asteroid may come uncomfortably close to Earth in 2036

[nec209]

By Irene Klotz Sun Feb 18, 12:44 PM ET

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - An asteroid may come uncomfortably close to Earth in 2036 and the United Nations should assume responsibility for a space mission to deflect it, a group of astronauts, engineers and scientists said on Saturday.

 

Astronomers are monitoring an asteroid named Apophis, which has a 1 in 45,000 chance of striking Earth on April 13, 2036.

Although the odds of an impact by this particular asteroid are low, a recent congressional mandate for NASA to upgrade its tracking of near-Earth asteroids is expected to uncover hundreds, if not thousands of threatening space rocks in the near future, former astronaut Rusty Schweickart said.

 

"It's not just Apophis we're looking at. Every country is at risk. We need a set of general principles to deal with this issue," Schweickart, a member of the Apollo 9 crew that orbited the earth in March 1969, told an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in San Francisco.

 

Schweickart plans to present an update next week to the U.N. Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space on plans to develop a blueprint for a global response to an asteroid threat.

 

The Association of Space Explorers, a group of former astronauts and cosmonauts, intends to host a series of high-level workshops this year to flesh out the plan and will make a formal proposal to the U.N. in 2009, he said.

 

Schweickart wants to see the United Nations adopt procedures for assessing asteroid threats and deciding if and when to take action.

 

The favored approach to dealing with a potentially deadly space rock is to dispatch a spacecraft that would use gravity to alter the asteroid's course so it no longer threatens Earth, said astronaut Ed Lu, a veteran of the International Space Station.

 

The so-called Gravity Tractor could maintain a position near the threatening asteroid, exerting a gentle tug that, over time, would deflect the asteroid.

 

An asteroid the size of Apophis, which is about 460 feet

 

long, would take about 12 days of gravity-tugging, Lu added.

 

Mission costs are estimated at $300 million.

 

Launching an asteroid deflection mission early would reduce the amount of energy needed to alter its course and increase the chances of a successful outcome, Schweickart said.

 

NASA says the precise effect of a 460-foot (140-meter) object hitting the Earth would depend on what the asteroid was made of and the angle of impact.

 

Paul Slovic, president of Oregon-based Decision Research, which studies judgment, decision-making and risk analysis, said the asteroid could take out an entire city or region.

 

 

Well I must say the technology we have now there is not much we can do.The TV shows that shows how to destry a asteroid the technology we have will not do that.

[Mr Skeptic]

I say we hitch a ride on it.

[Moontanman]

Put it in orbit around the Earth and mine it for metals.

[nec209]

It would be intresting to see what NASA or the UN is going to do. May be DAPA they get alot of money and dark ops have some thing.

[D H]

nec209, these guys are making fun of you because this is some rather old news.

[Mr Skeptic]

I wasn't making fun of him. Incidentally, it's been on the news again recently, because new studies changed the estimated probability of impact (to a lower value).

[nec209]

He is making fun of the fact we don't have a plama gun like star wars to fire at it.

 

Not sure what NASA would do.But nukes will not work.

[Mr Skeptic]

NASA will do nothing but observe it closely. It is supposed to miss us a few times over a long time span. However, the observations as it passes by will tell us much more accurately its trajectory, and if it turns out it will hit us on the next pass or so, we will hurry to do something.

[D H]

Not sure what NASA would do.But nukes will not work.

What makes you say that? From http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report2007.html

Nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more effective than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed in this study. Other techniques involving the surface or subsurface use of nuclear explosives may be more efficient, but they run an increased risk of fracturing the target NEO. They also carry higher development and operations risks.

 

Also see http://blog.professorastronomy.com/2008/10/nuking-asteroids.html

 

 

The problem with nukes is not that they won't work. The problem with nukes is social and political.

• There are international treaties against putting weapons in space, with nuclear weapons at the top of the list.
  
• People protest in droves every time NASA launches a satellite that contains a little radioisotope thermoelectric generator. These aren't nukes, but the anti-nuke crowd still goes ballistic. What do you think the outcome would be if real nukes were launched into space?
  
• Who are you going to trust to do the job? The US? Russia might think otherwise. Russia? The US might think otherwise. The UN? Russia and the US might think otherwise.
  
• The UN wouldn't be able to do it anyhow. The Japanese really, really hate this idea. I believe they issued a formal protest. They would certainly be able to muster enough votes in the UN to stop the UN from doing it.

[Spyman]

Big Asteroid Less Likely to Hit Earth

 

The large asteroid Apophis poses less of a threat of walloping the Earth in the year 2036 than previously thought, new research finds.

 

"Updated computational techniques and newly available data indicate the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million."

