
Air Bags for Planetary Defense 258
Gallowglass writes "The Canadian paper, the National Post, is reporting on a plan to divert asteroids headed towards Earth. According to the story, the proposer, a Dr. Hermann Burchard, suggests deploying an inflatable mylar bag a few kilometers in size, and using it to push the projectile aside. An air bag for earth? The deployment mechanism isn't detailed in the story."
Stick shifts and.... (Score:1)
Ahh (Score:2, Funny)
Further research..... (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand... (Score:1)
Air bag, eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:2)
--
Newton laws are guarded by Newton Police
(City of Newton, KS)...
Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:2)
Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:5, Informative)
Rather than think of it like a car's air bag, think about it as a way to spread out the pressure along the surface of the object. A rocket on the surface of a comet or loosely bound asteroid may just disintegrate the parts, yielding little benefit.
Which is more comfortable to sleep on: a pillow or the blunt end of a pencil?
Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:1)
-Sou|cuttr
Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:2)
Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:2)
Re:Nobody abolished Newton's laws... (Score:2)
I've heard worse ideas (Score:2)
Re:I've heard worse ideas (Score:2)
Let me see if I understand what you are suggesting here. We launch a rocket with a big balloon on board. The rocket rendevouses with the asteroid, matches trajectories, lands, and the balloon is deployed. Have I got this right so far?
Then, when the asteroid is about to enter the Earth's atmosphere, the balloon causes it, instead, to bounce off?
Do you know how fast NEO would strike the Earth? I looked this up this summer, when 2002 NT7, the 2 kilometer rock caused a scare when it was thought there was a remote chance it might strike Earth in 2019. It would have struck the Earth at 28 kilometers per second. The NEO that would have struck at the slowest velocity was still 5 kilometers per second.
I don't believe your balloon would survive an impact with the upper atmosphere at 5 km / second, even if it didn't have multiple tons of asteroid behind it.
The Tunguska event of 1908 was caused by the impact of an NEO of about 50 metres in diameter. It caused an airburst equivalent to 16 million tons of TNT. Would an asteroid that size be worth trying to divert, if we detected it with plenty of lead time?
A rock that size would mass something like 40,000 tons.
safety first (Score:2, Funny)
I had to read the article twice (Score:2, Funny)
The article could have been titled, "Huge rockets could deflect an asteroid"
I think I would still prefer nukes....they're just so much more macho.
Nukes for asteroid deflection (Score:3, Interesting)
Our presumed target was a 1 mile dinosaur killer that is about to hit Earth in a few months and we want to impart enough kinetic energy to change its trajectory so that by the time it reaches Earth it will miss it by a few thousand miles of safety margin.
Well, it turns out that it takes so much energy that even the biggest thermonuclear devices barely have enough energy to do it, even assuming we could convert it efficiently to kinetic energy.
A nuke going off in space is just a big flash. No real blast. You need some working mass to convert it to kinetic energy. Using the mass of the asteroid itself is dangerous because you don't want it to break into multiple fragments.
Here our calculations probably become much less accurate because we took some shortcuts and made some assumptions that may be way off, but the result we got is that we needed to send some tens of thousands of tonnes of working mass (e.g. water) along with the nuke to convert its energy to momentum with reasonable efficiency.
Needless to say, this is beyond our current launching capabilities.
Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection (Score:2, Interesting)
Needless to say, this is beyond our current launching capabilities.
With the Orion [slashdot.org] it is not. I have a feeling that if there were a dinasaur killer on the way, an atomic powered launch vehicle would be be more politically correct.
Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection (Score:2)
Stuff and nonsense. Obviously, you haven't been keeping up with asteriod demolition research.
I did some back-of-the-Blockbusters-receipt calculations, and came to the conclusion that one can safely split an asteroid the size of Texas into two equal halves using a nuke, with each half passing harmlessly on either side of the Earth. (Admittedly, you have to detonate the nuke at least four hours before impact for this to work.)
The key, of course, is that you have to drill a hole into the asteroid and put the nuke inside. This will amplify the force of the explosion sufficiently to split it in half. Mind you, the hole will have to be at least 800 feet deep to make effective use of the explosive force.
