Slashdot Mirror
Gravity Tractor Could Deflect Asteroids
Hugh Pickens writes "A new study at the Jet Propulsion Labs shows that weak gravitational pull of a "gravity tractor" could deflect an Earth-threatening asteroid if it was deployed when the asteroid was at least one orbit away from potential impact with Earth. First a spacecraft would be crashed directly into the asteroid, similar to the Deep Impact mission that impacted a comet in 2005. This would provide a big change of direction, but in a less controllable fashion that could push the path of the asteroid into a dangerous keyhole. But then a second spacecraft, the gravity tractor, would come into play, hovering about 150 meters away from the asteroid, to exert a gentle gravitational force, changing the asteroid's velocity by only 0.22 microns per second each day. Over a long enough time, that could steer it away from the keyhole. In the simulation, a simple control system kept the spacecraft in position, and a transponder on the asteroid helped monitor its position and thus determine its trajectory more precisely than would be possible otherwise. 'The gravity tractor is a wimp, but it's a precise wimp,' said astronaut Jack Schweickart. 'It can make very small, precise changes in orbit, and that's what you need to avoid a keyhole.'"
Do I get a nifty green hat to wear while I'm on it?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Bruce Willis hovers over an asteroid for two action-packed hours!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Will be done by holding monthly Gravity Tractor Pulls at the local fairgrounds, with free beer.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
I hope their simulations use doubles, not floats!
I know you're joking but for just the speed values if they used time increments in the order of the second then the speed differences would be in the order of e-18, which is too small for a double's mantissa. I'd rather go with long doubles, or better (I think you can achieve something like that by using a number to store the closest representable value and another one to represent the tiny difference from what it should be).
You just got troll'd!
In a sense, you could apply the same approach, except try to modify earth's orbit, which might actually be easier...
You realise of course that the Earth is pretty much a trillion times heavier than a mankind-threatening asteroid, right? And what would you want to modify Earth's orbit for anyways?
You just got troll'd!
maintaining an object near the asteroid would require less energy than actively pushing it away. Not to mention the possibility of asteroids that aren't solid enough to support something on its surface pushing it.
Demented But Determined.
I agree. They should use furlongs and fathoms.
Its probably a good time to remind people that the distributed computing project to search for dangerous NEOs is soon to get under way. Test workunits have already been sent out and the news is that they ran very well.
If all they're trying to do is move the orbit of the asteroid by a fraction or a millimeter per second, wouldn't it be easier to just, you know, harpoon the asteroid and use ion engines to gently pull on it rather than trying to keep a second spacecraft hovering over the non-smoking crater of the first spacecraft? Or, if harpooning isn't viable (cue 'Whalers on the Moon'), just have the spacecraft rest on the asteroid's surface and, using ion engines again, push on the thing.
Can someone more well versed in orbital mechanics and the motion of bodies in space please provide some information as to why these are not viable options.
Orbital mechanics aren't the problem with your suggestion. Consider getting a craft to gently land on an asteroid. That's probably equivalent in difficulty to having a craft maintain its position 150 meters from the asteroid, as suggested in TFA. Already the lander has had about as much complexity as the "hoverer."
Now consider that the object must pull or push the asteroid along a very specific and consistent trajectory to safely move it out of danger. Remember that the asteroid is certainly spinning about two axes, so an object stuck to the surface would not be able to simply face in one direction and push. The craft hanging out 150 meters from the asteroid ignores the spinning and does its job, while the craft on the surface of the asteroid has to either push really hard every once in awhile, when its trajectory happens to be lined up well, or it has to constantly push and angle its exhaust while continuously calculating the correct direction to maneuver the spinning object correctly. Or it could cease the asteroid's rotation, which itself is a difficult problem.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Why do they have to be limited to the precision of built-in data types? If dc can support unlimited precision calculations, the JPL can probably figure out too.
