Melting a dangerous asteroid about to impact Earth

AI Thread Summary
Melting a dangerous asteroid poses significant challenges, primarily due to the immense energy required to achieve this. Simply melting the asteroid would not mitigate the threat, as it would still retain its mass and potentially create a molten mass that could still impact Earth. The discussion suggests that vaporizing the asteroid into gas would require even more energy, making it a less feasible solution. Redirecting the asteroid's trajectory is considered a more practical approach to prevent an impact. Overall, the consensus leans towards altering the asteroid's path rather than attempting to melt or vaporize it.
endoftime
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I was wondering how much energy it would take to melt a big enough asteroid considered to be dangerous? Is it even possible?

If possible, could it be done fast enough before it impacts?

If it is completely melted can it then be somehow dispersed so that it turns into smaller chunks that are not dangerous?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
endoftime said:
I was wondering how much energy it would take to melt a big enough asteroid considered to be dangerous? Is it even possible?

If possible, could it be done fast enough before it impacts?

If it is completely melted can it then be somehow dispersed so that it turns into smaller chunks that are not dangerous?

Melting an asteroid wouldn't be good enough (though it's a start), all you would have then is a molten asteroid of the same mass about to crash into Earth with the added bonus of now being so hot you can't lift bits off of it.

Continuing along your line of inquiry you would have to go further than that and vapourise it into a gas, the energy required to do that would be phenomenal. It would be far easier to just knock it off course.
 
ryan_m_b said:
... It would be far easier to just knock it off course.

I agree. Much more practical.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top