ESA Selects Targets for Asteroid Deflection Test 284
Vandil X writes "The European Space Agency has announced that it has selected two candidate asteroid targets for a planned mission to impact an asteroid in an attempt to deflect the asteroid off course by a measurable amount. The mission, dubbed "Don Quijote," will send two spacecraft to their final choice asteroid. One craft will impact the asteroid while the other will observe the asteroid before and after the collision. The mission craft and target selection are expected to be finalized sometime in 2007."
Sweet mercy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet mercy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet mercy (Score:2)
NO DADDY NO (Score:2, Funny)
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:2)
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear bombs will work fine in a vacuum. They don't need oxygen or anything else to support combustion, because they don't use combustion - they use a NUCLEAR (imagine that!) reaction, not a chemical one. The high explosive used to fire the nuke I don't believe needs O2 either, and if it did, that would be an easy problem to deal with.
Yeah, no one will hear the explosion, but that isn't a problem.
Now why do special effects people make explosions make noise in a vacuum in sci-fi movies, shows, etc.
We KNOW better than that, well most of us anyway.
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:2)
But the damage will be greatly reduced, won't it? You'll still have all the hard radiation, EMP, and the force of whatever mass in the weapon isn't converted to energy, obviously. But I would think that the lack of an atmosphere would prevent most of the heat damage (poor conductivity), and eliminate most of the shockwave.
In the footage I've seen of nuclear tests, it looks like most of the physical damage comes from the high-speed shockwave travelling through the air
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure nukes in open space is questionable, but the AC was talking about placing the nuke within the asteroid - Armageddon style.
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't believe what you see in movies.
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it would be stupid without any sound. Go ahead and watch the space-battle-scenes in Star Wars/Trek with sound off if it bothers you so much. You would notice after 5 seconds that it would take about 80% of the coolness away from the battle-scenes.
Battle of Endor with no sound? Starfleet vs. Borg Cube in First Contact with no sound? Battle-scenes in Babylon 5 with no sound? Maybe it's unrealistic, bu
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:3, Funny)
.[/joke]
.
-shpoffo
Re:NO DADDY NO (Score:2)
Crash? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would think something like white paint (using the reflective properties to move the asteroid) would be more interesting. Slower, for sure, but much more effective over a period of months or years.
Is there something to this mission that I am missing?
Re:Crash? (Score:2)
Is there something to this mission that I am missing?
Only the facts of how they plan on moving the asteroid.
Re:Crash? (Score:2)
Care to enlighten me?
Re:Crash? (Score:2)
That is one possible way to move an asteroid. What they're trying is another.
How bout we try both, so that if we ever REALLY have to do it, we'll have some clue as to what works better.
Re:Crash? (Score:2)
Re:Crash? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've never played nine-ball for money have you? Banging one object into another doesn't always have predictable results.
Re:Crash? (Score:2)
Ahh, but they are predictable IF all the variables are known. By all the variables, I mean even the effect of your sweaty fingerprints on the balls from the last time they were racked. There are numerous effects to contend with on the billiard table, many of which are not very well known, or under our control. Those who can guess well, or have some sense of those effects are the ones
Re:Crash? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) You assume that the target object is solid enough to resist being broken into multiple pieces. It does no good to deflect a small chunk of the object while the main mass continues on its normal course.
2) If you are planning on hitting an object enough to deflect it, you need... a bit of practice. The targetting, propulsion and all other such systems are just as big a part of this test as anything else. All the mathematics in the world won't help you play pool with a bad cue.
3) Is a collision with an asteroid likely to be elastic? Will the striking object bounce off of the target or embed itself within it? These are very different models as far as where the force goes.
4) As a side effect, you get more information along the lines of the previous Deep Impact probe.
Re:Crash? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Crash? (Score:5, Funny)
I have. It is called "Slashdot".
What happens... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, though. If you read the article, you would know that they picked an asteroid that will never cross the earth's path (more than 1AU from sun at all times). The tiny nudge would be like hitting Pavorati with a spit ball. Not nearly enough to make it an earth killer.
