Jump to content

DART: Double Asteroid Redirection Test


Ultimate Steve
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Minmus Taster said:

This has gotta be the only time I have felt good about a crash!

Best view of Dimorphos:

aSfmSLa.png

It's clearly a rubble pile like we thought, elongated probably because of the rotation, I wonder if it even survived seeing what OSIRIS did to Bennu

You know, it's funny. As far as I remember, most depictions of asteroids were individual solid masses with big, noticable craters on them. While such a thing is true for moons like Phobos, Deimos, Amalthea, Hyperion, etc., it seems as though a lot of asteroids are truly just round masses of sand, with many large rocks scattered within. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

You know, it's funny. As far as I remember, most depictions of asteroids were individual solid masses with big, noticable craters on them. While such a thing is true for moons like Phobos, Deimos, Amalthea, Hyperion, etc., it seems as though a lot of asteroids are truly just round masses of sand, with many large rocks scattered within. 

This is true - and not just for us!  You can look at the renders NASA put out and see the 'catered rock' that is the classical image of an asteroid, not the rubble pile seen tonight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

This is true - and not just for us!  You can look at the renders NASA put out and see the 'catered rock' that is the classical image of an asteroid, not the rubble pile seen tonight. 

I guess the ambient material in space only coalesces into solid surfaces when it's being compressed into a body the size of a moon or larger? Kind of surprising in retrospect that we didn't guess that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:

I guess the ambient material in space only coalesces into solid surfaces when it's being compressed into a body the size of a moon or larger? Kind of surprising in retrospect that we didn't guess that.

Well there seems to be various levels of that. The asteroid is made of rocks that ARE solid and formed somehow. But usually the rocks are just piled together in a big group unless they somehow get hot enough to melt together. Even big, cratery asteroids like Phobos can be rubble piles too, just too big to see the boulders on from full view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

I mean a timelapse where the images don't appear as though you're trying to run KSP on a computer from the 90s; a 'fast' timelapse, if you will.

Well it was in real-time.

But here, I sped it up to 300%.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRmNTftj/

 

And in case TikTok isn’t embedding properly:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

I guess the ambient material in space only coalesces into solid surfaces when it's being compressed into a body the size of a moon or larger? Kind of surprising in retrospect that we didn't guess that.

 

43 minutes ago, cubinator said:

Well there seems to be various levels of that. The asteroid is made of rocks that ARE solid and formed somehow. But usually the rocks are just piled together in a big group unless they somehow get hot enough to melt together. Even big, cratery asteroids like Phobos can be rubble piles too, just too big to see the boulders on from full view.

I suspect that there are planetary remnants out there that are the solid metal rich dinosaur killing asteroids of legend, as well as the amalgamated gravel piles seen recently.  Just because today's mission and Bennu and the weird KBO we've imaged in the last decade are not hard cratered remnants does not mean those things are not whizzing about looking for a city to flatten 

Of course, having written that - those dense buggers could have cloaked themselves in a nice blanket of gravel and be virtually indistinguishable... 

---     - - -     - - - 

"As for the details of that impact, we'll have to wait. The best images we'll get are from an Italian Cubesat called LICIACube that has been trailing DART since the two separated a few weeks ago. LICIACube will be about 50 km from the point of impact and will get even closer over the three minutes after impact before passing behind Dimorphos. But it will take some time to transmit images to Earth—possibly a day or more for processing and release."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/dart-goes-silent-after-hitting-an-asteroid/%3famp=1

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I suspect that there are planetary remnants out there that are the solid metal rich dinosaur killing asteroids of legend, as well as the amalgamated gravel piles seen recently.  Just because today's mission and Bennu and the weird KBO we've imaged in the last decade are not hard cratered remnants does not mean those things are not whizzing about looking for a city to flatten 

Solid metal is indeed the composition of perhaps my favorite asteroid, 16 Psyche, which is targeted by an orbiter mission in the near future. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Daaaaamn! 

I'm guessing they were tracking Didymos and not the craft? 

Because - that was a Ton of ejecta... Now I'm even more excited about the Hubble and Webb images! 

Seems to be tracking Didymos, yes. I think the debris plume mostly travels out in the opposite direction of the spacecraft's approach. 

Edit: Unless the asteroid is moving faster than Earth, which I think it probably is. And the spacecraft might be coming in from ahead. I don't know anymore. I'd have to make some vectors.

Edited by cubinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, intelliCom said:

You know, it's funny. As far as I remember, most depictions of asteroids were individual solid masses with big, noticable craters on them. While such a thing is true for moons like Phobos, Deimos, Amalthea, Hyperion, etc., it seems as though a lot of asteroids are truly just round masses of sand, with many large rocks scattered within. 

Expectations:
Stone.png


Reality:
Gravel_JE5_BE4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, intelliCom said:

You know, it's funny. As far as I remember, most depictions of asteroids were individual solid masses with big, noticable craters on them. While such a thing is true for moons like Phobos, Deimos, Amalthea, Hyperion, etc., it seems as though a lot of asteroids are truly just round masses of sand, with many large rocks scattered within. 

Update to this; turns out even NASA depicts asteroids as solid rocks with craters.

DART (jhuapl.edu)

Also, I would like to append what I said earlier; technically all rocky celestial bodies (in a vacuum) are round, coalesced mounds of gravel (Yes, even the Moon), but the larger the body is, the less obvious the gravel is. It seems like for any rocky body about the size of Bennu or Dimorphos (Average is between 100m - 500m), the gravelly appearance should be far more obvious. For a body like Arrokoth (10,000m on shortest dimension), the body appears smooth.

Should I start up a thread on "The Dimensions of a Gravelly Body vs a Smooth One"? Would be useful to predict the appearance of an asteroid with a combination of dimensions and composition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Update to this; turns out even NASA depicts asteroids as solid rocks with craters.

To be fair though this isn’t necessarily “NASA” as the group of scientists and engineers we know and love so much as it is concept artists with a huge free hand and their overseer PR officials who don’t care as long as it trends.

They regularly get exhaust wrong for launches, also images of exhaust during Mars EDL in graphics is incorrect on their part too. I’m sure others have their own fair share of errors they have seen.

But the people who review it are probably PR people, not actual engineers, so it passes. That doesn’t mean that “NASA” (the actual science people) consider a majority of asteroids to look that way in their personal view.

I bet that those depictions come from fantastical pre-detailed space exploration (i.e. the age of telescopes and Mars canals, instead of probes and disappointing Venusian and Martian atmospheric pressure readings) that have simply remained in pop culture since then despite new discoveries, just as how films nowadays often depict Mars as having fantastic mesas and valleys despite the majority of it being something of a flat plain.

When people eventually visit an asteroid and/or Mars those depictions will become more realistic, just as landing on the Moon in ‘69 made the equally grandiose and absurd lunar mesas and valleys go away (although the actual Moon, and thus Mars and asteroids, is/are spectacular in its/their own right, and those fantastical depictions are still nice as pure art so nothing is/will be lost :D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...