Author Claims Asteroid WILL hit Earth in 2029

a reply to: LABTECH767

I don't understand why they think nukes are always the answer any
way. Why can't they just send out and attach a couple rockets to
it maybe magnetically. Then fire the rockets like they do on space
craft and nudge it into a more amicable orbit?

Maybe that's silly IDK

a reply to: ManyMasks

I'm listening to the podcast again. Tom Horn makes a claim that I had forgotten about: That NASA itself had originally stated that Apophis would actually hit the Earth, then changed their minds. Did they correct some calculations? Or is it the new calculations that are incorrect? Or is it a coverup?

is a 370-metre-diameter near-Earth asteroid that caused a brief period of concern in December 2004 because initial observations indicated a probability of up to 2.7% that it would hit Earth on April 13, 2029. Additional observations provided improved predictions that eliminated the possibility of an impact on Earth or the Moon in 2029.

wikipedia

Now how much do you trust NASA with that kind of change in
the information? If the first calculation remains correct they
wouldn't tell us? Never ever no gaw damn way. Just for their
own safety. People shoot the messenger.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
I'm done with these doomsday things. The Mayans had their chance in 2012 and they blew it!

They had ONE JOB!!

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Another "christian prophet" they've been failing for thousands of years. And all popes either resign or die so he had a 50 50 shot of being right.

a reply to: carsforkids

Well he's either gonna resign or die. People don't get prophecies from god.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Well he's either gonna resign or die. People don't get prophecies from god.

The pope is not what this is about and who are you t say that
any way? All you can accurately say is that you don't get prophecies
from God.

Any way if you actually did some reading you would see this isn't just doom porn.

a reply to: carsforkids

No that's not silly at all that's exactly what I am saying, the difference is that you have to get the fuel there for those rockets to use to provide that thrust so instead you send a nuclear furnace that can turn the rock of the asteroid into super heated high pressure gas or plasma and use the very stuff the asteroid itself is made of to provide the material in place of fuel to provide that thrust.

Nukes need to be very close in space to have the same kind of affect they have on earth but in his defense carewemust was correct, I just thought that the idea of the nuke was a bad one and so just offered an alternative and probably more effective solution but your answer would also work just as well as mine the only difference being that you need to also send the fuel for those rockets you are putting on the asteroid, since the time they would have to be producing rocket thrust would likely be a very 'long time' to noticeably change the asteroids heading though that would be most likely to require a lot of fuel so a very large number of fuel delivery's to those rockets would be needed to keep them in commission until the job was done were as the nuclear furnace that turn's the rock into gas/plasma under high pressure and then releases it in vectored thrusts actually only needs the supply of nuclear fission material it is using to produce the heat and a very well built and sturdy contraption in which to melt and gassify that asteroid material and to then duct it to it's exhaust nozzle to act as rocket thrust.

So while mine may have some benefits we probably don't have the necessary high temperature technology and material's necessary to do it and so YOUR'S is more practical and well within our current technological capability's - also the earlier we detect the asteroid and intercept it with such a rocket to change it's heading the less thrust we actually need to do so and so if we send your rocket's there sooner rather than later it would actually also be actually far cheaper and easier to perform than sending them when it is closer, the closer it gets the more thrust and fuel we are going to need to change it's direction enough to render it completely harmless.

a reply to: LABTECH767

So while mine may have some benefits we probably don't have the necessary high temperature technology and material's necessary to do it and so YOUR'S is more practical and well within our current technological capability's - also the earlier we detect the asteroid and intercept it with such a rocket to change it's heading the less thrust we actually need to do so and so if we send your rocket's there sooner rather than later it would actually also be actually far cheaper and easier to perform than sending them when it is closer, the closer it gets the more thrust and fuel we are going to need to change it's direction enough to render it completely harmless.

I think you are right because a long duration period for running the rockets
makes perfect sense. When we consider changing it's trajectory so it misses
the moon even. Maybe put it on a course so it never comes back. As they
were saying 2036 it would return. I don't want it hitting even our moon. I
like our moon just they way it is.

Have someone thought of the position of the moon.. could be perhaps even worse if the moon got hit by it .

