Slashdot Mirror


British Company Takes Lead To Stop Asteroids

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that following the news of NASA's budget cuts impacting their ability to do things like watch the sky for asteroids, a British company has decided to create a "gravity tractor" ship that could divert asteroids away from Earth if the need should arise. Of course, a gravity tractor certainly isn't a new idea. "Dr. Cordey said the company had worked with a number of space authorities on other methods of protecting the Earth from asteroids, but this one would be able to target a wider range. He said: 'We have done quite a lot of design work on this with the European Space Agency and we believe this would work just as well on a big solid iron asteroid as well as other types.' But the high cost implications mean that before the device could be made, it would have to be commissioned by a government or a group of governments working together."

38 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. The Free Market fixes another intractable problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the high cost implications mean that before the device could be made, it would have to be commissioned by a government or a group of governments working together.

    Oh, never mind then.

  2. First things first. by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need to take care of the Yellowstone Caldera first. I think that's more likely to erupt before an asteroid hits.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:First things first. by Opyros · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but at least we have some idea what to do about an asteroid impact. How would we prepare for a supervolcano? The only way to survive is by being somewhere else when it erupts.

  3. What could go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Competition, not coordination, in attempting to stop asteroids from ending all life on Earth. What could go wrong...

    Meanwhile, in an East Texas courtroom...
    Dr. Cordey: Your honor, I'd like to file an injunction to prevent NASA from using their gravity tractor to stop the asteroid that will impact Earth next week.
    NASA: This patent is ridiculous. They don't have their own working gravity tractor. They aren't even trying to build one. All of their ideas in their patent come from working with NASA and the ESA.
    Dr. Cordey: We don't have our own gravity tractor, but we are working with the ESA to build one. It should be done in a year or two.
    NASA: Everyone on the planet will be killed next week. We have to be permitted to stop the asteroid.
    Judge: I'm going to allow the injunction. You can appeal it within 60 days if you like. Without patents protection, all we have is chaos. We can't make an exception here just because it suits us.
    1 week later: BOOOOOOOOM.

  4. Re:15 years to prepare? by LandGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A year? A year? With 2008_TC3, we had twenty hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_TC3 We need an Project Orion ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion), an Archangel Michael design http://www.up-ship.com/apr/michael.htm to shove the next Dinosaur Killer Rock out of the way.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  5. Not necessarily by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    99942 Apophis will make a near pass to Earth in 2029. However, if it passes within a narrow window, called the keyhole, the Earth's (and Moon's) gravity will deflect it such as to place it on a direct Earth impact in 2036. Now this isn't all that likely to happen, but it is possible. Worth having some contingency plans for at least.

    1. Re:Not necessarily by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      2036 is awfully close to the end of UNIX time, maybe it is a prophecy of the end ;-]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Not necessarily by Exception+Duck · · Score: 2, Informative

      This should scare some people.
      I actually don't recommend reading this if you obsess about things.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth

      For the rest - have fun and sweet dreams.

    3. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sometimes, you need to create a problem to solve another.

      Warm regards,
      Yahweh

    4. Re:Not necessarily by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apophis will make a near pass to Earth in 2029.

      Must be a mistake. The Goa'uld already tried that back in 2002 ... we used a hyperspace generator to jump the rock around Earth. Worked like a charm too, although it was a bit touch-and-go there for a bit. In any event, Apophis is only a false god. A dead false god.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Not necessarily by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correction: through, not around.

  6. Gotta find them first by iron+spartan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this relies on finding said asteroid years if not decades out.

    I can't confirm, but I remember hearing that between NASA and all the other space agencies we track less than 20% of space inside of Jupiter's orbit. A large dark asteroid out of the Kuiper Belt could be closing on us right now and we wouldn't see it until months before impact, too late to do anything about it.

    IMHO, lets work on finding and tracking large asteroids first.

    1. Re:Gotta find them first by Anti_Climax · · Score: 4, Informative

      IMHO, lets work on finding and tracking large asteroids first.

      Already on it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAN-STARRS

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Synoptic_Survey_Telescope

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
  7. CCTV by ickleberry · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does this plan involve taking all of Britain's CCTV cameras and pointing them towards the sky?

    1. Re:CCTV by Grim+Leaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you realise that just pushes the asteroid problem along to the next planet?

  8. Re:Bad science by SlashV · · Score: 2, Informative

    Works perfectly fine if you have enough lead time

    We should be happy enough when we see it coming at all.. How much "lead time" do you expect to have?

  9. Re:Bad science by El+Torico · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nuclear weapons would be far more entertaining; kind of a near-Earth fireworks display ("ooooh, aahhhh"). Besides, one more used up there is one less that may be used down here.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  10. What about their business plan? by dapyx · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm very curious to learn which is their business plan. Could it be "pay us a gazillion dollars or we won't use our technology against the asteroid"?