Generally speaking, NASA is not the best training grounds for deep hole-drilling technique. (Yes, there was that minor problem with the "meters vs feet" whoopsy, but that's not formal training.) Do your recruiting in the oil industry, since they've had a lot of experience with drilling. I think it's well-established that anyone can become an astronaut with about a week's worth of training, whereas there's just no way you can figure out how to drill a hole without a lifetime's worth of study.
Hint:Harry S. Stamper is widely acknowledged as the world's foremost core driller. I'd start with him.
Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nukes for asteroid deflection (Score:2)
It will also send fantastic shockwaves into the asteroid and break it into pieces, some of which will hit Earth. That's why I said that using the mass of the asteroid itself as reaction mass is dangerous.
Re:I had to read the article twice (Score:2)
Think of it this way. Someone using a lot of force pushing you away with a pin point hurts. Someone using the same amount of force pushing you away with a pillow is much nicer.
never gonna work (Score:1)
Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a thought.
Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. (Score:1)
Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. (Score:1)
faggot
Re:Airbag? I believe this is the wrong word. (Score:2)
Energy shields! (Score:1, Funny)
And, an earth wide planetary shield would protect us from asteroids!
Scientists of tomorrow, get working on the energy shields! We need them now!
Re:Energy shields! (Score:1)
-Sou|cuttr
Re:Energy shields! (Score:1)
-Sou|cuttr
Re:Energy shields! (Score:2)
But seriously, they ARE working on them. They just haven't figured it out yet as far was we, the public, know.
Kids, try this at home! (Score:1)
1 Mylar Balloon (you could use the heart-shaped one that your girlfriend gave you....)
1 Slingshot
1 pair tongs
1 burner (okay, so a zippo will probably work)
1 rock/nut (something you can easily shoot with the slingshot, and will get really, really hot over the burner)
Using the tongs to hold the rock, heat it over the burner until it is very hot. If you've got some really snazzy equipment, make it glow. (IMPORTANT: DO NOT USE A SANDSTONE ROCK!) Place balloon strategically so that it blocks something valuable (like a priceless painting on the wall). Carefully using the tongs, arm the slingshot with the rock/nut. Fire the slingshot at the balloon. See how long that plastic lasts upon encountering super-heated rock or metal, and how well the object behind fared.
Repeat the experiment if you miss the balloon. Record and analyze your results.
Re:Kids, try this at home! (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you for your contribution. Now please prepare a report on why, exactly, incoming asteroids would be hot enough to glow. Be prepared to show whether or not that will be relevant at the time that the plastic hits the asteroid.
Thank you,
Your Fifth-Grade science teacher.
Re:Kids, try this at home! (Score:2)
I think the most important issue is how to stop the rock flying towards earth at such an incredible speed. This will not work as a standard catchers mit because it would blow right through it like it wasn't there. However if the asteriod is detected early enough I suppose you could use the ballon utilizing the moon's and earth's gravitation force to closely match the speed of the asteriod and then catch it and slow it down gradually with the rockets or steer its direction. To me that would take a looong time since asteroids can travel up to 28,000 miles per hour and the fastest rockets today can only go up to 7,000 miles per hour. You would have to do many, many revolutions around the Earth and Moon to even get close to the matching speed and then use the rockets to move ahead of the asteroid and then slow it down enough to catch it. It would take years to construct and test this idea. I wonder if it would be cheaper and easier to just send nuclear rockets to detonate at the asteriods surface to steer its course. I am aware it would not destroy the asteroid but steering it may be the only solution with todays technology.
Re:Kids, try this at home! (Score:2)
Of course, you are correct about the temperature extremes that it will be subjected to; I'm sure that a standard mylar balloon wouldn't hold up for it. However, I'm sure that they can come up something that would work.
Re:Kids, try this at home! (Score:2)
Re:Kids, try this at home! (Score:1)
He obviously wouldn't want to tell kids to do anything dangerous.
