Armageddon & Physics Essay Example for Free

Armageddon Physics EssayIn 2007, the September 1st issue of The New Scientist alleges that the picture Armageddon is shown by the management training programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A 1998 Jerry Bruckheimer-produced disaster thriller tell by Michael Bay in which deep core drillers attempt to avert an angulates conflict with the planet Earth, The New Scientist contends that NASAs screening of a razzle-dazzle blockbuster claiming ground in science, is rigorously for entertainment purposes. the screenings are just a game for NASAs space geeks who can find the racyest number of inconceivable things in the movie?The record, stands at 168. Regarding the scientific fallaciousness of Armageddon, astronomer Philip Plait has many contentions. Plait notes that the introductory bring in of the film, in which an asteroid of the same size which humanity faces was a dinosaur killer that possesses the same destructive ability of 10,000 nuclear we apons. However, he asserts that this is a awful underestimation, for the fictional asteroid would actually release at the in truth least, eight hundred thousand nuclear weapons, based on conservative estimates.Plait implicitly infers that the writers were dismissal for a dramatic figure, but one whose complete lack of scientific basis leads to a severe underestimate. It is alike preposterous for it to be impossible to communicate the drilling experience of an oil rig faction to astronauts or engineers, former engineer turned writer Tom Rogers notes. However, this is how the movie rationalizes the oil rig factions participation in Earths salvation despite their complete lack of astronautical experience.But even excusing such a premise, Rogers notes that the film stretches credulity when the Mir space station rotates at high velocities to induce artificial gravity. Amazingly enough, it rotates so fast that it can create gravitonic conditions in under half(prenominal) a minute, despite the fact that the Mir stations mass exceeds a hundred tons. Rogers contention in this scenario is that the planetary gravity conditions could not be possibly simulated unless the humans height is a small percentage of the rotational radius.As such, the astronauts would only experience gravitonic force on both ends of their bodies, which would tactile sensation disorienting and probably cause them to stumble and vomit. The Jupiter Scientific Organization also asserts that NASAs plan of inserting a hydrogen bomb eight hundred feet deep into an asteroid that is three hundred miles wide essentially a Texas-sized asteroid, which is exactly what it is called at one point in the film does not actually cuticle very well.The films core (all pun intended) premise is actually absurd attempting to split an asteroid with two pieces by exploding it with a hydrogen from within would be like hypothesizing that a single hydrogen bomb could fracture the state of Texas. Its like a pin-s ized hole no deeper than a peag in a ten-foot rock. Such a hydrogen bomb would roughly be like visible radiation a match. Can the ignition of such a match split a ten-foot rock? Rogers also observes that a flaming shuttle crash site contradicts what the astronauts are told earlier about the gravity being about a tenth of that on the planet Earth.Such a low gravity cannot nourish an atmosphere which is why they wear space suits in the first place the asteroid surface does not and could not hold oxygen yet for some reason, flames burn in the absence of oxygen. Lastly, a successfully halved asteroid would still be disaster, as the gravitonic forces they exert would cause catastrophic tidal changes that would eradicate to the highest degree of the Earths population. Sometimes theres just no way to have a happy ending, Rogers notes. plant CitedFeedback. The New Scientist, Issue 2619. 01 September 2007.Plait, Phil. The Astronomy of Armageddon. Phil Plaits Bad Astronomy. 08 Augu st 2007. Retrieved June 6, 2008 from http//www. badastronomy. com/bad/movies/armpitageddon. hypertext mark-up language motion picture Review of Armageddon (and Deep Impact) from a Scientific Viewpoint. Jupiter Scientific Information. July 1998. Retrieved June 6, 2008 from http//www. jupiterscientific. org/sciinfo/armageddon. html Rogers, Tom. Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics Hollywoods Best Mistakes, Goofs and Flat-Out Destructions of the Basic Laws of the Universe. Connecticut Sourcebooks Hysteria, 2007.