Slashdot Mirror


Assessing Asteroid Threat

Makarand writes "According to a proposal submitted to the European Space Agency a fleet of five mini-probes should be sent each targeting an asteroid considered potentially dangerous. The mission objective will be to learn more about dangerous near earth objects so that we can plan how best to respond when under threat. Once in space, the probes would use ion propulsion engines that provide thrust by shooting out a stream of electrically charged particles. Power for the ion engines would be provided by ultra-lightweight solar arrays. Each probe will carry instrumentation to learn about the physical and chemical make-up of the target. The mission would cost around $150 mil which is quite low according to space mission standards."

202 comments

  1. Anyone else run into this problem? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Funny

    After watching the news or reading a paper, I find myself rooting for the asteroids.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not to troll or anything, but frankly human beings have not interest in solving the problems of the world themselves. It always takes a disaster to knock some sense into us.

      If there was only a way technology could be used to solve big picture problems. Too often it solves the immediate needs at the expense of long term planning.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by 2names · · Score: 1
      Yep, sometimes I do too. Too bad the asteroids couldn't just wipe out the idiots.

      On another note, if we are sending out these probes, can't we push the asteroids into the sun? Wouldn't that provide more fuel making our sun last longer? I mean, If we can get another 40 or fifty years out of the sun, then isn't it worth it?

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    3. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not that I take your question serious ....

      But as moderator I would not know if I would moderate it TROLL or FUNNY. Allas, yesterday one said: there are no stupid questions, only stupid people. I would say: stupid answers ...

      So: no, pushing an asteroid into the sun gives no fuel at all.

      Asteroids are mode from rock, or coal or metals like iron and nicle. Some are made from iridium and gold and platin etc. Of course mixtures are happening as well.

      The sun is burning H2 (hydrogen)to He (helium), and in later stages (in some billion years) also He to C or N (not sure, need to look up :-) )

      At some point fusion, the merging of two low weight nucli, yields no more energy. (Uranium gives energy by splitting/fission, H gives energy by merging/fusion)

      Most material in asteroids are to heavy to support a fusion process or are to heavy to even yield energy in a fusion process.

      So moving asteroids into the sun only gives a nice firework on the surfae(if at all).

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by blue+trane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there was only a way technology could be used to solve big picture problems. Too often it solves the immediate needs at the expense of long term planning.

      I think this is due more to human short-sightedness and greed than a problem with the technology itself.

    5. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Asteroids are mode from rock, or coal or metals like iron and nicle. Some are made from iridium and gold and platin etc. Of course mixtures are happening as well.
      You, sir, are an idiot who cannot spell.

      The "rock" (as you so blithely put it) usually contains Iron (Fe), Nickel (Ni) and/or Cobalt (Co). More information / spelling help; get cracking!

    6. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      But what if YOU are one of the idiots?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    7. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Not to troll or anything, but frankly human beings have not interest in solving the problems of the world themselves. It always takes a disaster to knock some sense into us.

      Very true. Case in point: Saddam and Islamic terrorists before 9-11.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The outer shell of the sun isn't used for fushion so it wouldn't be used for fushion anyway. But the added mass of the outer shell would press more material into the core so it would have more fuel. Sadly stars burn (much) faster the bigger they are so the sun will infact be burned up sooner if you fly asteroids into it.

    9. Re:Anyone else run into this problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a joke, dumbfuck.

  2. Armageddon by beaucfus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am not worried, Bruce Willis will save us.

    1. Re:Armageddon by hackwrench · · Score: 0

      Or SG-1 will make the asteroid hyperspace through the planet.

    2. Re:Armageddon by idfrsr · · Score: 0

      And anything that kills 2 birds with one stone as it were is definitely a good thing

      --
      "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
  3. Awesome link by matt_fk · · Score: 2, Informative

    However, it is more like $160m.. not $150m in USD. 159,972,995.78 USD to be exact, as stated by http://www.xe.com/ucc.

    1. Re:Awesome link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats just a little bit too exact for my liking.

    2. Re:Awesome link by ralico · · Score: 1

      that 150 was referring to Euros, not dollars.

      --

      SCO to Hell
    3. Re:Awesome link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why the author of the Slahdot submission was incorrect. He explicitly stated dollars, not Euros.

    4. Re:Awesome link by matt_fk · · Score: 1

      sorry... subtract 78 cents from my statement, bill me for it and we should be good. ;)

    5. Re:Awesome link by matt_fk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Obviously, you are mistaken. Nor was I given given the appropriate currency lable, as the other commentator in this thrad stated. I assumed pounds, however, and I believe that I am correct on this. If it was based on Euro's, it would've been $107,385,043.76 USD, not $159+m USD.

    6. Re:Awesome link by matt_fk · · Score: 1

      whoever moderated my comment as off topic is a fucking moron.

  4. hey! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought I fixed this problem years ago with my Atari!

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:hey! by t0ny · · Score: 1

      Sorry man, but they are called Blasteroids now...

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    2. Re:hey! by Emugamer · · Score: 1

      thank you oh thank you so much...
      to funny

  5. optimistic fools! by new+death+barbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only an optimist wuld believe that the U.N would commit to a path of aggression, until all diplomatic options had been exhausted. The asteroids must be convinced to disarm themselves.

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:optimistic fools! by pe1rxq · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, just let Mr. Laden say that muslims should strike back with terrorist attacks if the asteroids are harmed. According to Mr Powell that is enough evidence to send the entire US army to 'disarm' the asteroids.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:optimistic fools! by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      No, just let Mr. Laden say that muslims should strike back with terrorist attacks if the asteroids are harmed. According to Mr Powell that is enough evidence to send the entire US army to 'disarm' the asteroids.

      Well, it is conceivable that al-Queda would resist attempts to deal with a dangerous meteorite heading towards Earth on the grounds that Allah sent it, or something.

    3. Re:optimistic fools! by spruce · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be more like an asteroid that already destroyed another planet, and is still coming in our general direction, but most of the world is content to say "Let's just see if it hits us."

    4. Re:optimistic fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, winning a political argument on slashdot is like winning the special olympics--you'd rather not be a fucking retard. but in your case, you don't even have the consolation of winning.

      asshat.

    5. Re:optimistic fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, you fool: It is NOT "al-Queda."

      What in the blue fuck is so hard about remembering to write "Qaeda" or "Qaida"? Moron.

    6. Re:optimistic fools! by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      What in the blue fuck is so hard about remembering to write "Qaeda" or "Qaida"? Moron.

      Actually, since there isn't a 1:1 mapping between Arabic and ASCII, any phonetically similar spelling is as valid as another. I spell it with a "u" because that's how we write in English, and I've no intention of giving the terrorists anything on their terms.

    7. Re:optimistic fools! by UTPinky · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'd prefer as Baby-Bush would say, "Your government is alert that Evil Asteroids still lurk out there, and that we must work to rid this universe of the evil-doers."

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
  6. Solution looking for a problem by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some VC has a Neat Idea, which nobody wants. Is that his fault, no! Who will buy it - Governments, they can print as much money as they need. Of course this was done in Europe, their monopoly-money machines work better than in the US (Russia has no money, monopoly or otherwise).

    Here's how you really get rid of an asteroid:
    Insert used ICBM into Space Shuttle (or equivalent)
    Place ICBM and suitable launch device into LOE.
    Aim ICBM at the place where the asteroid will be when it gets there.
    Press the button that we've wanted to push for so long. Sell tickets, I'm sure the Russians would want to attend - maybe a joint "button pushing" ceremony? Heck, bring the Chinese and N.Koreans in too.
    Watch as ICBM blows up asteroid.
    Profit!
    (Part where it ushers in a new sense of global peace and brotherhood is optional)

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is the part were the rocket malfunctions, explodes, causing enough heat to get the warhead in the ICBM going, and thus kills all those people celebrating peace, and most people in the area, optional aswell?

    2. Re:Solution looking for a problem by pe1rxq · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Of course this was done in Europe, their monopoly-money machines work better than in the US (Russia has no money, monopoly or otherwise).

      You on the other hand have been watching to many american films... It is practicly impossible to do anything with an ICBM (or a whole bunch of them) against an asteroid.

      A new sense of global panic and anarchy is much more likely.....

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:Solution looking for a problem by mericet · · Score: 1
      Or more likely:

      Watch as ICBM blows up asteroid.
      Watch as world get bombarded by all the astroid's debris.
      Watch as instead of one continent/city (depending on size) gets destroyed, all world is obliterated.

    4. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 1

      ...and then gasp in horror as the missile hits the asteriod, explodes and - achieves nothing. Turns out the asteriod has a composition simular to expanded foam rubber (which is apparently not unusual) and it just absorbs the impact.

      Plus it's now radioactive. :)

      --
      -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
    5. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Gothmolly · · Score: 1
      Sorry, forgot the
      <funny>
      tag, for the humor impaired.
      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    6. Re:Solution looking for a problem by bob_dinosaur · · Score: 1

      Actually, the most efficient monopoly-money machine is operated by the good ol' US of A. Have you seen the size of your defence budget? How much of that goes to R&D? There ya go...

    7. Re:Solution looking for a problem by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunatly that won't work.

      An ICBM not even has the targeting capability to hit the asteroid.

      Neither does the war head has the precise enough timers to trigger in time(in case you like to ignition the war head on impact).

      Such an asteroid approaches the ICBM with a speed of about 10,000m/s. This is about 6 to 7 miles per second.

      If you trigger the war head on passing by, nothing happends at all, besides a heated surface, or probably a melted surface.

      Ok, so lets suppose you can approach the asteroid with a lander and plant the war head on the ground.

      Unfortuinatly that still wont work .... you need about 1000 war heads to alter the course significiant.

      Or you can dig some holes into the asteroid and plant the war heads inside. Exploding them, might break up the asteroid into parts.

      I for my part don't think that it is a big difference if one single piece hits north america(or europe, which is my side of the earth) or if 100s of parts are spread all over the northern hemisphere.

      Well, obviously its no difference also if one of those scenarios happens on the southern side :-)

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Solution looking for a problem by t0ny · · Score: 1
      Ya, didnt anybody watch "Armageddon"?

      Yes, another movie featuring a crying Ben Afleck.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    9. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could however, find out where the asteroid will hit, and put all of the worlds most powerful nuclear weapons there.

