Coby Foden

Good article to read here: http://monaeberhardt.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/building-to-scale-in-second-life/ I find it strange that everything in the grid what has been built even by Linden Lab hired moles is built for giants too, similar to this restaurant.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits Scroll down to "Textures" and you'll find this: Textures Second Life Viewer 3.6 Search > Classifieds thumbnail - ~3:2 (101×69 pixels) Search > Classifieds expanded - ~4:3 (159×120 pixels) Search > Classifieds expanded > More Info - native aspect ratio Search > Destination Guide thumbnail - ~3:2 (101×69 pixels) Search > Destination Guide expanded - ~4:3 (159×120 pixels) Search > People - 1:1 (100×100 pixels) Search > Places expanded ~4:3 (159×120 pixels) Place Profile - ~3:2 (290×197 pixels) About Land > Options tab - ~4:3 (195×150 pixels) Profile > Picture - native aspect ratio; thumbnail cropped to 72×72 pixels; zoomed uncropped up to 300×300 pixels Profile > Real world picture - native aspect ratio; thumbnail cropped to 45×45 pixels; zoomed uncropped up to 300×300 pixels Profile > Picks thumbnail - 4:3 (60×45 pixels) Profile > Pick expanded - 4:3 (320×240 pixels) 1.x Series Viewers + (any TPV viewer which uses legacy profiles) (official Viewer up to 1.23.5, still used by some Third Party Viewers) Search > All for "Classifieds", "People", and "Places" - 4:3 (256×192 pi×els) Search > Places and Classified tabs - ~7:5 (398×282 pixels) Search > Land tab - ~7:5 (358×252 pixels) Profile > 2nd Life tab - ~4:3 (178×133 pixels) Profile > Picks tab - 16:9 (288×162 pixels) Profile > 1st Life tab - 1:1 (133×133 pixels) Profile > Classifieds tab - ~3:2 (206×137 pixels) Profile > Web tab - 1:1 (400×400 pixels)A scrollbar uses 15 pixels on the right-hand side. About Land > Options tab - ~3:2 (178×117 pixels) Group Information > General tab's "Group Insignia" - 1:1 (126×126 pixels)

You might find this helpful to start taking great photos: http://strawberrysingh.com/2010/04/12/tutorial-taking-high-res-blog-snapshots-for-intermediate-users/ Examples what can be achieved: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37690108@N05/ There are many more sources for tips and awesome photo examples.

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything constructive in your replies. It's very obvious by now, that once again, you debate just for the sake of debate.

Phil Deakins wrote (in blue): Coby Foden wrote: Slowing down a space vehicle and then letting it freely freely down on earth does is not going to work - unless we have huge supplies of fuel to slow down the speed of the spacecraft. Slowing down the speed takes enormous amount fuel, just like taking off from the ground and accelerating to orbital speed does. I wonder if that's true. Link please It is true. You'll find it out if you care to study the basics of spaceflight and re-entry to Earth. As I said, I'm not your teacher, do some studying by yourself. :smileyhappy:

A flashback... to 1920's... In 1901 Goddard wrote a letter to St. Nicholas magazine with his own ideas about machine flying. The editor of St. Nicholas declined to publish Goddard's letter, remarking that birds fly with a certain amount of intelligence and that "machines will not act with such intelligence." Goddard disagreed, believing that a man could control a flying machine with his own intelligence. Although his work in the field [of rockets] was revolutionary, Goddard received very little public support for his research and development work. The press sometimes ridiculed his theories of spaceflight. Years after his death, at the dawn of the Space Age, he came to be recognized as the founding father of modern rocketry. After all, on January 13, 1920, the New York Times editorialized, in a reaction to a research paper published by Robert Goddard, that “a rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” On July 17, 1969, the day after the launch of Apollo 11, the New York Times published a “correction:” Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error. - - - - - Yes, we need people like Goddard; dream and experiment, to push technology forward. Not paying attention to the nay sayers. However wild, even crazy, an idea may seem in the light of any present knowledge, one day it can be ordinary common thing. :matte-motes-smile:

