Blowing the asteroid up wouldn't really solve the problem; it would just make it far worse. I mean blowing it up would just create millions of smaller pieces, thus transforming a bullet into buckshot.
share[deleted]
I think where you may have gone wrong here is attempting to incorporate real life actual physics as part of a Michael Bay action film.
shareThis goes back to Ben Affleck asking Michael Bay why can't the NASA and the US government just train actual astronauts to be oil drillers instead of the other way around. And when Bay was confronted by how needlessly risky it would be send a crew of roughnecks into outer space (after of course, hastily training them), he told Affleck to "shut the f up".
shareNot that I don't mind spirited debate when it comes to "earth-based" Sci-Fi, but if we give a certain saga a hall-pass on the fact that a little ship called the Millennium Falcon flies around in space and people just walk around it like they're on a cruise ship, then I am going to give Michael Bay an artistic hall-pass as well.
shareEhhhh..... well the physics are different, though. In the Star Wars universe they have hyperdrives, ion stabilizers, gravity deflectors, tractor beams, and lightsabers (although in real life, some enterprising individuals have created the first portable, working protosaber).
So we're dealing with sci-fi on a completely different spectrum. One is Earth-based sci-fi, the other is alternate-galaxy based sci-fi.
Very true - it's just a form of plot armor in the galaxy far, far away - but I still think Earth-based sci-fi should be allowed creative liberties. I mean, if we make movies for entertainment based on our planet, we don't need it shoved down our throats that space is a horror-filled vacuum that doesn't agree with "fun".
shareWhat saga are you giving a hall-pass for the fact that a little ship called the Millennium Falcon flies around in space? Never heard of it
shareThis would be an interesting question for some astrophysicists. And what would be the best way to change the trajectory? A bomb exploding on the surface? You’d need to set it off against the most solid surface possible, solid granite etc...
Or would it be better to set it off a few hundred feet from the surface?
Also the earlier it’s discovered the less you have to move it.
Or would it be better to use several. One for the initial destruction, followed by several to disintegrate the pieces into smaller pieces hoping they’ll burn up in the atmosphere.
I happen to be an astrophysicist and yes it would have been easier to change the trajectory of the asteroid. Its a plot hole
shareActually the object of the explosion was to use the explosion to split the asteroid like a diamond and use the force of the explosion to push the halves apart so they would go around the Earth and keep going. Probably end up being grabbed by the sun's gravity and pulled in.
share