Asteroid IMPACT, a WHAT IF thread

Your survival strategy will thus not contribute to the survival of a hi-tech civilisation, but only you yourself. How will you like the world you find when you return? If you return. Like I mentioned, being alone you will not attract much attention, but you will also be much more vulnerable, in case of an accident or illness. Having a number of skilled partners will enormously increase your chances of survival (particularly someone with medical skills), so long as the surroundings of your retreat can support a population of more than one.

I, for one, am not convinced of the usefulness of gold after a disaster. It only holds true if the old style economy survives. One cannot eat gold and thus food items, ammunition, tools and such will have more intrinsic value in a survival economy. Remember that for centuries people were paid in natura (for example, Roman soldiers were often paid in salt, which was much more easily traded than coin). In addition, I think gold coin is too valuable to be useful as coin, silver would probably be easier to work with.

Thanks. I have read many sci-fi disaster books and even read an Aids-like virus sci-fi book before Aids became an international news. A good accurate description would be to use a CFD to simulate an asteroid impact. Looking at an atlas of the Pacific Ocean makes me realize how big it is. Its perimeter is probably close to the earth's circumference. Also, the huge tsunami wave at the epicenter would peter out by radius squared as it spread out radially.

I have used this Impact Effects calculator, but it does not include tsunami effects. If you know of a similar tool for CFD effects, I will gladly try it.



Maybe so, but all is relative. The relatively minor boxing day tsunami wrought havoc on Sri Lanka over 2000 km (~1300 miles) away. The impact of a large asteroid is an event to eclipse all else. The impact I have in mind will cause an explosion with the power of 100 000 000 Megaton TNT. That's a pretty big splash.

Actually Paaskynen my plan was more based on Pestilence or Global warming. (if that makes any difference).It was a casual one. It would probably be my three life long friends and hiking partners. We didn't really plan for starting a new civilization.

OK, a pestilence scenario (à la first part of "The Stand"?) makes sense in the light of your preparations; isolation is the best short term solution, but how will you avoid contamination after your return (the people who survived the infection may be carriers of the disease).

Global Warming is a very long term scenario, that will probably allow governments to prepare their population for changing circumstances: Rising sea levels, different growing season, extreme weather, the redistrubution of tropical species of both plants and (disease carrying) animals. In certain countries we already see this happening. A collapse of society is less likely.

It all depends on the scenario. I read a survivalist web site the other day about preparing for the Y2K bug. The really had some Doomsday visions of the collapse of urban society and advised people to get out into the country and dig in with their guns and a well-stocked larder. They also predicted that there would be no New Year's parties... There were no entries on the site post 01.01.00, but I got the impression the survivalists must have felt very disappointed when the electronic Armageddon did not materialise.

On the whole the impression I get from survivalist web sites is that the whole survivalism scene is a kind of escapism for grown ups. For some an excuse to collect a substantial battery of firearms, for some a way to dream of an ideal pastoral Christian society (back to basics, living pure like the Amish in a way, but armed to the teeth).

I find it a very interesting phenomenon, because it seems very typically American (At least, I do not know of any such movements outside of the Americas). The European approach is rather to survive as a nation/society/community. Why would the US, which has not seem war rage on its territory since 1899 (and then it was very local massacring of native Americans), have so many people who wish to turn their backs on the achievements of their own democratic society and hole up in a log cabin with a medieval distrust of anyone but their closest neighbours?

The American experiment is becoming a very interesting sociological phenomenon. Like a new Rome.

At a young age I decided to disregard materialism and resist marketing and commercialism. Instead I focused on being happy by working less driving a cool classic car that I loved but cost nothing to drive year after year. Instead of buying the latest trendy technologies or status items I bought backpacking gear and kayaks and music and art supplies. I have no cell phone or T.V.. I don't have to work so much because I don't have the same bills as other people so I have more time to focus on a real life. Alot of the people around me seem kind of crazy to me. Obsessing over things that are not real.

P.S. Paaskynen I just realized my first sentence is very close to the first sentence in your last paragraph. That was not intentional.

I do not know where to place the survivalists. They have a few things in common with the Beatniks and the Hipies that also did not trust the government, but the differences overshadow the similarities. Mr Asherman posted some essays on the former groups in another thread. I will ask him for an opinion.



