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.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top