Asteroid 'gives Earth a close shave' on Monday

[cameron marical]

what about something like a pyramid type shape wich goes into space to face the giant rock, then once out of orbit, the pyramid "pops" off and theres just a large platform thats traveling at a pretty high speed straight towards an asteroid. wouldnt this block it?

[Mr Skeptic]

But imagine how much political capital the US would gain by saving the planet Earth from destruction.

 

Likely many countries would just deny that the asteroid was actually going to hit us, and then complain about weapons in space.

[cameron marical]

why would they deny it?

 

and then, if they do complain about weapons in space, just simply point out the fact that you just saved earth from a possible and probable, not only mass extintions, but human extinction.you cant really argue with that. and just emphasize how it would be a un idea instead of just one countrys, so to make it seem less likely for space weaponry. it would also be controlled by the un, or possibly a different international organization meant specifically for neo collision prevention.

[Baub]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely! I think the best scenario would be a system that is not specifically designed, funded, implimented, or managed by one global power.

[iNow]

Likely many countries would just deny that the asteroid was actually going to hit us, and then complain about weapons in space.

Very insightful and comedic, yet disturbingly likely.

 

 

why would they deny it?

Because humans tend to be really really stupid and blinded by ideology when it comes to politics. Facts matter not. Much like global warming, they feel that if they deny it enough times, people will stop accepting it as true, and it provides another thing to argue about and a way to block getting projects through the legislature which have a chance to actually help with real issues.

 

Don't ask me why, we're a silly lot, us humans.

 

 

A question to those who are talking about tracking these asteroids... Even if we had a bazillion satelites and we could see the space rock coming months in advace, what would we do about it anyway? It's not like we can move "the island" like they did on LOST.

[Royston]

I think the best scenario would be a system that is not specifically designed, funded, implimented, or managed by one global power.

 

Or (sorry if this has already been mentioned) we could forget about a huge, elaborate, costly venture into stopping something that might happen. People don't stop visiting Yellowstone park, because it might erupt at any given time. A boeing 747 might crash into my house, but I'm not going to spend millions building an elaborate shield round my residence, because that might happen. It's the same principle.

 

We'll worry about it, when or if we detect one in time.

[Baub]

Or (sorry if this has already been mentioned) we could forget about a huge, elaborate, costly venture into stopping something that might happen. People don't stop visiting Yellowstone park, because it might erupt at any given time. A boeing 747 might crash into my house, but I'm not going to spend millions building an elaborate shield round my residence, because that might happen. It's the same principle.

 

We'll worry about it, when or if we detect one in time.

True. I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to take the kids to Yellowstone. A Yellowstone eruption would be a devistating event, but the threat from space COULD be an exstinction level event.

[Dudde]

you have to remember that you're more effective at viewing to an outside area the closer to your intended protection area is. Kind of like a cone of reference. If the earth were an orange you didn't want coworkers to eat, you'd want to sit it directly with you, as opposed to standing in front of it watching one way. There's more range of view that way (what a terrible analogy, I'm going to work so shutup an take it)

Edited March 6, 2009 by Dudde
I forgot

[Airbrush]

what about a ring of "tripwire" satellites around the sun between earth and mars to detect near earth trajectories and radio update to some kind of beam weapon to affect the offending objects trajectory.

some kind of beam weapon seems preferable to a rocket because of the travel time of a vehicle compared to a beam weapon. you could shoot a beam right past the sun if necessary to hit an object on the other side of the sun, but a rocket would need to orbit the sun to reach the other side(i think).

 

I like the particle beam or lazer that could alter its' path from long distance, but that technology will not be ready for a long time. Also the asteroid will probably be rotating so the beam needs to hit very precisely, over and over, which is hard to do from millions of miles away. We already have plenty of nukes.

 

You need a lot of time to send a rocket to the object and change speed and direction to match the path of the object. It has to fly along with it and then explode at the correct distance and perfect angle to give it a little push in the proper direction.

