Stopping Killer Asteroids 627
Drog writes "Earth has had a few near misses with asteroids recently (although "near hits" would be more accurate). It's just a matter of time, though, before we detect one with our name on it. In this New York Times article, experts discuss the various ways that we might go about saving our planet. Remarkably, nuclear detonations are not a good option, as they would break the asteroid into many pieces and merely increase our odds of being hit. And a detonation some distance away may simply be absorbed by the asteroid with virtually no effect. Instead, say scientists who study asteroid hazards, a gentle sustained push is what's needed (slow and steady wins the race). Some of the approaches have been discussed in science fiction for years--a mass driver, an electromagnetic machine which hurls dirt from the surface, an orbiting parabolic mirror to heat up the surface and create a plume of vaporized material. All of these methods require one thing, however. Time. At least several decades warning."
So what do we do today?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pray. And give money and support funding to any program that maps the sky for asteroids. Cause if any are on their way (I'd say 30 years or less), well... we're just f*cked.
More pieces is bad...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is my science wrong?
Shouldn't we try some of this ideas first? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, will a near nuclear blast really be absorved by the meteor without it changing its course? How much of a force will it be needed to push an asteroid with rockets or the like?
So let's test now so that when the real thing comes and we launch our savior to space, we don't find out in the last minute that it fails.
On a side note, this shouldn't be a NASA-only effort, I think the European Space Agency and many other countries should ship in as well, as this concerns all of mankind.
Bear with me (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many things that could put an end to life here on Earth as we know it. Some of these would end life for all 6 billion of us, or for just one or two. Life is precious; never take anything for granted, as the next moment of trechery may suddenly take it away.
I urge you all to love, listen, smile, ask questions, donate time, donate money, learn new things, and teach others new and fascinating pieces of knowledge through the beauty of education. If you do these things, you will experience great happiness and will come to realize that preventing "killer asteroids" should be at the very bottom of your To Do list.
Peace.
Killer rocks. (Score:2, Insightful)
In thinking of this Osama is a small potatos compared to a 1 mile wide rock wiping out most if not all of Humanity. The world will end and the bug that poses for the latest IE vunerability topic image will then run
Let's talk about something useful. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean to appear as flame bait.. but.. this topic has been discussed here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here, here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], and here [slashdot.org].
There are some useful scenarios we could be discussing. This is approximately none of them.
Yet Again.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More pieces is bad...why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Earth has made it this long w/out our intervent (Score:5, Insightful)
-aiabx
Re:Fo r a nuclear detonation to be effective... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not necessarily. That would require a lot of effort and as the article mentions, asteroids might be too loose to drill in easily (try scooping out a hole in a pile of dry sand, from the side -- you'll get there eventually, but wouldn't it be easier to have just detonated something nearby?) There are some bunker-busting technologies that could be used to get a bit farther, but then again, you are increasing the number of fragments coming our way. It's like a shotgun blast then -- more likely something's going to hit, even if it isn't as large. Though they might be small enough to burn up on reentry, only one large chunk would be required to remain to cause catostrophic damage. So therefore, it might be an idea, but having plenty of time beforehand to analyze the remains and possibly do another mission would be a good idea.
Surprised that 1950 DA isn't mentioned... (Score:2, Insightful)
30 years? 1950 DA is supposed to swing by real close (or hit) in about 878 years, and I'm seriously frightened that we won't be able to get consensus in time to blast (or nudge) it out of it's orbit.
Go to http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/04/04/lost.aste roid/ [cnn.com] for more info.
Yeah, but that's not the first solution we can do (Score:5, Insightful)
Useless to worry about the possibility..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some silly suggestions in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
You park your space ship against the rock, and set off small nuclear explosions against a plate mounted on the other side. The explosions are as small as you want, so the acceleration is as small as you want (to keep the rock from breaking up), but you can hold enough fuel (nuclear bombs) to make it last for quite some time.
The methods suggested in the article might work if far longer time frames are available (millenia). But this is the best bet if you have to move it out of the way a little quicker than that.
Re:Shouldn't we try some of this ideas first? (Score:3, Insightful)
However its not like asteroids are particularly convenient to get to or anything. Right now there are a few spacecraft out there photographing asteroid & asteroid-like objects with plans to impact into one to see what happens, another to dig into one and further plans to bring back some material.