      Right when it is about to hit the earth, detonate the nukes, and it will bounce back into space, and everyone will be safe.

    10. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "You on the other hand have been watching to many american films... It is practicly impossible to do anything with an ICBM (or a whole bunch of them) against an asteroid."

      Use a series of them to nudge it out of the way, ala Project Orion.

    11. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "causing enough heat to get the warhead in the ICBM going,"

      The only way to get the kind of heat needed to set off a thermonuclear (fusion) device is from a nuclear (fission) device.

      Heat has nothing to do with setting off a nuclear (fission) device, at least in this day and age. Most of them use an implosion-explosion set-up, where a series of plastic explosives explode around a mass of fissionable material, compressing it down to critical density. The timing of the explosions is also pretty tricky.

      Heat has nothing to do with setting off plastic explosives. Most plastic explosives are set off by compression, usually triggered by small blasting caps.

      And, when all is said and done, if atmospheric re-entry were enough to set off an H-bomb, it would trigger the explosion hundreds of miles up. It would be a pretty fireworks show that screws up radio reception and throws circuit breakers, but that's about it.

    12. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND SPREAD RADIATION THROUGH SPACE???!?!

      Oh, wait, there's plenty of radiation in space already, isn't there?

      Eh, I'm unconvinced. Perhaps tactical nukes could be used to nudge an asteroid, but I'd feel more confident with assorted rocketry being placed on the surface of the asteroid.

      Thus, we could nudge it off course with controlled burns and such - kind of like how we control stuff in space already.

      Plus, it'd give the space program something tangible to do. We'd most likely have to work on better technology to be able to pull it off.

    13. Re:Solution looking for a problem by jafac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, I think an ICBM would just about do the trick too, take off the warhead, and your payload becomes the third stage, get the third stage out of LEO using about half it's fuel (very rough assumption, expecially since we also would have had to fit it with appropriate guidance and maneuvering systems), land the 3rd stage ass-end-up on the asteroid, and fire the remaining fuel.

      ICBM doesn't necessarily mean "nuke".

      FYI - Mercury's Redstone, Gemini's Titan, etc. were formerly Ballistic Missiles - adapted for use in manned spaceflight - FYI.2; Titans are still one of the premier spacelauch vehicles in use today, and many are actual decomissioned ICBMs. (they're pretty useless as ICBMs compared to Minuteman or Peacekeeper, because Titans are liquid fueled) - but even so, I think a Peacekeeper would make an excellent asteroid-shover in a pinch, but I'm not sure exactly how much of the third stage would be left for asteroid-shoving if one just removed the warheads and fitted it with guidance/maneuver equipment. Maybe with some strap-ons?

      Now, we all KNOW that an ION engine would be better for this application, because you get your energy from solar radiation (or nuclear power), instead of burning your propellant and oxidizer, plus, you get to apply thrust over a much longer period of time, with much finer control. But on the other hand, we've had exactly ONE successful use of ION engines. It's a worthy wheel to reinvent, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get something rolling more quickly than development of an ION-based asteroid-shover would take. Then do ION-based technology later. In any case, we definately have adequate technology to get such a device positioned. Much of it sitting unused, waiting around for armageddon. If an asteroid strikes our world and ends all life because we were saving our launch capability (idle ICBMs) for a massive nuclear strike, we'll even be jilted of that.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    14. Re:Solution looking for a problem by valmont · · Score: 1

      actually yet another very fine American Jerry Bruckheimer film called "Armageddon" would indeed teach you that throwing missiles to an asteroid wouldn't do shit. Instead you gotta send bruce willis after it, so he can dig a whole to its core, drop a nuke, and blow the thing into pieces. Jerrry Bruckheimer rules.

    15. Re:Solution looking for a problem by valmont · · Score: 1

      no damnit. haven't you heard of the zero-barrier? it's that precise moment before which the thing needs to get blown up so the two pieces of the asteroid pass right by earth. Surely the movie Armageddon has it all figured out.

    16. Re:Solution looking for a problem by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "I for my part don't think that it is a big difference if one single piece hits north america(or europe, which is my side of the earth) or if 100s of parts are spread all over the northern hemisphere."

      Don't smaller pieces have bigger chance of burning away in the atmosphere?

    17. Re:Solution looking for a problem by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      Unfortuinatly that still wont work .... you need about 1000 war heads to alter the course significiant.

      However, due to the advancements in nuclear technology since the last great Hydrogen bomb was built in the 1960s (You know that 60 Megaton one that the soviets made), I'm sure we could slap together a device that could kick out in excess of 800-1000 megatons by now, hence just enough to do what you are suggesting.

    18. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Da+Masta · · Score: 1
      Well I don't find making fun of that ingenious VC's ideas humourous so perhaps you should have used the
      <notsofunny>
      tag?
    19. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      However, due to the advancements in nuclear technology since the last great Hydrogen bomb was built in the 1960s (You know that 60 Megaton one that the soviets made), I'm sure we could slap together a device that could kick out in excess of 800-1000 megatons by now, hence just enough to do what you are suggesting.

      Slap together?

      The US has not been seeking ways to build bigger and bigger nukes, in spite of what some think here. Once we discovered we already had enough to make the planet uninhabitable (70s) then bigger was irrelevent.

      Because of the physics involved, its gets exponentially difficult to design bigger and bigger. Also, no way to test it on the planet. And no chance to make a 2nd one if the first one is a dud. Oh, and you are talking about a shitload of material to make that sucker. Even if you took all the material out of all the existing bombs to work with.

      Oh, one last point: Do you want them to build or launch that sucker in your hometown? I could see all kinds of no bath taking fuckers protesting all day and all night (after all, they don't have jobs to go to). I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would have a hayday attempting to get congress to block construction before an environmental impact study was done.

      (no pun on impact intended)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    20. Re:Solution looking for a problem by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "but I'd feel more confident with assorted rocketry being placed on the surface of the asteroid."

      You get a heck of a lot more oomph from an Orion drive than from a chemical rocket. This is why Orion was proposed and tinkered with to begin with.

      "kind of like how we control stuff in space already."

      You mean the stuff that takes forever and a day to actually get anywhere?

      "We'd most likely have to work on better technology to be able to pull it off."

      Such as an Orion drive. Or, better yet, nuclear salt water rockets.

    21. Re:Solution looking for a problem by flewp · · Score: 1

      Insert used ICBM into Space Shuttle (or equivalent)

      Not only would an ICBM be tough to use, but a *USED* one would be even tougher.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  7. I reckon by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    if they spot one heading for us the space elevator idea will suddenly seem extremely plausible

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:I reckon by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Heck, an incoming planet killing asteroid would tend to make the Orion project plausable.
      Orion Project

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  8. Why not provide a link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to the European Space Agency while you are at it?

  9. Spongy Asteroids by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here in the UK there was a TV documentary (probably BBC2 Horizon, not sure) about asteroid impacts, how to deal with them and so on. I for one thought it was much like Arthur C Clarke's Hammer of God - find it early, deliver an impulse, deflect it a teeny weeny bit, and it misses by a few miles. Nope. The asteroid could be very porous, it just absorbs the blast, or requires an impossibly big bang to be sure it deflects. So sending probes to gather facts about asteroid composition is a good and useful practical thing over and above the scientific justification.

    1. Re:Spongy Asteroids by lommer · · Score: 1

      The asteroid could be very porous, it just absorbs the blast, or requires an impossibly big bang to be sure it deflects.

      Um sorry, but momentum is momentum. In space, the volume of the object doesn't really matter when you're trying to impart an impulse (as there's no air friction to worry about), it's just the mass. In that case, being porus would only help because it would mean that the mass is less than estimated. Any "absorption" wouldn't matter...

      Still a not a bad post.

    2. Re:Spongy Asteroids by renecarlos · · Score: 1

      >Um sorry, but momentum is momentum. In space, the volume of the object doesn't really matter

      Didn't get beyond freshman mechanics, I see? Momentum is momentum for ideal bodies. But asteroids aren't billard balls, and hey, even billiard balls don't always do what I want them to.

      And _very_ unlike billiard balls, asteroids large enough to be threatening are large enough to experience gravity effects. Even if shattered, the pieces of an body may re-form due to mutual attraction. This is assuming the asteroid wasn't a rubble pile to begin with, in which case intergranular forces can absorb an impulse even in vacuum.

      And who cares about mass estimates turning out low? The energy on that asteroid's impact is m*v^2. Relative velocity is determined by orbital mismatch versus the target (Earth), which is why comets (in highly eccentric, sometimes retrograde orbits) are considered more threatening than asteroids despite being "snowballs." Going from ice (1 g/cc) to rock (~3 g/cc) is no "big" increase in kinetic energy. Meanwhile, eccentricity can swing relative velocity through an order of magnitude, and energy by two orders of magnitude.

      There are circumstances in which density (not mass) is very important- vaporizing the body's own surface for propulsion, or Yarkovsky-effect deflection.

      Credentials: mechanical engineer, who works for NASA.

  10. Space Potato by scottennis · · Score: 1



    That's no asteroid. It's a giant Space Potato!

    1. Re:Space Potato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it is claimed by Russia, do they get to call it a 'Spudnik'???

  11. Nice, but kind of pointless? by forged · · Score: 0
    I see what they're trying to do, but so what if we do detect an asteroid the size of Texas headed straight at us ? (Armageddon or Deep Impact, anyone?)

    I doubt that there will be anything significant that we will be able to do except predict the end of the world, and you bet that I'll be quitting my job then! :)

    1. Re:Nice, but kind of pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can hope it lands *precisely* on Texas, maybe nobody will notice the difference...?

      Or alternatively, if we spot it early enough (dozens of years in advance) we can put an engine on it and start pushing it to another trajectory. If you do it early enough you only need a minute change to make it miss Earth.

    2. Re:Nice, but kind of pointless? by edmo · · Score: 1

      I doubt that there will be anything significant that we will be able to do except predict the end of the world, and you bet that I'll be quitting my job then! :)

      If the earth was going to be wiped out it might be a good idea to try an set humanity up somewhere else. There are of course 2 problems w/ this; 1)this would cause a reverse natural selection effect as inbred Texans would be first to safety, and 2)right now our solution to living in space consist of shipping things from the surface, not recycling what we already have up there
      If we could start a stable biosphere in orbit we could have set up a colony to last an indefanent amount of time on the moon or other body

      --
      Don't save your orgasms for Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here.
    3. Re:Nice, but kind of pointless? by virtigex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There must be some range of size that is too big to ignore and small enough to do something about. So why not?