Bounce (Score:1)
What about... (Score:1)
Alari
Re:What about... (Score:2)
Easily misunderstood (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the wrong problem, in my opion; he assumes you've got massive amount of rocket fuel to wast. What we really need to do is figure out how to take some of the mass of the asteroid and accelerate it, using this as the reactant to change the path. Sort of like installing a rail gun on the asteroid, and firing off bits of asteriod like b-b's to get the asteroid to move in the opposite direction.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:1)
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
The problem is that most asteroids large enough to be a problem would cause serious problems even raining down into the atmosphere as gravel. Large volcanic eruptions mess up our climate quite nicely; vapourizing a few billion tonnes of rock on re-entry would have much the same effect.
What you really have to do is fragment the asteroid with enough force that the pieces all have local escape velocity [from the asteroid], and do it far enough back in its orbit that most of the pieces miss Earth [the hard part, as we'd need months to years of advance notice].
This is still probably the most practical way of dealing with an Earth-threatening asteroid.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
The escape velocity from asteroids is small (though non-negligeable). However, you're trying to impart it to a billion tonnes of rock. This makes the energy required significant.
Still quite do-able. My back-of-the-envelope numbers say the equivalent of a few kT is required (plus whatever is needed to actually shatter the rock, times whatever inefficiency factor you assume for force transmission).
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
You have to be really careful about that. Do it wrong, and you send thousands of white-hot rocks down into the middle of California in the middle of July. Oops! Just kindled all the redwood forests.
If the asteroid is big enough, you could even heat the atmosphere and/or spread enough space dust around to influence the weather in wierd ways. That's not as bad as sending a 1000-foot wave around the Pacific rim, but it's still less than optimal.
That said, it would be nice if we had enough lead-time to send up something that could pulverize it into little chunks and disperse them widely enough to create a nice annual meteor shower.
The question you have to ask for all this is: How long would it take us to turn a planet-killer into lots of little pebbles and scatter them widely enough?
Also, how much energy would that take, and where would it come from? I wager the answer is "a lot" and "from nothing we have right now".
I think the most practical answer for the time being is going to be "nuke it". Of course that won't turn it into pebbles, but hopefully the chunks will split wide enough to miss us.
Lead time is everything. We really need as much effort as possible going into detection so we can get as much lead-time as possible. 50 years lead time and we can mine the thing. 5 days lead time and we are the next dinosaurs.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
If I remember right, the feat they achieved would require the nuclear device they implanted to yield well over 10^40 Joules. More advance notice would lower this number greatly.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
The actual energy value I forget, but you're right that it would compare to something big like the sun's output. I think the only lesson learned is that we ought to have a plan worked out far in advance of ever using it.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
And what a stinker it was too. One of the groaners that bugged me about it was -- the un-named rock is spinning, right? So, suppose you know -- somehow -- that you could split it into two hemispheres? You are going to have to time the explosion just right, so the two hemispheres blow off normal to the Earth-striking trajectory.
Light the fuse at the wrong moment and all you manage to do was arrange for Earth to be struck twice, at two places, a second or two apart.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
Or haul a bigarsed ion drive over to it, and use charged silica vapour as the reaction mass. Bring spare ionization screens...
I'm still in the "nuke it" camp, myself.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
It's far better to have 1% of the asteroid's debris cone hitting Earth than having the whole thing come raining down on us.
The environmental impact of any residual radioactivity from the nuke used to fragment it is far, far less than the environmental impact of the original strike (in the absence of interference), and probably even of the few chunks that still hit Earth.
1 chance in 10,000 (Score:2)
A number of respondents have said more or less the same thing -- that Earth is struck by small space rubble every day, with no apparent adverse effects. I have trouble with this idea.
But first, to be pedantic. If you split a .5 km berg into .25 km pieces, you get eight pieces, not two pieces. Volume increases as the cube of the radius -- you know, height, width, depth...
Here is a link I found in an earlier slashdot discussion [slashdot.org] to an article classifying the destruction from different sizes of impacting rocks. [nasa.gov] This passage discusses the difference in destructive effect of a rock large enough to pierce through the atmosphere, and strike the surface, and those smaller or less solid bergs that fragment in an airburst.
This suggests to me that 8 x 100 megaton airbursts would be worse than one 8,000 megaton groundburst.