All of this is very basic science and none of it is particularly focused on how to deflect or break up an asteroid. That would come much later, decades considering the slow rate of progress in this area. The programs cost lots of money, the transit times are long, there's not much particular urgency and budgets are (relatively) small.
As many have noted the first step is just to get an idea of what we are dealing with, take a look around, figure out what the heck these things are even made of and exactly what history our planet has with these. Once we've got some ideas of what we're dealing with comes the stage of deciding how to do so.
While we're talking odds here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thrust ship (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can't test a nuke in space (Score:3, Insightful)
thats the real reason that we are still storing our nuclear waste on earth when it would be much better to launch it into the orbit. its same thing with weapons. think about the rage among other countries it would provoke if usa sent nukes/waste into the orbit and rocket exploded on its way up and contaminated most of the earth surface...
I wouldn't rush out to try and solve this (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of how many insane cult and national leaders there have been in the past century alone. Now think of how many more we'll see in the next 100,000 years or so. I'd stick with the natural odds on this one.
Unfortunately, though, if this technology is possible, somebody is going to go ahead and develop it. Given human nature, there is no way to stop the proliferation of tempting new powers.
Re:More pieces is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
if a large impact - such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs - happens again, we're beat. No half way about it. However, if we get punished with a dozen impacts 1/12th the size of the original, we may only lose a few countries, maybe upwards of 20 or 30.
only to go back to your example - that devasting n-medium sized, will not cause the sun to be blocked from earth....whereas one huge impact may push enough sh** into the air causing us to croak.
isnt losing the sun the biggest problem that we, as a race, would fear from an impact? or are there other ramifications?
Re:Solution Already Exists: Nuclear Rocket (Score:5, Insightful)
Planet P [planetp.cc] - Liberationg Through Technology.
Painting the asteriod (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference in energy absorbtion/radiation on the two sides of the 'roid could be enough to produce a bit of a push and take it out of harms way.
Now, what they failed to mention in the article, which I think pretty much sends this idea to the dumpster is: what if the asteriod is rotating? That would cancel out any pushing (unless you paint one of the "poles", I suppose, but who says that's the side you "want" to paint?). Or, at the least, it would push it in unpredictable ways, which isn't a good idea.
Re:Yeah, but that's not the first solution we can (Score:4, Insightful)
And of course, when you do get a self-sufficient colony going somewhere else, they're going to have their own agenda. Sort of like Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, or longer term, Asimov's Foundation.
But... I offer two cliches that are none the less true:
More useful nuclear tid-bits. (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these methods require one thing, however. Time. At least several decades warning.
Time is balanced with power. We need the power to get whatever solution where it needs to be in time to make a difference. More power yields less time. It also reduces the radius at which you must operate. With more power, you can make a trajectory difference closer to the sun.
Nuclear power in space is the best solution. Asside from proven rocket designs with higher specific impulses than chemical designs, nuclear can be used to power more exotic propulsion technologies. Where else are you going to get your mega watts? The whole effort should be co-ordinated with a push to colinize and exploit extra-terrestrial resources, and that is best accomplished with the portable power nuclear provides. More is better.
Re:Yeah, but that's not the first solution we can (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude that "it doesn't benefit us now" is the same attitude that keeps people from buying insurance. One may never need insurance, but you can rest assured that if your house burns down, it is well worth it.
But extending that attitude to the existence of the human race, is obtuse to the point of being offensive. We have one chance, one single point of failure, one instance of probability defining the satisfaction of our continuation as a species. If we fail that dice roll, we all die. Forgive my presumption, but that warrants investigation. This dice does not have enough faces.
Your assumptions about large population, economical self sufficiency, and capitalism are not validated. Your assertion that people will not go is not qualified (it is evident from the colonization of the Americas that people desire to go into the unknown, as refected in the popularity of Star Trek and other similar exploration entertainment). If you don't want to go, that is ok. I assure you that other people may; it is not your place to belittle their opportunities. It may be your will to undermine the will of the continuation of the species through this means, but I suggest giving it more thought first.
You have not demonstrated that colonization is any less viable than the multi-generational solutions proposed by the NY Times, none of which solve the problem that Earth is a single point of failure.
For some reason, I am reminded of telephone sanitation workers
Re:Making Comparisons (Score:1, Insightful)
This has already been covered on this topic.
