斗争是进步的第一原动力。 历史上纯粹的理想主义者最后只不过吟诗作对，虚度余生罢了。这群人永远也不可能改变世界。 幻想大同社会，是因为害怕死亡，然而牺牲是进步的必然过程

For anyone outside the UK (or that does not use a proxy/VPN), you can watch the BBC Horizon Special from a few years ago. **The Truth About Meteors: A Horizon Special, 2012-2013.** VK Mirror https://vk.com/video116059113_456239063 Original BBC page http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r6dys (you may need a VK account to watch videos, but it is cleaner than facebook, so it is much nicer and much faster)

Concerning the global initatives, more could be done sooner IMHO - but it's a start. Concerning proposed plans from Dr Ashurebyli, I didn't really notice any. It's pretty difficult to comment on "satellite constellations" when there's no details concerning distances and function of constellations or the mechanism upon which this protection should operate. The early detection of asteroids is certianly a problem, with only about 1800 objects being currently tracked with multiple "near misses" so far. This likely does not even represent 50% of the available threats in play currently - and more leave the Oort every day. As previously mentioned, the first time these are spotted it's commonly provided an incredibly short window of reaction time. Unfeasibly short. Also as previously mentioned, expanding sensor networks and better detection techniques is the obvious solution that can lead to greater reaction times being applicable. One would assume that this represents at least the first phase of these "satellite constellations". I seem to think we'd want birds just a little further out than the moon and once they're looking in more directions than they are not, starting to place some around sol at a similar orbital distance to Earth - A series of these in this belt should provide even more data - if that still doesn't provide enough sensor coverages then at a similar orbital belt to Mars should give much earlier detection times. With regards to mitigation techniques then as previously mentioned, there's commonly not enough time to get a launch together, let alone line up a launch window. The obvious solution here is to have one ready to rock - and preferably already in orbit. If already in orbit the deployment time is drastically reduced, allowing for potentially earlier intercept. If you can get it there early enough then a nuke can be detonated *before* it hits. Rather than use the kinetic impact to reduce it's size, slow it by a few meter per second or nudge it to the left slightly - far enough out will mitigate a collision. If going for mass reduction multiple nukes would be required - after taking the larger rocks down in size(possibly requiring several nukes, one to split in three, three to hit them, 12 to hit that debris) setting a nuke off just in front of them could either vapourise them entirely or provide for more than enough deflective forces. To assume there is enough time to attempt an earlier intercept (ie: most things we've already seen and are tracking) then to assume this can be done *early enough* we can begin to play with mitigation techniques. I agree heavily with "trial runs". For sake of the example, lets target 2017 DQ36, this has 8 opportunities to collide with Earth between 2021 and 2097, at about ½km radial it's a baby rock on the scale so perfect for playing with mitigation techniques, it's relatively low mass would allow for easier mitigations. With a Palmero scale of -3 then any failure in the attempt isn't likely to be overly hazardous. It's an ideal candidate. An asteroid, even one as small as that, is unlikely to "stopped in it's tracks" as accurately pointed out previously - but nothing is static in space, and if you was to become, then everything else is still a hazzard as that is all moving. Luckily stopping it isn't required. All you need to do is slow it down(or speed it up, which can be easier depending where in it's orbital elipse it is) - when two moving objects have intercepting trajectories then adjusting the speed of one object should allow the other to clear the intercept zone so both these objects don't try to occupy the same space at the same time. Equally, if it's far enough away then adjusting it's heading by but 1° can over the length of it's arc provide for sufficient adjustments - but commonly you'll get the most overall effect for the minimal energy from adjusting velocity. And even more by doing it at the "right" time. As for how to provide that course adjustment.... NASA have had some detailed studies on this. The tl:dr; of the matter is chemical explosives to obliterate are unlikley to be sufficient to make into small enough fragments, and would likely require embedding to stand a chance of fragmenting (but they was thinking a lot bigger than our example, we could feasibly blow something that small). Chemical explosives are unlikely to deliver sufficient kinetic energy to "displace". Nuclear explosives can deliver the yield, buried would provide a high fragmentation risk, as some large chunks are likely acellerated towards. The general consensus of the document was that it would be generally "better" and all around "easier" to detonate with some proximity in order to bounce more than break - almost like a gigantic game of pool, chipping it off into the corner pocket. Ofc asteroid composition and materials matter muchly. This sort of solution on a "gravel-type" asteroid is likely to make a serious mess and a lot of smaller problems. For coating a single side with ice, and using sunlight to create "steam thrust" then it's unlikely to vent with any particular pressure, even over a wide surface area that low pressure is likely to be insufficient to provide suitable Delta-V and the largest effect would be adjusting it's center of gravity, which will cause(or more likely adjust) it's rotation. The same water in resevoirs - these could potentially be drilled into the face of the asteroid, or attached to surface - can then boil up and pressurise. Steam at pressure will give a lot more thrust from the same mass. Such systems are difficult to control. If the center of thrust doesn't balance center of mass then, depending how far off it is, it tends to push you in circles more than forwards and using Sol as thermal source you're limited in the directions you can apply thrust. Aiming is difficult, and requires a really early intercept. A "salty chemical" is unlikely to compete with the cold of deep space - which is why the coolant loops on ISS use ammonia, it's harder to freeze that - Focus of a few lasers or microwave beams would be more reliable IMHO. Volumatic reduction is unlikely to be sufficient to be notable, unless the composition is mostly ice. Again applicable thrust is questionable, this is commonly delivered at pressure to provide speed. As is questionability to control how/where the thrust is applied. Tethering chemical rockets and towing the asteroid could be considered viable to move something if it's hit far enough out, and you laid down thrust at the right point of it's orbital arc you could stand a chance of "steering" enough to avoid impacts. Several units may be required to stabilise rotation and prevent "yo-yo" or pendulem. I personally favour the likes of a net, for large solids and something resembling a wind sock for gravels, suspended between three or more units working in concert. Surface attachment would again require center of thrust to align center of mass to prevent spin. If far enough out then Ion propulsion systems can potentially provide a small impulse over a long period of time - and that tends to add up. If the EM-Drive is valid then this would be the most sensible type of application as it can continually output, and would possibly give rise to parking these problematic rocks for mining. Most "solutions" leave the problem there, in some form, they will be experienced again. At some point in time. Mitigation is obviously the primary goal, mining these to nothing is not an unworthy consideration as it would turn a problem into a solution. "Bending it's trajectory sideways" is unlikely to be fuel efficient (Should get yourself a copy of KSP if you like this sort of thing, their orbital trajectory tool when you're plotting up manipulating orbits would demonstrate this concept visually, easily, and you can even play with various sized rocks that come close and building intercept systems. NASA chipped in some code especially for this). If you apply thrust just before the apoapsis - As far from center as it will reach - then the object is in theory travelling as slow as it will (naturally) and should require the least energy to result in adjustments, either way - but as it's just before it's "peak height" gravity is still slowing the object down as opposed to speeding it up so attempts to slow it are maximised. Conversly, just before the periapsis - The closest to center the orbit reaches - provides opportunity to have gravity assist in speeding up said object. If attempting to "go sideways" then *at* the periapsis/apoapsis provides the opportunity for the most effect(emphisis on the apoapsis). Attempts at other points is essentially wasting fuel, and without a propellantless system it's going to be difficult to achieve the required effect anywhere else, or take a lot of fuel to do so. Speeding up/slowing down gives you the most bang for your buck. When you're at the apoapsis then speeding up/slowing down should "push" the periapsis further away/closer to the body being orbited, whilst application at the periapsis should manipulate the distance of the apoapsis. Solar sails are likely to be too low impulse to be viable for the larger percentage of examples, even with early intercept.