My comments in dark red this time: :smileyhappy: Phil Deakins (wrote in blue): LOL Phil. You make me laugh. :smileyvery-happy: You obviously have no clue what the NASA mission is about, do you? I only went by what you wrote. If you didn't explain it fully, it's not my fault I'm not your teacher to teach you everything about NASA missions. :matte-motes-nerdy: Nobody is going to make mining operations on that tiny asteroid what NASA plans to bring to lunar orbit. One aim is study the samples on earth laboratories, which are far more accurate and sophisticated compared to what can be fitted on a space probe. This enables scientist to find out in great detail what's inside in an asteroid. Of course this information is needed before any mining operations. There is much more to that NASA mission than just the experience. You know this very well too; but for some reason you like to doubt (and debate) is there any worth in that mission. :smileywink: So we're not talking about mining in the near future after all - which, I think, is where we came into this part of the discussion We're talking about the beginning actions for the mining. Don't be daft. :smileywink: NASA is not planning to bring a multitude of small asteroids to lunar orbit for study "until they find one that's useful". Not at all, that is not the goal for this mission. Just bring one and examine and analyze it thorouhgly. And they are not bringing the asteroid onto the Moon. That would be totally needless and silly operation. Then you should have explained it better. As I said above, not your teacher. :smileytongue: The asteroid will be put on lunar orbit (that means: circling the moon) as I wrote already earlier. Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. I haven't said anything about that. You said "bring them back to the moon". Why on the lunar orbit? When the asteroid is on the lunar orbit it will stay there securely held by the Moon's gravitation. No chance for it to drift towards earth and crash on it. It would be risky to put the asteroid on earth orbit as it might gradually drift closer and closer towards earth, disturbing satellites and eventually posing risk of crashing on the earth. Lunar orbit is safe and it's close enough for manned missions and for real time communications. Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. If you are referring to me saying that I hope they their sums right, it still stands. Powering something from far away towards the Moon, means powering it towards the Earch. So they do need to get their sums right or we could be in trouble. They are experts in guiding the space probes. The first actual (test) mining operation could be done bringing big asteroid (hundreds of meters in diameter) to lunar orbit. Bring all the needed equipment for the test mining operations, next to the asteroid, from earth. Bring the astronauts, and get to work. It's not science fiction any more. It is until it happens. Not science fiction at all. It can be done if there is a will, funds and need. (Maybe you would call a moonbase science fiction too because we have none so far?) :smileyvery-happy: Science fiction is something for which we have no idea at all how to accomplish something, like warp drive and travelling through worm holes for example.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby is talking about mining asteroids for use here on Earth. One thing that's puzzled me about getting down to the surface from space is the way it's been done so far, which, according to one article linked to in this thread, is a very expensive part of mining asteroids due to getting through the atmosphere. Why not just slow a space vehicle down, point it in the right direction, and let it fall through much of the atmosphere? It could use power lower down in the descent. I'm reminded of the guy who jumped from a balloon from near the edge of space. He didn't burn up on the way down. I believe there is a maximum speed that an object can fall at, which depends on its weight, but I can't imagine that a space vehicle would fall fast enough to burn up. It seems to me that the only reason why burn-up needs to be prevented is the speed that the vehicle is moving as it orbits the Earth. Where did you get that idea? I'm not talking about using the asteroid materials only on Earth. They will be used on Earth as well as in space. It would be too expensive to transport all the materials form earth to large scale space building projects. Slowing down a space vehicle and then letting it freely freely down on earth does is not going to work - unless we have huge supplies of fuel to slow down the speed of the spacecraft. Slowing down the speed takes enormous amount fuel, just like taking off from the ground and accelerating to orbital speed does. Why the guy who jumped with parachute from the height of tens of kilometers didn't burn up in flames? Because: he didn't have any orbital speed what to slow down in the atmosphere. So he just fell freely and reached the terminal free falling speed. That terminal free falling speed is not anywhere near the orbital speeds of spacecrafts. Aerobraking spacecrafts when entering a planet is used because there is no fuel needed for braking - free brakes - and very high heating up.

