Friday, March 3, 2017

Beware Falling Rocks

A woman running for a seat in Congress allegedly made comments that in essence say that the moon is tactically valuable to earth because if rocks are dropped from there they will impact earth with the energy of hundreds of nuclear bombs. More here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/13949/democrat-running-congress-thinks-you-can-destroy-hank-berrien

My thoughts on this are simply that it is amazing how folks who are seemingly imbeciles or maybe even idiots can be run for positions of authority in our government. You probably safely can bet there are people of equal lesser intelligence already therein (like the Congressman who said Guam could possibly tip over and capsize if over populated). 
 
Just in case you were wondering, though I figure you have already guessed it, she is running as a Democrat.
 
All the best,
Glenn B

6 comments:

B said...

With the right delivery system (catapult?) to get them out of Lunar orbit and on the right trajectory for Earth, she is sorta right. (look up Kinetic Energy Weapons)

Of course, we don't have that technology yet, and aren't on the moon permanently. (and you'd need some steel for the catapult to work on).

But yes, you can use the gravity well of earth to "drop rocks" and get huge energy when they strike.

Glenn B said...

First of all, she did not say, write or even imply that the rocks would be catapulted, shot, propelled, or even thrown. She did not say that they would be anything but dropped. Since the moon has its own gravity, the dropped rocks would thus fall to the surface of the moon. Even if one could drop a rock, or as you said catapult them, toward the earth, they in all likelihood would do no to very little damage despite any kinetic energy they unleased. That is because they in al likelihood would burn up in the atmosphere and thus most of their kinetic energy would be dissipated for whatever remained. That would go for any rock of any size that potentially could be shot toward us by a catapult or other method, with enough force to leave the moon's gravitational pull. Just imagine the size of the rocket and amount of fuel needed to send a huge enough rock hurtling toward us from the surface of the moon to hit us with the energy of 100s of nuclear bombs (her figure). It is not happening anytime soon unless there is an extremely major breakthrough in rocketry.

She is reportedly a game developer and seemed to use the mindset of one (to create fantasy) while coming up with her hypothesis (and I use that term very, very lightly). I would imagine it much more likely, in the real world (or real moon), that nuclear missiles on the moon or on a space station would pose a much greater risk to us. I also imagine an asteroid impacting earth would be the biggest risk in such a regard. I think that what she said was either said in jest or, if said in earnest, was mere leftist drivel that gives other leftists something else that they can use to attack private industry ; yet, that is virtually completely baseless.

All the best,
GB

B said...

Dude, You ARE Wrong.

Do The Math. Figure a 1 ton rock. Figure how long it will fall, and how fast it will be going when it hits (and no, likely wouldn't "burn up"...figure how much energy there is in that rock.

I understood her perfectly. So did anyone who has read science fiction or looked at (as our military has since the 70's) the math of falling objects at orbital velocities...the numbers are HUGE. The fact that you didn't understand her is on you.
Just 'cause she is a Democrat doesn't make her stupid any more than you (or me) being a Conservative makes us smart. (although there are a lot more stupid liberals than there are conservatives)...Just 'cause this was outside of your experience doesn't make her wrong.

Sorry, dude, this time you blew it...and so did every ignorant person who trashed her. She was right. If you bother to investigate (and are honest with yourself) you'd find out that she was, indeed, correct.

Look at Meteor Crater ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater) and tell me how little kinetic energy there is in a rock penetrating the atmosphere. (and that was a fairly large rock moving fairly slowly as things go) Smaller rocks moving faster can do a LOT of damage.

Don't believe me. Check for yourself. Here is a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment.

Don't publish this. I don't want you to be embarrassed. Just LEARN.



Glenn B said...

Hi B,

With all due respect, okay let's look at what you just said and then rethink if I should be embarrassed. You say you understood her perfectly. Tell me then how could you possibly DROP (and I stick by the dictionary definition of the word drop) from the moon to earth. Bear in mind she in sum and substance said that the moon was of great tactical importance because someone could do that. It is practically impossible to do so. Now don't do what you already have done - don't put words into her mouth or her keyboard. She did not say, did not write or even imply it would be propelled - she said DROP. You say she was correct – but tell me how exactly do you drop a rock from the moon and please don’t change it to catapult, shoot, propel, launch or anything else that would power it to here because that is changing the whole premise of what she said.

You also told me to do the math. I am not a mathematician nor am I an astrophysicist or whomever studies such things. Did you do the math? Did you even read the article to which you linked? You bring up the hypothesis or at least imply that you could drop or let's even say propel a one to rock toward the earth and that it would do devastating damage. You made mention of scientific studies and imply they support your claim. Please show me the data on which you base the fact that a one ton rock or meteor coming at the earth would do the damage she claimed, which was hundreds of times more than a nuclear weapon (yes that is what she apparently wrote). You also seemingly support your claim by saying anyone who is into science fiction understand what she meant. You are kidding me right – by using science fiction to support your claim!

