Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How To Deflect an Asteroid With Today's Technology

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-use-the-phasers dept.

Matt_dk writes "Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart is among an international group of people championing the need for the human race to prepare for what will certainly happen one day: an asteroid threat to Earth. Schweickart said the technology is available today to send a mission to an asteroid in an attempt to move it, or change its orbit so that an asteroid that threatens to hit Earth will pass by harmlessly. But what would such a mission entail?"

16 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Let's get this over with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bruce Willis.

    1. Re:Let's get this over with. by Fozzyuw · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're over thinking this. All you need is a wedge shaped ship that shoots square bullets.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
  2. It all depends on detection... by Covalent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously it depends on detection time. If we detect the asteroid years ahead of time, then even tiny changes in course will save us from impact. This could be done by simply crashing a small probe into it...something we've done successfully on more than one occasion. But, if we don't detect it until it's nearly on top of us then it may well be beyond our ability to do it. Therefore, the obvious solution is to increase detection technology.

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:It all depends on detection... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oddly, we are doing detection totally wrong. We have several scopes out there looking for asteroids. But they will be picking up monster ones. The ones that are far more likely to hit us will not be picked up as easily. So what is needed? A cheap cheap telescope that can be roof mounted, and uses POE to provide data/power. In doing that, it will encourage a number of geeks around the world to install these. Then the scope relays data back to a central server where pics are compared. In particular, if one gets a flash, not a big deal. OTH, if several spread around the world get a flash in the same area (basically sunlight glancing off an asteroid as it slowly turns), then it says that the area should be looked at. This approach will enable us to know WHERE to look for small to medium asteroids.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:It all depends on detection... by purfledspruce · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The moon would be ok. In a Venus-trailing orbit would be much better. One of the problems we have is that we can only see asteroids when they're lit up by the Sun, and asteroids that have an orbit almost entirely inside of the Earth's orbit are hard to see--only the backside gets lit up, so we can't see them very well.

      A vehicle placed at Venus's orbit, though, would be able to see those potentially dangerous asteroids quite well.

    3. Re:It all depends on detection... by blair1q · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We don't only find the monster ones.

      We commonly track asteroids under 500 feet wide; much smaller than a planet-killer.

      It will be comparatively easy to detect a planet-killer sized asteroid and determine its trajectory in plenty of time to launch a deterrent mission.

      A surprise impact by anything with major destructive capability is vanishingly unlikely at this point. Improvements in detection shouldn't be prioritized, but should be allowed to continue at a normal pace.

      Deciding how to minimize the destruction should be the focus, and we don't really know how to do it with a high degree of confidence, yet. So deflection technology should be prioritized.

    4. Re:It all depends on detection... by Hylandr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would buy one of these in a heartbeat, and SETI already has the software and server resources to start to handle this. The expensive part though, will be the mechanisms for positioning, and reliably tracking in the night sky. Good tracking isn't cheap, as even the slightest vibrations will obfuscate really small objects. Add to that vibrations inherent on the roof of a home, Doors, washing machines, children playing, loud cars, wind etc. You would need a small solid tower separate from the home, as well as a lightning rod etc.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:It all depends on detection... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So please, stop doomsaying, the experts say they are ready to nuke the sucker if that's what needs to be done.

      MIT were saying that back in the 60s, so it's not really news.

      But there's the slight problem of being able to _get_ a nuke to the asteroid in the first place; the MIT study used an Apollo CSM on top of a Saturn V with a 100MT nuke on board, and there's not much hope of being able to fix up one of the remaining Saturn Vs to fly at short notice and nuke an incoming asteroid today (they also planned to launch 5-6 of them to allow for failures and near misses).

  3. Spoiler alert by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bruce Willis died deflecting the last one. It'll have to be Ben Affleck next time... finally.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  4. The cost... by Dancindan84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    None of them want to pay taxes again. Ever.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:The cost... by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

      None of them want to pay taxes again. Ever.

      I don't think a spaceshipload of teabaggers is going to be the right choice skillset-wise for effectively deflecting an asteroid. Can't we just put them on the B-Ark and fly them into the Sun?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  5. Talking about the apocalypse... by T+Murphy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Speaking of the apocalypse: Of course doomsday predictions are always for a future date. It would be much more interesting if someone figured out a doomsday prediction for a date 3 years past. That would mean someone has to make a time machine to go back and warn them that the world is about to end. Knowing the world didn't end we could be certain that we will succeed in the time-travel mission.

    This of course means that when the world does end it isn't our fault- it's the fault of the people from the future failing to post-predict the apocalypse and make a time machine to stop it.

    --
    My webcomic
  6. solutions from the article by hAckz0r · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The mention both impact and gravity tractors, and both have their problems.

    The "impact" method stands the chance of splitting the asteroid into man little pieces, and since that process of splitting absorbs energy less of it is available to deflect the body from its current course. To have enough mass going at a high enough velocity to contain enough energy to nudge it into a different trajectory you need heavy lift rockets with very fast final stage projectiles. The more velocity the more energy, but the more of that energy that will create debris that potentially causes even more problems. The best solution would be a very heavy object moving slowly, but the would be impossible to lift and deploy. Using nukes would allow a smaller projectile, but would very likely cause radioactive debris to renter earth's atmosphere. Not good. Its better to land on it and push it into the sun's gravity well.

    The 'Gravity tractor' method requires just as much energy as pushing the asteroid, but you need LOTS of mass to make it work. Again you need heavy lift equipment to make this work, and I seriously doubt you can lift enough mass into space, and move it to where it needs to be, in time to effect the trajectory by much. You are still better off using that same fuel to get there quickly and push it lightly for a while into a new trajectory.

    1. Re:solutions from the article by blair1q · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ablation thing is inefficient. Use a nuclear reactor on the asteroid surface to melt itself down, melting a portion of the asteroid and directing it through the melt hole into space. You can send up a big reactor, use the asteroid itself as reaction mass, and get much more efficiency than a blast and an ablation.

      As for "rubble pile" asteroids, those would tend to break up and explode in the atmosphere. The more you can disperse them before they hit the atmosphere, the better. So embed a nuclear bomb and explode it when it's a few days out, so it doesn't have time to reform.

  7. ETA: 2 days by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Informative

    The last 2 discovered asteroids that passed "close" (at least, closer than the moon, the last one was few days ago at 45k km) were found with very few days in advance. They weren't very big, but still could had done some big damage, and the early warning wasnt enough to even think on launching a ship, much less doing anything effective with it.

    Early detection must be improved... that some of the asteroids that we know could take 15 years to get here and so give us enough time to prepare don't mean that some unknown or even known ones (if you want, because somehow changed its orbit) could be in its way here and detected when is already too late.

  8. Re:tough choice by volsung · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The best choice is almost certainly to aim for the Pacific and evacuate all the coastal areas. The devastation from a mega-tsunami is far preferable (and more temporary) than the long-term climate disruption of a land collision. The amount of dust ejected into the air could easily trigger a "nuclear winter" kind of disaster.