In the web profiles the aspect ratio is 1:1. But in the legacy profiles, what some third party viewers use, the aspect ratio for 2nd life profile picture is 4:3.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: The mining operation itself, if it ever happens, will not be in the near future - imo, of course. Phil is blue (this time): :smileyhappy: NASA already has a plan to do exactly that. They will send unmanned probe, during this decade, to a small asteroid (less than 10 meters in diameter). The probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit. Then, in the next decade, manned missions are sent to this asteroid in the lunar orbit. And what will they mine that is so worthwhile from such a small chunk of rock? It may contain some stuff that's needed here, but enough of it? Or will they need to keep on getting samples from asteroids and send them back to Earth, or grabbing asteroids and bring them back to the moon, before they come across one that's actually useful? We'll see what happens in the future. I don't thik I could be convinced that anything worthwhile will come from grabbing and bringing back small asteroids, other than experience. I just hope they do the sums right and don't accidentally aim it at us :smileysurprised: LOL Phil. You make me laugh. :smileyvery-happy: You obviously have no clue what the NASA mission is about, do you? Nobody is going to make mining operations on that tiny asteroid what NASA plans to bring to lunar orbit. One aim is study the samples on earth laboratories, which are far more accurate and sophisticated compared to what can be fitted on a space probe. This enables scientist to find out in great detail what's inside in an asteroid. Of course this information is needed before any mining operations. There is much more to that NASA mission than just the experience. You know this very well too; but for some reason you like to doubt (and debate) is there any worth in that mission. :smileywink: NASA is not planning to bring a multitude of small asteroids to lunar orbit for study "until they find one that's useful". Not at all, that is not the goal for this mission. Just bring one and examine and analyze it thorouhgly. And they are not bringing the asteroid onto the Moon. That would be totally needless and silly operation. The asteroid will be put on lunar orbit (that means: circling the moon) as I wrote already earlier. Why on the lunar orbit? When the asteroid is on the lunar orbit it will stay there securely held by the Moon's gravitation. No chance for it to drift towards earth and crash on it. It would be risky to put the asteroid on earth orbit as it might gradually drift closer and closer towards earth, disturbing satellites and eventually posing risk of crashing on the earth. Lunar orbit is safe and it's close enough for manned missions and for real time communications. The first actual (test) mining operation could be done bringing big asteroid (hundreds of meters in diameter) to lunar orbit. Bring all the needed equipment for the test mining operations, next to the asteroid, from earth. Bring the astronauts, and get to work. It's not science fiction any more. You might find this article interesting (or not). Sorry, no summary in this document either: :smileyindifferent: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/

Phil Deakins wrote: The mining operation itself, if it ever happens, will not be in the near future - imo, of course. I'm sure that it will happen, at some stage. The resources of the Earth are not infinite, we will run out of some crucial important elements eventually. One idea is to send umanned probes to the asteroids. They are not limited with time constraints like manned missions would be. The probe would catch an asteroid, then the probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit (i.e. circling the moon). Manned missions are sent to lunar orbit and meet with the asteroid. They will examine the asteroid there and they will bring samples to earth. The samples are examined in sophisticated laboratories to find out exactly what the asteroids is made of. The actual mining operations can be done in the lunar orbit. NASA already has a plan to do exactly that. They will send unmanned probe, during this decade, to a small asteroid (less than 10 meters in diameter). The probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit. Then, in the next decade, manned missions are sent to this asteroid in the lunar orbit.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Cool. We need a new thread soon. :smileywink: I'll join in with it. The UK hasn't contributed financially to the mission so I'll have nothing to moan about. But, but... then there will be no discussion. :smileysad:

Phil Deakins wrote: Exactly. That why the mid to late 20s doesn't come into when mining will (may) actually start. That's just the first step. Mining minerals on asteroids isn't in the near future. Of course we need to take the first steps first in any endeavour. When the actual mining operations will start is anybody's guess; "isn't in the near future" naturally depends on what one considers to be the near future. In regard to space exploration, to me, even some decades is quite near future, not very far distant future. We can see from the Project Apollo how fast things will go on if there is a need, a will, and the funds available. We can make the wildest dreams come true fairly quickly. In less than a decade from the start, first man stepped on the moon. That was pretty awesome accomplishment. (Well, the 'need' in that case was mostly just to get there first, to win the race.)

