Russia Plans To Divert Asteroid 305
CyberDong writes "Roscosmos, Russia's Federal Space Agency, will start working on a project to save planet Earth from a possible collision with Asteroid Apophis, which may happen in 2036. NASA specialists believe that the collision is extremely unlikely. Russian specialists will choose the strategy and then invite the world's leading space agencies to join the project."
If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they take an asteroid that's not likely to hit Earth, and accidentally divert it onto a path directly at Earth, I'm going to do an epic facepalm.
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet, people win the damn lottery every day.
USA: no need to bother, it likely won't happen.
Russia: better not take any chance.
I'll go with Russia's solution, thank you very much.
thats what they hope (Score:2, Insightful)
Relax (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just another way of diverting the flow of government money into a few carefully chosen pockets. As is the nano-technology research program, and the snow-free winters mentioned earlier today. Think about it: an open-ended grant with no accountability for a quarter century - and likely ever? They'll get a couple government defaults and an odd coup in between, who's going to care about the small stuff.
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds Fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds like Perminov has no idea what he's talking about to begin with, so it seems unlikely that this will go anywhere. Consider this quote, from the original AP article:
Without mentioning NASA's conclusions, Perminov said that he heard from a scientist that Apophis is getting closer and may hit the planet. "I don't remember exactly, but it seems to me it could hit the Earth by 2032," Perminov said.
Note that the NASA conclusion is that, no, there will be no strike in 2032 and unlikely in 2036. It sounds like he's a bureaucrat trying to make himself important by making up a job. That doesn't bode well for the projecting going anywhere.
(Phil Plait [discovermagazine.com] has talked about this, too.)
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
NO, there is a bigger chance to be hit by an asteroid than to win a lottery. Because Apophis is under observation we know exactly what the risk is. The real risks come from objects we are not currently observing.
Re:thats what they hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year's inch is next year's mile.
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they take an asteroid that's not likely to hit Earth, and accidentally divert it onto a path directly at Earth, I'm going to do an epic facepalm.
Orbital mechanics have a funny way of making an object return to its point of egress. Given how close it is, it is a bit concerning they want to adjust its orbit.
That said, I feel this is something we need more experience in anyhow. Their is already an asteroid out there right now with our name on it, it is just a matter of time before it shows up. We will lose out if we don't take this opportunity to field test our idea's as we have the tech to do so now. As an economical side point, one day I'm sure we'd like to know how to slowly adjust their paths to bring them into an more contained/slower orbit around/near Earth so we can begin mining them for untold trillions of $ worth of materials they contain.
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well if you believe they can calculate the odds of it hitting earth based on its current estimated path, then surely they can calculate how to modify the trajectory so as to reduce the odds.
On the other hand, I agree that since it already sounds incredibly unlikely that it will hit us, screwing with it sounds like a silly idea.
On the other, other hand I would rather have someone out there treating the problem of meteor impact like it is real and developing a plan to address it. For a plan to have a high chance of success relative to the consequences of an asteroid that we think has a high chance of hitting us (two very different values of "high"), I think it would take a long time to develop and test. As in quite a bit more time than between now and 2036. As the date approaches, and in the case that further study suggests the asteroid is even less likely to hit us, maybe we can do some proof-of-concept tests like actually intercepting the meteor or other important steps to be ready for when we're really in danger.
On the last hand, which I now realize is my right foot, the main reason I don't want to rely on any last-minute ad-hoc plan to save the earth from a planet killer is because, succeed or fail, any universe in which the movie Armageddon plays out in reality is one that I can't go on living in.
Re:asteroid (Score:1, Insightful)
Otherwise we are just asking for "oops, it would have missed completely but now it just hit the moon - and, guess what? The moon will now hit us in 100 years"...
Re:Sounds Fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is everything currently known about the orbit of 99942 Apophis.
http://aeweb.tamu.edu/aero489/Apophis%20Mitigation%20Project/Predicting%20Earth%20Encounters.pdf [tamu.edu]
We'll know more in 2012/2013 when radar returns can be collected. Anyone who says that there is "no chance", "nearly no chance" or anything other than "we don't have enough data yet" is just trying to stem public panic by treating you like a child. Read the scientific papers, make your own decision and for god sakes, don't criticize the people we may be calling on to save lives in the future.