 

People will not take the threat seriously until we experience a minor disaster.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...you're more effective at viewing...an outside area the closer to your intended protection area....Kind of like a cone of reference....There's more range of view that way....

 

It would be much easier to have a few stations on mountain tops around the world, IF they could be so sensitive that they can cover wider areas. It is hard to imagine just how difficult it is to detect the smaller ones.

[SH3RL0CK]

You need a lot of time to send a rocket to the object and change speed and direction to match the path of the object. It has to fly along with it and then explode at the correct distance and perfect angle to give it a little push in the proper direction.

 

QUOTE]

 

Due to the vastness of space, a small push in any direction is almost certainly going to be the proper direction to avoid hitting the earth.

[Airbrush]

A Yellowstone eruption would be a devastating event, but the threat from space COULD be an exstinction level event.

 

Yellowstone going off would be an extinction level event. It would totally destroy North America, and send the world into a "nuclear winter". The bad new is that she is thousands of years over due. The good news is there is no current seismic activity that comes before an eruption.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Due to the vastness of space, a small push in any direction is almost certainly going to be the proper direction to avoid hitting the earth."

 

That is a good point assuming you can push it when it is still very far away. The closer it gets to Earth, the more critical the maneuver becomes.

[Baub]

Yellowstone going off would be an extinction level event. It would totally destroy North America, and send the world into a "nuclear winter". The bad new is that she is thousands of years over due. The good news is there is no current seismic activity that comes before an eruption.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Due to the vastness of space, a small push in any direction is almost certainly going to be the proper direction to avoid hitting the earth."

 

That is a good point assuming you can push it when it is still very far away. The closer it gets to Earth, the more critical the maneuver becomes.

True, and I did not allow for the effects of a "nuclear winter". If....lets say next week, seismologists predict an imminent eruption of Yellowstone, there would be nothing we could do to prevent it. However, if we can detect an object on a collision course with earth, we may be able to save our species.

[Mr Skeptic]

why would they deny [that the asteroid was going to hit us]?

 

For profit. If they accept that the asteroid was going to hit earth and cause unimaginable damage and that the US saved us all from it, they would have to admit that they are indebted to the US for saving them from catastrophe. Not any formal debt but a rather informal "we owe you one" that they might be called upon to return the favor someday (which they would look bad refusing). But in denying that the asteroid would have hit us, they also deny that they owe the US anything.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Or (sorry if this has already been mentioned) we could forget about a huge, elaborate, costly venture into stopping something that might happen. People don't stop visiting Yellowstone park, because it might erupt at any given time. A boeing 747 might crash into my house, but I'm not going to spend millions building an elaborate shield round my residence, because that might happen. It's the same principle.

 

We'll worry about it, when or if we detect one in time.

 

Well, what you do is you multiply the probability that an event could happen with the cost of it happening, and compare that to the cost of mitigation times the probability of successful mitigation. If it is cost effective to mitigate the problem, you better believe that is what we will do. This is why we buy fire insurance, etc.

 

For the specific example of the Yellowstone supervolcano, we'd be pretty screwed whether we were right on top of the volcano or miles away, and Yellowstone is rather unlikely to erupt, and most people (I think) don't even know there is a supervolcano there anyways. For the example of plane-proofing your home, it is too expensive compared to the unlikelihood of a plane crashing it. But when you have a big building both the costs of a plane crash and the likeliness that one would be attempted mean that some measures might be taken to protect the building (probably in terms of shooting the plane down, or not toppling over).

Edited March 6, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Royston]

For the specific example of the Yellowstone supervolcano, we'd be pretty screwed whether we were right on top of the volcano or miles away, and Yellowstone is rather unlikely to erupt, and most people (I think) don't even know there is a supervolcano there anyways. For the example of plane-proofing your home, it is too expensive compared to the unlikelihood of a plane crashing it. But when you have a big building both the costs of a plane crash and the likeliness that one would be attempted mean that some measures might be taken to protect the building (probably in terms of shooting the plane down, or not toppling over).