Who modded the parent "insightful". The answer is pretty simple, and is even illustrated in the article. The picture shows a craft with three thrusters all angled away from the asteroid. The resulting thrust is a vector normal to the target. Sure, it sacrifices efficiency, but it works.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Gravity Tractor? You know I love these sky high fantasy ideas to deflect asteroids as much as anyone else but shouldn't we be concentrating on what is real? If an asteroid does threaten Earth in the next few years we will use nuclear demolitions on it. We will not use a gravity tractor, laser beams, or giant snow balls. Nor will we attach plasma engines or mass drivers to it. We will use nuclear demolitions because that is, simply, all we have.
We will not send a robot to do it nor will we send some type of futuristic space ship driven by plasma/ion engines. It will be a manned ship with old style chemical rockets right out of the '60. Why? Because we have over 60 years experience with them and they will get the job done. We'll send men and not a robot because the mission is to important to have place in the hands on questionable technology. A robot breaks down and the mission is over. With men at least you have some hope they can fix it. Yes, it will probably be one way but the pilots will know that. They will go anyway.
Yes, we will break it up in to smaller pieces because that is best. Don't give me that shotgun crap about it scattering the damage over a wider area. We will think of that and cover it. If we let a huge honking rock ride in the atmosphere will not even slow it down. It will punch through it like it isn't even there. Worse is it will punch through the crust to the mantel causing shockwaves all around the planet.
We wont' use one nuke. We will blowup the big one then we will blow up the smaller ones into smaller pieces. We will do this until the chunks are small enough that the atmosphere will handle. With smaller chunks there is more surface area for the atmosphere to work on. Most importantly the smaller chunks will not "crack the crust" as one fat ass one would.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
or Smoots :D
We are currently working on this cold issue. However, some have termed this effort "Global Warming" and have decided that it is a bad thing.
(I think you can achieve something like that by using a number to store the closest representable value and another one to represent the tiny difference from what it should be).
Yup. It's the Kahan summation algorithm. It works as you describe it and it used to compensate the error that happens when doing very big sums of very small numbers (exactly the situation in the gravity tractor's problem)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Actually, there is no free meal there. If you exert a force F on the asteroid, you get -F exerted upon the tractor. (Imagine a cute little vector mark above the F, to be completely true.) There is no known way to escape that.
If you always stay X metres in front of the asteroid, then effectively you can treat the whole system as one body. You're not just accelerating the asteroid (with mass m1), you're also equally accelerating the tractor (let's call its mass m2) with the same acceleration, or they'll collide or drift apart. So effectively you're accelerating the sum of their masses, m=m1+m2.
The force to do that is still F=m*a, or F=(m1+m2)*a. There is no free lunch. You're still accelerating the same m1+m2, and if done at the same a, you must apply the same force F. I.e., if the same rocket engine is used, you get to burn the same amount of fuel, regardless of whether they're physically in contact or weakly pulled by gravity. Using gravity there just puts a (very low) upper bound on F.
But wait, that was assuming the ideal case, where you magically apply _exactly_ the amount of force to stay always at X metres drom the asteroid. Reality is much less ideal. Such a tractor would probably have to fire rocket engines back and forth, just to stay anywhere near the prescribed distance. I.e., it would use extra fuel for positioning and maneuvering, whereas a lander with a big jet pointed "upwards" would have no such worries.
Just about the only reason I see there, is if you have to essentially rotate the system, to execute some complex maneuver with the asteroids (over aeons, mind you.) Then it's probably less waste to just move the tractor around the asteroid, than to rotate the asteroid with your thruster embedded in it.
Still, I'm kind of at a loss as to when or why you'd need that, or have the luxury of enough time for such infinitesimal accelerations to do the job. More realistically, you'd just want the asteroid's orbit changed enough that it doesn't collide with Earth. And you'll likely not have that awfully much time. So you just want to push it out of the way, hard enough to make a difference, but not hard enough for it to shatter into a MIRV of death and destruction. Probably the safest bet being to push it upwards or downwards, in regard to Earth's orbit, so it becomes a lot more inclined than the orbit which threatened to collide. You have a lot more margin for error in the calculation there. You don't need to rotate and maneuver it accurately, you just want it out of the way.
So basically while I'll agree that their method could work, I'm kinda at a loss as to why would you want to do it that way.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.