    --
    I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    1. Re:What about their business plan? by gijoel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nice planet you've got here.....

      Be a shame if something happened to it.

    2. Re:What about their business plan? by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm very curious to learn which is their business plan. Could it be "pay us a gazillion dollars or we won't use our technology against the asteroid"?

      Any technology that can be used to divert an asteroid away from the Earth can also be used to direct one toward the Earth. I would guess they could get venture capital for a business plan like "pay us a gazillion dollars or we will use our technology to alter the course of this asteroid."

      Lots of other businesses have "destroy the Earth" in their business plan. Why should commercial space ventures be any different?

    3. Re:What about their business plan? by shadowblaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would call their bluff.

      If they don't use it, they won't be around either after the asteroid hits.

  11. Re:The only question is.... by alexborges · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those technologies don't even exist.

    We should get some psychics and move it by telekinesis, duh.

    --
    NO SIG
  12. Re:Simple Solution by alexborges · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now how are we gonna get a gazillion tons of water all the way to the asteroid?

    --
    NO SIG
  13. One stone, two birds... by pjt48108 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's an idea...

    How many tons of launch debris do we dodge daily in orbit?

    Why not collect it, and use its condensed and combined mass for such a "gravity tractor?"

    Just asking...

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    1. Re:One stone, two birds... by maxume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fuel. The debris occupies a huge volume, and to collect each piece, you have to spend enough time in an intersecting orbit for the piece to come to you.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  14. Re:The Free Market fixes another intractable probl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Glad you support the free market!

    That sound you hear is people laughing at you, not with you.

    When the cost of making this device is equal to or less than the value provided by it, it will be made.

    Except that when the "product" is the collective safety of the entire earth and there is no opportunity for profit, then the free market will let it slide, waiting for "big bad government" to fill in the gaps, as it always does, no thanks to the randites.

    Until then, since at the moment there would be no value provided by the creation of this that would be equal to or greater than the cost of its creation, the value expenditure won't be made.

    And if there is something headed our way that will literally destroy the entire world, "free market" and all, then so be it, huh?

    The Free Market "wins" and "works" again!

    FTFY

  15. Re:Bad science by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm curious what it being weaker than the weak and strong nuclear forces and the electromagnetic forces has to do with it. If the design works, it works. I'm curious to see your equations if you think it won't work. Also gravity is the only purely attractive force, and the one thats hardest to explain, which is why we really pay attention to it.

    The advantage of a gravity tractor is that you don't have to land, because landing is a *VERY* hard problem on an asteroid. The biggest problem is that its very difficult to latch on, since you can't rely on gravity to hold you in place. Since you don't hae a good idea of the surface before you arrive, its rather difficult to design a solution thats going to work for all the different possibilities.

    This leads one to consider how can you manage to deflect an asteroid without landing, and a gravity tractor is an obvious elegant solution. Note also that in this case you're still using the vaunted ion thrusters to impart the force on the asteroid. Considering the spacecraft and asteroid as two separate systems you have to use the thrust to maintain your standoff distance; considering them as one system (my preferred analysis), you have the thrusters moving the whole system, with internal gravity keeping the whole thing together. The only difference between it and landing, as far as thrust is concerned, is that you are limited to a maximum thrust by the gravity bond: the same sized ion thruster on a landed spacecraft and on a gravity tractor will have exactly the same effect.

    The only time it would make sense to land is if you wanted to do a very high-thrust chemical burn (or maybe something like VASMIR, which would only be in the emergency case. Of course, in that case, the costs become irrelevant ($50B for a mission or wiping out Europe isn't a hard decision to make) and you're more likely to seek to impart a maximum impulse by doing a high-risk/high-reward method such as a kinetic impactor or nuke (and multiples as backup).

  16. Re:Bad science by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Erm, actually, an asteroid big enough to knock out a city is about 10m in diameter. We'd probably have no notice whatsoever. Of course the likelihood that it would hit a city is pretty small.

  17. Re:The only question is.... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't worry, the time travelers will give us the technology JUST IN TIME.

  18. Re:Bad science by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the whole "search for killer asteroids" is fatally flawed. Let's see... the last one hit 200,000,000 years ago. The last time someone won my State lottery was just last week, and typically they hand-out ten of these multi-million dollars prizes a year, so 10 out of 4 million tickets sold.

    I have about 500 times better odds of winning my State lottery, than getting killed by an asteroid.

    You have a problem with your math and your numbers. Big asteroids hit about every 68 million years. If one hit tomorrow it would kill 6.8 billion people. So on average, we can expect asteroids to kill about 100 people per year. That means you are about 10 times more likely to be killed in an asteroid impact than to win the state lottery.

