JoeSchmuckatelli

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/webb-hubble-nasa-dart-images/ Won't lie... Was hoping these would be more interesting. Kinda shows why Hera is necessary. The article is worth a read - the unexpected brightness of Didymos post-impact and the impression that some of the streamers curved is getting a lot of attention. Hera, btw, was initially supposed to have been on station for the impact... But it seems ESA has the same regulatory and funding issues we lament with NASA.

Don't most aircraft parts already have high reentry survivability?

Can you post or link the third from last as a still frame? Looks like it's the highest detail

Nice summary!

That certainly explains things like Meteor Crater, AZ. Will be interesting to see once the dust settles if our models are correct! The 'streamer' observation mentioned above looks like a strong candidate to develop into a 'new model' for certain classes of asteroid. FWIW: the follow on mission is rarely talked about Post-DART impact: European HERA mission will return to asteroid Dimorphos with Dutch tech HyperScout H on board - SpaceRef Hoping it is a definite "Go" - only thing I wish it could incorporate is a sample return. We don't have anything that's gone this deep thus far and bringing some chunks back would be good for a few Science points!

We are not game designers. We can handwave the technical problems of implementation of our brilliant solutions without even knowing why they don't work. I still suspect that MP won't be a roll-out feature, or if it is - will be the most complained about feature of the game. There is a reason Squad (et.al) never patched MP into KSP.

Interesting article on using plants for pollution clean up and metals recovery https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn6337

This is weird - but that thread was replaced in my browser by odd videos - right up til now when I quoted again to comment. As I write this, I can see Tater's tweet link in the present quote, but up page it's Draco and Armageddon videos! Weird!

It does not need to be this complicated. One player has a technological advantage over the the other. They're still in the same universe / time. The discrepancy can be handwaved as economic & technology based rather than future-based. Happens here: whether you look at the historic analog of European technology vs Native American or say the Indian & Chinese space programs of today (vs 20 years ago) compared to the US & RU programs... Yes there was a mismatch in capabilities, but not a permanent one. It's fairly easy to play catchup if you are willing to invest the time and resources. The player who logs on once a week for two hours might be considerably behind the streamer who plays 6 hours every day and be just landing their first probe on Mun as the other completes her base - but that is to be expected. I think the main problem that still exists is try to match warps between players who are unlikely to agree on when and how often they can be done.

I've heard similar, before. Will be interested in any follow up - but it's certainly not unexpected (even if I did not remember reading such until now).

You could almost make a movie out of this

Always a fun topic of speculation... There is a theory that starting about 200 Mya (perhaps 290 Mya) there was a dramatic uptick in bombardment. Typically, we think that bombardment happens because the KBOs or Asteroids get displaced 'somehow' - but Omuamua teaches us that it's possible for extra-solar objects to fall in. What we don't know is whether, like comet trails that give us regular meteor showers, if the solar system passes through dust clouds that might explain bombardment periods. I suspect that if they'd had the technology, they'd have tried. I've read some speculation that breaking up a large meteor could be worse - turning a bullet that might miss into a shotgun that won't... But, the K-Pg is just such an event that it would have been worth it to try. Interestingly, I've also read that the K-Pg event might have not been a total wipe had it made landfall rather than striking where it did. Turning it into a bunch of smaller meteors, then, would have spread out the strike zones and maybe, just maybe the raptors could have survived? (the question, though, about detection is difficult - Omuamua sheds light on this!)

That was a really good read! Tango Yankee

There is a lengthy several-page discussion about this up thread. May take you a bit of searching to find it... But the responders went into depth on the pros and cons of using Starship as anything other than a star ship

The info graphics NASA produced show a 'head on' collision between the two. Whether it's accurate? I'm not qualified to duel numbers with you - but this strikes me as wrong. I googled a bit and I wonder if your number is classic newtonian? "If the impactor has pushed a mass equal to its own mass at this speed, its whole momentum has been transferred to the mass in front of it and the impactor will be stopped. For a cylindrical impactor, by the time it stops, it will have penetrated to a depth that is equal to its own length times its relative density with respect to the target material. This approach is only valid for a narrow range of velocities less than the speed of sound within the target or impactor material. If the impact velocity is greater than the speed of sound within the target or impactor material, impact shock causes the material fracture, and a higher velocities to behave like a gas, causing rapid ejection of target and impactor material and the formation of a crater. The depth of the crater depends on the material properties of impactor and target, as well as the velocity of impact. Typically, greater impact velocity means greater crater depth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth

Should it become possible; you'd still need a RocketPort. Otherwise you're throwing it away. While I don't know the actual answer, the old saw from the bad old days - you've got at most 1/2 hour from detection of launch until... let's say "landing"? Thanks - this makes sense.

The hits just a'keep on a'comin!

I've seen that with pistol rounds into concrete blocks. The round doesn't overpenetrate, but it can cause significant spalling out the back. We have a high likelihood from the last few photos that the craft hit some fairly big, solid boulders. We can expect, at a minimum, that the individual boulders should absorb some energy and transfer some to their adjacent members of the aggregate; kind of like when you break the racked balls with the cue. I'm going to guess that a lot of the energy will be transformed to heat, some to rotation and others to direct kinetic movement of adjacent members. Given that the impact was highly directional and localized; it just seems likely to me that the craft's damage/penetration is highly analogous to a bullet - and while that's an enormous variable - given the pictures we've seen I think it's safe to say that there was both cratering ejecta and spalling ejecta. Neither require the craft to overpenetrate, as you point out, but it could have given the density. This is the damage path of a bullet in meat and ballistic gel - but it also describes how I think the energy would dissipate through an aggregate. Edit: both of those show over-penetration. You can analogize a bb into a window for the non-penetration spalling. Is that dependent on looking at the asteroid as a solid? Is it possible to blow out the core and have the rest shift, then collapse back on itself / themselves, given the already considerable inertia of the whole?

I'm guessing that might have to do with the actual density. I do have experience shooting a lot of stuff... and if it's actually a clumpy gravel pile loosely held together by gravity, it's possible it got cored out. You can look at images of people shooting snowmen or concrete blocks (both aggregates) and see what I'm describing. In fact, my intuition tells me the greater the mis-match between the impact energy and the 'hold it together' energy, the more likely it is that the 'round' overpenetrated (leaving a hole). It could have cracked it; much like a bullet will with an apple or something, but given that gravity is there to pull everything back together; if I'm right... the cored out spalling and other ejecta that has escape velocity will spread out, but the other stuff will just clump back together again, eventually.

Ah mite nawt be a maths guy, but one of those thangs looks bigger than t'other.

I'm starting to think we shattered it. Ringed asteroid at some point? Edit - perhaps not: This image indicates that there was likely a good bit of spalling from the impact - but the central mass is still mostly together

Just going to reiterate: I find it incredible that the grid fins don't matter on the way up... But they do on the way down. Very Kerbal

I'd have to agree with you - but I think it is 'reactionary' towards protecting the table itself from the RUD threat rather than the latter. IIRC they pulled B7 back in to install shields for Raptor protection as well. Reusable is the key word. BPINP works until *when* you learn you need something put back on! Edit: fixed!

Also: Looks like once the dust has settled (pun intended) we should get quite a lot of info Fun fact: if you Google NASA Dart - Google gets hit by a satellite and knocked off course! https://twitter.com/VirtualTelescop/status/1574551231267147776/photo/1