same.
If im not getting it then let me ask you a guestion.
If you throw a rock and that play gouhg on your wooden laminate flooring - which one is potential to have more damaging impact?
The aerodynamic drag have better impact on object that is in its molten state and it will form it such a way that it will cause much less atmospheric compression and expansion (explosion) than an object that has fallen in a solid state.
Aditionally to that - it will not eject back to the amoshpere as much of dirt and ground to cause a polution and prevention of sun thermal energy to enter the atmosphere and maintain its current climate.
And if not enough - lets not forget the earthquake vibrations - objects that are in solid state upon impact send much more powerful earth vibrations than objects that are molten.
Its elementar physics.
The very shallow angle of the object was luck... it could just as easily have come in near vertically... which would mean less than 2 seconds in anything dense enough to have an effect.
It easily could - more scenarios to think of when designing a proper defense.
You just arent getting it... if I drop a ton of water on top of you you will be crushed... it doesn't matter that it is water... If I hit you with a shirt button at 20km/s you would be killed by the highly supersonic shockwave.
Garry seriously - you are comparing my size with a ton of water while im describing a differrence between ton of water and a ton of solid dense rock.
I never ever said that the water wont have any impact - all i said was that it wont have as much of an impact as the solid rock.
No it wouldn't... you would be using all the worlds power generation capacity for a year to slightly warm the incoming object... there are far more efficient ways to deal with such a problem.
Why do you think i would use all the world power?
Isn't that a "bit" overshot?
Do amplifiers ring a bell?
Yes, it is a problem because were are committing far too little resources in this very important endeavour. In the 1990s there were more people working in one McDonalds restaurant than looking for earth impacting objects. That has since changed, but the numbers looking are not that impressive.
This impact should greatly increase funding in Russia however.
We are monitoring all the major objects threatening to collide with Earth.
What we are not doing is monitoring the lesser threats which are still very dangerous as we could have seen.
And this is an area for huge improvement.
Of course they can. Russian telescopes track paint chip sized objects in earth orbit watching larger objects further away is not that hard.... trying to do it with radar would be hard.
Yes but again you forgot to mention that they first need a decimetric wave band RADAR to find the object, LASER to mark it, and then a telescope to find it and classify it/track it.
Telescope alone is very ineficient and unreliable.
Check out the Okno-S and Krona facilities that are designed to detect Satelites on Geostationary orbits.
Okno is able to detect only satelites much closer to earth.
It was not detected because not enough people and not enough telescopes are looking... there has been no funding for it.
The funding needs to be provided - but telescopes are not a reliable solution and especially when its performance is dependent on current local weather.
Finding a suitable (cloud free) place for optical telescope to build is hard and it is even harder to built it.
And then there are clouds that can go as high as 18 000 m above the sea level - i believe the highest ground is Mt.Everest above 8000m
So having a detection system based on weather is gently speaking: utterly unacceptable - even if weather modification technologies exist today, but are not widespread.
If we would to deploy these telescopes on earth orbit that would be a more logical solution but it would be considerably more expensive, timeconsuming and still not yeald the desired results.
To do so you would need a lot more radars and they would need to be oriented up... and even then they will only search the northern hemisphere... a direction the threat might not come from...
If you'll get other countries to jump on the bandwagon - why only north hemisphere?
It was stressed out several times that this has to be a international project.
I agree that we need a lot more radars but that only needs time and financing.
In the Solar System there is a large object called the sun, though technically it is called Sol... hense the name Solar system.
This large object spews out something called the solar wind and enormous amounts of light energy, both of which reflect off all sorts of objects and makes them visible. Modern telescopes use computers to compensate for the effect the atmosphere has on light as it passes through... which appears to make the stars twinkle and gives a much better image from the ground.
Thats perfectly fine - the problem here is that the object needs to have sufficiently big surface to reflect enough of this energy for the telescope computer to recognize it as a valid space object and not as a calculation error or not to detect the object at all.
In other words right now we dont have optical telescopes with sufficient resolution to spot "small" flying rocks as the one in february.
It might be spotted close to earth but thats according to your words:
already too late
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Terrestrial-impact_Last_Alert_System
It is the only effective method.
That is very disputable as i stated before.
Actually with wide field telescopes it is not that hard or expensive.
Wide field telescopes are not expensive? Well if you compare that to US military budget then nope they are not expensive.
Other than that they are quite expensive. But again - its not just about what you see, its also about what you can recognize out of what you can see.
So the field of view is as much important as its the resolution.
The irony is that the US ABM missile shield is likely a three trillion dollar waste of time. The Russians asked the US about developing a meteor shield and the US wasn't interested... clearly the US wants its sheild to protect it from a theoretical Russian
missile threat, but not a very real threat from space... perhaps another large rock landing in the US might make them get their priorities in order...
Sad but true.
If we didn't had any way to get prepared for such an event or possibly defend ourselves - im amazed that some of us are still alive.
What truly drives me mad is this kind of stupidity that not humanity as a whole, but those idiots out there that decide where to put money - they will learn only when a catastrophe happens.
And that usually is too late for thoose that took part in it.
Luckily nobody died in february - this scenario might repeat itself very soon. So its time to start looking upstairs - or ar they afraid that we will find out that we are not alone?