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."

35 of 202 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.

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

    I am not worried, Bruce Willis will save us.

  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.

  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)
  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/
  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 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/
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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'!"
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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

  16. 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!
  17. 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...
  18. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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?

  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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