    4. Re:Nice, but kind of pointless? by eimi · · Score: 1

      in such case we need a mass drivers, something like a robotic mine installed on the surface of asteroid, which throws digged ore through electromagnetic linear accelerator. unfortunately, this option was found by The Hollywood as unworthy and too boring to make a movie with superhero, so we will be doomed :)

      (transmissions from the end of the world will be prime-time for advertisement :))

    5. Re:Nice, but kind of pointless? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Its not pointless at all.

      There are plenty of ways to alter the course of an asteroid.

      E.g. if there are gases, or frozen liquids on such a thing you could try to use a steam rocket.

      Solar power heats the stuff up and uses the gases like in a rocket engine.

      You could try to alter the albedo/colour by painting the surface. There was a /. article about that idea bout 6 monthes ago.

      Far more interesting is the attempt to put solar sails on it, to drag it away, however such a asteroid will be rotating somehow. Rotation would be needed to stop, or a way needs to be found to tackle a rotating asteroid.

      Lasers could be used, not like in Star Wars but as constant pressure, instead of solar sails, to push it away(of course we would need a laser on the moon for that or in space).

      I could imagine there are hundrets of concepts thinkable but ony a few will suit a specific asteroid.

      Also: not only asteroids are a problem, comets as well. But those are more rare and more easy to spot :-) However they are that fragile that they will be realy hard to get rid of them. A steam rocket might be suitable but also it might just not stick on the body because of the fragility.

      So a giant net, wrapped around the asteroid might be usefull ... to attach solar sails or steam rockets on it.

      How to manufactor them, probably with resources on the body itself ...

      Pleanty of questions. Plenty of reason to go and look.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  12. We need to institute an advisory system by Strike · · Score: 1, Funny
  13. Question: Why should we care? by Dragon213 · · Score: 0, Troll
    Answer:
    We really shouldn't worry about things like this until we have to. It's just a waste of government money and time at this point (even though it is British money....). Perhaps that money could be spent better elsewhere? Like, on a cure for cancer? or maybe an effictive treatment for the AIDS/HIV epidimic?
    I could be wrong, but this whole article seems like nothing more than a bunch of under-worked, over-paid scientists sitting around, trying to think of a way to make it appear that their valuable to the British Government, so they don't get fired.
    It's a classic example of how to keep a job.
    1. Create perceived need for position (ie the inevetable collision of an asteroid into the Earth)
    2. Propose a study for possible eliminiation of this threat, however small the chance might be
    3. Send regular and lengthy papers to the funding orginization
    4. Collect paycheck
    It's an old tune, simply more modern technology. Until the scientists are willing work for free on this kind of thing, and until the governments and other investors stop paying them, they will always take the "Doomsday" approach to every project and thought that crosses their mind.
    Not trying to say that science hasn't cause some great leaps in technology, but I think that researchers and other associated personel that want to try and prevent things like this, that could concevieably effect all of the flora and fauna on the planet, should work for as little as possible, and receive funding from ALL the world governments. I would hate to see science turn into a pay-driven career, like professional sports.
    Scientists do deserve to be paid for their services, and their dedication to learning all that they can. But, I think that research with world-spanning possibilities (cancer or AIDS cures, prevention of a "killer asteroid", etc.) should be funded by everyone, and the scientists should work for only a reasonable fee, and shouldn't use money as their primary motivating factor.
    --
    --CypherDragon
    1. Re:Question: Why should we care? by MrMickS · · Score: 1
      Not all peoples expertise is in solving famine/disease etc. These sorts of projects help with the funding of a lot of basic research, that basic research can lead onto advances in other unrelated fields.Whilst these are no doubt worthy causes deserving of much support and commitment who decides what's worth working on?

      This years scientific focus is eliminating bad jokes on late night TV.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    2. Re:Question: Why should we care? by Drakonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Answer:
      We really shouldn't worry about things like this until we have to.

      By the time we have to worry about it, we are all already dead. Not just those of us with cancer or AIDS. That's like saying you shouldn't worry about a computer virus until you get one. You shouldn't worry about security until your server is rooted. You shouldn't worry about your car until the engine seizes up.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    3. Re:Question: Why should we care? by Dragon213 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Granted, but computer virii, root hacks, and engine seizes can all be proven to happen if you don't do X. This study shows nothing...
      We have proof that asteroids have hit the Earth in the past, but no solid proof that it can, or will, happen again. Until we can find that proof, let's stop wasting time on projects like this.

      --
      --CypherDragon
    4. Re:Question: Why should we care? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Create perceived need for position (ie the inevetable collision of an asteroid into the Earth)
      2. Propose a study for possible eliminiation of this threat, however small the chance might be
      3. Send regular and lengthy papers to the funding orginization
      4. Collect paycheck


      That sounds an awful lot like what the Global Warming folks do.

      1. Create perceived need for position (ie the world heating up because of emissions)
      2. Propose a study for possible eliminiation of this threat, however small the chance might be(Kyoto Accords)
      3. Send regular and lengthy papers to the funding orginization(ad nauseum)
      4. Collect paycheck(PROFIT!!!!!!)


      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    5. Re:Question: Why should we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same is true for terrorism. There is absolutely no proof, let alone solid proof, that terrorists can or will strike at the USA again. And yet you spend enormeous amounts of money to defend yourself from such a hypothetical attack. Hell, you are even willing to invade another country or two to stop it from happening...

      I suppose you could think of asteroids as just another terrorist.

    6. Re:Question: Why should we care? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      We really shouldn't worry about things like this until we have to.

      You are assuming that WARNING_TIME > DEVELOPMENT_TIME. That's a very dangerous gamble. Sure, cancer kills a lot of people, but it isn't going to kill everyone.

    7. Re:Question: Why should we care? by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 1
      We have proof that asteroids have hit the Earth in the past, but no solid proof that it can, or will, happen again


      You are joking, right?

      To borrow your own analogy - "So we have proof that the server has been rooted in the past, but no solid proof that it can, or will, happen again. Until we find that proof, let's not waste money on a firewall".

      --
      -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
    8. Re:Question: Why should we care? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      We have proof that asteroids have hit the Earth in the past, but no solid proof that it can, or will, happen again. Until we can find that proof, let's stop wasting time on projects like this.


      Well, why don't you read more /.?

      The last near miss was only 3 times farer away than moon. It also was only less than 6 monthes ago.

      Yes it was a near miss, not a near hit ....

      Near not in the sense of "nearly" but in the sense of "close by".

      Unfortunatly with our current way of handling this issue we will get the information of a impact only some monthes before it will happen.

      Probbly you conclude from that that there is no proof.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Question: Why should we care? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      But, I think that research with world-spanning possibilities (cancer or AIDS cures, prevention of a "killer asteroid", etc.) should be funded by everyone, and the scientists should work for only a reasonable fee, and shouldn't use money as their primary motivating factor.

      So, your position is that only those who market trivial consumer products should be able to make a lot of money?

    10. Re:Question: Why should we care? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Granted, but computer virii, root hacks, and engine seizes can all be proven to happen if you don't do X. This study shows nothing...
      We have proof that asteroids have hit the Earth in the past, but no solid proof that it can, or will, happen again. Until we can find that proof, let's stop wasting time on projects like this.

      Gosh, you're so right... After all, Slammer nailed a bunch of computers, but that was in the past, and there's no solid proof that any virus or worm ever will occur again! Until we can find that proof, let's stop wasting time on firewalls and security.

      Thing is, if we detect an asteroid with current technology, we might have only a few months warning - as it currently takes a minimum of about 6 weeks of preparation to launch a _single_ shuttle, what do you think we're going to be able to do to deflect an asteroid?

      By the time we find out about one, it's probably going to be too late to start thinking about plans to stop it.

      -T

  14. I don't get it. by rhadamanthus · · Score: 0
    Ok, so these are asteroids percieved to be dangerous, as in "may hit us at some point". If they do hit us, what the heck is knowledge of their chemical composition going to achieve in terms of post-impact help? This does not make sense to me...

    ----rhad

    --
    Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
    1. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm interested in their composition, but for another reason. If it is established that asteroids have reasonably valuable minerals or some other resource, then it opens the door for private financing of a colonization project. Large planet-type bodies probably will be dominated by governments but asteroids would be attractive to small groups or individuals. Any asteroid that is deemed hazardous could be consumed by mining operations.

      And, in a couple hundred years, there will be a /. story about abandoned massdriver sites.

  15. In other news ... by Xthlc · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...NASA proposes a $300 million project to build a gigantic "Welcome to Earth! We value our children, please abduct safely!" sign on the moon. This is to remind alien vacationers (who come speedin' down that local group highway like nobody's business) to slow down a spell, and think carefully before they start carrying off our kids and probing them.

    Seriously, does anyone else think this is a waste of resources? Give that $150 million to Highlift for Pete's sake...

  16. cold war leftover by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, when did you first hear about dirty bombs and Asteroids that would kill us all?
    Shortly after the 'end?' of the cold war.

    All that got swept under the carpet when the axis of evil decended upon the earth(though the dirty bomb's popped it's head up again).

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:cold war leftover by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      Seriously, when did you first hear about dirty bombs and Asteroids that would kill us all?
      Shortly after the 'end?' of the cold war.

      All that got swept under the carpet when the axis of evil decended upon the earth(though the dirty bomb's popped it's head up again).


      Well,

      I'm 36 ... erm, shit. 37 now.

      I know it snce I can think back, so probably since the age of 10.

      No idea how long you know it, probably you are just to young? Or to ignorant? I mean: you still try to say, you do not know it, even more: you think its an invention, right?

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:cold war leftover by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Ok, 37 and since you were 10, well that'd be 1975/76 (the year I was born).
      What was going on around that time?

      The war raged from the early 60s through 1975, with the level of US intervention escalating through the late 60s. The fighting was mostly a stalemate, the superior fire power of the US and US supplied South Vietnamese forces being balanced by the guerilla fighting tactics of the North and their allies in the south, the Viet Cong.

