Asteroid defense office

[Kaos]

3 hours ago, 073198681 said:

I'm quite sure we can do something about the smaller asteroids, but we can not do anything for the average-sized ones in the next 25 years. Protecting ourselves from a Los Angeles sized rock is not quite possible.

For "a Los Angeles sized rock" I take an cubic asteroid with an side length of of 37 km, as a square with this side length is just a bit bigger than Los Angeles. So it has a volume of 50653 km^3, which weighs at a density of 5 t/m^3, which is high for an asteroid, about 2.5 * 10^14 t.

Escape velocity is sqrt (2 G M / r) = 0.95 m/s

Now we design probes, which land on the surface: Each catapults 1 t of the asteroid with 10 m/s away once every minute. That is 850 W for the catapult, let it take 3 kW for digging, so that is totally possible with a typical sized probe. That would need big solar panels, but possible.

The matter is strictly over escape velocity and is sent in roughly the same direction. So we get an effective force of 150 N per probe. So we accelerate the asteroid by 0.019 mm/s/a by each probe. That way, we make over 130 km per probe in 15 years.

If we bring 100 probes there, we make in the 15 years over 1 earth diameter.

Lets say we bring the 100 probes within 10 years there, the 25 years of early warning are quite enough.

I know that this plan has weaknesses and is far from guaranteed to succeed. But I would say it has a chance to succeed and is far from "we can not do anything".

Please correct me if I have made miscalculations.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Kaos

[Matuchkin]

3 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

a.  Invest everything they have into developing the technology and constructing the Spacecraft to deal with it

b.  Risk extinction

Then you'd see an effort that has never been seen.  More progress could be made for space technology in 5-10 years than was made in the previous 50 years previously.

Well, yeah, in that scenario. I can see that any contributing company/corporation/etc that decides to put a monetary value on their effort will be under theoretical gunpoint from society. I can also see that the world economy will be under quite a delicate balance, and operating it will take a lot of effort. Anything goes wrong in that main factor, and the whole effort collapses.

41 minutes ago, Kaos said:

If we bring 100 probes there, we make in the 15 years over 1 earth diameter.

Lets say we bring the 100 probes within 10 years there, the 25 years of early warning are quite enough.

To build a rocket, test it, put the probe in and launch it takes somewhere around a few years (probably one or two, if I'm not mistaken). We have ten years and 100 probes to take care of. The probability of failure will be so damn high we might as well not launch.

Edited January 11, 2016 by 073198681

[Kaos]

20 minutes ago, 073198681 said:

Well, yeah, in that scenario. I can see that any contributing company/corporation/etc that decides to put a monetary value on their effort will be under theoretical gunpoint from society. I can also see that the world economy will be under quite a delicate balance, and operating it will take a lot of effort. Anything goes wrong in that main factor, and the whole effort collapses.

To build a rocket, test it, put the probe in and launch it takes somewhere around a few years (probably one or two, if I'm not mistaken). We have ten years and 100 probes to take care of. The probability of failure will be so damn high we might as well not launch.

I you have an illness and there is only one medicine that might help you, but the probability of helping is low. Would you take it anyway?

With the smallest chance that this mission is successful, I would take the mission. And if something goes wrong, not all is lost. Build 10 probes more and 10 may fail. Now the chances are much better.

Besides of that, if that asteroid hits earth, we also have the situation that "the world economy will be under quite a delicate balance"

[Matuchkin]

18 minutes ago, Kaos said:

I you have an illness and there is only one medicine that might help you, but the probability of helping is low. Would you take it anyway?

With the smallest chance that this mission is successful, I would take the mission. And if something goes wrong, not all is lost. Build 10 probes more and 10 may fail. Now the chances are much better.

Besides of that, if that asteroid hits earth, we also have the situation that "the world economy will be under quite a delicate balance"

I would take that medicine. I would not accept the end of humanity until all hope is lost. I am talking about the precariousness and probability of success of the situation. The topic is not about if we would take our chances (which everyone would).