I'll raise you one. I used to do wihout all that (TV, mobile phone, etc.) AND I did not have a car! I still don't have a car, but since I got married the house has slowly been filling up with appliances. A car is in the future, for my wife got her license

Me and a friend are considering buying 10 acres at the foot of the serra nevadas and suppling our own power and grow are own food and also have some live stock and chickens. The goal would be as self dependent as possible and use or need as little money as possible.But we would still have jobs in the city

I have spent about two months at a friends house like this in the middle of nowhere. We had food for two months. We built our own golf course and had other recreations. Pretty soon we began to identify the local wildlifes daily routine. About twice aday the same roadrunner would come by and at night the same coyote would howl and pass through and the same with the birds, etc,etc. Pretty soon we just kind of blended in. When we went back into civilization we felt like we were wild animals out of our element we wanted to get back to our environment and animal friends they seemed much more sane and easy to get along with.

I belive civilization is becoming less civilized because they have neglected and/or dismissed core aspects of what makes us civilized. While techlologies double the rest digresses. a recipe for disaster.

We think that if we are not happy we need more when we might need less. Less work, T.V., phone calls, traffic, buiness. Less of what peolpe are selling us of what they say we need to be happy and when were not they say we need more

But I am off topic.

Not necessarily, the mindset of survival also requires just what you describe, the ability and willingness to give up on material things. That is something that my story must deal with. But back to basics also means that people who depend on modern achievements (diabetics, asthmatics, haemophiliacs, etc.) are doomed.

A plot of 10 acres is a bit less than 5 hectares. I should find some sources to see how much can be grown on such an area (i.e. what can you reap per hectare (100 x 100m) and thus how many hectares are needed to feed a certain number of people for a year.)

Fluent, Ansys, Cosmos, Algor are a few CFDs. There was a contestant in the TV 'Survivor' reality show. He was all muscle and he looked like a shoe-in to win all the physical stunts. After just two shows he wanted to quit. I was stunned. Reflecting on his decision, I began to realize that all that muscle was from steroids probably as even 'innocent' supplements contain steroids. His body muscles probably ached all over from a lack of steroids.

I don't think human life would be possible after such a catostophic colision with earth first off even if if it did happen to land in an ocean it would still cause catostrophic disasters that would wipe out most life on earth. and what if i didn't dust and debry would almost block out all sunlight for days causing plants to die and humans well humans do need oxegen don't they the dust would clog up the lungs until death makes its aproach. Plus water well water would be undrinkable I mean think about it any one drinking the water would die from the poisonous minerals. Even if we survived this the medical world would be pushed back years meaning diseases that we thought were gone could now infect humans animals ect...

I don't think human life would be possible after such a catostophic colision with earth first off even if if it did happen to land in an ocean it would still cause catostrophic disasters that would wipe out most life on earth. and what if i didn't dust and debry would almost block out all sunlight for days causing plants to die and humans well humans do need oxegen don't they the dust would clog up the lungs until death makes its aproach. Plus water well water would be undrinkable I mean think about it any one drinking the water would die from the poisonous minerals. Even if we survived this the medical world would be pushed back years meaning diseases that we thought were gone could now infect humans animals ect...

The survivability of a bolide impact all depend on the size, speed and density of the object and where it comes down. Calculations have shown that the direct effect even of a big asteroid are only devastating in a certain area around the impact site (thousands of miles in radius, but still not global). The present theories lean towards long term secondary effects of deep impacts being what causes mass extinctions.

The asteroid in my scenario is big enough to cause widespread destruction, but small enough not to have the long term effects that make survival of civilisation impossible (otherwise it would be a rather short story).

As coincidence has it, a relatively big meteorite (estimated at some 90 kg) exploded over the very northern part of Sweden last Wednesday night. The light was seen for hundreds of kilometers around and the explosion registered as far south as Kiruna.
A farmer took a picture (don't be fooled by the blue sky; it is night, but at this time of the year the sun doesn't set at this latitude).

We are under bombardment:
BBC News site

Seen this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JHdYBet_4Q&eurl=http://www.sosyalmekan.com/blog/index.php

small question, back from page 3 I think, as far as the supplies you're bringing....

Why are you bringing sugar?
It's heavy, nutritionally unnecessary, and you could bring the plants from which sugar is produced for when things are more settled.

Also, regardless of the stink, I'd go for more goats and less cattle.

you are apparently a city girl chai, no?

Goats get a musky smell that can gag a maggot.

We must remember to bring enough velveeta.

I could tell you a story about a billy goat which would send you running to the biology text book index.

Not that you would find anything mind you. Biology text books are censored.