 

"The refined orbital determination further reinforces that Apophis is an asteroid we can look to as an opportunity for exciting science and not something that should be feared," said Don Yeomans, manager of the Near-Earth Object Program Office at JPL.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091007-apophis-hazard.html

[Banshii]

The problem with nukes is not that they won't work. The problem with nukes is social and political.

 

Well I would certainly rather have a bunch of pissed off people around the world than have the entire human race wiped out. I hope at least the US leaders would see it that way as well, and use a nuke if necessary. The pros definitely out-weigh the cons there. I'd have no problem standing up and pressing the launch button if an asteroid in my face was the alternative.

[Spyman]

The entire human race is NOT on stake here, Apophis could kill millions of people and cause a big catastrophe in an area of thousands of square kilometres, but most of us would survive and continue our lives.

 

Also even the risk for an impact is tiny and it seems to get smaller and smaller with every measurement we make, so I would hold off any nuclear launches for now, there is still plenty of time for more precise observations with later actions if necessary.

[Mr Skeptic]

The trouble is also that we essentially have to "use" the nuke now, in that we need to do a lot of research on how to deliver the nuke, where to detonate, etc., research that would only make sense if we were intending to use a nuke. Also, for a more rapid response time, it would be a good idea to have the nuke in orbit ahead of time, as space launches are dependent on the weather and other factors so it could take a particularly long time to get to launch it safely. Though I suppose we could spend a year doing research and preparing the launch after we detect an asteroid threat that we can't stop by other means.

[D H]

The entire human race is NOT on stake here, Apophis could kill millions of people and cause a big catastrophe in an area of thousands of square kilometres, but most of us would survive and continue our lives.

So you would sacrifice millions of lives just because you have an aversion to using nukes on them? That's mighty big of you.

 

Also even the risk for an impact is tiny and it seems to get smaller and smaller with every measurement we make, so I would hold off any nuclear launches for now, there is still plenty of time for more precise observations with later actions if necessary.

Nobody is talking about using nukes now, or even in 2029. There simply is no need to do so. There's no need to do anything right now but observe.

 

The trouble is also that we essentially have to "use" the nuke now in that we need to do a lot of research on how to deliver the nuke, where to detonate, etc., research that would only make sense if we were intending to use a nuke.

Hey! I just said nobody is talking about using nukes now!

 

Seriously, what makes you think this? Every approach for diverting an asteroid has a point in time after which that given approach will no longer work. The asteroid will collide, period. Per the NASA study, nukes are the technique that require the least amount of time before collision before they too become ineffective.

 

The solution is to do a very good job at identifying hazards so that less effective techniques can be deployed -- and keep the nuclear card in our hip pocket. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice millions out of some aversion to nukes.

[THX-1138]

Well, at least if we blast into little itty bits we won't have to worry about people claiming global warming isn't a man-made effect..

[Mr Skeptic]

D H, people are talking about using nukes. Just not on Apophis, since as I said it is supposed to miss.

 

As you said the strength of nukes is that they can quickly deflect an asteroid, but that means nothing if we do not have one ready when we need it.

[D H]

We don't need them in space. We just need to be able to launch within a reasonable amount of time. Nukes permanently in orbit: No country is going to stand for that. Ain't gonna happen.

[THX-1138]

Nukes permanently in orbit: No country is going to stand for that. Ain't gonna happen.

 

Not in Earth orbit, no. How about at L1 and L2, though? That should be far enough away for comfort, close enough for control, and far enough to be manoeuvred for timely interception. We're not ready to put them at L3-L5, which would be even better.

[D H]

Not in Earth orbit, no. How about at L1 and L2, though?

First off, which L1 and L2 are you talking about: Earth-Moon L1 and L2, or Sun-Earth?

 

More importantly, the L1 and L2 (and L3) points are unstable equilibria points. Vehicles must use active control to maintain their pseudo-orbits about these points. When the vehicle runs out of fuel it will be flung out of the location and will be in a fairly elliptical orbit.

 

A nuke at the Sun-Earth L1 point: Do you really want an uncontrollable nuclear warhead whose elliptical path makes it a Venus-crossing asteroid? A moderate gravitationally slingshot around Venus makes it an nuclear armed Earth-crossing asteroid!

 

 

What is this infatuation with putting nukes permanently in space? It takes more energy, a lot more energy, to do this than just launch from Earth straight toward the offending asteroid (if it exists). The technology to launch something the size of a nuke out of Earth orbit is at technology readiness level 9. We have that basic problem knocked. Slapping a nuke onboard alone takes the TRL quite a few notches. I'd want those systems to be up to man-rated safety levels for automated vehicles. Higher, even.