Re:If it comes it comes... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the world is not worth saving why don't you just kill yourself? Seriously, this is not a troll or flamebait. I really want to know the answer. Why not?
Sports heros are paid millions of dollars a year... each... and most teachers are living hand to mouth.
Why don't you stop comparing apples to oranges? Due to union contracts, some teachers are extremely overpaid compared to others who get screwed. Why don't you fix that problem first? Teachers teach our children that once High School is over, your life is going to suck. Work is going to suck. The only thing you'll have to look forward to after the prom and the homecoming football game is the weekend on the couch with a beer and sports on TV. Nobody teaches children that a job can be fun. You wonder why people choose to give their money to athletes instead of teachers? Please, spare me. This is not a wealth redistribution problem like you imply. It's a social engineering problem, and any solution will take generations to work. If you treat it as some moral injustice you'll just perpetuate the cycle or move the problem elsewhere.
Doctors are taught never to identify with the person behind the disease they're treating.
I fail to see how this is bad. Would the world be a better place if all of our doctors were clinically depressed and in institutions after a few years of service? Due to human nature our society depends on objectivity to survive. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions. Sometimes an individual has to be sacraficed for the good of the many. Sometimes you just can't save sombody. It sucks, but that's life. You have to distance yourself at a personal level from the reality if you want to maintain your sanity and continue to make good decisions.
Racism is rampant, keeping certain people from getting ahead just because of where their family comes from. In Ireland, people are killed over how to worship the same god.
Hard work can solve this problem? I doubt it. We've worked at it hard for centuries. These problems will not go away until people are willing to throw away their culture. Ironically, the same people who are interested in seeing problems like this solved are the same types of people who go out of their way to preserve cultures that are dying. Racial and religious barriers that have been overcome have been overcome at the expense of the culture of both sides. I think it's a great tradeoff, but do you? Does everybody?
In China, female children are thrown in the river because of a phallocentric ideology.
Here's another one where you have to make a choice between forgetting a culture to save lives, or preserving our history. No, you can't do both. Does the answer seem so obvious anymore? How many lives would be lost to get people who are so bound to cultural expectations that they would drown their own child to abandon that culture?
Now that I've been antagonizing you, here's the real point. Even with all those problems, do we still need to give up on stopping big rocks from killing us? Aren't there enough people on this planet such that plenty of people can work on all the problems? Can we a s a society persue multiple goals at the same time? If not, why not tackle the problems we know we can find an answer to (moving big rocks) while we're still coming to terms with the realities of the problems that don't have answers everybody will agree with (see above).
Re:Clearly this is a worry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Carlin quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Or better yet, what's a Far Hit?
I think of a near miss as a miss that was close enough to be scary. A far miss is like passing by at a safe distance.
It sounds like you are/he is treating "Near" as "Nearly" or "Almost". I think of "Near" as close distance.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh - what about the southern hemisphere? (Score:3, Insightful)
The big problem is, no-one on this planet can see anything coming from the sun. We could easily get hit on our blind side.
My solution is to get some freaking people on a nother planet. NOW.
M@
Get off this Planet (Score:3, Insightful)
What we CAN do is get a self sustaining colony on another planet. I wish we could come up with a way to convince more people of this, and impress the implications of not doing it.
I would like to see all religious activity funneled into the work needed to make this off-earth colony happen. It's not that I think religion is bad, I just think it is so much more important to preserve our species than to worship a possible creator/creators of it.
Instead of "thou shall not work on the Sabbath" we should have "thou shall work on off-earth colonization on the Sabbath." If the whole of humanity dedicated it's resources to making this happen, it would happen.
M@
Re:Shouldn't we try some of this ideas first? (Score:3, Insightful)
We're barely exploring these objects. The current missions can be counted on one hand. The proposed missions can be counted on the other. All of them are stretched out over decades.
We're nowhere near making useful plans of the sort you're proposing. Heck, we're not even completely sure what a "typical" asteroidal object is like and just how much they diverge. Never mind not having anything that can get anywhere out there without several years of preparation and the possible targets limited to what gravity assists offer.
I'm all for research on this stuff, but before you plan on jumping in your rocketship you might want to become acquainted with what the current state of the art is and what can be realistically be anticipated in the near to mid term.
First lets figure out WHAT these are like and HOW to GET there BEFORE even starting working on diverting or demolishing 'em.