Cool. We need a new thread soon. :smileywink:

Drongle McMahon wrote: !! cedilla not permitted in this community ?? Maybe that letter should be taken away from the French alphabet? :smileyvery-happy: (It would allow to write a very bad English word by replacing C with that one.) :smileysurprised: :smileytongue: :smileywink:

Phil Deakins wrote: To my way of thinking, the first step to such endeavours is setting up on the Moon. I can't explain why I see it that way. There is a nice informative article here (where to go first for mining): http://www.permanent.com/mining-moon-versus-asteroids.html There are supporters for both; the Moon, and the asteroids. I think that the activities (on the Moon and on the asteroids) towards mining will happen concurrently, side by side. Most likely it will be so that neither one will wait until the other one has reached "advanced enough" level in technology before starting their own activities.

Phil Deakins wrote: The mid to late 20s is just the goal to send a manned mission to an NEA - not to mine the thing. Mining such a thing isn't in the near future. NEAs are a lot further away than the Moon and the U.S. could send a manned mission to one but mining one and returning stuff back to Earth is something else again. In one of the pages that you linked to in one of the posts, or maybe you quoted it, the cost of getting stuff back to Earth is very significant so, to make such a venture worthwhile, it would need a lot of stuff to be returned. That's not a near future thing. We won't see it happen our lifetimes, imo. To my way of thinking, the first step to such endeavours is setting up on the Moon. I can't explain why I see it that way. It just seems like a good first step in moving out into space (as distinct from hanging around in space just above the Earth). Surely you do know how mining operations start here on Earth, don't you? First there are explorations on potential sites. Samples are taken, holes are drilled to get samples from deeper underground. Many sites will be studied. The samples are taken into laboratory and are examined there closely. Sometimes it happens that somebody finds interesting samples on the ground and sends them to laboratory. Finally a decision is made based on the samples examined "let's select this place for the mine". All this preliminary work is needed before founding a mine. The same thing will happen in space. Nobody is going out there, without all the preliminary work, and start full scale mining operations at once. Sending people onto the NEOs to study them is preliminary activities for mining. And it will happen quite soon. How long it takes to start full mining operations naturally depends on many different things. The moon is not seen as very interesting location for mining operations. For a good reason too. Its gravity is one sixth of the gravity of earth. It would be expensive to lift large quantities material from the moon and bring to earth. Whereas asteroids have very tiny gravity thus it costs practically nothing to lift of the material from that negligible gravity field. That's why asteroids are the preferred target for mining operations, not the Moon. Moon landings and moon take-offs require lots of fuel, asteroids do not. Mining the Moon is only worth while and economical if those materials will be used on the Moon. The greater distance to the NEAs than to the Moon is insignifact factor in the equation which place is more economical for mining operations. Because: The delta-v to reach near earth objects is less than the delta-v to reach the moon's surface. (Delta-v, is a measure in astrodynamics of the amount of "effort" that is needed to change from one trajectory to another by making an orbital maneuver.) So Phil, forget the Moon, go to the asteroids, for the mining. :matte-motes-big-grin:

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Plans towards mining the NEO objects are already being made. I meant the mining of asteroids, not plans to deal with NEOs. I'm thinking of manned mining missions to the asteroid belt and not trying to snatch stuff from fleeting NEOs. Anyway, that's still all pie in the sky at the moment - ideas on paper for the not so near future. I was not referring to "dealing" with NEOs, but mining them. NEOs are not fleeting objects. ;-) Again definition is due so that we understand what we are talking about. NEOs are grouped as: NECs -- Near Earth Comets NEAs -- Near Earth Asteroids Atiras -- NEAs whose orbits are contained entirely with the orbit of the Earth Atens -- Earth-crossing NEAs with semi-major axes smaller than Earth's Apollos -- Earth-crossing NEAs with semi-major axes larger than Earth's Amors -- Earth-approaching NEAs with orbits exterior to Earth's but interior to Mars' PHAs -- Potentially Hazardous Asteroids The first manned missions to asteroids are not going far out into the main asteroid belt. The asteroids in the NEA group will be the first targets. NASA has a project going on charting the potential asteroids for manned flights. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/nhats/ Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS). http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130009939.pdf "Over the past several years, much attention has been focused on the human exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). Two in dependent NASA studies examined the feasibility of sending piloted missions to NEAs, and in 2009, the Augustine Commission identified NEAs as high profile destinations for human exploration missions beyond the Earth-Moon system as part of the Flexible Path. More recently the current U.S. presidential administration directed NASA to include NEAs as destinations for future human exploration with the goal of sending astronauts to a NEA in the mid to late 2020s." That looks to me quite near future - over a decade, less than two decades. (I don't know what is your definition for "not so near future"). Some additional info about NEOs: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Situational_Awareness/Near-Earth_Objects_-_NEO_Segment "Near-Earth objects (NEOs) are asteroids or comets with sizes ranging from meters to tens of kilometres that orbit the Sun and whose orbits come close to that of Earth's. Of the more than 600 000 known asteroids in our Solar System, almost 10 000 are NEOs." http://www.neoshield.net/en/near-earth-objects/neo-background-information.htm (Scroll down in the above link's page to see animation of the inner solar system planets, NEOs and main asteroid belt asteroids.)