  19. Re:Bad science by LandGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you explode a nuke outside the Van Allens, the fallout is swept away by solar wind. We've done it before. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/hane.html However, a conventional nuke might only decimate an incoming Big Rock, leaving 90% behind. I'd rather see a pusher plate mated to the Big Rock, then detonate specially designed nukes against the plate, like in the Project Orion ship in FOOTFALL. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OrionProj.html http://books.google.com/books?id=4S2KocYp8AkC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq="pusher+plate"+Orion&source=bl&ots=yRM2KRDRst&sig=NWZvu3gbjAAwyKva2-Jl_jlduhM&hl=en&ei=qnucSs-xCJSwsgPxwNCaDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=%22pusher%20plate%22%20Orion&f=false

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  20. Re:Bad science by ppanon · · Score: 3, Informative
    The problem is that a number of the objects of interest
    1. may be particulate agglomerations that aren't solid enough to have something push at them,
    2. are likely to be spinning, so that you would first need to stop their spin, otherwise see this
    3. are likely to be of irregular shape and mass distribution that would make it difficult to push them efficiently in the direction you want without getting unwanted spin resulting.

    Sure you could solve each of these problems individually, but a gravity tug bypasses them all at once, at the expense of needing either

    1. more time to operate
    2. a larger attractive mass requiring more energy to move both it and the target object

    Probably the cheapest solution would be to refine a good sized nickel-iron asteroid into a compact solid metal mass and then attach a solar sail for thrust. Bonus points for compressing the metal mass into neutronium compressed by a diamond shell.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  21. Re:Bad science by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...If humans do go extinct,...

    I don't think that humans will go extinct, at least not before the second coming of Jesus Christ to this earth and then not either. We humans of modern times have come to think that we are in charge of this world even though we did not make it. This world will be destroyed by fire some day, but not until God personally does so. (2Peter 3:7) Contrary to what most people think this day and age, we are not the bosses of this world because this is not our world.

    We're discussing science in this thread, not mythology.

  22. Rosoideae Rosa By Alternative Nomenclature by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The summary seems to imply a "British Company To Pick Up NASA's Dropped Asteroid Ball" slant. "Seems" is used here because rhetorical device is relied on because the facts themselves don't do the job.

    One failure is the false dichotomy created by positioning the Near Earth Object program(s -- there's seven http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/ ) for detecting and tracking thousands of rocks against a vehicle intended to take one such rock and push it around. A tactic like this is common when the writer has little faith in the intended focus of the piece to carry the story alone, and they present a badly constructed straw man in contrast.

    The second problem is in presenting NASA's possible future NEO (a currently operating and planned continued project, mind you) budget crunch as problematic, whereas this British company's announcement of what amounts to grand plans on paper that would admittedly require huge national or international funding to even begin is held up as "taking the lead".

    If announcing one has plans that one considers viable is "taking the lead", the team in TFA is taking the lead behind dozens of other "programs" in equal or farther planning stages, some described in a recent Discovery/Science Channel program, many written up in popular media over the years and available to the search engine of your choice, with the Top Ten Ways listed at http://dsc.discovery.com/space/top-10/asteroid-stopping-technology/index-03.html . Harry Stamper's roughnecks and Spurgeon Tanner's shuttle crew are not among them, which didn't stop me from using them in the obligatory /. inclusion of SF references.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  23. Re:Bad science by emjay88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the biggest and most improbable is the existence of Israel against all odds, exactly as it has been foretold thousands of years ago will happen.

    Firstly, it is very possible that the people who instated Israel as a state were influenced by the prophesy of it's existence.
    Secondly, Asteroids have hit before and will hit again, it is only the size of the asteroid and time from now until the hit that are variable.
    Third, The bible is anecdote and not a good historical record. Therefore any "prophesies" within cannot be independantly verified and "The bible is right because it says so in the bible" is very flawed logic.
    Finally, the reason that Jerusalem is so contentious is because of superstitious people putting too much faith in a book. There is absolutely nothing special about Jerusalem other than the billions of people who think that it is "holy" and cry out when zoning changes are made.
    Do not confuse scientific predictions with mythology, they are not the same thing.

    --
    1178161 is prime...
  24. Re:Bad science by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Holy crap, decimate used with the original definition.

    OK, now I've seen everything.

  25. Re:Bad science by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Historically, all the prophecies without a single exception written in the Bible have so far come true.

    All of them? I don't recall seeing a seven headed dragon anywhere.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  26. Re:Bad science by selven · · Score: 2, Funny

    That doesn't include being killed by small asteroids. Or winning secondary prizes in the state lottery.