2021....Nibiru…..Gill Broussard....learn or burn....don't worry about an Asteroid....worry about becoming part of the renewable energy(food) source we call oil.

Horns story is just another distraction to keep minds busy ….just like "Dem Rabbits".

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman
Tom trying to sell another book?

When his prognosticates and it does not come true is he a false prophet?

Yes to both questions.

But what will you say if he turns out to be right?

I'm not sure I believe his prediction myself. All I'm saying is that with the apparent agreement from some NASA people that Apophis WILL hit Earth, I think this topic is definitely worth watching.

originally posted by: CharlesT
It's a 2 hr video. Why didn't you at least try to povide highlights via timespamp to some of the more promenent portions. I'm not going to sit here and watch a 2 hr video.
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

I don't do summaries.

If you don't care enough about it to watch the whole thing then have a nice day.

The name Wormwood was gven because all over the Earth trees rotted...saltwater killed them all...the entire surface of the Earth gets washed over with saltwater....hence Wormwood…..there was no wood to burn ...some of us have already buried say around 10 tonnes of coal in strategic places.Understand?....There were enough people alive for us to hear the stories today….best be prepared.

I thought the original thought was that there was a 2.9% or so chance of it hitting earth.. not that it was definitely going to do so. That 2.9% was revised to "no chance." And even if it did hit a satellite (which I doubt it would), I think destruction of satellite would be a lot more likely than any deflection. I don't think a satellite would deflect a 15 billion pound rock flying at 15 miles per second. More danger from satellite fallout than anything else.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: LABTECH767

I don't understand why they think nukes are always the answer any
way. Why can't they just send out and attach a couple rockets to
it maybe magnetically. Then fire the rockets like they do on space
craft and nudge it into a more amicable orbit?

Or maybe use a high-powered orbital laser to heat up a point on it and get it to expel whatever water gas might be there, which would act as a kind of propellant and nudge it in some different direction.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld, where are you when we need you?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Superb idea, that could also be done using a solar reflector on a space craft moved to just the correct distance from the asteroid and then using the reflector to focus the sun's energy onto a small portions of the surface vaporising it and making it eject that material in a gaseous state, superb point and there may be many other variations on your idea, actually far better than the way I would have tried to do it and also potentially far, far cheaper though it would have to be done now or near enough because it may not produce a whole lot of thrust but the further away you are when you start then you really don't need all that much thrust to do the job of changing the asteroid's heading.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Blue Shift

Superb idea, that could also be done using a solar reflector on a space craft moved to just the correct distance from the asteroid and then using the reflector to focus the sun's energy onto a small portions of the surface vaporising it and making it eject that material in a gaseous state, superb point and there may be many other variations on your idea, actually far better than the way I would have tried to do it and also potentially far, far cheaper though it would have to be done now or near enough because it may not produce a whole lot of thrust but the further away you are when you start then you really don't need all that much thrust to do the job of changing the asteroid's heading.

And with a laser you wouldn't have to waste a lot of time flying all the way there, you could affect it from Earth, since space is not going to dissipate the power all that much. You could start when it was first detected as a threat, and then you'd have additional time to continue to refine your aim as it approaches. It doesn't have to miss by much.

a reply to: Blue Shift

You could in theory power such a laser array in space from earth by using a narrow microwave beam to transfer the energy from ground power producing plant's to the satellite array thus making it more practical as well.

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
The Chernobyl connection might just be a "clue": What if NASA launches a nuclear missile at the asteroid a la one of those asteroid impact movies and it leaves the space rock radioactive? What if that radioactive space rock breaks up into radioactive chunks that poison the waters and someone makes the connection to Chernobyl being the Ukrainian word for "Wormwood" and the name sticks? All I say is that it's one of those things that makes you go "Hmmmmm....." and I wouldn't discount there might be some connection between Chernobyl "Wormwood" and Apophis "Wormwood."

Im pretty sure i’ve read some articles in the past, stating the last thing they want to do is nuke anything coming at us and try to blow it up, as that will basically turn it into a giant shotgun coming at us and make things a ton worse. Their best plan was to fire a missile(s) without any kind of payload to hit and deflect its course so that any incoming asteroid will miss us completely.