      Looks like you needed a new enemy to quell the masses.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:cold war leftover by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It's just a matter of priorities. A dirty bomb or hijacked airliner will kill a few thousand at most. With the Cold War we faced the prospect of a few nukes on every major city at once. Directly comparing the terrorists to the cold war lacks any sense of proportion.

    4. Re:cold war leftover by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      My point is:

      there are more asteroids out there than humans on earth.

      Only *one* is needed to kill us all. I don't know what *proof* you are looking for. I learned enough in school to not need any further, so called, proof.

      I do not need a cold war conspiracy or whatever to know, no not to belive, but to know, that there is an accident waiting to happen.

      Of course, you are perfectly right, its realy unlikely that it will hit us tomorrow. And in case of realy bad luck, in case it would hit us tomorrow, we are not prepared to attempt counter measures.

      But .... why do you need a conspiracy to see the obvious?

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:cold war leftover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said it couldn't happen,.

      It just gets dragged up at unsefull moments,

    6. Re:cold war leftover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just the case that when there's nothing for the people to be scared of, then the government will find somthing.

      The Commies are comming.
      Watch out for space rocks.
      Evil terrorists have dirty bombs ...but don't worry, we will save you.

      Not that they try to control you with fear or anything.

      Don't smoke, you'll die.
      Be good, or you'll goto Jail.
      Goto confession, or you'll burn in hell.

      I'm sure you get the idea.

  17. A gamble for 10 billion... by little1973 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is the raw translation of a hungarian novel written in the early 80's.

    It takes place in the near future when the Earth population is 10 billion. An asteroid threatens Earth, but so big nothing can be done just one thing. By calculating the trajectory of the asteriod the engineers notice that it nearly collide another, but smaller asteroid.

    So, they send up a spaceship with full of explosives and ram it into the small asteroid in order to give it a push which is sufficient to make it collide with the big one.

    Billiard on the cosmic scale. And it was written well before the public became aware of the asteriod threat.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    1. Re:A gamble for 10 billion... by stevey · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Red Dwarf...

  18. Different types of object? by spakka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Each Simone spacecraft will have instruments designed to examine the physical and chemical make-up of its target asteroid. It is hoped the missions will help scientists predict the risk posed by asteroids and develop effective strategies for dealing with different types of object.

    What properties, other than mass and trajectory, are of interest? It's not like they're going to find harmless ones made out of rubber or whatever.

    1. Re:Different types of object? by itp · · Score: 2

      Density, composition, anything likely to affect our ability to change its path by pushing it, attempting to break it up into smaller pieces that would either miss the Earth or burn up during entry...

      Knowing whether these asteroids are ice, rock, hollow, loose clumps of small pieces held together by gravity, all of this is important.

      Not all of physics can be modeled by assuming everything is a sphere with mass and velocity.

    2. Re:Different types of object? by dkf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What properties, other than mass and trajectory, are of interest? It's not like they're going to find harmless ones made out of rubber or whatever.

      How about "How easy it is to push into a different orbit that misses the Earth?" I don't know about you, but that's a property that I'm very interested in, and it'd be silly to think that all asteroids are the same...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:Different types of object? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      What properties, other than mass and trajectory, are of interest? It's not like they're going to find harmless ones made out of rubber or whatever.

      An asteroid made of a nice brittle material could be shattered - a softer or more porous material would have to be deflected. One that's mostly water could be dealt with slowly by focussing sunlight onto it over a period of years, so evaporation alters its trajectory. One that's mostly basalt or iron would require a different strategy.

    4. Re:Different types of object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The composition is important. There are thought to be two types of asteroid... solid ones and ones composed of loose clumps of many small rocks. These last type might be surprisingly difficult to deal with. They are resistant to explosion and are difficult to deflect.

    5. Re:Different types of object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Density, composition

      And we can't tell that from here?

    6. Re:Different types of object? by ggwood · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with several of the replies to this, I do not think they are the main reason for the mission.

      If you know what such asteroids are made of, you might be better able (1) to detect them and (2) to estimate how many of them there are. (Think: there is just so much heavy metals left over from the supernovae from which we arise. However there is lots more hydrogen from tbe big bang to combine with Oxygen which could generate lots more water based asteriods.

      Further, I am sure I am too naieve on this point, but how do we really know the mass of these things? Mass cancels out in the force equations for orbits as long as the mass of the orbiter is far, far less than the mass of the object orbited.

      The most cost effective means of finding out about these still seems to me to be looking from earth. $150 million would pay lots of telescope time and graduate students to analyze the data.

      --
      a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
  19. Simon says by QEDog · · Score: 4, Funny
    "The asteroid mission has been named Simone (Smallsat Intercept Missions to Objects Near Earth)."

    Pretty smart using Simon to stop the asteroid... "Simon says jump on one foot. Simon says don't hit the Earth..."

    Next on /. how to save Earth from an Alien attack using the Hockey-Pockey

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
    1. Re:Simon says by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      (KABOOM)

      ...That's what it's all about...

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Simon says by ralico · · Score: 1

      And here I always thought it was "hokey-pokey".

      --

      SCO to Hell
    3. Re:Simon says by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      "Hockey-Pockey" is the Canadian version.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
  20. so what they're telling us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    IMO, is that an asteroid that's on a collision course for Earth has been detected and they're leaking it in various ways to news reporters.

    1. Re:so what they're telling us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, even if they didn't tell us, there would be signs that you could tell. One is if you had a bunch of hawks in the administration, they might just say the heck with it and start wars with countries like Iraq or N. Korea. Two is you start seeing less of the Vice President because he is already bunkered down in Mount Weather, W.VA. with the other "elite" leading one to suppose some bizzare hollow earth like future with midget troglodyte Nazis living off God knows what.


      Fortunately, there is nothing like this happening now so there is nothing to worry about.

  21. The biggest threat by far is ... by kid_wonder · · Score: 1, Insightful

    not from the heavens, but from the human beings on the planet.

    Why do we worry about these thing when the population of this planet can't even figure out how to deal with the threats on this planet that we have control over?

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  22. One has to question by Karem+Lore · · Score: 0
    If Earth is so much a target for asteroids one has to wonder if:

    a) Why Jupiter, who's size compared to Earth is immense, has not had a large asteroid annihalate it yet? (ok, maybe it has, i don't know) or,

    b) They are aimed...

    Is this just a means to justify the spending of millions of taxpayers dollars and keep some people employed, or is this the first signs of a sentient galactic war?

    Karem Lore

    --
    When all is said and done, nothing changes...
    1. Re:One has to question by Memetic · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Why Jupiter, who's size compared to Earth is immense, has not had a large asteroid annihalate it yet? (ok, maybe it has, i don't know)"

      It has been hit, very spectacularly, had it been Earth that was hit I doubt we would be discussing this.

      See:
      Comet Shoemaker-Levy Collision with Jupiter

    2. Re:One has to question by taerogue · · Score: 1

      I've heard it proposed (on some Discovery Science program, I believe) that Jupiter, due to it's insane gravitational pull and size, tends to attract quite a lot of the space 'junk' making it's way into the Solar System; absorbing well above it's fair share of impacts.

      The point being that we're pretty lucky to have Jupiter out there; protecting us from what could be significantly more hazards making their way into the Earth's orbital path.

      The scale of energy released from the previously-mentioned recent collisions with Jupiter just boggles my mind.

      Thanks, Jupiter!

  23. How do you assess the threat? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I don't know. I've never assessed a non-existent threat before.

    How many of these fucking articles are we going to have to endure before everyone realizes A) there is no threat, and B) even if there was one, we are absolutely powerless to do anything about it as a species that would make a damn bit of difference?

    Regardless of what ideas you can come up with, they are impossible to deploy on a large enough scale to mean anything, and would take too long in terms of time to justify it.

    Wise up.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:How do you assess the threat? by Booie+Paog · · Score: 0

      you are so right, Bowie. i am gonna go ahead and trust that you have the astronomy knowledge to know that there is no danger of asteroids hitting us. you're right...just because there might be a chance to find out that an asteroid might hit our planet, doesn't mean that we should know about it. same with hurricanes, tornados, and falling space shuttle debris. who cares ? might as well throw caution to the wind, huh ? take my chances! some say that knowing an asteroid is coming might help us prepare for what might happen as a result. boy are those people dumb, huh Bowie ? i'm with you...we as a species definitely shouldn't pay any attention to anything that might threaten our existence. also, if we did pay attention, we might learn something, and that's no good, either, right ?

    2. Re:How do you assess the threat? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 0, Flamebait



      Yup. Youre a moron. Thanks for saving me the effort there, Tolstoy. Look out for that Shuttle debris!! Its TOXIC!

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    3. Re:How do you assess the threat? by Booie+Paog · · Score: 0

      no, no! i'm not a moron! i'm someone who agrees with you....because you're smart...ummm...i'm a Bowie disciple! asteroids, genetic mutations, software development...jeez Mr. Poag, you know so much! how could i possibly know half as much as you ? i'm trying to do what you told me and "wise up"

    4. Re:How do you assess the threat? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many of these fucking articles are we going to have to endure before everyone realizes A) there is no threat, and B) even if there was one, we are absolutely powerless to do anything about it as a species that would make a damn bit of difference?
      How do you know unless you've assessed the threat? Are you willing to bet possibly the entire earth's population on it? $150 million is nothing compared to the money spent on making cars safer.

    5. Re:How do you assess the threat? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      Well, we know that asteroid impacts are unsafe at any speed. I think that Congress should mandate airbags on asteroids. Just think of it, when the next Siberian asteroid hits, you'll just hear an explosive "THWUP!", and large sections of remote forest will be gently flattened by a big inflated cushion.

      Next, we'll have NBC panic-mongering about the federal asteroid impact research scene by rigging tests with Saturn V rocket boosters hidden on the things. "See how it explodes on impact?"

      Maybe, when we have warm fuzzies about the North Koreans again, we can get one of the things classified as a replacement 'axis of evil' member.

      In any case all this running around yelling about the asteroid threat is pretty misplaced, thanks to the helpful tips from the department of homeland security (duck tape all your windows! Stock up on gummi bears!)

      As an American citizen, I feel pretty safe from the things, anyway--it doesn't at all fit into my way of life (nobody to sue if one hits, really.)

      On the other hand, if we ever catch wind that one's going to hit L.A., we can convince some of the locals that they're aliens on a mission of peace, so they'll go stand directly under it, waving signs that read "welcome to earth!". Should cushion the impact a bit. Or maybe we'll just issue Powerbooks to every wild-eyed scientists out there--that'll let them completely scramble the asteroid's central computer and cause it to self-destruct.