Now remember, you just in essence indicated how badly a one ton meteor could damage the earth. Then you said this: “Look at Meteor Crater ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater) and tell me how little kinetic energy there is in a rock penetrating the atmosphere.” Are you kidding me, do you really think a one ton rock moving faster than a meteorite, the largest remaining piece of which was 160 feet across and made mostly of iron (the one that formed Meteor Crater), could do more damage than that one which had 10 megatons of energy!!! Do you believe a one ton rock or meteor hitting earth has more kinetic energy? Do you think a one ton rock would survive the atmosphere with enough mass to do such damage. Again, the one that formed Meteor Crater was estimated to only have had 10 megatons of energy (read your own source completely please because that info is therein) and its weight must have been enormous – nowhere near a ton, probably hundreds of thousands of tons if not more but that is just my guess.

(end part one, part two to follow)

Glenn B said...

(Part two of two.)

The fact is that the Russians detonated a single nuclear bomb in 1961 that had 57 megatons of energy – is a one ton meteor or rock going to release kinetic energy hundreds of times more than that? Let’s face it a one ton meteor that enters our atmosphere and impacts the earth is not going to have anywhere near the energy of that single Russian bomb nor of the meteor that created meteor crater and most definitely not even a smidgen of the energy of the 10 kilometer in diameter, approximately trillion ton, asteroid that caused the Chicxulub impact. Yes, I said trillion ton! (see: http://www.icr.org/article/chicxulub-demise-dinosaurs).

If you want to talk rocks dropped from the moon or even propelled by a man made source like a catapult (your idea not mine) maybe you are watching too much science fiction. To back up a ridiculous idea like hers based in part on science fiction, and that is what you apparently did, is at best fantastic. To think, or imply, a relatively tiny one ton meteor moving fast will do more damage than the meteor that created Meteor Crater is seemingly preposterous and that sure seems to be what you implied unless I read you wrong. To do damage like the crater you used as an example we are talking huge meteors. Remember the largest piece remaining of that one was 160 feet across and composed mostly of iron. Much of the original meteor broke up and a lot of it vaporized upon impact. There is no way anyone is dropping one that large from the moon or propelling it toward earth from the surface of the moon. Remember that her argument was that the moon was of extreme tactical importance because someone might drop rocks from it toward earth. You can keep on believing that if you will but I for one call it absurd.

By the way, no sir, I am not at all embarrassed by anything I have written relative to my blog post or my follow-up comments.

All the best,
Glenn B

Glenn B said...

(Whoops there is a part three.)

Some interesting facts from NASA about asteroids and meteoroids and space rocks:

"Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons of dust and sand-sized particles.

About once a year, an automobile-sized asteroid hits Earth's atmosphere, creates an impressive fireball, and burns up before reaching the surface.

Every 2,000 years or so, a meteoroid the size of a football field hits Earth and causes significant damage to the area.

Only once every few million years, an object large enough to threaten Earth's civilization comes along. Impact craters on Earth, the moon and other planetary bodies are evidence of these occurrences.

Space rocks smaller than about 25 meters (about 82 feet) will most likely burn up as they enter the Earth's atmosphere and cause little or no damage.

If a rocky meteoroid larger than 25 meters but smaller than one kilometer ( a little more than 1/2 mile) were to hit Earth, it would likely cause local damage to the impact area.

We believe anything larger than one to two kilometers (one kilometer is a little more than one-half mile) could have worldwide effects. At 5.4 kilometers in diameter, the largest known potentially hazardous asteroid is Toutatis."

Did you see these two in particular:

"About once a year, an automobile-sized asteroid hits Earth's atmosphere, creates an impressive fireball, and burns up before reaching the surface." What was that about a one ton rock hitting earth and all the damage it would do???

"Space rocks smaller than about 25 meters (about 82 feet) will most likely burn up as they enter the Earth's atmosphere and cause little or no damage." Imagine the weight of a rock 82 feet across, and NASA says it would most likely burn up in the atmosphere. Also - tell me how that would be dropped, propelled, catapulted, shot or directed from the surface of the moon, in any manner by man, to impact with earth and cause destruction hundreds of times the power of a nuclear bomb. As I said, your mere one ton meteor, your example, would likely vaporize when it entered out atmosphere. I used to get this from a professor in grad school when I said something: TICSMYD. It means 'talk is cheap show me your data'. I have showed you the data to support my claim that what she allegedly wrote was pure bullshit and that what I said about your example of a one ton meteor was correct in that I said it would essentially vaporize in our atmosphere. Now tell me, do I really need to be embarrassed? I think not.

Source of the above info: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/overview/fastfacts.html

All the best,
GB

View My Stats