Lucy's Choice: Let's make Lucifer Parallels!

[Flyndaran]

I feel that some are expanding the Lucifer label to mean crapsack world.
I thought it was specifically for a dying, dead, or at least inhabitable for basic humans world.

[AlexanderHowl]

Cradle-1

A mutation in the syphilis bacteria around 1800 caused sterilty in any infected man rather than disfigurement and death while infected women were just carriers (transmitting their mutant syphilis to their children during birth). By 1900, the population of the Earth had decreased by 90% due to the spread of the mutant syphilis strain. Other than a few dozen isolated tribes, the human population of the Earth faces extinction within a century.

[fchase8]

What about the simple 'Modern Earth awaits an asteroid attack'? This can be stretched from an Impact style race against the clock, to a long-term threat. What if modern Earth detected a meteor that's gonna wipe out all life on Earth - in 100 years? Would the people of the world work together, against a threat they'll never see themselves? And there would certainly be 'asteroid deniers.'

And what would Infinity/Centrum do about such worlds? Would they try to help (one could imagine Centrum, at least, writing off such worlds)? Neither parachronic power has particularly advanced space programs, but could steal from other worlds (Dixie has a space program that could be imported into a late twentieth century Earth).


Five Years - In 1971, an asteroid was just discovered that will wipe out life on Earth in five years. Discovered before that by Infinity on Quantum 5, it had previously been a close parallel who's most notable difference was the absence of David Bowie.


Life On Mars - In 1971, a gigantic asteroid stuck Mars, revealing evidence of alien life underground. It's 1976, and both U.S. and USSR have very active space programs that are only just beginning to explore the remains. David Bowie exists, but is a songwriter for others, such as Frank Sinatra.

[PTTG]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I feel that some are expanding the Lucifer label to mean crapsack world.
I thought it was specifically for a dying, dead, or at least inhabitable for basic humans world.

Yeah, the definition has been stretched from time to time. It doesn't help that 'uninhabitable,' as a descriptor of a worldline, is subjective. 2, 3, 4, and 6 are good examples of definite Hell worlds, while 12, 15, and 16 are much cozier apocalypses. 1 and 11 are still hellish, but after a transition or recovery period they would probably become stable alternates.

Originally Posted by fchase8

...it had previously been a close parallel who's most notable difference was the absence of David Bowie...

Pretty sure that alone qualifies it as a hell world. As for general asteroid threat worlds, if there's a reason to be interested in a particular world, I presume Homeline might try to help save-the-world efforts by slipping research secrets to the right people, and if the worldline isn't even remotely capable of managing it, then they might consider using hail-Mary experimental approaches to save the world themselves.

[Flyndaran]

We couldn't detect an earth hitter 100 years out. And while Infinity has access to higher tech, I doubt they'd be using it all on a parallel scanning the skies for something that far out.
I suppose if it's in a skerry 100 years ahead of others that did get smashed, Infinity would at least know to look.

That allows more types of doomed worlds, even if they would've been completed unexpected in a single reality.

Imagine trying to convince us that Yellowstone will almost certainly erupt in 23 years, five months, and two days, because of close parallels.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

We couldn't detect an earth hitter 100 years out. .

If the 100 years was for another interstellar asteroid, no. If the 100 years is not a straight line leading outward but rather 3-5 orbits of an inner system rock then yes, we could detect it.

3-5 orbits is around the time one of the subtle re-direction plans needs too. If you had only 1 year's warning the answer is going to have to be nuke it and nuke it again to make the pieces smaller and more widely dispersed. You can get 6-10 warheads on a MIRV bus you could adapt for such a mission. Use all of them in succession.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You can get 6-10 warheads on a MIRV bus you could adapt for such a mission. Use all of them in succession.

I suspect that an exception to SALT could be negotiated under the circumstances. You would need to make an exception to the Outer Space Treaty regardless, so a SALT II exemption should be also on the table.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If the 100 years was for another interstellar asteroid, no. If the 100 years is not a straight line leading outward but rather 3-5 orbits of an inner system rock then yes, we could detect it.
....

Okay, I mispoke, or miswrote in this case. I should have written, "could not be certain that a detected planet-killer will hit Earth a hundred years in the future."
Of course, we could probably detect such a large object from quite a distance.

[fchase8]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If the 100 years was for another interstellar asteroid, no. If the 100 years is not a straight line leading outward but rather 3-5 orbits of an inner system rock then yes, we could detect it.

3-5 orbits is around the time one of the subtle re-direction plans needs too. If you had only 1 year's warning the answer is going to have to be nuke it and nuke it again to make the pieces smaller and more widely dispersed. You can get 6-10 warheads on a MIRV bus you could adapt for such a mission. Use all of them in succession.

I hadn't realized one couldn't detect an interstellar asteroid (makes sense). But that makes a orbiting one an interesting threat.

An asteroid whose irregular orbit will bring it closer & closer to Earth, flying pass every twenty years, until striking 100 years from now.

So there are basically four chances when its close enough to mess with - each time getting closer/easier to reach.

Make this a Cold War parallel, late sixties when it is discovered (on a pass by). Will the U.S. and USSR work together to stop it when it comes back in the late eighties? Can the U.N. and/or other powers push them to, or even come up with their own mission to save the world (imagine Western Europe, China, India, maybe the Gulf States teaming up).

Oh, and there's the worry that any deflecting type mission could accidentally tighten the orbit, make it hit Earth sooner.


Then there's Infinity. On the one hand, it would want to encourage & help the U.S. & USSR to work together. But there are misgivings about working with the USSR (and even Vietnam era America).

And Infinity has to worry that USSR will still fall apart by the late eighties, unable to complete its part of the mission. Should it work to keep the USSR going, at least until the world is saved? Perhaps the U.S./USSR team-up will keep the USSR going all on its own.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by fchase8

I hadn't realized one couldn't detect an interstellar asteroid (makes sense). But that makes a orbiting one an interesting threat.

An asteroid whose irregular orbit will bring it closer & closer to Earth, flying pass every twenty years, until striking 100 years from now.

So there are basically four chances when its close enough to mess with - each time getting closer/easier to reach.

My own schedule would be some thing like: 20 years from discovery and send a probe there for detailed analysis. This is crucial. If the question is "Can we play Cosmic Billiards (or bocce or shuffleboard) with this object?" then only certain answers you can get from a distance are negative ones.

This would be if the asteroid was a rubble pile or otherwise showed obvious structural faults. If it doesn't you really need to go and look closely for hidden ones. If the asteroid isn't very solid indeed you won't be landing a rocket engine (even an ion one) on it and changing its' course that way.

Lashing a solar or magnetic sail to it has similar issues. You'd have to put tin a very strong bag or spray it with Spiderman's web fluid or something like that.

Perhaps you could land a magnetic catapult on a dubious asteroid but the object isn't so much to change the course of the asteroid by throwing away part of its' mass but rather to disassemble it and throw it away entirely, piece by piece.

Anyway, back tot eh schedule. It's close approach 1, discovery. Close approach 2, probe mission. If suitable, the interval before close approach 3 is used to design and build the diversionary measure with launch on that close approach. Close approach 4 hopefully isn't very close. That's the sort of timeframe you need for the non-violent methods.