      In any case, even if it takes out half the planet, it won't be that serious. After all, the internet is designed to route around the occasional localized outage; as long as I can still get my morning comics online, all's well in my world.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    6. Re:How do you assess the threat? by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 1

      What happend to the Dinosaurs on your planet, Bowie?

      --
      -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
  24. Ion propulsion by little1973 · · Score: 1

    Deep Space 1 (DS1) was the first probe to use ion propulsion. There were 12 other advanced technology used on that probe. You can find more here.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
  25. what characteristics? by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article is quite short on details of exactly what threat characteristics we are to catalog. My understanding is that the two most important characteristics that threaten us is that the object has mass and will likely collide with earth. Both of these can be estimated quite well in enough without a mission to the object. Any characteristics beyond that, be it shape or chemical composition, does not seem to be so critical.

    Now, one might argue that if we knew things like chemical make up or density or the like we might know how to destroy the object or perhaps could change it's trajectory with engines or a tractor beam or something. However, this implies that we know the object exists with enough advance notice to do something. To plan a research encounter, that might be a year. To plan a destructive encounter, I think that might be a month. I seem to remember that the in the last near miss, we did not detect the object until after it had passed.

    Which is to say that we need better detection technology coupled with serious research of how to change trajectory. I do not believe converting a single projectile into hundred of projectiles is a reasonable solution. And of course, if we don't know the object is coming, there is nothing we can do

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  26. I'm confused... by Zwets · · Score: 0

    ...
    3. Send regular and lengthy papers to the funding orginization
    4. Collect paycheck

    Shouldn't #4 read "Profit!!!" ?

    --
    One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
  27. then what? by Xpilot · · Score: 0, Redundant

    After we identify a dangerous asteroid... we send Bruce Willis up to nuke it?

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:then what? by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what we'll tell him. ;)

      --
      -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
  28. A more down to earth kind of approach. by zokum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead of changing the orbit of the asteroid, why not simply change the orbit of the earth. All that is needed is the entire Chinese population jumping. Once we have safely avoided the asteroid, someone on the other side of the earth can nudge it back in place with some additional jumping, we might even improve the orbit a tad while we're at it. Obviously this is cheaper, more enviroment friendly and whole lot more "down to earth" than the proposed ICBM plans.

    --
    Rest in peace Malin "looxn" Kristiansen. We miss you...
  29. Real threats? by Pflipp · · Score: 1

    So everyone is making jokes about the topic, but wasn't there this story about this asteroid that would get close to earth somewhere in 2016 or so (can't remember the year), and that would raise the temperature of the earth to 50 degrees celsius at the moment it passes by? Or was that story declared invalid later on?

    --
    "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
  30. How long did i over sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when did we figure out how to use Ion Drives?

  31. Minor correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last line should read: "Watch in horror as the millions of fragments of the asteroid continue on the same course and slam into the Earth like a shot of hail, obliterating half of mankind."

    To make an asteroid go away, you must deflect it. That is possible, but an ICBM is not the answer.

    1. Re:Minor correction by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Is it not possible, if you can make an explosion powerful enough to generate enough heat, to actually vaporize an asteroid? If so, a 'large blast' may be the answer, but only when we have developed weapons several orders more powerful than the most powerful ones we have today. The asteroid could be melted and dispersed in all directions if we could generate a powerful (and hot) enough blast, ya know one similar to what would happen if the thing went into the sun.

  32. People jumping won't help by spakka · · Score: 1

    Trouble is, they come back down again, negating the effect. Better to get some large population to all face the same way, then fart. Muslims would be ideal. Issue them with cigarette lighters for a larger deflection.

    1. Re:People jumping won't help by praksys · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that just change the rotation? They would all have to be pointing up or something.

      Trouble is, they come back down again, negating the effect.

      I still think the jumping option is promising. If the whole population of china jumps up onto chairs, waits for the asteroid to slip by the planet, and then jumps down again, then we are set.

  33. What if... by RyoSaeba · · Score: 1

    ... the asteroid is a cylinder ? are we gonna blast it too ?
    *has read too much A.C.Clarke and / or Greg Bear*

    --
    Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
  34. What properties? by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Principally, how physically strong is the object.

    If it's strong enough, perhaps like a nickel-iron object, perhaps the best way to deflect it is with explosives.

    If it's weak enough, perhaps explosives could blast it to smithereens, all small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. This would also indicate that it's time to get together and work up an exception to the "no nukes in space" treaty.

    If it's somewhere in between, then it's time to ship some sort of rocket engine up there to move it. In that case we have to question just how much thrust it can structurally take before it breaks into pieces, leaving our engine shooting off into nowhere.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:What properties? by geoswan · · Score: 1
      perhaps explosives could blast it to smithereens, all small enough to burn up in the atmosphere?

      IANA physicist, but it seems to me that the parent contribution here, like many contributions in this thread, seriously underestimates the magnitude of the forces we are talking about.

      Would the fragments of a demolished asteroid burning up in the atmosphere be significantly less disruptive than having the intact asteroid smash into the Earth? What were the global effects of the dinosaur killer?

      It threw up huge amounts of dust? If fragments of the asteroid "burn up in the Earth's atmosphere" will that produce a worse dust problem or a better dust problem than if one big asteroid strikes the surface?

      Heat radiation ignited continent wide firestorms? Would a rain of billions of tons of meteors burning up in the atmosphere ignite a firestorm? The Tunguska object ( if it existed ) was something like 50 to 80 meters in diameter. If I have done my math right, it would have massed something like half a million to a couple of million tons. The dinosaur killer was supposed to be something like 10 to 20 km in diameter, I believe. That would be 10 to 100 trillion tons.

      Kinetic energy is, IIRC, one half mass x velocity squared. Earth's escape velocity is 11 kilometres per second. Suppose that was Tunguska's initial velocity? IANA Physicist, but wouldn't a one kilogram meteor, at 11,000 meters per second, surrender 60,500,000,000,000 Joules? 1.5*10^12 calories? It takes something like 660,000,000 calories to boil a cubic metre of water. And so your one kilogram meteor could boil 23,000 cubic metres of water. If I have done my arithmetic right, Tunguska could have boiled something like several tens of thousands of cubic metres of water. And, the dinosaur killer could have boiled at least 10^17 cubic metres of water. The Earth's atmosphere currently contains 1,290 cubic kilometres of water . A dinosaur killer, that burned up, and surrendered all its energy in the atmosphere, would release enough heat to raise the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere one thousand fold.

      Maybe the Earth would be better off if the next dinosaur killer stayed in one piece, and spent some of its energy busting rock?

    2. Re:What properties? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Certainly unsettling points.

      But in reality, if anything big hits, it's going to be a real problem for civilization, and at that point it becomes a question of whether cave men, Morlocks, or some emergent species takes over.

      My point was that some objects out there are barely solid, and attempting to drive them away with explosives or rockets just may not work. Still, the more time to plan, the better. Perhaps dispersal is still a decent idea for some less-solid objects, but at the proper distance and off-center, to minimize the amount of buckshot that hits the Earth. Timing might still be important, to make sure the thing doesn't re-condense, or turn into a string-of-pearls like Shoemaker-Levy.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  35. We spent more money... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Seeing if ants will tunnel inside of a test tube in space. (Not to mention 7 lives.)

    $150 million to explore the REAL dangers of space is cheap at twice the price.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  36. What's the point really? by russx2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While this research may well give us some miscellaneous bonus research regarding asteroids and such, it seems slightly fruitless.

    Yes, there is a chance an asteroid will hit us. There's also a chance black hole will spring up next to us and suck us in. There's even a tiny chance that the sun will extinguish itself leaving us with the task of trying to reignite it.

    Why waste money on such research which will, inevitably, be pretty useless when (and if) an asteroid the size of Britain comes along our way.

    I think these guys have finally got around to renting Armaggedon and got a little paranoid.

    1. Re:What's the point really? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Well, so far, no black holes have appeared right next to the planet and sucked it in, or, well, we wouldn't be having this conversation. OTOH, asteroids do hit the earth, and not all that infrequently, geologically speaking.

      You're right, there's not a damn thing we could do about an asteroid the size of Britain; that would be a planet-killer, and we couldn't stop it. Something along the lines of the dinosaur-killer, though? (Estimated at a few kilometers in diameter, IIRC.) That we might be able to do something about ... if we knew enough about it, and had enough advance warning. The spacefaring nations of the world could come up with some pretty impressive rock-stopping technology pretty fast with that kind of motivation. Ingorance in this case is definitely not bliss.

      You're putting the cart before the horse in mentioning Armageddon. The reason that movie was made is that someone in Hollywood finally noticed what scientists and SF authors have been talking about for years. If you honestly think that scientists got their ideas on asteroid impacts from Hollywood, you haven't been paying attention.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:What's the point really? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a chance an asteroid will hit us. There's also a chance black hole will spring up next to us and suck us in. There's even a tiny chance that the sun will extinguish itself leaving us with the task of trying to reignite it.

      Do you mind if we deal with the possible crises in the order of their likelihood of occurring?

    3. Re:What's the point really? by frankie · · Score: 1
      I think these guys have finally got around to renting Armaggedon

      No, I think you (and whoever up-modded you) fill entirely too much of your brain with bad sci-fi.

      The chance of a black hole suddenly popping up and sucking in the earth is around 10^-100. The chance of the sun extinguishing or exploding sooner than 2 billion years from now is comparable. This is based on both theoretical calculation (simple astrophysics) and physical observation (never seen).

      On the other hand, the odds of a killer asteroid impact within our lifetime is is 10^-6 or higher. We have seen impacts firsthand (note that the blast shown here is the same size as Earth), and we know the likely results.

      Last, between chemical rocketry, ion engines, and good old H-bombs, we have technology to do something about a future impact, given sufficient lead time. Summary: don't be a dork, russx2.
  37. Kind of pointless?? by Arethan · · Score: 0

    What is with the obsession of finding solutions to earth/asteroid collisions? Statistically, nothing has changed between now and 300,000 years ago, and we haven't had a planet-killer impact in that long. In fact, as time goes by our odds of not getting hit only get better, as Jupiter and the Sun keep sucking up more loose asteroids in our system.