Phil Deakins wrote: From that point of view, let's first make a tiny bit of the moon habitable; i.e. a tiny scientific station containing people living and working on the moon's surface. Plans towards that goal are already going on. Phil Deakins wrote: When we can do that, perhaps we can think of doing the sort of stuff in your quote. Until then, it's a lot of pie in the sky. Plans towards mining the NEO objects are already being made. It's not any more "perhaps we can think". The serious thinking is already happening. The ones interested in NEO mining may not be interested in waiting until working scientific station on the Moon is reality. Link: The comet landing as a prelude to asteroid mining "David Gump is the vice chairman of Deep Space Industries, one company currently planning to send probes on one-year prospecting trips to near-earth asteroids. In an e-mail, he said such trips would be “much easier” than Rosetta’s mission, which required a decade of travel past Mars. Rosetta’s landing, he hopes, will make his company’s plans look more realistic to investors and customers." "Providing services in space is one idea. Another is to find resources on asteroids and bring them back to earth. For the most part, Gump says, “the rule of thumb is you use space resources where you find them,” because of how expensive it is to leave and reenter the earth’s atmosphere. But Eric Anderson, CEO of Planetary Resources, another asteroid mining outfit, thinks that if they can find asteroid resources on a big enough scale, re-entry might be worth it." - - - - - They are talking only about asteroids, but there also lots of comets too in the NEO region. I think that both object types will be used as sources for materials when a large scale space mining really starts. As far as we know now asteroids are rich in various minerals, comets are rich in volatiles (like water, gases, etc.). Nobody is thinking of bringing huge quantities of water from Earth for the mining operations. The water needed in space mining operations must come from space. One link more: http://blog.seattlepi.com/bigscience/2014/09/16/comet-landing-could-be-first-step-toward-mining-one-just-gotta-hit-it/#26809101=0&17739103=0&17757105=0 "While mining an asteroid/comet isn’t on the list of reasons why the ESA wants to attach Philae – the lander part of the orbiter Rosetta – to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the technical feat of putting something on a comet and a fuller understanding of how comets are made will benefit that enterprise."

TDD123 wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Questions: - Is it 'totally unnecessary' to make a detailed study about what a comet is made of? - Is it 'totally unnecessary' to learn to catch a comet, and to land onto a comet? - Is all the data and experience gained from Rosetta mission 'totally unnecessary' for future explorations? FIFY ! ( Otherwise I might start to toss 'Lindenlabs' at you .. :robottongue: ) Thank you. :matte-motes-big-grin:

Theresa Tennyson wrote: valerie Inshan wrote: The LOD is more for sculpties than mesh. Go to advanced menu > debug settings > meshMaxConcurrentRequests. The default value is 32. Set it higher if needed until you can see mesh correctly. Okay - this will take a while: 1) RenderVolumeLOD is for both scupties and mesh, and will have the same effect. 2) MeshMaxConcurrentRequests is only for the number of simultaneous mesh fetches that the viewer will do; it has nothing to do with the actual rendering of the mesh itself. 3) Turning up MeshMaxConcurrentRequests was a major contributor to sim lag on crowded regions a couple of years ago because people set it to ridiculous settings that would cause the server to try to send send massive amounts of data over and over again. 4) Since then, it's been capped both at the server level and in the viewer - actually I think 32 is now the upper limit for the viewers and the default is 16; it may be even lower now. I checked in Second Life 3.7.20 (296094): I saw that MeshMaxConcurrentRequests was 16. I clicked the "Reset to Default". It changed to 32. It is still possible to use higher value than that, it's not locked in that value as a maximum. Anyway, if the MeshUseGetMesh1 is in its default setting [= False] then the MeshMaxConcurrentRequests has no effect at all (it's disabled).

