NASA Making Plans To Save the Earth 226
aluminumangel writes, "Taking a page out of a Michael Bay movie, NASA is considering a manned mission to land on an asteroid, 'poke one with a stick,' and see how feasible it would be to deflect it from its course. Obviously, the application would be valuable in a doomsday situation and hopefully could keep us from going wherever the dinosaurs went." The article makes oblique reference to another goal such a mission could serve: giving us something to do in space, something to engage the paying public, between the time we return to the Moon and the time we get to Mars.
Cue stupid Aerosmith song (Score:3, Funny)
They need to hurry (Score:4, Funny)
This could be useful... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Men, machines, food, etc. will probably still have to come from Earth for the foreseeable future.
Midway was pretty handy if you didn't have the fuel to get all the way to Japan!
Don't comets obey the laws of physics??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't comets obey the laws of physics??? (Score:5, Funny)
In practice, however......
Re:Don't comets obey the laws of physics??? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
Without collecting data, all you get is something akin to String Theory - could be true, could be false, no one knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Look for... (Score:2, Insightful)
Get you insightful replies... (Score:4, Informative)
Armageddon wouldn't even be close. (Score:5, Interesting)
Giving the astronauts every benefit of the doubt (able to intercept it twice as far out as they did in the movie, bomb able to be placed at the center of mass, the bomb having ten times the yield of largest nuke ever exploded by man, perfectly elastic explosion, etc. etc. etc.) they not only couldn't make the asteroid miss the Earth, they would only have changed impact points by about a meter!
I love sci-fi movies and like to give my students problems from popular films that illustrate the absurdity of Hollywood stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the simple fact that most of the destructive power of a nuclear weapon is actually caused by a wave-front of superheated air moving away from the center of the blast. Air is something quite scarce in space, however. You can't impart such kinetic energy to rock, however. Oh you could probably melt the center of this rock, but it would just cool again. Or you could shatter it, and have lots of tiny a
Re: (Score:2)
This, I think, would be survivable (never mind the improbability of an asteroid "the size of texas")
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree. If you have enough tiny asteroids, you are going to heat up the atmosphere, which lowers its density, which makes it less efficient at stopping all the other little asteroids. The first ones will burn up. The last ones will hit the ground. And you'll have a lot of superheated air to deal with. The amount of energy remains the same, and ear
Re: (Score:2)
True, but this same effect happens with a larger asteroid--it enters the earth's atmosphere and loses a lot of velocity due to drag, and a lot of mass due to vaporization from the heat of friction. The overall kinetic energy is severely diminished by the time it hits the ground, which is when we calculate the impact effects. So the important question is: does a single large object or a cloud of smaller objects get slowed down and vaporized mo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Through the friction between the atmosphere and the rocks, the temperature could reach over hundred of millions of Kevin and start nuclear fusion right in the comfort of the earth's atmosphere!
Jesus.
and/or be deflected away.
Can someone else take a shot at this? I am busy banging my head against my desk.
In all seriousness though, you could deflect some of the pieces off if you can change the velocity of the pieces after you blew them off. But not with the atmosphere...
Re:Armageddon wouldn't even be close. (Score:4, Informative)
An asteroid, moving through space, has velocity (relatively to the earth) 5 - 20 km/s. Now, most of the earth's atmosphere is about 5 km thick (the rest are light elements scattered in the exosphere). That means it takes
less than a second
for any asteroid to get though the earth's atmosphere! This is the reason why meteoroids are below freezing (instead of glowing red hot) after they landed on earth - they don't have time to heat up through friction.
Second of all, impact cratering is calculated by the kinetic energy of the asteroid. Size means jack. Which means that as long as the most of the things landed on earth, we get craters.
What all these means is unless you can blow up the asteroid in such a way that they are smaller than your garden's peddles, they will still hit earth. Can fusion bomb do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Your essential point is correct, but as long as we're all being pedantic physics gits, let me point out that friction as usually talked about has little to do with the heating of objects entering planetary atmospheres at high speeds. It's really a non-adiabatic heating of the gas itself because of shock-wave effects out in front of the
Re: (Score:2)
Blowing-up a large object into many small ones would increase the surface area per unit mass. Would this not accelerate burn-up in the atmosphere? Would it be enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you're correct that a land hit would throw up a lot of particulate matter into the atmosphere and cause heavy global cooling, a water hit wo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why so large? (Score:3, Interesting)
My crude rev
Weaponized! (Score:5, Insightful)
Take out a major city, no radiation. Just the threat would be a useful tool of terror and control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're missing the point.
Cruise missiles, unlike asteroids, have no super-villain street cred. Hurling giant space rocks at people displays a lot more panache.
That's like saying anyone who can build a weather
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Weaponized! (Score:5, Insightful)
Should be interesting if/when someone tries this.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the exact same thing. We're starting to hit the limits of mine-able metals on Earth. Parking a big NEA in orbit would solve a lot of those problems.
We still have a ways to go on Earth. For example, there's almost no deep sea mining of metals. That's three quarters of the Earth's surface. And at some point, it would become viable to extract stuff directly from sea water. Space based extraction has to compete with that.Re:Weaponized! (Score:4, Funny)
Shhh. Don't say things like that, or they won't let us take our asteroids on airplanes anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would spend billions of dollars to divert a rock in space (with all the uncertanty that goes with it) to attack a country when they could spend vastly less and do a better job with conventional weapons? I mean, besides the brain bugs? Want to know more? [wikipedia.org]
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Re: (Score:2)
But if you can keep it quiet - and you'd really want to do that - then you've got the world by the balls, and they wouldn't even know it.
"Well, damn! We we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Against clueless tinfoil-hatters who modded this up...
WTF people? This is a geek forum so how dare you not have clues to how technology works?