@HaddenB The Earth is relatively small. I remember the original model for Apophis' collision with Earth in 2036. Even then the asteroid wasn't going to hit the Earth at the center of its disc, at a perpendicular angle; but actually hit the Earth at the edge of its disc, almost skimming the earth's surface. (Later revisions of course let us discover that Apophis was going to miss us altogether). My point is, asteroids usually miss the Earth, and those that do not well they don't need alot of trajectory adjustment to help them miss the Earth. I still favour strapping a lateral rocket to steer the thing. The rocket doesn't have to be chemical - it'd be great if we could find a way to make even more powerful rockets. I really oppose the idea of blowing it to bits. First of all, you'd need an incredibly large team of pilots (and a proportionally large amount of spacecrafts, and a kind of spacecraft whose propulsion system allows the craft to make tight swerves in the vacuum of space) to keep track and obliterate of all the resulting debris, and the pilots have to be real good given that the debris will be going at several Mach numbers and given that the pilot must differentiate between a debris and a fellow spacecraft. Additionally, there is no guarantee that a nuke on the asteroid will destroy the whole asteroid in the first place. And even if it did, and you decide to use nukes to destroy the resulting chuncks, you could end up nuking the Earth; the chuncks will be going at supersonic speeds towards Earth, the only stable shot you'll have at it is from behind and matching it speed. Which means your nuke will be aiming in the general direction of Earth. If you miss your shot you'll risk nuking Earth's surface. I really favour the idea if steering the asteroid instead. Rockets could in theory be made highly powerful for that very purpose. Nuclear pulse rockets comes to mind: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion Plus, once the asteroid gets steered into a safe trajectory, you can always mine it or even perhaps colonise it.