valerie Inshan wrote: Go to advanced menu > debug settings > meshMaxConcurrentRequests. The default value is 32. Set it higher if needed until you can see mesh correctly. Actually what Linden Lab recommends is this: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Release_Notes/Second_Life_Release/3.6.14.285253 Mesh2MaxConcurrentRequests Controls the maximum number of concurrent mesh download requests issued by the viewer. If you encounter unreliable networks or routers or have a low-bandwidth connection, you might find that lowering this value improves your experience. [default value is 8] MeshUseGetMesh1 If set to TRUE, the viewer will revert to the original HTTP scheme for downloading meshes. (This also re-enables the old MeshMaxConcurrentRequests setting [default value is 32].) We don't imagine any scenario where this might be needed. But it's available as a possible workaround for unforeseen problems It was noticed that setting the old MeshMaxConcurrentRequest to high values actually may make things worse than better. High setting also increased server loads increasing general lag.

Thalia Heckroth wrote: I really like Jay Tedder's. You can download them on his website. http://fashionformenbattlescars.blogspot.es The link results in this message: Este blog no existe

Replying to one of your earlier posts... :smileywink: Phil Deakins wrote: ... I fully support ventures into space, and why I support it. I just don't support totally unnecessary ventures like the Rosetta mission, the purpose of which is to learn about origins, which is something that is of no real value to anyone. It's an awesome achievement but it has no value. As you already know that the sole purpose of Rosetta mission is not the origins I'm not returning to that in this post. But is the Rosetta mission really "totally unnessary venture" as you say, or is not? You might find the following interesting reading. I quote the whole text what is in the link below: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/resource.html [underlinings/boldings are mine] - - - - - - - - The comets and asteroids that are potentially the most hazardous because they can closely approach the Earth are also the objects that could be most easily exploited for their raw materials. It is not presently cost effective to mine these minerals and then bring them back to Earth. However, these raw materials could be used in developing the space structures and in generating the rocket fuel that will be required to explore and colonize our solar system in the twenty-first century. It has been estimated that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today. Whereas asteroids are rich in the mineral raw materials required to build structures in space, the comets are rich resources for the water and carbon-based molecules necessary to sustain life. In addition, an abundant supply of cometary water ice could provide copious quantities of liquid hydrogen and oxygen, the two primary ingredients in rocket fuel. It seems likely that in the next century when we begin to colonize the inner solar system, the metals and minerals found on asteroids will provide the raw materials for space structures and comets will become the watering holes and gas stations for interplanetary spacecraft. - - - - - - - - The Rosetta mission is doing the most detailed study of the structure of a comet ever done before. Questions: - Is it 'totally unnessary unnecessary' to make a detailed study about what a comet is made of? - Is it 'totally unnessary unnecessary' to learn to catch a comet, and to land onto a comet? - Is all the data and experience gained from Rosetta mission 'totally unnessary unnecessary' for future explorations? [ETA] Edited spelling, thanks to TDD123 :matte-motes-asleep-2: :smileywink:

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm in brown this time But not as great a threat as asteroids because near-earth asteroids (objects), of a significant size, appear much more often "That such cosmic collisions can still occur today was demonstrated graphically in 1994 when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9... I watched that. We're a much smaller target than Jupiter Besides long period comets there are also lots of short period comets, they appear more often too. The 1994 collision showed that catastrophic cosmic events still happen. Jupiter is a could catcher of comets - when it happens to be in the right spot in its orbit. Even Earth being smaller does not make us safe from collisions. Concentrating only on asteroids would be foolish. It makes no difference whether the object is an asteroid or a comet - both must be studied and develop methods to prevent their collisions with Earth. [ETA] Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are comets and asteroids that have been nudged by the gravitational attraction of nearby planets into orbits that allow them to enter the Earth's neighborhood.