The article says a 10 meter rock releases a blast equivalent of 100 kiloton of TNT -- about 6 or 7 x Hiroshima. The 1908 Tunguska event, the airburst of a berg about 50 meters in diameter, released the blast effect of a 16 million tons of TNT. The fireball to seen to streak across Pennsylvania this summer was less than a meter in diameter.
A 500 meter rock, massing something like 4*10^7 tons, would not wipe the Earth of life. Nor would being struck by by 40*10^7 tons of rubble. I contend it would be a mistake to shrug off either one as trivial however.
Here is a final quote:
Re:1 chance in 10,000 (Score:2)
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course if you can use external sources of energy, like solar energy (i.e. the solar sail) or asteroid itself, then you really solve one problem. But whatever your solution, if it is really to solve the problem, it also needs to have a rate of work sufficient to deflect the trajectory in the time you have remaining. If the asteroid is big enough to matter, let's hope we have lots of leadtime.
Re:Easily misunderstood (Score:2)
And what if asteroids are just piles of rubble? If we are going to change its trajectory, aren't we going to have to pour in a huge amount of kinetic energy? Won't each bucketload of debris you fling off with your mass-driver send an asteroid-quake through your rock, or berg? A couple of years of asteroid quakes may shake your asteroid apart, so instead of having a pile of rubble, you have an uncontrollable cloud of rubble. What if it isn't a pile of rubble, what if it is an iron-nickel rock, but it has fault lines? Could enough asteroid-quakes totally fracture the asteroid into several chunks?
I wonder if you aren't glossing over several problems?
All asteroids that have come close enough for us to take a look at have been spinning. It is hard to imagine that they wouldn't be spinning. Were you planning to kill the asteroid's spin before you tried guiding it anywhwere? And how did you plan to do that?
Earth's escape velocity is 11 kilometre per second. But the escape velocity of an asteroid? Phobos is about the same size as an extinction class asteroid. Its escape velocity is about ten metres a second. This link [ucsd.edu] says that is 26 miles per hour. Asteroid 2002 NT7, which caused a [bbc.co.uk] scare [slashdot.org] six weeks ago, will approach Earth in 2019 is 2 kilometers in diameter. If its density was the same as Phobos, and I have done my math right, its escape velocity would be just 2 meters per second.
IANAP, but it seems to me that nuclear charges would be the best approach. IANAP, but I wonder whether an arrangement of nuclear charges arranged across one hemisphere, and exploded more of less simultaneously, would be a better approach.
We discussed shaped charge anti-tank warheads [feainformation.com] on slashdot a couple of weeks ago. In the shaped charge warhead the shape of the explosive charge is calculated so it focuses around the non-explosive slug it is meant to accelerate.
I've wondered whether the explosive charges would have to be in contact with the surface of the asteroid to be effective. If that wouldn't be necessary then there could be a considerable saving in rocket fuel, because you wouldn't need to match velocities upon arrival. Our existing ICBMs have their MIRV buses. We would need to lift the MIRV buses to LEO, and assemble boosters, in order to send them to intercept the asteroid. So we wouldn't have to develop new technology, like Orion rockets, ion rockets, mass drivers solar sails, or giant air cushion.
Unfortunately I think it would be necessary for the charge to be in contact with the asteroid.
Moon (Score:2, Funny)
Not like a car airbag. (Score:1)
speed issue? (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be easier just to land on it? Or nuke it?
Also on CNN (Score:2)
Still need a detection meathod (Score:2)
You can't defend against something that you don't know is there. And I'm also willing to bet that thing thing would take some time to be deployed, so we'd probably need to see the asteriod pretty early.
Defence plans are great, but what we really need is to be watching more of the sky.
Re:Still need a detection meathod (Score:2)
Defense first, then offense-- (Score:2)
(just kidding, he's my neighbor)
flame me all you want, but (Score:1, Flamebait)
right up there with the "wrap the asteroid in reflective material so that the solar wind will surely push it to a safe distance.
i mean, just a FEW considerations here:
* asteroid comming in will be damn hot, burn-through bag
* inflation rate
* leakage?