The fact is, asteroid detection systems (let alone mitigation systems) globally are woefully inadequate. We need at least a dozen radar telemetry satellites in solar orbit and improvements in the deep-space-network to handle that kind of data through-put. Total cost is likely in the tens of billions, and most of that will go on the telescopes, not the radar sats, and traditionally that's the most starved part of all national budgets diverted to space.
Re:asteroid (Score:4, Insightful)
If we want the power to divert asteroids we must prove we can do it in order to know we can do it.
This is a bit like atmospheric testing, which decisively proved limited nuclear wars are quite practical and suggested that total nuclear war was an extreme last resort. Some things aren't practical to simulate.
Re:Sounds Fishy (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but it is an indication of what kind of stuff our orbit leads us through on a regular basis. And a reason to be concerned when anybody suggests that we monkey around with an asteroid, sure we might succeed in changing it's velocity, but we might very well cause it to hit us rather than narrowly avoiding us.
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds Fishy (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who says that there is "no chance", "nearly no chance" or anything other than "we don't have enough data yet" is just trying to stem public panic by treating you like a child.
The authors of the paper you link said pretty much exactly that in their abstract. Saying "we don't have enough data yet" is a cop-out; we know enough to make a pretty good prediction, which is all you can ever do.
Re:asteroid (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't really an answer to the notion of testing on a slightly less exciting asteroid.
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
When it finally comes to the point when an asteroid is on a direct collision course, we might not be lucky, we might not have seen it decades in advance, and so a test run and lots of arguing about methods might not be an option.
Test drive (Score:5, Insightful)
As a bonus, we might actually advance science and technology!
Little more input? (Score:2, Insightful)
I recognize the irony in asking this question as I am an American; however, shouldn't there be a little more discussion from the rest of the planet when dealing with the potential of a huge asteroid destroying the planet if someone calculates a trajectory incorrectly?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Why limit yourself? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question to me is: is there a bigger chance of Apophis hitting Earth than the chance of catastrophic climate change due to anthropogenic global warming? Because that has the western world's attention and money, and Apophis does not.
Why does everyone focus on the anthropogenic and not on the catastrophic? I mean, isn't it worth our while to research ways to prevent/ameliorate catastrophic climate change no matter what the cause?
Would really be great if they can do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can just as easily practice asteroid deflection strategies on an asteroid that has no chance of hitting Earth either before or after. That way the odds of catastrophic fail are zero.
A similar article in the New York Times [nytimes.com] makes this point, and ends up with the quote, “There are a million asteroids out there. Find another one.”
Re:asteroid (Score:3, Insightful)
Feel free to test asteroid diversion schemes on an asteroid that has no chance of hitting Earth whether you succeed or fail.
A related New York Times article makes this point. [nytimes.com]
Re:The one thing that'll guarantee an Asteroid str (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If it's not broken, why are you fixing it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to point out that the odds of winning a state lottery jackpot, let alone a MegaMillions jackpot, are so small that your odds of buying a winning ticket are effectively no better than the odds of finding a winning ticket on the ground.
For that to be true then amongst past winners there'd have to be an even distribution of people who bought their ticket versus people who randomly picked up their ticket off the ground. Somehow I doubt that's the case ;).
Re:Why limit yourself? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have refrained from saying anything about this but this attitude is bogus.
It is questionable what we are doing, but not for the denialist reasons you are saying.
It is blatently obvious that CO2 is responsible for the current changes. They are literally happening a hundred times faster than any changes in the past and the fact that this unusual thing is happening in almost perfect synchronicity with the industrial revolution is just too vastly high of a coincidence.
What I find questionable is current attempts to somehow limit CO2 output. It seems like feel-good and wasteful expense. The inconvenient truth is that this is going to happen even if we immediately somehow immediately stopped emitting CO2, the current elevated levels will be there and would not disappear unless we recreate the forests that absorbed it at first and buried them deeply and converted them back to oil. The money wasted trying to bribe countries into stopping burning fuel might be much better spent trying to figure out how to mitigate this and how to move the people who are going to be flooded. And if it really is bad the huge geo-engineering solutions such as a space parasol might just make sense, yes they will cost tens of trillions but it will be worth it and it really will work.
I think it is unfortunate that all the denialists are causing any argument about this to be hidden. If you are not in favor of massive payments to 3rd world countries then you must be a denialist. Thanks a lot for making it impossible to have reasonable arguments, you fucking jerks.