 

In fact, the standards need to be much much higher. The only requirements NASA levies on automated vehicles that visit the International Space Station is, in a nutshell: You must not hurt the Space Station with the vehicle or with any crap it happens to eject. You must demonstrate that you will remain safe against any two failures. These are not absolutes; there is no way to be 100% safe. NASA's standard is 99.97% at the 50% confidence level. NASA makes no mention of mission success; it doesn't care if the other vehicle doesn't meet its objectives. It cares about ISS safety.

 

I would want at least five nines (99.999%), and preferably six nines, of safety assurance. Safety here means that if the nuke misses the target it will definitely miss the Earth. I would want at least one nine (90%) on mission success. FYI, the success rate for all of the missions to sent to Mars is less than 50%.

 

Now that's just slapping a nuke on a rocket and launching it straight at the target. Making it so we can keep have the nuke stationkeep in control and maintain operating conditions for years notches the TRL all the way down to the paper study level.

 

 

I earlier said we should keep the nuclear option card in our hip pocket. Continuing with the card analogy, putting a nuke in space is akin to sticking the card on ones forehead, face out. Idiot poker.

[THX-1138]

I meant Sun-Earth. Oh, well, it was just a thought. Thanks for the critical analysis of it.

[Spyman]

The entire human race is NOT on stake here, Apophis could kill millions of people and cause a big catastrophe in an area of thousands of square kilometres, but most of us would survive and continue our lives.

So you would sacrifice millions of lives just because you have an aversion to using nukes on them? That's mighty big of you.

Where did I say that I have "an aversion to using nukes" or that I am willing to "sacrifice millions of lives" ?

 

I thought we where talking about Apophis in this thread and I made it very clear that I was by stating the name of the asteroid.

 

My point is that Aphosis won't cause the end of the world and that the pros and cons is not always that simple.

 

I did NOT argue either against or for the use of nukes to deflect asteroids.

 

Also even the risk for an impact is tiny and it seems to get smaller and smaller with every measurement we make, so I would hold off any nuclear launches for now, there is still plenty of time for more precise observations with later actions if necessary.

Nobody is talking about using nukes now, or even in 2029. There simply is no need to do so. There's no need to do anything right now but observe.

Where did I say that somebody was talking about launching nukes now ?

 

If you read my post again you can see that I said more or less the same thing you are saying: "There's no need to do anything right now but observe".

 

Again, my point is that Aphosis won't cause the end of the world and there is no need for panic.

[InigoMontoya]

Something else to keep in mind regarding "nukes in space": Nukes need maintenance. Who's gonna do it? Are you going to send a new nuke up every few years? If not, then you have to keep it in LEO and do nuke maintenance missions."

[walsh155]

this asteroid is apophis nasa reacently said that in 2029 this asteroid will be likely to come as close to us lower than geosynchorus sattalites and return in 2036 nasa also said do not be alarmed by this asteroid (could hit ) and then they said that in will be a 1-45000 chance to hit.

[nec209]

The trouble is also that we essentially have to "use" the nuke now, in that we need to do a lot of research on how to deliver the nuke, where to detonate, etc., research that would only make sense if we were intending to use a nuke. Also, for a more rapid response time, it would be a good idea to have the nuke in orbit ahead of time, as space launches are dependent on the weather and other factors so it could take a particularly long time to get to launch it safely. Though I suppose we could spend a year doing research and preparing the launch after we detect an asteroid threat that we can't stop by other means.

 

For the reason above .You have to test and try it out so when real thing comes you know what to do.The point is going up in space and back cost too much money and only countries that want to spend that money is the US , China and Russia . ((( keep mind that China is still trying to catch up to the US and this will take time ))

 

Going in space and back is a big challenge and is not like getting in your car or getting in plane.It can take 10 to 15 years just to design , engineer and test a new rocket. It is not some thing in 1 or 2 years you can design , engineer and test a new rocket.

 

Going in space is like going in rafts now we just learning how to get in space and make it safe and bring the cost down.

 

In movies and scfi shows they make look so easy this not the case.

[InigoMontoya]

It is not some thing in 1 or 2 years you can design , engineer and test a new rocket.

Sure you can... If you're motivated.

 

We just don't tend to be motivated enough to kill the red tape. Turn the engineers loose. Give them the freedom to try new things (read: fail). Unleash multiple parallel efforts. It can be done. Easily. Hell, the Manhatten Project was done in 4 years and it was a monumental task compared to something as mundane as building a new rocket.

 

Were we to find ourselves in an "OMG, we're all going to die if we don't have a new rocket in 2 years?" That bad boy would likely be ready in 1.

 

 

 

 

PS: For what it's worth, I am employed in the rocket propulsion industry.