Re:What happens... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What happens... (Score:2)
Re:What happens... (Score:4, Funny)
"Pavarotti SMASH!!! "
Re:What happens... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah, sure. ESA and NASA keep this collision secret because:
Also, this is ESA. There isn't nearly as much useless secrecy in Europe th
Re:What happens... (Score:3, Funny)
Multiple answers:
ALIENS: "Game over, man, game over!"
LAST STARFIGHTER: *bzzt* "We die."
YOSEMITE SAM: "Say yer prayers, varmint."
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: "The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds."
Do you feel better now?
Re:Nuclear Charged Ship (Score:2)
Liv Tyler? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: On 19 December 2004 MN4, an asteroid of about 400 m, lost since its discovery six months earlier, was observed again and its orbit was computed. It immediately became clear that the chances that it could hit the Earth during a close encounter in 2029 were unusually high. As the days passed the probability did not decrease and the asteroid became notorious for surpassing all previous records in the Torino and Palermo impact risk scales - scales that measure the risk of an asteroid impact just as the Richter scale quantifies the size of an earthquake.
It is funny what we never think of- every night while we sleep there are so many people keeping us safe- Call me a geek, but astronomers are unsung heroes. I am glad someone is worried about destruction of the Earth...
Re:Liv Tyler? (Score:2)
Me too!
*sticks pinky to his mouth*
I would second that... (Score:2)
...except she might marry some freakin' king by the time I return from my journey. Damn men, always cockblocking us elves!
Re:Liv Tyler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, like the guy at the water treatment facility - who keeps us from plague, or the fed-ex guy- who transports vital medical supplies, or the building inspector- who ensures our structures don't collapse on us, or the guy who draws those warning pictures - so we don't accidently eat our Shuffles, or telephone sanitizers.
Astronomers do an important job, but calling them unsung heroes is a little much. If they volunteer to be stuffed in a cannon and shot at the asteroid to deflect its path, then i'd call them heroes.
Re:Liv Tyler? (Score:3, Funny)
Instead of "unsung hero", lets instead call them "territorial demon-spawn".
And yes, moderators. Thats "insightful" or "funny (in a sad kind of way)" if you've been through that before. "off-topic" if you haven't.
The public will get to view the event (Score:5, Funny)
Artist's conceptions of spacecraft (Score:4, Funny)
Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the asteroid deflected in 2008 by the European Space Agency has been confirmed as hitting Earth in December this year, with an expected impact point near Switzerland.
It's been nice knowing you folks.
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
yo.
---------
(*)If you actually believe that the Concorde was real. Personally, I'm convinced it was all an elaborate Cold War hoax to beat the Russians.
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
If it hit land, consider ourselves lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were to impact a landmass, we could consider ourselves lucky. Given the high proportion of water to land on the planet, the odds are overwhelmingly against a land impact. Sure, it happens. Sure, it would suck. A land impact would undoubtedly render complete destruction over a large area, alter local climate, cause all fault-lines to shatter, and reduce the affected area to glowing slag. However, that IS the good news. Now the bad news: Models of an ocean impact suggest the global climate would be upset for decades - if not longer. It would impose near ice-age conditions due to solar energy reflected by the planet-wide clouds caused by the vaporization of several trillion tons of seawater. Muddy, salty rain would destroy the world's breadbaskets. Sunlight might not reach the surface for tens of years.
..The implications are enormous, and need not be enumerated; surely the point is made.
Actions such as these aimed at researching the feasibility of deflection should be supported, not something due scorn. The odds of such a cataclysm occurring in our lifetime are indeed negligible...but surely, being prepared is better than being caught with our pants down.
Alarmist? Maybe; the course of history will judge.
Re:If it hit land, consider ourselves lucky (Score:2)
As opposed to when hitting a land mass and throwing up several thousand tons of dust/ash into the atmosphere? 1816 "Year [wikipedia.org]
Re:If it hit land, consider ourselves lucky (Score:2)
Re:If it hit land, consider ourselves lucky (Score:2)
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
Lets try that again please. Somehow, you've contrived to have it hit us at least 3 years before it was deflected. This is, in case you've not seen a calendar lately, 2005 (yet).