[Xorth Tanovar]

On 1/10/2016 at 0:11 PM, Kaos said:

On the other hand, I doubt that will will set up such a system in the next 30 years.

This.

Keep in mind, politicians (meaning those who control the purse strings) tend not to think past their current term in office. Hell, we can't even get all these nations to agree and actually *DO* something definitive about global warming/climate change as it is now.

[GeneralVeers]

On 1/11/2016 at 8:28 PM, RainDreamer said:

Can we, instead of using a bomb, use lasers to nudge those asteroid away very early in its trajectory? Like send some satellite to orbit it, then use laser ablation to redirect it, little by little? Or maybe even attach some ion drives to it KSP style.

Fine and dandy. Then, when it doesn't work (and it probably won't, seeing as how, as Nikolai mentioned, Deep Impact changed the trajectory of its target asteroid by much less than predicted, showing that even the world's brightest minds are a bit shy of the mark at predicting stuff), we'd damn well better have some big guns ready, that can inflict a lot more delta-V in a lot less time.

 

11 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

If we know it's coming, and we have 5-10 years of warning, and all the wealthy nations know they can either

a.  Invest everything they have into developing the technology and constructing the Spacecraft to deal with it

b.  Risk extinction

Then you'd see an effort that has never been seen.

The lackluster human response to global warming suggests the opposite.

Fact is, the world has changed since World War II. The warm fuzzy "let's beat up the Bad Guys together and live in peace forever after" is, as the saying goes, history. World War II was something pretty much every government on Earth could SEE, simply by sending emmissaries (or spies!) to the involved countries and actually seeing whole cities getting bombed off the map. Asteroid? No such deal. If a real-world Dottie is coming our way, only a few countries on Earth would be able to see it, and everybody else on the planet would have to take those few nations at their word. Which, given today's political climate, ain't gonna happen. Those few nations are not trusted by the others, who envy their wealth and power and whatever else poor nations envy.

So I have serious doubts that this global effort will happen.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Fine and dandy. Then, when it doesn't work (and it probably won't, seeing as how, as Nikolai mentioned, Deep Impact changed the trajectory of its target asteroid by much less than predicted, showing that even the world's brightest minds are a bit shy of the mark at predicting stuff), we'd damn well better have some big guns ready, that can inflict a lot more delta-V in a lot less time.

 

The lackluster human response to global warming suggests the opposite.

Fact is, the world has changed since World War II. The warm fuzzy "let's beat up the Bad Guys together and live in peace forever after" is, as the saying goes, history. World War II was something pretty much every government on Earth could SEE, simply by sending emmissaries (or spies!) to the involved countries and actually seeing whole cities getting bombed off the map. Asteroid? No such deal. If a real-world Dottie is coming our way, only a few countries on Earth would be able to see it, and everybody else on the planet would have to take those few nations at their word. Which, given today's political climate, ain't gonna happen. Those few nations are not trusted by the others, who envy their wealth and power and whatever else poor nations envy.

So I have serious doubts that this global effort will happen.

You'd think at least the people who CAN get the data will participate- a partially international effort, like the ISS.

[GeneralVeers]

I've had enough of those "now I've seen everything" moments to thoroughly shake my confidence in such things.

[Darnok]

On 10.01.2016 at 3:55 PM, Spaceception said:

So NASA recently set up "The Planetary Defense Office", and I was wondering what you guys were thinking about it.

Here's a link: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/news/a18896/nasa-creates-a-first-line-of-asteroid-defense-for-earth/

Does this give humanity a higher chance of surviving a large Asteroid impact?

Who allowed NASA to act as leader of entire humanity?

[KerbMav]

3 hours ago, Darnok said:

Who allowed NASA to act as leader of entire humanity?

Alternatively everyone should close their eyes until humanity can agree to work together and speak with one voice? Say, in another couple million years?