* where you planning on putting it, if a metropolis like NYC, if it was gonna be hit?
* make it out of what?
* transport it how?
that's it; if this is the best our scientists can come up with; i am starting to dig my hole and buying canned soup.
(Air)bag? (Score:2)
Anyone for asteroid insurance? (Score:1)
hrmmm I wonder what these statistics are based on.. never heard of anyone being killed by an asteroid.
Re:Anyone for asteroid insurance? (Score:2)
(Expected Probability of Dying from Impactor of mass M) = (Frequency of impactor of mass M)*(Percent of People expected to Die in Impact)*(Average Human Lifetime)
For major extinction events (like that which killed the dinosaurs), reasonable numbers are: 1/300,000,000yrs*100%*70yrs = 1/4,300,000.
So in some sense you have a 1 in 4.3 million chance of dying the way the dinosaurs did.
Of course that event was rare, but suppose you are a pessimist and think 60 million people (1%) will die from a rock of a size that hits Earth every 50,000 yrs, then this gives a 1 in 70,000 chance of dying in this sort of event.
The idea is to do a sum over the entire range of impactor sizes with some presumed frequency of impact and percentage of people killed, but because these quantities are highly uncertain, you can essentially claim values that will lead to virtually any result you want.
In any case, you should realize that the probability of dying by impact is mostly determined by the rate of major impacts, which given 2000 years of recorded history, are probably rare enough that one isn't going to jump on us even if it takes a century to figure what we would do about a asteroid on a collision course.
Really, is this important? (Score:2)
1. Basement Stairs
2. Lightning
3. Bees
4. Falling coconuts (look it up, it really happens)
5. Brain embolism
6. CowboyNeal
Re:Really, is this important? (Score:2)
On that basis alone, you could argue that CowboyNeal should be permanently incarcerated, as he's demonstrably a menace to society.
Re:Really, is this important? (Score:1)
The asteroid disaster movies are to asteroids as reefer madness is to the war on (some) drugs.
Slight adjustment (Score:2)
Or should that be the "Shover robot?"
Angle? (Score:2)
Unless, the idea is to push it toward the oceans. But larger asteroids will make a mess for all regardless of where it hits.
Re:Angle? (Score:1)
Granted, a better early warning system is still necessary for any such plan to be effective.
Re:Angle? (Score:2)
Have you ever throw a rock in a pond? The last place you want an asteroid to hit is in an ocean! Think big waves hitting the shores (which is where most people in the world live.) For a non-trivial, non-planet-killer, you want it to hit in the middle of a big landmass (e.g. middle of the USA, middle of Asia, middle of Australia, etc.) Almost zero population in all those places, still a lot of loss of life, but way less than slapping it down in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific!
nukes are better (Score:1)
Nuking the surface is often downplayed by these said researchers as possibly making things worse by splitting it up and having more impacts(although it's a much better bet than the other plans).
The plan I only occasionally hear these researchers mention is detonating the nuke near it(either directly in front or slightly off-center). Doing this wouldn't split the asteroid into pieces, and it would have a much higher chance of working than the elaborate schemes
Seriously... (Score:1)
But this 'inflatable' airbag is the funniest of them all; even more dumber than 'zapping asteroid with a laser'. Umm, right.
Next thing you know the stuff they use in silicon breast implants will be used to ricochet asteriods...like in pinball, get it? Personally, I think we should use a force field(like the stuff you see in star trek) to block the asteriod, then use our tractor beam to pull it away from earth and throw it somewhere else...like pluto.
Huh? (Score:1)
SCIENTIST 2: Nonsense, we'd never be able to deflect a gargantuan asteroid with just thermonuclear warheads.
SCIENTIST 3: How about a giant bag of air then?
SCIENTISTS IN CHORUS: YEAH! THAT'S IT!
the ads (Score:1)
If it can save the earth from an ateroid. It can save you drunken ass when you plow into a telephone pole at 75mph.
