Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid 2004 MN4 May Hit Earth After All

ControlFreal writes "Asteroid 2004 MN4 was introduced earlier on Slashdot, and although scientists are now fairly certain that is will miss earth on April 13th, 2029, the modification to its orbit caused by Earth's gravity may still cause an impact one or a couple of orbits further down the road, the Times reports; the impact probabilities in 2035, 2036 of 2037 will not be known until the exact modification to its orbit is known; in 2029, that is. By then it may be too late for effective counter-measures. An impact would cause an energy release equivalent to about 1 Gigaton of TNT (~4e+18 Joule), and while that won't cause a massive extinction event, it causes widespread devastation. More info on 2004 MN4 can be found here and here."

14 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. Orion Project by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    in 2029, that is. By then it may be too late for effective counter-measures.

    Bull. 2029 to 2035 gives us ~6 years to prepare. If the asteroid actually posed clear and present danger, then a crash program to build an interceptor could be accomplished. With apologies to Pournelle and Niven (warning, associates link), the catch-22 is that we would have to give up our fear of the Orion. Using standard building practices + what we know of advanced hydrogen bomb design, we could potentially launch an Orion within three years. The options would be to either send it on an unmanned kinetic-impact course with the asteroid, or to send a team ala "Armageddon" (or some other lame stop-the-asteroid movie) to manually plant and detonate the charges.

    If I'm reading the info correctly, the asteroid is a mere 46 gigatonnes. So as long as we get to it fast enough, there shouldn't be any difficulty in nudging it into a higher orbit. Of course, we may only be able to buy some time in the short term. Orbital mechanics is tricky, and not as simple as just "pushing" the asteroid out of the way. We may actually have to push it toward earth to slingshot it into a more acceptable trajectory.

    One way or another, we have the tech. It's just scary as all hell to behold, and in a crash program would almost certainly add a small amount to the nuclear pollution that already exists on our planet. But if it's a choice between three random deaths from cancer or millions dead from a massive impact, I think the choice is fairly clear. Especially when the former is theoretical and the later is firm.

  2. Other effects by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I wonder if anyone's thought about the effects if the asteroid doesn't directly strike earth. Could it cut a swath through the geosynchronous satellites, destroying one, two or dozens directly? Might it perturb their orbits enough to destabilize the whole lot of them?

    I wonder how close it would have to come to have an effect like that, and what those probabilities would be like?

    As it is, I'm not losing sleep over a %0.042 chance that this puppy will shorten my retirement.

    --
    John
  3. Not a huge amount of energy. by Eunuch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Asian earthquake was some magnitudes greater than that. Of course it's all in how the energy is dissipated.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  4. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program.

    How do we know that? Who says they didn't? All of human history would barely register on the fossil record. An intelligent saurian race could well have evolved, had a catastrophic world war, etc. and we'd be none the wiser... except maybe a large extinction event...

  5. Bunkers? by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The exact effects of any impact would have varied based on the asteroid's composition, and the location and angle of impact. Any impact would have been extremely detrimental to an area of thousands of square kilometers, but would have been unlikely to have long-lasting global effects, such as the precipitation of an impact winter.

    I wonder if people will build more bunkers. I know a person who owns a house, and there is a bunker in the back yard, from the days of a USSR nuclear strike threat (Back in the 70's and early 80's the drill for a nuclear strike was to climb under the desk in the school). It looks kinda flimsy to me, I am guessing the salesperson was real good. It looks more like a shed that is half way in the ground.

    But, if someone wanted to make a good bunker, not just to ease the mind, but something to survive in, how deep would it need to be? I live on flat land, so I can not tunnle into a mountain, which I would assume to be the best choice. What is needed for a good oxygen supply, can you generate your own, or do you need an exhaust? How long would you need to stay underground, and where would you store the water and food? And would you have more than one exit out of the bunker, in case one side suffers damage and is burried under?

    I think it would be cool to have a series of bunkers, with some pre-picked neighbors, people you trust. Have 7 or 8 bunkers, maybe a mile apart, each one acting as a node. The chances for survival would increase, and the time would pass quicker.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Bunkers? by NightWulf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This reminds me of that episode of the Twilight Zone, where this block is having a block party, and then they believe the world is going to end with an attack from Russia. The entire episode revolves around the fact that one family has a bunker, and the other neighbors on the block start fighting to get in. Eventually comparing how they should survive over anyone else. The key to having a bunker is to not tell a soul, keep it from the family too if it's at all possible, so no risk of your kids blabbing it.

  6. Re: Off-Planet Colony by AliasMoze · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if we had an off-planet colony, how would we populate it? We can't even get a hundred people into space let alone a thousand, let alone a million, let alone a billion.

  7. Good opportunity by armed+ahmed · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So 2035 would be a good time for a scientific instrument to hitch a ride on an asteroid, then?