Actually, I'm kind of in agreement to the stance Phicksur holds. It's not as if you can tell what it is by the link itself, and randomly clicking things isn't wise - especially if you're one of the masses that tends to execute code as default. I personally wouldn't (and didn't) click it just because it's youtube and would rather prevent generating usable data for them by downloading it remotely. I'm loathed to waste b/w on my host connection in throwing that media back here without knowing what it is. The general trend on the interwebs is someone spits a link with an abstract comment - 10,000,000 people think it's brilliant, and it turns out it's just a dog in a hat and a complete waste of time, effort and bandwidth. Where as the links that are accompanied by some form of tangible details should indicate if you would be potentially interested in following it before sending GET requests.

I fully agree with the brutally honest truth philosophy. It might not be appreciated commonly but it clearly defines areas for improvements. Someone professional wouldn't allow any facet to result in a "brutal truth" they find unappealing. Basically, this "app" you are describing - One that enters the database to retrieve content, like user's posts - already exists. It's called a web browser. This sends a GET request to the server, which then serves it appropriate content. There's nothing in the list of "features" requested that's not incredibly easy to provide via a browser, and as I mentioned in the thread you reference, you can avoid maintaining three independant systems that perform the precise same function. You also solve generating more security fails for no reason, and can concentrate on fixing the problems already caused by not thinking about what is supposed(or not supposed) to be happening.

The sea of trusting to the skills of the IT team is already bloody, I am not sure if you really understand why I mention the delegation thing. What we saw until now is not the best possible thing, nor professional. It's not extremely unlogical to see some things about the app in danger when people decide a thing that was already decided badly before. A great example is the Captcha at the forums, there were a couple things suggested that do not degrade the UX of the forums (google's brand new interaction-free ReCAPTCHA as an example) with the same effect. Maybe hard words, but success is based on truth and professionalism, not cut off half-truth and beautifully spoken results.

Yeah you even posted in there, sorry for that. :P Interesting point of view... I was under the impression that the app did not have any stated goal, and that was precisely why the discussion got started. It starts from: - There is a database with Asgardian users, ministry details, whathaveyou. - We can build apps connected to databases. And from there, let's find out whether there are useful goals to attain. Regarding security concerns, I had an answer in the thread with my personal opinion; fully aware of the risks, I'd be willing to take them. I must disagree with your last sentence (whether Asgardia officials should decide who implements it): I believe an app allowed to peek into the Asgardian user data must do so in the most controlled way possible, and that would be with maintainers of said DB fully collaborating with implementers of their choice, that they would trust. Admittedly, in the long run, Asgardia data may be exposed through some sort of API available to "trusted apps", but that requires a lot of effort on the back-end which I doubt would happen short term.

Добрый день ВСЕМ ! Честно говоря в космос я не верю , пока сам там не побываю). Тем не менее , если люди туда стремятся я иду вместе с ними . НО кроме космоса существуют еще и Паралельные миры , в которые попасть проще. Просто надо найти естественный Портал и шагнуть в него .Паралельный мир похож на наш , а есть и совсем противоположный нашему .Люди частенько ТАМ бывают , о чем они рассказывают в своих роликах на ютубе . Лично мне ЭТО кажется более реальным чем космос .Что бы попасть ТУДА не надо не скафандров не ракет , достаточно просто ШАГНУТЬ в окрытую дверь и вот ты уже там . Работы по созданию Порталов я рассматриваю в теме Паралельный мир , раздел Наука и техника форума на ASGARDIA . https://asgardia.космос / ru / форум / форум / наука и техника-176

I say it is possible without even an existence at all. You don't need an overseer to do the kinds of stuff governed by physical laws. And if even there was such a being taking care of such a massive project, then he would not want to give one damn about some silly primates on a nondescript planet in a remote space in one of the universes under his/her control. So he/she might as well be absent from existence. None of the rituals that we humans do to please such entities (if they even exist) are of any consequence. I say focus your money and time on the development of humankind, not the filling of the pockets of so called godmen and the satiation of your guilt and obligation towards a self created God. Do some science, it's the closest thing to a miracle.

Could you describe it to me better... How about the word DEUS?

Agnostic Unitarian here. There's probably a God. It probably doesn't give a flying flip about what you do to worship it. In the grand scheme of things, God will not come to bail your rear out of the fire unless you are particularly lucky, so don't depend on it. That means you need to rely on yourself and your so-called God-given skills. Praying is fine, but don't expect an answer. I expect God is busy with other things.

Hi I cannot see anything wrong with this because basic information is needed to identify your skills and contribution to the project. Without it's people there can't be a nation , it's a beating heart to the nation body. This should be expected and I personally expect more enquiries of information in the future. Regards Fpitts

Without its people there can be no nation. Basic information is needed to identify that you are indeed a person. It should be expected to include in this information... What your skills are and how you would like to contribute. I cannot see anything wrong with this.

Hello! @abek, I understand your concerns. All I can say is that data security and privacy is a priority for us. You can find the Asgardian.space privacy policy link in the footer section of this page, which does *broadly* cover your concerns, however if you require further information I can add your concerns this to the feedback section.