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:Dateline 27 September 2159 (Score:2)
But what about.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But what about.... (Score:2)
Re:But what about.... (Score:2, Funny)
Finally our US sattelites... (Score:2)
Fire up the lazers! (and yes, our hunter killer lazer sattelites are code named doplin 1, and dolphin 2.) We are not without a deadly sense of humor!
Fighting windmills? (Score:4, Interesting)
And they could have spelled it correctly: Don Quixote.
Re:Fighting windmills? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.aache.com/quijote/ [aache.com]
rj
Re:Fighting windmills? (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder when they decided to change the spelling.
Re:Fighting windmills? (Score:2)
rj
Re:Fighting windmills? (Score:5, Informative)
Change from Old Spanish to Modern Spanish. X had the "heh" sound (as in Mexico), but has transitioned to a "sh" sound (as in Ixtacihuatl)/"gs" sound as in explorar. Words have changed to reflect the new usage, but names proper names are blurry, so you will see Mexico, Mejico; Xavier, Javier; Quijote, Quixote
revised standard Don Quixote (Score:2)
I'm sure it's just spelled with a J for the less educated folks who want a modern version they can understand. Shakespeare usually avoids being severely butchered in classroom textbooks, but you can bet they changed a whole lot of V's to U's and a whole lot of F's to S's, so children could at least
Re:revised standard Don Quixote (Score:4, Informative)
**wax on** It's not an F. What you see is the "long s". It's how they used to draw an S character since the days of Carolingian Minuscule, from which hand our "Times Roman" eventually derived. You'll note there was no crossbar on the letter in that form - the crossbar distinguished the "f" from the "long s". The form we take as "s" appeared only at the end of the word. Thus, "Congrefs" would have been pronounced "Congress". **wax off**
Re:revised standard Don Quixote (Score:2)
Other than describing the character, as you've done, the closest I can
In case of slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
1. 2002 AT4
2. France
Whatever happened... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Whatever happened... (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm... But wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, never has the quote at the bottom of the screen been so appropriate.
Oh, wow! Look at the moon!
Re:Hmm... But wait... (Score:3, Funny)
It costs less than an "Oh shit!" down the road.
Re:Hmm... But wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
OOPS (Score:5, Funny)
Brace for impact! (Score:4, Funny)
I'd deflect her asteroid... (Score:2, Funny)
Including: "Deploying a giant parabolic mirror to concentrate the sun's rays and vaporize rock on the surface of the asteroid. The vaporized material flies off at high speed and generates a re-coil action that pushes the asteroid, slowly but surely, in the opposite direction."
Which is great, because the parabolic mirror can double as a way for Bruce Willis to cook and refrigerate his food [solarcooking.org] while he's there.
Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't have to be a nuke. Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" written by an Annapolis grad named Robert Heinlein back in the last century.
"I don't think we should throw any more rocks at Cheyenne Mountain." " -- Why? " "..It isn't there any more."
Re:Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
of going for more politically productive targets like Mars or the moon.
Here, in the USA, we haven't even adequately funded the effort to detect
and track asteroids, let alone deflect or destroy them.
Until recently amatuer astronomers and a very few dedicated professionals
have been doing all the heavy lifting, with little or no support from
our current administration.
Evidently the people who allocate the funds are too busy starting wars
a
Oh, god, the irony... (Score:2)
We need a new filter (Score:2)
I, for one, thank... (Score:2, Insightful)
We waste so much money on boondoggles (won't even go into that) but so little effort now goes into research into the human condition. We are a smart group, us humans, when we really HAVE to be. Why not try to make it a little more often, just for flip sake, eh?
It's A Trap (Score:2, Funny)
Land an anchor on the thing (Score:3, Funny)
This sounds a lot like something that's been tried before. Why don't they draw a conclusion from the existing data from Tempel-1? Or, while they're at it, why not try a new concept?