The massive dust plume would still pose a huge environmental threat. Think Tunguska.
The asteroid diversion would cost more than a nuke and be far more difficult to use.
Asteroid diversion lacks an immediate launch capability.
The only countries potentially capable of asteroid diversion already have nukes.
Tac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) figure out what sort of 'roid would work best. Look to minimize fragmentation.
2) the math could probably be worked. I mean, the entry window for the shuttle is very narrow but we have obsolete guidance computers that can work out the angle of descent and attack.
3) You probably would use a smaller 'roid as you would not want to destroy an entire region.
4) It would be most useful against nations w/o nukes.
5) The lack of abort option is a concern, but give
Itsatrap! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope they pick a small asteroid to test on.
Re: (Score:2)
That tag is for Microsoft use only.
Why send people? (Score:2)
Moving an asteroid means landing an engine on the thing and firing it. That doesn't require people. If you send people, you have to send all that extra mass for life support, a return vehicle, and return fuel. Which cuts into the fuel for moving the asteroid. So sending people is a lose.
Re:Why send people? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember around that time that theme songs where not in the movie and I was disappointed.
Godzilla: Come with me (Puff Daddy), Deeper Underground (jamiroquai).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
thank god! (Score:3, Funny)
Worst Movie Ever! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it wasn't your intention (Score:2)
Should have been done years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
FromTFA:
Actually the apollo stack (SM, CM, LM ascent and descent stages) had easily enough velocity budget to fly to and return from some near Earth asteroids. It didn't have the consumables to do it but that could have been launched separately. You get more redundancy that way.
Of course we don't have the apollo CM, which is the only spacecraft in existance which could make a high speed return from an asteroid and reenter the atmosphere, but we will have the CRV which should have similar capabilities. The saturn 5 launch system doesn't exist either and thats the part of this system which is really vapourware.
Anyway good luck to them. Mars has been held off for so long because it is so much more risky and difficult than the moon. Asteroids offer progressively harder challenges, minus the risk of sudden death landing a heavy vehicle on mars.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, has there been any progress on the problem of low-G muscle degeneration? This whole Space-1999 moonbase idea isn't likely to get a lot of traction until that's been fixed. That and actually providing some economic benefit, USA/etc. might be willing to throw cash at manned missions for bragging rights, but re-supply of a moon base isn't even in the same ballpark cost wise.
We know zero gee is bad for you and some tricks for making zero gee not quite so bad. And we know one gee is good.
Re: (Score:2)
The human body depends upon pressure and exertion to maintain muscle tone, bone and muscle mass
Re: (Score:2)
NASA planning to save the Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
Poke it with a stick? (Score:2)
Several thoughts (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Dinosaurs (Score:4, Funny)
(That and worship our them as our yellow masters through PBS.)
-GiH
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-GiH
Think of the Astrologists!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am thinking of them. I'm thinking of poking them with a stick until they deflect from their course. I really like the idea of lots of little pokes, but if that doesn't do the trick I'm perfectly willing to blow 'em up, real good.
anti-overlord revolution (Score:2, Funny)
I can hear it now. (Score:2, Insightful)
Where the Dinosaurs Went... (Score:2)
There will be fewer people in space, not more (Score:2)
2. We are NOT going to go to Mars.
3. We are NOT going to send PEOPLE to a fucking asteroid.
Why?
It's all very simple: money, energy, and need.
1. The only thing on the moon that's worth a flying fuck is He3. However, even with all the possibilities of enormous electricity provided from He3 reactors here on terra firma, building and decommissioning the reactors, AND mining the crap out of the moon's regolith will pretty much blow it's ER/EI ratio to pieces. Also,
Technology as an autocatalytic system (Score:2, Insightful)
You're dead on when considering the current state and economics of technology -- going to the Moon may be (and going Mars is certainly) too expensive for a sustained effort. Right now. However, with the parallel progress in any number of fields, such as materials science, computer aided design and simulation, energy related technologies (let's get some really efficient nuke
where the dinosaurs went (Score:2)
What I plan to do before we land on Mars (Score:2)
This is what they should do when they get there (Score:2)
Novel method for changing orbit of small planetary body (asteroid/comet).
Abstract: Using a tethered "sling" to release pieces of a small planetary body, a small (inexpensive) payload delivered to a body rotating at a sufficient rate can effectively convert the body's rotational energy into directed kinetic energy. The tether, which may be attached to said body via cables or netting
Re: (Score:2)
In the next issue, perhaps you could discuss how many asteroids you imagine have geosyncronous orbit distances outside their own surfaces.
You seem to have given a lot of thought to the details of the implementation, and not much to the basic theory. The total rotation enrgy of most bodies is not going to be enough to significantly effect their orbits until you've throw almost all of their mass back the other way, at which point, why not
Most useful space goal ever (Score:2)
SCREW "Deflection" (Score:2)
What we have is not a failure of technology. What we have is a failure of imagination. *sigh*
The "Earth" does not need saving. (Score:2)
But first... (Score:2)
Apophis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one that doesn't care (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Karma is only important to you because you don't have any.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If NASA's plans go forward, they're going to need a space infrastructure. Eventually, that will mean space-based manufacturing. For manufacturing, you need raw materials. Those raw materials are expensive to lift from Earth's gravity well. Ergo, the best solution is to mine them from much smaller gravity wells where the cost of transport is comparitively minimal.
The key issue that an mission to
HEY THIS GUY PLAIGARIZED MY POST! (Score:2)
- Wisebabo
Sorry the link to my own post is bad, try this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess where most of the "real engineers" are. NASA. SS1 is a deadend design and only governmental agencies(NASA, ESA, whatever the hell the Russian agency is called) have reached escape velocity.
How much precedent did Mercury have and how much precedent did SS1 have?
by building off 40+ years of NASA research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)