    We would be better off throwing the 150 million at furthering our space travel technology. At least that way we'll be much better prepared for when a true planet killer comes along. We'd have the option to jump ship if our redirecting efforts did not work. (And let's face it, if we were going to be struck with a 500 mile wide chunk of nickel from space, we sure as hell can't expect to blow it up with nukes. Redirecting is our ONLY real chance to prevent disaster.)

    Besides, once we have space trasport down to a trivial science, we'll have regular patrols to scout for crap like this. And it will be on a budget that won't kill our wallets...

    1. Re:Kind of pointless?? by recursion97 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... no. Over time Jupiter and Saturn's gravity knock asteroids which are happily orbiting in the asteroid belt into earth-crossing orbits.

      So because we haven't had a planet killer asteroid impact in 300,000 years means that we're in the clear? I'll have to take that logic to the craps table next time I'm in Vegas. "Well, haven't seen a 7 in 5 rolls, they must not exist!".

      And besides "earth killer" impacts, we are susceptable to impacts which can cause "serious regional damage" about once per century. I for one am glad that some rational people are "obsessing" over it.

  38. We should go to the asteroids by infolib · · Score: 1

    to make fuel and infrastructure from materials already in space

    I hope to see that happen in my lifetime - even if permanent.com is too optimistic. That's why I like these probes, not because of the (negligible) impact danger.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  39. SG1 last night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was scared as hell ... 'member, took the asteroid through Earth using the hyperspace drive on the goa'uld cargo ship?

    damn, we really need to get in touch with some of that stuff.

  40. The dark side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ion engines? Solar panels? Lots of small, cheap space vessels?

    Heck, forget the TIE fighters, I want my AT-ST now, damnit!

  41. Hmmmm.... by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 1

    Once in space, the probes would use ion propulsion engines that provide thrust by shooting out a stream of electrically charged particles. Power for the ion engines would be provided by ultra-lightweight solar arrays.

    Hmmmm....so, a pair of flat, lightweight solar arrays. I betcha you'd have to mount the ion engines in parallel, to keep the thing from spinning uncontrollably. And a center sensor/instrumentation package...

    Why does this sound familiar?

  42. Dealing with the threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I usually find Preparation H does the trick with them things.

  43. A lot of negativism by panurge · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A lot of the arguments so far seem to be of the "why give up smoking, I might fall under a bus" variety. From the same people that continue to buy SUVs?

    Considering the amount of money spent on practising for war every year - "defense", the proposal to the EU is peanuts. It is a proposal to start investigating the possibilities of a very real threat. I seem to recall the Siberian meteor impact as estimated as equivalent to about a 30MT H-bomb, and we were very lucky it hit where it did. It also seems that satellite photography is identifying more and more impact sites on the Earth. When I was a kid very few of these were recognised, and it seems reasonable to me that if we are learning that the frequency of such hits is much higher than expected, we should start to do something.
    It's also worth remembering that the big impact on Jupiter occurred only a few years ago, and that very visible impact may well have concentrated people's minds. As telescopes get better, astronomers are realising there is far more debris out there than anybody knew- the old idea of 9 tidy planets and an asteroid belt has turned into a solar system full of all kinds of junk, moonlets, comet formation belts- the Solar System seems to be more like Mexico City than Singapore, if you see what I mean.
    A billion dollars sound like a lot, but how much is the ABM system going to cost?

    Dealing with a hard rock or a dirty snowball could need very different approaches (gentle push versus big bang?). Just because a multi-mile wide asteroid could be undeflectable and fatal, doesn;t mean that the real threat might come from a thing 100M across - obviously deflectable with the right technology, but nuking it could result in thousands of destructive small impacts.

    To sum up this ramble:

    • Destructive meteor impacts do occur on Earth
    • Some of them are potentially preventable
    • The cost of research is probably going to be far less than the US is going to spend developing nuclear warheads this year
    • The cost of stopping a small asteroid could be a lot less than the estimated budget for stopping Saddam Hussein
    • All in all, it looks far from a waste of EU money.
    Thank you for reading this far.
    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:A lot of negativism by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is true, although you have to admit we would be horrendusly unlucky if a fatal asteroid did hit us anytime soon.

      Think about it, the dinosaurs had how many million years to develop ways to prevent a fatal disaster? And they didn't have the intelligence too. Intelligent humans have only been around 4/5000 years, and we've already come *incredibly* far. All we need is another 5000, and I predict we'll have moved off Earth and colonized hundreds of other plantets, as well as building permenant space stations, providing there is no fatal disaster. It would be a rather tragic end to humankind if, after only a very small period of time in evolutionary terms, we were wiped out. We should at least be given another million years :-)

  44. This is a terrific, inexpensive idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as long as it's perceived as a start and not an end. To solve any problem, one must first discover the problem exists, investigate the problem and only then test solutions. We are now at the second stage.

    However, it will be easier to deflect solid, rigid bodies like asteroids from impacting Earth than to deflect the "dirty snowballs" known as comets. As well, it is possible that without a better, distant series of observers (away from the Earth-Moon system) to spot incoming, Sun-grazing comets, that the first we would know of some bodies would be after they had hit the Earth.

    For these reasons, as well as many others, a large population off Earth and a robust interplanetary travel capacity is a priority to reduce this threat. As a bonus, nothing less than a solar event will kill off humanity. As any combat soldier undergoing bombardment can tell you, "better survival through dispersion" of human targets increases the likelihood of survival of at least some of your party.

    Before this happens, though, we need to invest in some real advances in cheap, reliable space transport and a permanent human presence in space.

  45. The Hammer of God by magwm · · Score: 1

    I am reading this book (or well... listening to the audiobook version) right now.. combined with these slasdot news it is alarming! do we really have ANY possibility to escape extinction if we get it??

  46. Re:The biggest threat by far is ... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

    Doesn't it make sense to cover as many different threats as possible?

    Imagine: we finally solve all or most of the earth's problems that we have control over. But then an asteroid hits and it's all for naught.

    What's wrong with concurrent develpment of solutions to possible threats?

  47. The French are holding out ... by JoeGee · · Score: 1

    ... they want to send inspectors first to make certain the asteroids are *really* a threat.

    --

    Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
    1. Re:The French are holding out ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your jokes suck...

    2. Re:The French are holding out ... by JoeGee · · Score: 1

      Tu es français, peut-être? Foutriquet.

      My jokes may suck, but I don't post as AC and hide. :)

      --

      Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
  48. What if the meteor strike is just the opening act? by da+cog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We already know that there are a lot of objects in space which are powerful enough to cause a 10 megaton explosion but which we will not be able to see until they enter the atmosphere. Now, back in 1908 when one hit us, it hit us in a remote area so not many people in the world knew about (except, of course, those unfortunate people who where within a couple tens of miles of it when it struck.) But nowadays, EVERYONE would IMMEDIATELY know that an explosion as powerful as a nuclear weapon had just gone off in their back yard, and there's a good chance that they would immediately retaliate against whoever they thought launched it.

    Wouldn't it be ironic if we helped an incoming asteroid finish us off, rather than hindering it?

    --
    Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
  49. Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I consider asteriods more of a threat than IRAQ....

  50. Ion Engines Not New by beaverfever · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I found a website here which has specifications for a space vehicle with dual ion engines and solar arrays to power them. This one is manned, too.

    1. Re:Ion Engines Not New by will_die · · Score: 1

      Not sure what is funnier the message itself, or that people would mode it up as interesting.

  51. No, it's a waste of money... by rmdyer · · Score: 1

    That's right. We already know asteroids are deadly...even small ones. Look at the meteor that hit Arizona. Or, how about the supposed comet, yea just ice, that hit Tunguska in 1908.

    Asteroids aren't very likely to be made of "sponge" matter. There is a good bit of variation in their makeup, but on the whole, anything a few thousand feet wide or more will have a devastating impact.

    Also, it is very unlikely that we can get an acceptable "makeup" of the asteroid just by landing in one spot. That's like taking a pole in Florida about whether Floridian's like Bush. You really need to drill...deep.

    Frankly, I'd rather give my money to SETI. But the smart thing to do is to go ahead and put that money into the investment of what we WILL do when we find a killer asteroid.

    So what if we find out exactly what the asteroids are made of that we send the probes to. Chance would have it that the one that hits us will be made of solid iron. If you are going to spend any money at all, spend it on preparations for the worst case. Anything else is just a waste.

    +2 cents contributed.

    1. Re:No, it's a waste of money... by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      So what if we find out exactly what the asteroids are made of that we send the probes to. Chance would have it that the one that hits us will be made of solid iron. If you are going to spend any money at all, spend it on preparations for the worst case. Anything else is just a waste.

      How do you know what THE asteroid is made of? If it's made of spongy stuff, your "worst case" city buster nuke (or whatever) won't deflect it. There might not be enough time to get your big bomb up there, because spongy asteroids absorb radiation and are hard to spot in the first place. I think the recommended approach is to build a huge solar mirror and melt the thing on one side, outgassing then acts as a rocket motor and it deflects itself.

      It surprised me that there are spongy asteroids. Just because they're spongy doesn't mean they can't be "dinosaur killers". Saying they don't exist and can't hurt, and introducing rhetoric about Bush isn't science, it isn't even good risk management, and it's no good me saying I told you so when the spongy one hits either. We should gather hard facts, spread our bets and plan accordingly.

  52. Not that new by FlexAgain · · Score: 1

    ESA was talking about this project (and five other) in September of last year.

    See this link for a little information on them all, and some background gumf.

    --
    Actually it is rocket science...
  53. How many ways...? by stubear · · Score: 1

    "The mission objective will be to learn more about dangerous near earth objects so that we can plan how best to respond when under threat." ...can a near earth object really do harm to us? I mean really? Shouldn't it be quite obvious that they're going to smash into earth, boiling seas, causing tremendous tsunamis, earthquakes the likes of which have never been seen and never again will be seen by humans? Let me guess, the French proposed this "diplomatic" solution to try to talk the asteroids out of smashing into Earth. I'd rather see that $150 million invested into ways to destroy an asteroid before it becomes a serious threat.

