Sky_Render wrote: We've got plenty of "nucluler" weapons and missiles, so it's not like it would be exceedingly difficult to deflect it. Seriously, what is NASA getting paid for?
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/06/nasas-new-mission-muslim-outreach-and-uninspired-futility/
Looks like Global warming, teaching kids and reaching out to muslim nations.
GameboyRMH wrote:Sky_Render wrote: We've got plenty of "nucluler" weapons and missiles, so it's not like it would be exceedingly difficult to deflect it. Seriously, what is NASA getting paid for?Nuking it would break it into multiple pieces which would just spread the damage around more. If it has to be deflected they'd use a "gravity tractor."
Not necessarily, it depends on how close the warhead is (and the yield of said warhead). A shift of only tenths of a degree will alter the final trajectory by thousands of miles.
We currently have no way of nuking it, it would have to be nuked seriously far out into space.
HiTempguy wrote: We currently have no way of nuking it, it would have to be nuked seriously far out into space.
I disagree. We've sent probes to the far reaches of the solar system. Really, it isn't that difficult of a problem to solve. You simply need to get the payload out of orbit and onto a trajectory that will get close to the asteroid. The warhead is detonated far enough away to avoid actually breaking up the object, instead deflecting it by a degree or two, enough to prevent it from getting close to the Earth.
Wouldn't it be easier to send "pushers" to grab onto it and burn fuel for a few months? With it being weightless and all, in open space without gravitational pull, I'd think rocket boosters wouldn't have a difficult time pushing it out of harms way.
PHeller wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to send "pushers" to grab onto it and burn fuel for a few months? With it being weightless and all, in open space without gravitational pull, I'd think rocket boosters wouldn't have a difficult time pushing it out of harms way.
This is pretty much the same thing as the gravity tractor, except the gravity tractor doesn't have to contact the surface of what you want to move.
Well while the little rocket booster grabber things are up there, they can study the thing, mine the thing, and send (safely) some rare metals back to earth.
And maybe do it the next time around.
And eventually we'll send some peeps up there and they'll ride it around for 10 years and send us care packages..
EDIT: Apparently landing on asteroids is difficult because they are tumbling around quite rapidly.
In reply to PHeller:
In a vacuum, the velocity is what matters isn't it?
That said, what's the highest velocity humans have ever gone in space flight?
Weightless is not massless.
The highest (relative to Earth) velocity humans have gone would have to be the Apollo missions. I am guessing 13 might be a bit faster then the others since they just went out and and slingshoted back (not by plan of course).
Interesting question. That would be a good one to ask someone at a space center. It might make them look it up.
BTW - I am at 800 ft and a good 10 miles from the ocean, so I am good either way 
I am going to see him speak in April, I can't wait. 
GameboyRMH wrote:PHeller wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to send "pushers" to grab onto it and burn fuel for a few months? With it being weightless and all, in open space without gravitational pull, I'd think rocket boosters wouldn't have a difficult time pushing it out of harms way.This is pretty much the same thing as the gravity tractor, except the gravity tractor doesn't have to contact the surface of what you want to move.
This is precisely the solution he was discussing at the conference. And as you noted previously he mentioned the the "nuke it" solution suddenly creates many smaller objects, now with unpredictable paths.
I didn't really post this to be a scare, I found the topic fascinating and just wanted to share :)
DrBoost wrote: I'm not concerned. It was supposed to snow overnight, it didn't. If they can't predict the path of a snowstorm, 100 times the size of the rose bowl that's only 150 miles away, I have little faith in this.
While orbital mechanics and weather are both chaotic systems, the former is a lot more predictable than the latter. :)
Regarding Apophis, yes, the bit about the "keyhole" is backwards. When a smaller object passes close by a much larger one, the smaller object's orbit is changed a lot, and the precise details of that change will vary widely for relatively small changes in the precise path on which the encounter happens. As Apophis passes the Earth, the Earth is moving in its own orbit around the sun. Depending on the direction that it passes by, this results in a transfer of kinetic energy between Apophis and the Earth, which either speeds up or slows down Apophis (well, and also the Earth, but the difference in mass is so huge that you can't measure the effect on the Earth's orbit). If Apophis hits the "keyhole" in 2029, then its speed has been changed by just the right amount to cause a collision in 2036 -- passing on one side will speed it up too much, passing on the other it's not enough. Either of those makes for a miss.
Narrowing it down to an actual impact site in 2036 is way beyond the precision we have now. Hitting in the pacific ocean is statistically fairly likely, since it covers almost half the Earth's surface, and if it did hit there, then yes, those are the kinds of effects you'd expect.