Answers previously posted story (Score:4, Funny)
Science: Most Beautiful Experiment in Physics
Answer: Airbags for Planetary Defence
A Comedy of Engineering (Score:2)
Re:A Comedy of Engineering (Score:2)
eg: a 0.1 psi pressure difference would be more than enough, considering the amount of square inches on the surface of a cubic mile bag. A cubic meter of liquified gas expands to many,many,many cubic meters of gas when you're talking an 0.1psi pressure differential between your container and the Outside.
Notice my excellent mixture of SI and Imperial units? That's apparently very important and nearly a mandantory requirement in space R&D
Re:A Comedy of Engineering (Score:2)
There is very little air pressure in space, so you don't need a lot of pressure for the ballon to inflate. You do need to keep enough pressure in it so your rocket doesn't push through the ballon and hit the asteroid. Getting a big rocket to the asteroid is beyond what we could do by next year say. (By "we" I mean Russia since they still have some big rockets, but not that big, it would have to be an international thing with the US sending up supplies, Russia supplying the big fuel tanks and engines, and Europe and Japan footing the bill.)
One advantage of crashing into this thing with a big airbag before doing a 20-30 second big burn is that the momentum of the rocket would be fully transfered to the comet as more of a translation than a rotation. Plus landing on the comet in a place were it would just translate and not rotate would be difficult.
It doesn't really rule out the nuclear option either. Since you only get to do that once you'd try this first, then check if you moved it enough. If not an H-Bomb isn't so heavy, you'd have brought one along. Now you just land on the comet and set it off. Hopefully enough of it is vaporized quickly enough to push the remaining fragments off the they collision path to Earth.
Not that it will matter, we're not looking out the front windshield. Hopefully the first one to hit us in modern times won't be the big one. But I bet if Sydney disappeared one day, we'd arrest all the usual suspects and suspend free-speech immediately. Oh, and maybe do something after the an election cycle, or two.
Not an airbag (Score:2)
Solar sail (Score:2)
If you're going to send something to nudge an asteroid, it may as well be an H-bomb. They're small, reliable, and we have lots of them.
Air Bags (Score:2)
Yes, I've always thought congress should do something about the risk of asteroids.
Oh, wait...
liability? (Score:2)
Mylar? (Score:2)
done and done (Score:2)
Side pocket (Score:3, Funny)
No, what we should do is build a giant pool-cue stick and knock another asteroid into the first asteroid, deflecting it into the side pocket.
Heat, inflation, etc (Score:2)
And what would they plan on inflating it with? Part of the protection of an airbag is the force of it inflating as your momentum carries you forward. It's an azide compound that generates a bunch of nitrogen gas that rapidly inflates it. It would be a hell of a chemical reaction to generate enough gas to fill a several km wide cushion. Maybe I should think of it more as one of those airbags the fire dept. uses to keep jumpers from smacking pavement?
Tests. (Score:2)
Therefore, an Airbag for the planet earth will save the lives of 6 billion dummies :)
I can move the earth with a big lever (Score:2)
2) ????
3) Profit!
whats the airbag going to push aginst?
More great science from Okie State!
Its sad but I spent some time there till i figured out I could leave....
What we really need... (Score:2)
We just have to be careful that we don't build a board with a nail that is so big, we destroy ourselves!
Dueling Airbags (Score:2)
The proverbial sword cuts both ways.
deployment mechanism? (Score:3, Funny)
Bungie cords, of course. (Score:2)
*Engineering uncertain, use your imagination, sport
Hell, if he can get funding for balloons, I should get funding for this!
Hmm, a little late if you ask me.... (Score:2)
2002-08-28 19:40:21 Asteroids and The Giant Airbag (articles,news) (rejected)
However, here's the link [newscientist.com] to the New Scienctist Article that got the scoop.
You Could Just Speed the Asteroid Up (Score:2)
Like others have mentioned, what is really needed is to have a earlier forcast of where the things are headed. What's Deep Blue doing these days? Couldn't it see God's chess moves several thousand iterations into the future?
Inflatable Technology (Score:2)
Maybe there's something to that, after all...
Nukes. (Score:2)
Re:asteroid approaching - gimme funding proposal # (Score:2)
In the end of course it only takes one large asteroid to do it right and kill us all...
carpe diem I guess...
\