    1. Re:How many ways...? by renecarlos · · Score: 1

      >I'd rather see that $150 million invested into ways to destroy an asteroid

      *Sigh* that's the plan. Such a mission would determine surface composition and overall morphology, both necessary for any destruction/deflection scheme. In addition, collecting background information on one (preferably several) bodies lets us make assumptions about the rest of the asteroid population and by extension, Earth.

      It's called science- the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. You don't order an asteroid's destruction like you order a pizza.

  54. global panic and anarchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it get's the voters to turn out, and keeps me in a job.

  55. Composition matters by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For several reasons. The primary, of course, is so we know what methods will work best for moving the asteroid's orbit enough so it doesn't hit. Secondly, knowing it's composition will allow us to better estimate it's effect. A mostly silicon (sand-ball) asteroid will have different impact characteristics than a lead/iron 'bullet'.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  56. Re:hey! (the latest) by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 1
    Here's how you can help allay the asteroid threat today.

    --sex

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
  57. Movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simone? Wasn't that a movie out recently? :) Sure sounds like a technical term that would be used in a movie.

  58. Kind of pointless?? I think it has a point by Firethorn · · Score: 1
    Refer to this site.

    According the the site, there's been 5 major asteroid extinction events since 'primitive fish'. A quick eyeball says that one of these happens ~50 million years. We're at 65 million right now, and we've entered the period for stuff captured when we passed through the thick part of our spiral arm to be coming in.

    Around the year 535 AD, the Earth was pummeled by a swarm of cosmic debris, which produced two year long winters. Crops failed. Plague and famine decimated Italy, China and the Middle East. A 6th-Century Syrian bishop, John of Ephesus wrote, "The sun became dark... Each day it shone for about four hours and still this light was only a feeble shadow." This was the beginning of the Dark Ages. Researchers indicate similar environmental calamities occurred about 3200 BC, 2300 BC, 1628 BC and 1159 BC.
    In the year 1490, a wave of meteorites impacted the Earth in Qingyang, Shaanxi, China, with such ferocity that stones were said to have fallen like rain, killing tens of thousands of people.

    And don't forget June 30, 1908, where an asteroid, .05 miles wide hit Siberia with the force of a 10-15 megaton nuke and flattened over 1000 square miles of forest.

    I think I'd rather not suffer an 'asteroid winter' if we could have prevented it by knocking some of these smaller asteroids out. And I'd also like to prevent an impact similar to Siberia's.
    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  59. wow! by snatcheroo · · Score: 0

    Looks like Star Wars technology ideas are finally getting closer to reality. The infamous Imperial TIE Fighters in the original trilogy had solar plating on their wings which were used to power the Twin Ion Engines (hence the name TIE). I find this very exciting indeed.

  60. Re:What if the meteor strike is just the opening a by b-baggins · · Score: 1

    Not quite. Several nuclear-strength detonations occur each year in our upper atmosphere from meteors. NORAD is quite good at telling the difference.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  61. CowboyNeal is dying. by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    It is official, His doctor has confirmed: CowboyNeal is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured CowboyNeal community when the USDA confirmed that CowboyNeal's waist line has jumped yet again, now up to over 12 light-years. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that CowboyNeal has been bitch-slapped by 4.2 million women, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Cowboyneal is collapsing as a black hole, as fittingly exemplified by Getting anal-raped by the Goatse Guy last week.

    You don't need to be a doctor to predict CowboyNeal's future. The hand writing is on the wall: CowboyNeal faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for CowboyNeal because CowboyNeal is dying. Things are looking very bad for CowboyNeal. As many of us are already aware, CowboyNeal continues to have heart attacks every day. A river of blood flows out of his ass.

    CowboyNeal is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of his organs. The sudden and unpleasant anal rape of CowboyNeal can only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: CowboyNeal is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    CowboyNeal doctor Theo states that there are 7000 pounds of CowboyNeal. How many pounds of CowboyNeal would it take to feed an army? Let's see. The number of CowboyNeal versus Army Reserve posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 pounds of CowboyNeal per soldier. A recent article put CowboyNeal's artery blockage at about 80%. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 seconds left for CowboyNeal to live. This is consistent with the number of CowboyNeal Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Slashdot, abysmal business plan, and so on, CowboyNeal went bankrupt and was taken over by the SPECTRE who also have a stupid business plan. Now SPECTRE is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another weapons dealer.

    All major surveys show that CowboyNeal has steadily declined in life expectancy. Cowboyneal is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If CowboyNeal is to survive at all it will be by starving himself for 6 months and living in a health club. CowboyNeal's arteries continue to clog. Nothing short of a quadruple bypass could save him at this point in time. For all practical purposes, CowboyNeal is dead.

    Fact: CowboyNeal is dying

  62. Re:The biggest threat by far is ... by trentfoley · · Score: 1
    Before pouring on the bleeding-heart isolationist "solve the local problems first" attitude, please tell me more about the "threats on this planet that we have control over". Who the hell is this "We" of which you speak? How do you define "control"? And, finally, show me your plans and how you intend on implementing them.

    Control is an illusion. The only thing that you can control is yourself. And even that is quite difficult.

    It seems to me that an asteroid, lacking free will, is easier to control than any group of people.

  63. Re:The biggest threat by far is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn, you ruined my post. ;)

    Anyhoo.. Do we have control over Weapons of Mass Confection, err, Destruction?

    Nope.

    Some random warlord over in a third world dump?

    Nope.

    Corporations finding loopholes to donate tons of money to political candidates?

    Hell no.

    The funny thing is, we *could* have control over the first two - but whenever we send in the troops, the bleeding hearts whine about how we should be solving 'our own' problems.

    If you point out the few problems we have in the US, they then whine about how their elected officials should be solving problems in their own state. ..Then county. Then city.

    It's one big crapfest. Perhaps we should launch these people against incoming asteroids. They might not deflect it quite enough, but it'd leave amusing smudge marks over the surface.

  64. I have a theory about asteroids by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    It's not really based on hard evidence except what I've seen of meteorites in museums. Basically I think that when these probes are sent they'll find that asteroids are in fact made of rock.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  65. I look at this as a Marketing Opportunity. by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how long before Taco Bell puts that sign out in the ocean again, so everyone gets free tacos if the asteroid or Planet X hits it?

    --
    Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
  66. Re:Asteroids? by lkatz · · Score: 1

    Maybe it needs to be demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

    --
    Think For Yourself, Question Authority - Timothy Leary
  67. Arabic and English by geoswan · · Score: 1
    Actually, since there isn't a 1:1 mapping between Arabic and ASCII...

    Good point.

    Also worth noting is that "al" is the Arabic equivalent to the English word "the". So a sentence that includes the phrase "the al Queda cells" is redundant.

    Algorithm, altitude, alcohol are words English has borrowed from Arabic.

  68. $150 for five probes? by geoswan · · Score: 1

    There was a recent article about a similar sized probe, designed solely to inspect satellites for external damage. It will cost $60 millkion a pop. So I am highly skeptical that these probes, which will include a brand new ion engine, will cost just $30 million.

  69. I don't see how it could work by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    You can't deflect a meteor much by crashing NASA probes into it. I suppose that's why they're looking at it in Europe.

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  70. Much Ado About Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a Much Ado About Nothing debate here. It tries to compare the needs of asteroid mitigation to the other social needs. Interesting to imagine what is lost terrestriallly in pursuing the asteroid threat.

  71. If you can fly a probe to it, it's not dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Engineer 1: "Well, I think I found a target."
    Engineer 2: "OK, lets track it a while to get a good orbit for it."
    [several months pass]
    Engineer 1: "Ok, we have a good orbit for it. Closest approach is 1 million km in 2074."
    Engineer 2: "Well, now it's not dangerous anymore. Let's look at the next target..."

    Well, the target might be dangerous, but in order to fly a probe to a particular asteroid, you have to determine its orbit very precisely. Precisely enough probably to determine if it will hit the earth within the next 100 years.

    Engineer 1: "Ok, this target has a closest approach radius of 3000km in 2016"
    Engineer 2: "&$%@*! That's an impactor!"

    If it is not going to hit, it's not dangerous anymore. If it is, we better send more than a 60kg probe after it.

    I only worry about impacts in the next 100 years, because I am sure that by then we will have a much better space infrastructure and will be able to deal with this kind of thing easily.

  72. The size of Texas? by geoswan · · Score: 1
    detect an asteroid the size of Texas headed straight at us?

    Just for the record, Texas is 266,807 sq miles . Does it make sense to compare a two dimensional item like a state to a three dimensional object like an asteroid? How? Compare the surface area of the asteroid to Texas? 4 pi r^2 is the formula for the area of a sphere.

    Maybe one should use the largest cross section? This site says Vesta , the third largest asteroid, is the size of the state of Arizona. This site and this site list some of the larger asteroids.

    Let me suggest that the chance of Ceres sneaking up on us is not one in a billion, or one in a trillion. Let me suggest it is zero.

    Are there any asteroids the size of US states that haven't been discovered yet? None with Earth crossing orbits.

    Are Kuiper Belt Objects asteroids? If so Ceres is no longer the largest asteroid. . But it is even more unlikely that something would divert a Ceres size KBO from past the orbit of Pluto to Earth orbit.

    How long would it take to divert an asteroid from an Earth impact? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? Anyhow, Deep Impact had the incoming object be a comet. Even with a project to find deadly NEOs, we could still be snuck up on by a long period or extra-solar comet.

  73. That's a low price for knowledge on dealing with.. by TerraFORM · · Score: 1

    a rogue asteroid if indeed one is headed our way. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN. That's why I've always been adamant about space exploration and development. If such a thing were to happen, granted statistically doubtful, but if it did, we at least, as a species, need to be established elsewhere than earth for any chance at ultimate survival. I say do it.

  74. Re:Prophet! by servotech · · Score: 1

    There is gold in them there asteroids Maby we could strap-on a few ion drives and stear the thing close to the moon and harvest the minerals? lots of problems to overcome but it would be nice to have more rare earth minerals at our disposal.

    --
    I don't know, I wasen't here when that happened, It was like that when I got here, Second shift musta done that.
  75. Probably the best solution is nuclear thrust by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    Once a threat is identified, it makes no sense to blow it up into pieces because the pieces still would have nearly as devastating effect on the earth as the original monolithic object. That leaves what is probably the best solution: change it's orbit by moving it. How to do that? Build nuclear blast proof parabolic dishes or excavate a parabolic shape on the menacing asteroid's surface and place a nuclear device at the focus and detonate it. The thrust from the blast will deflect the object from hitting Earth. Experimentation, research and computer modeling will need to be done before the efficacy of such an approach can be assessed, and as always, the more lead-time you have in identifying the threat, the better!