If you google for news on Apophis, it appears that we recently (as in last month) got increased accuracy on the orbital data for it which basically rule out the chance of it hitting the keyhole in 2036, and thus rule out the chance of a collision.
I suspect that JThw8 probably misunderstood what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said. The risk of collisions like this is real (the asteroids are out there), the problem is that we just don't know where the vast majority of potentially hazardous asteroids are. Finding them isn't easy, and getting enough data on their orbits to establish whether or not they're a hazard is even harder. It all takes money, and that's the bit that the government is not willing to fund.
Lots of info on these kinds of topics in this guy's blog: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/13/asteroid_impact_2106_reports_of_a_space_rock_hitting_us_are_exaggerated.html
Chances of an unknown unidentified space rock hitting earth are significantly higher than one of the known and tracked asteroids. Space is kinda big
aircooled wrote: The highest (relative to Earth) velocity humans have gone would have to be the Apollo missions. I am guessing 13 might be a bit faster then the others since they just went out and and slingshoted back (not by plan of course). Interesting question. That would be a good one to ask someone at a space center. It might make them look it up.
I wish I had known enough to ask the one time I've been to cape canaveral. I think I was 11 or 12 and watched Atlantis return from space that day.....pretty neat.
Sky_Render wrote: I disagree. We've sent probes to the far reaches of the solar system. Really, it isn't that difficult of a problem to solve. You simply need to get the payload out of orbit and onto a trajectory that will get close to the asteroid. The warhead is detonated far enough away to avoid actually breaking up the object, instead deflecting it by a degree or two, enough to prevent it from getting close to the Earth.
Probe is a bit different than a nuclear payload.
The principle behind it is simple, the ramifications of said idea are not. Also, I would love to see which genius gets to decide how far away doesn't break up the asteroid and deflects it. Cause it would SUCK to be him.
foxtrapper wrote: Weightless is not massless.
Exactly. The rock still has mass, and thus inertia, of somewhere around 20 million tons and that means it would not exactly be easy to move. The good thing is that if it's far enough away, a change in its path of a few minutes of arc would become a huge difference in distance as it got closer to Earth.
There was a theory floating around several years ago that if a nuke or ten could be attached to a tumbling asteriod then detonated at the right time they could shove it one way or the other to affect its orbit without busting it into a million smaller deadly pieces. That kind of theory is way over my pay grade, though.
^^What he said. Just because it's a nuclear explosion doesn't mean it's a big enough explosion to disintegrate the asteroid.
What are these gravity puller things? Sounds like something from Mass Effect.
Sky_Render wrote: What are these gravity puller things? Sounds like something from *Mass Effect.*
It's pretty simple, the gravity tractor is a little craft with thrusters. It moves close to the asteroid and there's a gravitational attraction between the two. Over a long period of time, the gravity tractor uses thrusters to maintain its distance with the asteroid, and this turns the path of the asteroid towards the tractor over time.
GameboyRMH wrote:Sky_Render wrote: What are these gravity puller things? Sounds like something from *Mass Effect.*It's pretty simple, the gravity tractor is a little craft with thrusters. It moves close to the asteroid and there's a gravitational attraction between the two. Over a long period of time, the gravity tractor uses thrusters to maintain its distance with the asteroid, and this turns the path of the asteroid towards the tractor over time.
Wouldn't you have to make the tractor of appreciable mass for it to have a noticeable effect?
A bigger (as in mass) tractor would be more powerful, but an average-sized satellite would be enough to steer Apophis away from Earth over the course of a year or more.
REWARD $1,000,000,000,000 to the first organization that can successfully slow, control, and land on the Apophis asteroid.
It would be a great investment for man-kind.
Which leads to another question: Could such a huge object be slowed down?
PHeller wrote: Which leads to another question: Could such a huge object be slowed down?
Sure, as soon as it slams into the Earth it will stop.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:PHeller wrote: Which leads to another question: Could such a huge object be slowed down?Sure, as soon as it slams into the Earth it will stop.
that's not technically true. It stops in relation to us.... but not in relation to space. It's still moving.... just at a different rate than before.
PHeller wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to send "pushers" to grab onto it and burn fuel for a few months? With it being weightless and all, in open space without gravitational pull, I'd think rocket boosters wouldn't have a difficult time pushing it out of harms way.
It's "weightless" in that nothing needs to hold it up right now, but it's not massless. It's just about as hard to push as it would be if it was resting on, say, a greased up hockey rink.
You'll need to log in to post.