 

I didn't really think those examples through at all, so thanks for putting some proper thought into it. I was merely trying to illustrate a point, as I'm sure you're aware. My brain is completely mangled from doing to much maths recently, but I'm sure there are examples that would illustrate my point, and are synonymous with the measures to take due to an asteroid collision.

[Airbrush]

You need a lot of time to send a rocket to the object and change speed and direction to match the path of the object. It has to fly along with it and then explode at the correct distance and perfect angle to give it a little push in the proper direction.

 

QUOTE]

 

Due to the vastness of space' date=' a [i']small [/i]push in any direction is almost certainly going to be the proper direction to avoid hitting the earth.

 

The deflection methods I saw on THC The Universe involve a rocket going to meet the asteroid, and then reversing direction and match the speed of the asteroid headed towards Earth. Then explode, or blast pulses of a lazer beam, or land a device, or hover as a gravity tractor, or whatever method.

 

But as SH3RLOCK rightly pointed out that if you can reach the asteroid while it is still very far away from Earth, then nearly any kind of impact would change its' course enough to miss Earth. Someone stated this above, maybe a calculated mass based upon the estimated mass of the asteroid would hit the asteroid at a closing speed of 15 to 25 miles per second without breaking the object into pieces. Or a conventional explosion just before impact to soften the blow, spread the surface area of the impact.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Airbrush

[cameron marical]

Due to the vastness of space, a small push in any direction is almost certainly going to be the proper direction to avoid hitting the earth.

 

ya, so why dont we have a couple satelites floating around in space at totally different coordinates, full of fuel, and when theres an asteroid threat, just send one out to gallantly save the day? and not really hit it head on, more like to the side to use much of its already acquired energy with you instead of swimming against the current, and just shift it to the side so it misses earth. you could use the attractor method even and save the satelite if it will work fast enough and theyre all far enough out.

[Baub]

ya, so why dont we have a couple satelites floating around in space at totally different coordinates, full of fuel, and when theres an asteroid threat, just send one out to gallantly save the day? and not really hit it head on, more like to the side to use much of its already acquired energy with you instead of swimming against the current, and just shift it to the side so it misses earth. you could use the attractor method even and save the satelite if it will work fast enough and theyre all far enough out.

Perhaps as space shuttles are scheduled to retire from service, due to the stresses of launch and re-entry, they could be positioned in orbit? They could be unmanned, and when a NEO threat was detected, they could "shadow" the object. Judging from the NASA experiments I mentioned earlier, the magnetic field generated by the spacecraft could work as a gravity tractor and nudge it off course.

[Airbrush]

what about a ring of "tripwire" satellites around the sun between earth and mars to detect near earth trajectories and radio update to some kind of beam weapon to affect the offending objects trajectory....some kind of beam weapon seems preferable to a rocket because of the travel time of a vehicle compared to a beam weapon. you could shoot a beam right past the sun if necessary to hit an object on the other side of the sun, but a rocket would need to orbit the sun to reach the other side(i think).

 

You are correct Moth. A beam weapon is a quicker responder than a rocketship. Suppose a very powerful solar-powered laser or particle beam, in a high Earth orbit, could hit the object with a series of pulses at the speed of light from millions of miles away and change the path of the asteroid.

 

In the future we may find the money to add reduntant deflection systems, both long and short range, so if one system fails another can also try.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Airbrush

[moth]

there are plans for nuclear powered x-ray lasers from star wars days and gamma ray lasers powered by anti-matter are being studied.

the effective range of something like that must be enough to cause a little ablation even from across the solar system.

most of the actual projects i can find on N.E.O.'s from E.S.A. or NASA involve impactors.

anybody know what happened to the E.S.A.'s don quixote project?