    BTM

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  76. Re:The biggest threat by far is ... by alizard · · Score: 1

    Because it's something we can do something about it, and sooner or later there will be a real threat.

  77. Abrogating the "nukes in space" treaties? by geoswan · · Score: 1
    This would also indicate that it's time to get together and work up an exception to the "no nukes in space" treaty.

    There are several treaties that would proscribe a single nation from militarizing space with nuclear weapons. One is the 1972 Anti-ballistic missile treaty. George W. Bush has already announced that the USA will no longer abide by this treaty.

    But I don't believe any one of those treaties would proscribe a truly international effort.

  78. Re:Kind of pointless...Big picture by renecarlos · · Score: 1

    >What is with the obsession of finding solutions to earth/asteroid collisions? ...as time goes by our odds of not getting hit only get better, as Jupiter and the Sun keep sucking up more

    You actually answered your own question in a way. Jupiter and the Sun, and to a lesser extent Saturn and Mars, perturb small bodies into a Solar System Pachinko. Some bodies crash into Jupiter/etc., or approach close enough to be thrown effectively into the Sun, or out of the Solar system entirely.

    But the vast majority of such encounters are just that, encounters, and the small body continues on a slightly different orbit. We know this because we can trace asteroid families by their geology- "chips off the old block," literally. By mapping the distributions of asteroids by family and current orbit, we can get a handle on orbital dynamics and thus, our odds in this crapshoot.

    Unfortunately, asteroid classification needs good spectral data, which aren't that easy to take millions of miles away. And a probe can also check morphology, to see for example if Asteroid X is a single fragment, a pile of related or random fragments, or a parent body itself.

    In other words, this project seeks slightly more "basic" science, "why" as opposed to "what's in it for me." Like the difference between watching a sporting event, and getting a blurb of the final score.

  79. Re:what characteristics? History by renecarlos · · Score: 1

    >My understanding is that the two most important characteristics that threaten us is that the object has mass and will likely collide with earth. Both of these can be estimated quite well

    First, we can't estimate those characteristics that well:

    -Mass is derived from brightness, a notoriously unreliable figure. Ice is bright and lightweight, rock is dense and dull, and carbon compounds are dim and soft. We can derive volumes from asteroid occulations of background stars, but this is the cosmic equivalent of Morse code: very slow, very labor-intensive, and only available with significant infrastructure.

    We can take a spectrum of the reflected light, but this only tells us what's on the surface, and nothing about porosity. Even so, spectra are difficult to take from dim, fast-moving bodies.

    -Orbital parameters are estimates. It takes weeks of optical observations to nail the orbit of one dot on a dotted background. Asteroids are often "lost" when they aren't seen again before the orbit was determined. As the search expands, we're looking for more, dimmer bodies. The central clearinghouse of asteroid data (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) is begging for computers and volunteers for the bookkeeping alone, not even the parameter calculations.

    We can add planetary radar to get a firm range, and pin the orbit instantly. Unfortunately, there are very few planetary radars, whose time is extremely limited and valuable. And physically, even the gigawatt-class radar at Goldstone can only reach so far, because photons are now dispersing on both legs of the trip.

    Second, the history of a body can be backtracked to thousands of other bodies. Asteroids (and to a lesser extent, comets) are classifiable by orbit and geologic type- we can literally trace chips shattered off parent asteroids. But this requires even finer measurements of spectra and orbit.

    A mission to asteroids chosen for "family potential," especially a mission to several such asteroids, tells us how chips have drifted from their parents, and weathered in time. Which tells us which asteroids are likely to be dangerous, and where they might come from.

    Think of it this way: you can get sports scores live and for free, but people still pay for tickets. There's an understanding (interactions, behaviors, future potential) that only comes from study, and preferably study over time.

  80. Re:What if the meteor strike is just the opening a by renecarlos · · Score: 1

    >there's a good chance that they would immediately retaliate

    Which is why multinational infrasound networks are being established- the pressure waves of a meteor, nuclear detonation, and conventional detonation are not only discernable, but detectable on other continents.

    Oh, and an infrasound network recorded the shuttle breakup.

    Strategically, there has been talk of the U.S. sharing sensor data with India, Pakistan, even Russia, to prevent accidental launches.

    Aside from a bigger database of meteor recordings, researchers would like declassified infrared images from Air Force launch-warning satellites. These satellites have been seeing meteors for decades.

    On-topic: missions to asteroids are the best way to determine their structural properties, and thus calibrate infrasound/IR databases.

  81. We should take this oportunity by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

    to settle a long standing argument. When we are sure an asteroid is going to hit us we will attempt to stop it using only means that are not the result of weapons developement. That way we'll know for sure if all the hippies were right about war not doing anyone any good.

  82. How to divert a fragile asteroid? by geoswan · · Score: 1
    ...then it's time to ship some sort of rocket engine up there to move it. In that case we have to question just how much thrust it can structurally take before it breaks into pieces, leaving our engine shooting off into nowhere.

    Woops. Consider that the Saturn V could deliver just 49 tons to the Moon's orbit.

    The Tunguska object, would have massed more than 500,000 tons -- maybe 5,000,000 tons. The asteroid Apollo, 1.6km in diameter, masses 20 billion tons -- 20,000,000,000 tons . How much power do we need to divert it?

    The bottom stage of the Saturn V generates something like 160,000 horsepower, for something like 160 seconds. That is, if my arithmetic is right, something like 10^12 joules. Of course we couldn't get an intact Saturn V delivered to an approaching asteroid -- not with chemical rockets. The Saturn V could only deposit 50 tons to the Moon's orbit. But suppose we could? If the asteroid Apollo was going to impact right in the centre of Earth how far in advance would we have to light the candle of this theoretical Saturn V to divert the asteroid enough to miss us?

    Kinetic energy == mass * velocity squared / 2

    10^12 joules transmitted to 2*10^13 kilograms? If my Physics is not too rusty, will impart a velocity of one twentieth of a meter per second. Five centimetres a second? That is 0.18 km / hour.

    At that rate you would have to light the candle on that theoretical Saturn V at least four years before impact to prevent the collision.

    To be really safe, because tidal forces would rip the asteroid apart prior to impact. Tidal forces ripped Shoemaker-Levy 9 into fragments. So you would be better served lighting the candle decades in advance.

    Now, consider how big a payload could we deliver to a comet or asteroid years or decades in advance? Miniscule.

    So, what about using atomic charges? Asteroids might be as fragile as piles of rubble. A single charge might shatter the asteroid, leaving an uncontrollable cloud, still aimed at us like buckshot from a giant shotgun.

    Would it matter if the asteroid shattered, if we didn't use one charge, but rather dozens, or hundreds, designed to explode more or less simultaneously? In the sixties there was lipservice paid to using atomic charges for peaceful demolition work here on Earth. The best known plan was to blast a 2nd, sea-level, Panama canal. One of the odd things you learned if you read about this was that if the charges all exploded at once you would get a trench with remarkably straight, even walls.

    Or, consider how a shaped charge anti-tank warhead works. The charge is turned into a kind of lense of explosive. The business end has a conical hole carved in it. That cone is coated by a thin layer of copper. When the warhead explodes, the explosion travels through the explosive. When it gets to the apex of the conical hole it begins to focus the metal into a jet. I came across some really cool slow motion pictures of this process -- can't find them now though.

    So, what if we landed a network of charges over one hemisphere of the asteroid, and had them go off in a rapid sequence? Could the expanding concussions redirect rubble away from the Earth, leaving a small amount of very rapidly moving small particles going east, and the rest of the asteroid going west, with essentially none coming right at us? If the asteroid shatters, would the overlapping concussions focus the bulk of the rubble in a single direction? Would charges spread all over the surface of one hemisphere help preserve the structural integrity of asteroid in a way a single charge wouldn't?

    1. Re:How to divert a fragile asteroid? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Any sort of asteroid diversion is going to need to be measured in years, if not decades. I haven't done the math, as you have at least dabbled in. I'm going to have to play with some of your numbers, just for the interest, and to get a quantitative sense.

      Nor am I so naive as to think of anything like shipping a Saturn V up there, or anything equivalent. We would need to talk explosives, as you have, or ion engines or mass drivers, and we need the years or decades in advance.

      I'm far more concerned that we begin serious thought about this type of problem. Different solutions apply to different sized objects, and different lead times will be needed, as well. For most of these potential impacts, no amount of will and determination can make up for early action.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  83. Here's why you would bother with this mission: by greesil · · Score: 1

    Ugh. If it's one thing I can't stand about slashdot is that all you people are CS majors or some such... Why I bother at all boggles the mind!

    Okay, so here's the WHY of it. Asteroid composition is a very interesting subject because it seriously affects whatever technique you decide to use to divert a threatening asteroid. What you are looking for when studying asteroids is their porosity. Asteroids are not like they are portrayed on TV or in the movies, i.e. they are not solid chunks of rock. Instead, they can range from solid pieces of stainless steel (frigthening!) to loose aggregations of rubble (flying gravel piles) which are very porous. Porous materials are very good at absorbing energy and hence are much more difficult to deflect.

    So, if one were to use a nuke on an asteroid that was porous, it would do a lot less to the porous asteroid than one that was solid through and through. So the purpose of these missions would be to scout out and start to get a better idea of what the distirbution (statistically speaking) of the porosity of the asteroids that are floating around out there. Their idea is to do this cheaply with ion propulsion. If you've got a lot of time to spend, ion propulsion is ideal to get around the inner solar system without spending a lot of mass on fuel.

    If you have any more questions, I suggest you look at some papers by Ahrens or Holsapple. Also check out http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov.

    -banjo

  84. Asteroid by rat_herder · · Score: 1

    What's the point spending that much money on protecting the Earth, when George W. Bush has already dictated the way this planet is going to be destroyed.

  85. It's about time, it's about space, .... by Solarchild · · Score: 1

    It's about time that this matter is studied. But is it enough? No! There are many more asteroids that merit to be watched. And not only that, but we should put in place, at least talk about it, which should make our politicians happy, a system to defend ourself against such an event.

    --
    An open mind is as vast as the universe