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, KerbMav said:

Alternatively everyone should close their eyes until humanity can agree to work together and speak with one voice? Say, in another couple million years?

Why would we ever need to speak with one voice?

Progress comes from different opinions, different views and different approaches not from the only one correct way of thinking. If we ever be "the one mind" humanity will die.

[WinkAllKerb'']

not much to say #lovejoy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Lovejoy

[Nibb31]

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

You'd think at least the people who CAN get the data will participate- a partially international effort, like the ISS.

They'd have to:

1. Agree that there is a problem
2. Agree to participate in a conference
3. Agree to do something about the problem
4. Agree on what to do
5. Agree on who does what
6. Agree on what sacrifices have to be made

That's a lot of things to disagree about. Even if you get to #3 (which is pretty much where we are on the subject of Global Warming after 20 years of debate), #4 and #5 are far from. Country A might think that the best course of action is brace for the impact and ride it out (dig bunkers. Country B might want to nuke it, Country C might prefer to ablate it with lasers... and there might not be enough money to try all 3 of those solutions, so maybe they'd need to divert resources from other parts of the economy and you'd also have to get people to agree on what sacrifices need to be made in order to reach those goals.

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

4 5 6 armageddon movie /aguilkia / spaceship trooper / the ender / noe ark / kerbal redirect / etc. and etc. more or less revovle around thoose kind of metaphor ... youpi tralalalala ... kinda

Edited January 12, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[swjr-swis]

I'm surprised no one offered up the most obvious solution: send up a few ISRUs and Klaws and mine the sucker to dust.

[Kaos]

1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

I'm surprised no one offered up the most obvious solution: send up a few ISRUs and Klaws and mine the sucker to dust.

I kind of proposed that already in the thread. Just with realistic technology. And as this thing is huge, it needs too long to be mined to dust, so instead I just use the push of it.

[KerbMav]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

Why would we ever need to speak with one voice?

Progress comes from different opinions, different views and different approaches not from the only one correct way of thinking. If we ever be "the one mind" humanity will die.

OK, rewind a little - where did your "NASA represents humanity" complaint come from?

[SomeGuy123]

15 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

The lackluster human response to global warming suggests the opposite.

Global warming is very very slow.  The talk of it being a catastrophe if temperatures rise 3 degrees celsius?  That's predicted to happen at the end of the century, when everyone making decisions now is expecting to be long dead.  

An asteroid is immediate and you can see it coming once you know about it.  I suppose that's one way it could go badly - the actual exact prediction of if the asteroid will impact or not will be uncertain for years because you don't quite know how the asteroid will be affected by sun heating it on it's approach.

[GeneralVeers]

3 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

Global warming is very very slow.  The talk of it being a catastrophe if temperatures rise 3 degrees celsius?  That's predicted to happen at the end of the century, when everyone making decisions now is expecting to be long dead.

Entirely true. But there are a lot of people who don't think that way, and who are screaming and yelling "WE MUST ACT NOW" and not getting why everybody else on the planet doesn't see it the same way they do.

 

3 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

An asteroid is immediate and you can see it coming once you know about it.

WE can. Nigeria can't. Without even bothering to check, I'm 100% sure Nigeria has pretty much nothing in the way of a space program or telescopes or the like, because they've had much bigger and more immediate problems for like ever. Some of which they blame you and me for (ridiculous of them, but they blame us anyway). So when people they kind of hate suddenly come along and say "hey, we need your help to save the whole planet", you get one guess what their answer will be. Probably not nice, and probably also not printable in this forum.......

So, no. Not thinking the worldwide effort is going to happen.

[Workable Goblin]

6 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

WE can. Nigeria can't. Without even bothering to check, I'm 100% sure Nigeria has pretty much nothing in the way of a space program or telescopes or the like, because they've had much bigger and more immediate problems for like ever.