For instance, how about landing on the asteroid and attaching an anchor to it? Drop anchor (unreel) and wait for the closest approach to the moon. Then, use an ion drive on the anchor to bring it as close to the moon as possible. If the cable is long enough, the anchor will be pulled down into the gravity well of the moon with much greater force than otherwise. It won't capture the asteroid in lunar orbit, but the trajectory of the asteroid will be changed in a far more predictable and adjustable way than with impacts and explosions.
An extra bonus is that communicating with the anchor, you will always know the exact location of the asteroid.
The only catch is that you need a very long cable, and that will raise the launch costs.
The grants game (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think about this even semi rationally, look at the data from the Deep Impact mission. The trajectory of the rock prior to impact was quite well known, well enough, an intercept course could be plotted and executed. Does anybody think that nobody at nasa thought to measure trajectory AFTER the impact, and possibly calculate trajectory changes of the target rock? This is a mission that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's extremely valuable information, available for the taking after the impact. I'm quite sure that while the primary investigators on Deep Impact are all wrapped up in analyzing ejecta data, there are secondary investigators measuring and calculating trajectory changes.
The proposed ESA mission is basically Deep Impact Version 2.0, a more refined variant than version 1. Version 1 (executed by Nasa) intended to hit the target rock, and studying ejecta was labelled as the 'primary' objective. In Version 2, the objective is to hit the target rock much more precisely, relabel the 'primary data' as that of the trajectory change, and re-label the ejecta data as 'secondary'. The end result is, a mission plan that hits more political hot buttons (reference the data collection re-labelling), its easier to get grants for impactor related investigation today.
The reality is, this mission is a logical follow on which builds on the success of Deep Impact. The re-labelling of primary mission goals is just an artifact of the political process required to procure funding, the 'grants game'. The data regarding target object composition will still be collected in various forms, and it'll still get analyzed, just as trajectory data is still being collected and analyzed from the Deep Impact mission.
Re:The grants game (Score:5, Informative)
By launching a projectile at an asteroid instead, we will know that any changes in the asteroid's trajectory were caused by our impactor because asteroids are inert and have otherwise very stable and predictable orbits.
Should I Worry? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Should I Worry? (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect they know a lot of things that you don't. Things that you would find very troubling.
Crashing spacecraft into celestial bodies? (Score:3, Funny)
There's a Beagle 2 joke here somewhere, but I can't place it.
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:5, Insightful)
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
-- Yogi Berra
TTFN
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:2)
> does not take into account of the direction of which the asteroid
> will be deflected.
p and v are vectors.
> Although I hope that the mathematics used to base the "crash" on
> would be calculated so that it does not shift the objects into a
> collision course with Earth.
They will choose a target with an orbit such that it is not possible for the maximum amount of momentum that the spacecraft could deliver to change the targ
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:2)
Well, for starters, we don't have a very good idea of the value of the m in that equation, where the m actually stands for the mass of the (rock? we don't often know).
v we know pretty closely, but whats your definition of p?
Cheers, Gene
Re:Something wrong with p? SIMPLE (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, we know the first two p(momentum, vector) values(and that's if we know the mass of the asteroid, which isn't necessarily true), but not the second two. In my math classes, we learned that was 1 equation (vector valued) and two unknown vectors. I don't think anyone can solve that, and no, conservation of kinetic energy won't work because the internal energy changes big time in most non-particle scale collisions. In Mechanics, many of our college educated comrades learned of a way to resolve this textbook documented issue with the simple aide of a constant e, which details the elasticity of the interaction. Unfortunately, e is not easy to determine through theory, and is also just a model (and a bad one at that), and therefore an experiment is usually called for (and usually a lot of them). 'Nuff said.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Collision
Re:Something wrong with p? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:are we sure about that? (Score:2)
Re:*Bam* Oh crap here it comes!!! (Score:2)
Experts world-wide say the answer is no. Even a very dramatic impact of a heavy spacecraft on a small asteroid would only result in a minuscule modification of the object's orbit.
Target objects can also be selected so that all possible concerns are avoided altogether, by looking int
Re:*Bam* Oh crap here it comes!!! (Score:2)
Re:*Bam* Oh crap here it comes!!! (Score:2)
Re:Great idea (Score:2)
Re:Now... (Score:3, Funny)