1 asteroid + 2 meteor events? - half baked thoughts.

[joal0503]

1. it was a bizarre event...2 celestial events like that (the asteroid flyby) alone are extremely RARE events (check the probability)...but now it sounds like there was a 3rd unreported event in CUBA. That compounds the uniqueness of the events.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/suspected-meteorite-explosion-witnessed-in-cuba-reports-1.1159474

2. the FIRST press release by NASA was one that immediately addressed "unrelated to asteroid 2012 DA14". Their estimates claim "revised upward from 49 feet (15 meters) to 55 feet (17 meters), and its estimated mass has increased from 7,000 to 10,000 tons. " - an object that size, completely undetected by any space agency.

3. asteroid deflection has been discussed and researched for decades now. research and funding from the government has been reported. What hasnt? PRIVATE endeavors into such technology. With the 99942 Apophis asteroid as a risk, we are now in the part of NASA's as well as other private companies timeline for NOW beginning to start up projects for asteroid deflection. The research has been done, companies are now looking to actually start making these projects a reality.

examples:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Technology/NEO/Don_Quijote_concept
http://b612foundation.org/

NASA timeline for deflection:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/31/nasa_has_a_plan/

4. IF it is true that alone, we had 3 separate events, there is a possibility that testing phases of asteroid deflection missions are being carried out right now. Surely, if the plan is to carry out a mission in 2024, WE ARE PRACTICING NOW.

Im not going to go out and say I think this is some sinister weapon test...but it very well could be something related. If we are able to calculate and deflect an asteroid, chances are we're able to PREDICT and adjust the equally important DEBRIS left behind. It just would make sense...giant ass asteroid flys by...if we directed some sort of energy or deflection method in space, at the right moment, is it possible to deflect debris at a target? Was it just an accident? Was this all just some great coincidence? I have no idea, but at this point, the probability favors directed action vs 3 separate anomalous events occurring within the same day (russia and cuba relationship makes things even more intriguing). I think?

 

[Turniphead]

Forgive my relatively small knowledge of astronomy, but...

Are astroids not generally grouped together? At least loosely?

 

[Proletar]

Logically, there should be more if there is one. Asteroids tends to move in groups...

 

[joal0503]

Logically, there should be more if there is one. Asteroids tends to move in groups...

BUT if these events are unrelated as claimed...

that means we have 2 separate shows occuring on the same day. and when you calculate the odds of that...its prettyyyy rare. Not like the rarest thing ever...but rare....press released odds are coming out at 1 in 100 million. Which is based on the frequency of the events. BUT it does NOT account for the reports of the meteor shower in CUBA...so factor in that to the equation and im sure you get even smaller of a chance of it all happening.

but of course, this isnt enough of really anything to conclude the extrapolations im making. it just makes me wonder....

 

[joal0503]

and now...(see this is what happens with too much free time + too much cannabis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Real life concepts and theories
Project Thor

Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[1][2]

The most described system is "an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance". The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.[citation needed] The system described in the 2003 United States Air Force (USAF) report was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[3][4][5]

The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons. The system is prohibited by neither the Outer Space Treaty nor the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[4][6]

The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 225 kg conventional bomb.[citation needed] Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[5] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[4][7]

In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1m x 0.3m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself over 8 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method.

The highly elongated shape and high density are to enhance sectional density and therefore minimize kinetic energy loss due to air friction and maximize penetration of hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets.[8] The smaller "crowbar" size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.[citation needed]

The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.[9]

While the larger version might be individually launched, the smaller versions would be launched from "pods" or "carriers" that contained several missiles.[citation needed]

The phrase "Rods from God" is also used to describe the same concept.[10] A USAF report called them "hypervelocity rod bundles

More details..."Rods from God" - PROJECT THOR - its real folks.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

This technology is very far out—in miles and years. A pair of satellites orbiting several hundred miles above the Earth would serve as a weapons system. One functions as the targeting and communications platform while the other carries numerous tungsten rods—up to 20 feet in length and a foot in diameter—that it can drop on targets with less than 15 minutes’ notice. When instructed from the ground, the targeting satellite commands its partner to drop one of its darts. The guided rods enter the atmosphere, protected by a thermal coating, traveling at 36,000 feet per second—comparable to the speed of a meteor. The result: complete devastation of the target, even if it’s buried deep underground. (The two-platform configuration permits the weapon to be “reloaded” by just launching a new set of rods, rather than replacing the entire system.)

The concept of kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on the tips of ICBMs in the 1950s; the satellite twist was popularized by sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle. Though the Pentagon won’t say how far along the research is, or even confirm that any efforts are underway, the concept persists. The “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,” published by the Air Force in November 2003, references “hypervelocity rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons, and in 2002, another report from RAND, “Space Weapons, Earth Wars,” dedicated entire sections to the technology’s usefulness.


If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.”

wtf