    Would be a good chance to put a digger on an asteroid, maybe even park a HST-like observatory on it...

    ...almost as good as a lunar base...

  8. I Bet a case of BEER... by Drexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I look at this and know that, like many people, this is a cash vehicle and a licence for the US government to do what always wanted to do. With a big scare like this, the US government can get all the funding it wants to put a nuclear spacecraft into orbit. This will allow them to pour trillions of dollars into the "greater good". While they are at it, they will have a nuclear missile platform in space to control any government it so chooses.... with the "permission" of any partnered countries! "Either you with us, or your terrorists".

    Now NASA gets a blank check to research and develop anything it wants. .. It will be convenient for the US government to use this new "planet saver" platform for other "very important" military moves against "terrorist" organizations.

    Kinda like someone fending off "killer minnows" in a bucket of water using a shotgun and a paint mixer.

    I bet a case of Beer that the US government will make an announcement to develop a space vehicle that has the ability to blast something. Not really thinking that all you need to do is give the big rock a shove, so that it never comes near the earth.

  9. Re:Good! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material.

    That's why the modern Trimodal TRITON engine *doesn't* release any materials. And once you get into space, it doesn't really matter how many nukes you blow up, as long as the debris is on an escape trajectory.

    None the less, my point holds. The problem is *not* propulsion.

  10. Re:Good! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I hope this rock hits our planet [since it] may be the spur humanity needs to get us up off our collective keisters and establish a viable off-planet colony before it's too late."

    I strongly doubt that. Such a catastrophe will push many governments and citizen groups over the edge of accepting Fascism as a survival tactic. Within such regimes, the ability to look outward to the liberties of space is very repressed. In effect, there will always be a constant reward for killing people and taking their stuff ... and that environment isn't conducive to all the social prosperities and stabilities that we relied upon to even have a space program in the first place.

    2004MN4 would merely whack Humanity back to the social depravities of the Middle Ages. It will take many hundreds of years before cultures rediscover the wonderful benefits of letting your neighbor live long enough to invest in -- and profit from -- your enterprises.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  11. Re:I really hope not by hellfire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So you are saying that in order to light a fire under people about terrorism, you would, say, start a war with some random country that has nothing to do with terrorism just to get people to care?

    There are too many scary parallels between the Iraq war, Vietnam, pornography and this solution to fix our lagging space program.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  12. Re:Our Eulogy by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There will be no eulogy. Humanity will die quickly.

    Denial will reign, as no preparations are done to evacuate the planet. Some will say there is no way to evacuate everyone. Others will say there's nowhere else to go. The real thinkers will know, if we had started years ago, we would have had a chance.

    Most will die from the intial impact.

    The impact will crack the planet's crust, resulting in volcanos, earthquakes, and tsunamis, which continue for years.

    Many will die due to the dependance on transportation systems, or more specifically the failure of them.

    A very few will survive in the cold dust and ash filled atmosphere, through the shaking ground, and giant destroying the costal areas. They will survive for many months on their preserved food reserves, and filtered air. Alone, they will consider themselves the lucky ones.

    In the end, none will survive.

    Many millennia later, other civilizations will have grown in far outlying areas of the universe. They will look at the dry and barren planet, covered by rocks and dirt, and say "nothing could have ever lived here. It's always been a dead planet"

    Eventually, despite taunts, archeologists will find disputed traces of life on the planet. Some artifacts will be found. They will be found frozen in the ice of the polar ice caps, or burried in the sands of the vast deserts. Still others will be below hundreds of feet of dirt, on the iced tops of frozen oceans.

    The artifacts will be carefully examined for many years. There will be many theories to what they are, and what the markings may mean. Could there have been life on this far distant planet? Could a civilization have thrived in this desolate place? Maybe these creatures could be a clue to our ancestory?

    In the end, their markings will be considered random discolorations. The artifacts will be labeled as "common rocks", and thoughtfully put into storage well away from public sight.

    No, as egotistical as we are, there will ne eulogy. There will be no memory of anything we've accomplished. We will be part of the dust on a barren planet, spinning slowly around a dying star.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  13. Re:Our Eulogy by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Overrateed/Underrated mods are a little interesting.

    If you read the Mod FAQ about them (last bullet) you'll see that you can get some odd (but unlikely I guess) combos like +5 Flamebait (that would be cool though :).

    Also, and I don't know this for fact but I've seen others discuss it, if you mod using Under/Overrated too much, you may eventually be given fewer/no mod points. The reason being is that Under/Overrated mods cannot be metamoderated so you get trolls with mod points using them to mod people down without valid reason (political, whatever). There's some big discussions about users getting hit by tons of Overrated mods because they have enough Foes with mod points. Basically there's no way to "balance out" Under/Overrated mods.

    Anyone know more about this?

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)