 

i guess i mean don quijote

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/NEO/SEMZRZNVGJE_0.html

Edited March 8, 2009 by moth

[cameron marical]

i havent heard of this...

the hidalgo rocket sounds vaguely familiar though. i like the idea, and i wonder why it isnt up there right now. probably something to do with money, im sure. what a shame...

[moth]

i havent heard of this...

the hidalgo rocket sounds vaguely familiar though.

 

are you thinking of deep impact?

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/missions/deep-impact

 

this got good data on composition,and some awesome pictures, but i don't think anybody has tried pushing a comet around yet.

[Baub]

there are plans for nuclear powered x-ray lasers from star wars days and gamma ray lasers powered by anti-matter are being studied.

the effective range of something like that must be enough to cause a little ablation even from across the solar system.

most of the actual projects i can find on N.E.O.'s from E.S.A. or NASA involve impactors.

anybody know what happened to the E.S.A.'s don quixote project?

 

i guess i mean don quijote

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/NEO/SEMZRZNVGJE_0.html

I agree with you that some sort of beam or laser makes the most sense. How about a solar powered, magnesium combustion, laser?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, when you get to using a laser or other beam, you have the problems of aiming it, and more importantly, focusing it. Suppose you have a asteroid about as far away as Mars, say 30 light minutes, and it is about 100 meters radius (large size). That's 500,000,000,000 meters away. To hit it, you need to shoot where it will be 30 minutes after you shoot. That's not too hard, you should know exactly where it is. But actually hitting it (with a perfectly focused beam), you need to have an accuracy of arctan(100/500,000,000,000) = 0.0000000115 degrees out of 360 degrees. But I think that shouldn't be too hard, just put a really long handle on it, and the longer the handle the more accurately you can aim it. Focusing the beam, on the other hand, would require some incredibly precise optics that can handle the energy of the beam. This most likely means ultraclear lenses (mirrors would be too inefficient and would likely melt), and they would have to be precise. Not sure exactly how precise the lenses would have to be, but if your beam spread by 1% in 1,000,000 meters, at that distance it would spread 500,000% or 5000 times wider (and therefore 1/25,000,000th as powerful).

[Baub]

Well, when you get to using a laser or other beam, you have the problems of aiming it, and more importantly, focusing it. Suppose you have a asteroid about as far away as Mars, say 30 light minutes, and it is about 100 meters radius (large size). That's 500,000,000,000 meters away. To hit it, you need to shoot where it will be 30 minutes after you shoot. That's not too hard, you should know exactly where it is. But actually hitting it (with a perfectly focused beam), you need to have an accuracy of arctan(100/500,000,000,000) = 0.0000000115 degrees out of 360 degrees. But I think that shouldn't be too hard, just put a really long handle on it, and the longer the handle the more accurately you can aim it. Focusing the beam, on the other hand, would require some incredibly precise optics that can handle the energy of the beam. This most likely means ultraclear lenses (mirrors would be too inefficient and would likely melt), and they would have to be precise. Not sure exactly how precise the lenses would have to be, but if your beam spread by 1% in 1,000,000 meters, at that distance it would spread 500,000% or 5000 times wider (and therefore 1/25,000,000th as powerful).

The spread sounds like the major hurdle. Early detection would be instrumental in maneuvering closer....or, perhaps some sort of relay stations that could recieve the focused power and direct it at the object?

Edited March 8, 2009 by Baub

[Airbrush]

How is the Kepler Mission more important that "saving the world"? I suppose that it is a low probability that Earth will get destroyed, or suffer a significant impact (comparable to Tunguska) over the next few hundred years. Although that recent object gave us a close shave by missing Earth by 45,000 miles, that is not too close for comfort among the experts.

 

The lazer spread is an issue at long distance. I believe lazers shot at the moon spread out to miles wide, and that is only 240,000 miles away.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Airbrush