Asteroid 'threatening' Earth

[jwenting]

Maybe if this asteroid mission was put under the same restrictions as most space endeavours, then it probably won't work. But the reason most space endeavours don't get that much money or popular support is because the "man in the street" dosen't see the immediate practical benefits. A mission to SAVE THE WORLD FROM A KILLER ASTEROID is an incredibly easy sale. More money than what was put into both Apollo and the Manhattan project would be sunk into it if required, because you can't put a price on the survival of the human species. Experts from around the world, in all fields of science and engineering, would happily volunteer their services, so having a skilled enough workforce is not an issue. Support from the pubic, and government, is not a problem either, because of the obvious implications of a mission failure. Why would any politician not want to support something like this, if not supporting it meant the destruction of the human race?

That pretty much leaves the only possible issues being technological, which is pretty meaningless, since at least some of the people who draw up missions to deflect asteroids know what they're talking about. If you are willing to put forward every serious mission designed, and explain exactly why they would never work, even if it had universal approval, all the money it needs, and the best scientists and engineers the world has to offer, then I will be willing to read it.

Given the timeframe for such a mission, it would never get funded even under that banner because it simply won't get results before the next election (timeframe is decades, next election is years).

If by the next election there is no tangible result that the politicians who funded the hundreds of billions of dollars needed can point to and say "see how much money I voted for my district, causing so many new jobs? Vote for me and I'll do it again" the budget never gets approved at all.

Such is the state of long term programs in a modern democracy (and don't get me wrong, the same is true of large companies as well, where board members vote for whatever gets them support at the next share holders' meeting, which usually means a timeframe of at most a year, more likely 3 months).

[Drunkrobot]

If we are talking about the asteroid in the original post, or something similar (if it hits us, it will hit in the 2030s), then it doesn't necessarily mean we have to stop it in the 2030s. Ideally, you send out the probe or astronauts or whatever to the asteroid as soon as possible (that means less energy is needed to move it out of the way). Given that, right know, NASA and other organizations are looking specifically at altering the orbit of asteroids, then I would say, with the money and skilled people needed, the project could easily take less than 10 years. NASA went from a suborbital hop to a Moon landing in little more than 8 years. If the Apollo 1 fire didn't happen, and they got the CSM design right the first time, then there's a chance the landing could've happened when Johnson was still in office.

Right now, the human race is in a way more favourable position. International cooperation would not be as much a problem today, given the big players have already worked together in a large project, the ISS. We know a lot more about asteroids today (and with the Rosetta spacecraft, and others, making ongoing missions to asteroids and comets, we are only going to learn more). NASA, for one, is working on a heavy lift rocket, and a capsule dedicated to deep space missions, both nearing flight tests (if we were to go down the manned mission path).

Personally,and I know this clouds my judgement, I would love it if an asteroid was discovered, and it was going to hit us in a few decades. It would mean the space agencies of the world, and science and technology in general, obtaining the prestige they deserve, saving the world by innovating our way out of trouble. It would at the very least help convince the public that scientists aren't actively trying to kill us all.

Well, that's my opinion, anyway. Science gets a budget boost, politicians get reelected, people in general are inspired to learn more about the universe, and the world doesn't end. Everybody wins.

[kiwi1960]

Problem is, *ALL* nuclear missiles are built to work on Earth ... there is no way it can be guided through space... and its targeting systems would be useless, not to mention the navigation issues.

Currently... there is no possible way to divert an asteroid. This is why, if there is a chance this one could hit, then they better start working on the problem now.

No matter where this asteroid impacts, the damage done will kill millions, either via massive tsunami (if it hits the ocean) or something similar to a nuclear winter which would throw so much dirt into the atmosphere that it would block the sun for a number of years... this would affect food production and possibly even contaminate water with "fallout" matter! (fallout being anything from ash, sand or dirt!)

HOWEVER, this assumes there is still life on Earth in 30 years time. I'm picking there won't be.

[Kryten]

Problem is, *ALL* nuclear missiles are built to work on Earth ... there is no way it can be guided through space... and its targeting systems would be useless, not to mention the navigation issues.

So, given a period of multiple decades, it's going to be impossible to strap some standard star-trackers and a new navigation computer to a warhead? Or to just stick it on a stage with it's own navigational systems?

[NASAFanboy]

Our ICBMs can already hit targets on the moon. And who says it needs to be a ICBM? A large probe outfitted to be a nuclear warhead can work fine.

But seeing the current stupidity of Comgress, they'll like save us by somehow praying the asteroid to redirect.

[kiwi1960]

OK, what you guys say makes sense.... EXCEPT....

they would need precise data about this asteroid for anything like that to work. All they can do at present is crash a probe onto an asteroid, but this would be different, you'd have to bring it in to a precise location in order for any deflection blast to work, and there would need to be more than one with plenty of time so any minor course deflection would end up being hundreds of miles instead of mere miles...

Also, they would need to take care they didn't shatter the thing, then rather than one asteroid, you have millions of little ones.... most would burn up, but the bigger pieces would be impossible to deal with and MIGHT cause a great deal of damage...

Sadly, Congress might ask Squad to please send Jeb, Bill and Bob to deal with it...

[K^2]

This wouldn't be fire-and-forget solution. If you are simply trying to break off some pieces on the cheap, dumb impactor makes sense. If you want to deflect an all-life-threatening asteroid, you'd get a bit more surgical about it. Arming would happen based on estimated approach, but triggering would be purely radar based. Furthermore, the warhead's approach would be corrected based on visual data collected from the cameras on the probe. We have means of doing all that. It's just a bit more 'spensive, that's all. And I don't think anybody is going to complain about the bill when there is a frigin' asteroid heading for frigin' Earth.

So that's not the hard part. The hard part is spotting danger with enough time for ablation due to proximate detonation would result in sufficient deflection to avoid collision. Odds are, we won't have luxury of such a warning when we find asteroid that's actually heading here.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be preparing anyways. We might just get lucky and have info in advance.

[NASAFanboy]

This wouldn't be fire-and-forget solution. If you are simply trying to break off some pieces on the cheap, dumb impactor makes sense. If you want to deflect an all-life-threatening asteroid, you'd get a bit more surgical about it. Arming would happen based on estimated approach, but triggering would be purely radar based. Furthermore, the warhead's approach would be corrected based on visual data collected from the cameras on the probe. We have means of doing all that. It's just a bit more 'spensive, that's all. And I don't think anybody is going to complain about the bill when there is a frigin' asteroid heading for frigin' Earth.

So that's not the hard part. The hard part is spotting danger with enough time for ablation due to proximate detonation would result in sufficient deflection to avoid collision. Odds are, we won't have luxury of such a warning when we find asteroid that's actually heading here.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be preparing anyways. We might just get lucky and have info in advance.

Might

We need to be prepared for any case, but not directly. In truth, we need a buildup of spacefaring capabilities. Not an asteroid redirect, (In truth, tell me if there IS a 500M bag that can bag up a asteroid that big.), such as landing on the moon. Yes, a asteroid experience could be a big first, and a huge test for technology, but we also have to return tot he moon and go to Mars.

[kiwi1960]

I know I say this a lot... sadly.... (that is the word I say a lot)

sadly, if the Tea Party republicans have their way, funding for NASA will be cut back by over half...

worse, funding for the military space watch would be virtually eliminated.

I would imagine funding for the NSA would increase.