You are in fact 100% wrong; Nigeria's had a space program for fifteen years. Sure, it's not a Chinese or even Indian-level effort, but they've bought satellites and put them into space on hired rockets, then operated them.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Workable Goblin

[swjr-swis]

11 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

WE can. Nigeria can't. Without even bothering to check, I'm 100% sure Nigeria has pretty much nothing in the way of a space program or telescopes or the like, because they've had much bigger and more immediate problems for like ever. Some of which they blame you and me for (ridiculous of them, but they blame us anyway). So when people they kind of hate suddenly come along and say "hey, we need your help to save the whole planet", you get one guess what their answer will be. Probably not nice, and probably also not printable in this forum.......

So, no. Not thinking the worldwide effort is going to happen.

I don't know. I remember getting e-mails from this one Nigerian guy that had a heap of money and needed a worthwhile cause to invest it in, and someone to help him with the administrative transaction...

Edited January 13, 2016 by swjr-swis

[fredinno]

14 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

They'd have to:

1. Agree that there is a problem
2. Agree to participate in a conference
3. Agree to do something about the problem
4. Agree on what to do
5. Agree on who does what
6. Agree on what sacrifices have to be made

That's a lot of things to disagree about. Even if you get to #3 (which is pretty much where we are on the subject of Global Warming after 20 years of debate), #4 and #5 are far from. Country A might think that the best course of action is brace for the impact and ride it out (dig bunkers. Country B might want to nuke it, Country C might prefer to ablate it with lasers... and there might not be enough money to try all 3 of those solutions, so maybe they'd need to divert resources from other parts of the economy and you'd also have to get people to agree on what sacrifices need to be made in order to reach those goals.

 

Still, if they do agree they need to do something about it, they would also realise that they need to make faster decisions, becuase time would be running out.

[GeneralVeers]

6 hours ago, Workable Goblin said:

You are in fact 100% wrong; Nigeria's had a space program for fifteen years. Sure, it's not a Chinese or even Indian-level effort, but they've bought satellites and put them into space on hired rockets, then operated them.

My exact words were "Nigeria has pretty much nothing in the way of a space program". Your description counts as "pretty much nothing".

There's a reason I used those boldface words. Rule of Debate #47-A: always use weasel words so nobody can pin you down.  (Rule of Debate #47-B is the cautionary clause to 47-A, and states that any time you don't use weasel words, somebody WILL call you on it)

So let's get right down to it: does Nigeria have anything that could spot an incoming space rock? Yes or no? Actually, that's academic. Fact is, most nations of the Earth have no way to verify the truth when someone tells them "hey, there's a giant rock headed for Earth, we need you to spend money to help us stop it".

 

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

I don't know. I remember getting e-mails from this one Nigerian guy that had a heap of money and needed a worthwhile cause to invest it in, and someone to help him with the administrative transaction...

+rep

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

My exact words were "Nigeria has pretty much nothing in the way of a space program". Your description counts as "pretty much nothing".

There's a reason I used those boldface words. Rule of Debate #47-A: always use weasel words so nobody can pin you down.  (Rule of Debate #47-B is the cautionary clause to 47-A, and states that any time you don't use weasel words, somebody WILL call you on it)

So let's get right down to it: does Nigeria have anything that could spot an incoming space rock? Yes or no? Actually, that's academic. Fact is, most nations of the Earth have no way to verify the truth when someone tells them "hey, there's a giant rock headed for Earth, we need you to spend money to help us stop it".

 

+rep

Honestly, though, Space Capability and Money will matter more anyways, something the nations which can't detect the incoming asteroid don't have much of in comparison too those who do.

[Albert VDS]

On 1/12/2016 at 10:13 AM, Darnok said:

Who allowed NASA to act as leader of entire humanity?

Where did you read that NASA is acting like the leader of entire humanity?

Besides, what you are saying is like "NASA has no right to safe the world from impacts".