Slashdot Mirror
Engineers Working On Swarm Of Laser Wielding Satellites To Deflect Asteroids
Zothecula writes with news involving space and lasers. From the article: "A collision between Earth and an asteroid a few kilometers in diameter would release as much energy as the simultaneous detonation of several million nuclear bombs, and with the impact of an asteroid estimated at around 10 km (6.2 miles) in diameter believed to be responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs, numerous strategies have been devised to try and avoid such devastation. The latest idea comes from engineers at Glasgow's University of Strathclyde who suggest that a swarm of laser-wielding satellites could nudge Earth-bound asteroids off their collision course."
Sharks in space?
Are those friggin' satellites with friggin' lasers on their friggin...Yeah, I don't know where I was going with that.
"These satellites, which we will use for asteroid deflection only, not for covert assassinations or as a dreadful weapon of war, will be a vital part in ensuring the future of human civilization" said a Pentagon spokesperson. "We look forward for a chance to put these satellites, which will not be a part of any secret missile shield program nor used to destroy terrorist hideouts, into orbit to protect our planet."
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Like the dozens of similar comments waiting to suggest that this technology could be used to target land-based settlements (although if you RTFA, it's suggested that it might not be able to) or other satellites, there will probably be a number of concerned politicians who will gun this down on the same premises. With all of the cyberwar going on these days, both intergovernmental and rogue, it seems inevitable that someone will figure out how to hijack these things. (Possibly Kevin Mitnick whistling into a payphone with a wad of chewing gum and a wrapper.)
And hence the first rule of world-changing mad science: don't make the world's largest bomb if you have to count on others to use it for deterrence.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I stopped reading at "Swarm of Laser Wielding..." when an image popped into my mind:
A big bad asteroid hurtling towards our little blue planet. Then the camera pans around and we see a huge number of little dots. Flying closer, we see a huge swarm of frickin' space sharks swooping down towards the asteroid, shooting their lasers at it while Bruce Willis, riding the lead shark, yells "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker." I'd pay money to see that.
The Angels have the Phone Box
I don't know why they're looking at lasers, but the only idea I've heard, which sounds workable, is send up robotic rockets which attach, drive in a spike or something, and drive the thing to a new course.
Why lasers? Do you really trust them not to ever be directed earthbound, towards some guy who has a name which rhymes with Sim Pong Nun? So very tempting and all you need is a rationalizer-in-chief to make it so.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
yep ... what could possibly go wrong?
"These satellites, which we will use for asteroid deflection only, not for covert assassinations or as a dreadful weapon of war, will be a vital part in ensuring the future of human civilization" said a Pentagon spokesperson. "We look forward for a chance to put these satellites, which will not be a part of any secret missile shield program nor used to destroy terrorist hideouts, into orbit to protect our planet."
Meanwhile, at the UN "We other, lesser governments, know that the US is only interested in protecting ALL of us (the little people) from comets and such and not just interested in militarizing space because they just couldn't....they wouldn't." "They'd never blow anybody up with these" added Iraq.
Lasers are just a way to transfer energy and the only energy those satellites will have comes from a few solar panels. It would be too weak to pose a threat to even a single human. It could theoretically be used for targeting though.
RTFA, although I know this isn't a popular idea.
The big asteroids become big asteroids moving in a different direction, and a puff of hot vapour where the laser has ablated a chunk of the surface.
as i remember it did not go so well hint if they look like pyramids they are a NO GO
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
It wasn't even a good movie when they did it with missiles.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm sure he was talking about the satellites themselves
No... read his subject line.
Agree, no he wasn't, but it is a somewhat valid point, unless these laser wielding satellites can be put out in Solar orbit....
If you look at the details, which would include the mass and velocity of the asteroid in question, you'll understand. The mass and fuel needed for such a "tug" satellite would be directly proportional and not possibly to launch, much less have extra fuel to maneuver over to the target, etc.
They asteroids in question only look small and slow because of the incomprehensible size and emptiness of the background. That is, lack of a good reference point.
http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/64710.aspx
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
No, the two halves would go around the earth and rejoin on the other side just like something out of Scooby Doo, which based on the apparent comprehension level I'm guessing is the favorite cartoon of most of these AC's.
Note that the headline includes the word 'deflect' and the summary mentions nudging asteroids off of a collision course. Neither suggests that the asteroid would be split. To save time, it also does not mention 'death wielding laser of doom' (even though those would be awesome), sharks (although it does fit dinosaurs in), or anything about using these satellites to 'deflect' political opponents (but it does almost mention why that wouldn't work, traveling through the atmosphere).
Now please go back to aol or myspace, where your reading comprehension, grammar, and lack of identity will no doubt leave them in awe.
We can't identify all potential large asteroids and astrophysicists have estimated those % and they are, as I recall, 10-20% of those in the Kuiper Belt.
Even with the best defensive satellites, we may not detect a big asteroid in time to deflect it. Some significant asteroids approach from the direction of the Sun making them hard to detect.
When the diameter of an asteroid gets twice as large, it takes 8 times the energy to alter its course a given amount and certainly has probably more than 8 times the impact damage.
The amount of energy needed to accomplish the task in a short amount of months seems unrealistic to me, but I admit I am not a physicist. If you have ten passes (near misses) to alter its course maybe you can win. Unfortunately, every time an asteroid comes close to Earth, its orbit changes a bit and who knows it doesn't get closer to some other object away from the earth that then swings the orbit dead on (pardon the expression) to earth, such that your early slight movements were counteracted.
It is certainly iffy. I want to go on a vacation now.
Hm, how about practice on space junk now in orbit around earth? Less distance means you need less precise aim, and you start making a dent in all the junk in orbit. In addition you don't have to wait until there is something in range to practice.
But it doesn't matter whether we use a gravity tug, a physically attached rocket tug, lasers or any other technology. At the end of the day the energy requirements are the same. We have to apply a considerable amount of force over a considerable amount of time. Even if we could come up with a long enough extension cord to plug satellite based lasers into the wall, the electric bill would be enormous. Incidentally, what's the energy efficiency on your average high-power laser? Also, how much of that energy ends up as delta-v when the lasers paint yon incoming asteroid?
At least a gravity tug doesn't require a constant input of energy to function - but even a gravity tug will end up costing the same amount of energy to do the same amount of work. Physics is a bitch - if we need a 3% delta-v on a billion-ton object, we need to pony up x amount of energy to do it.
...I deplore these aggressive measures. The better answer is to move the Earth out of the asteroid's way.
It's a power so great it can only be used for good or evil!
Where are the Spaceballs when we need them? Mega-maid will handle this!
I'd rather have a 10km^3 of extra space junk orbiting the Earth than have 10km^3 of solid asteroid slamming into it.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I agree space junk is a problem and we shouldn't try to make it worse. HOWEVER, several million nuclear bombs going off might make more mess and kill us all. I'm going to have to pick space junk.
The dust and vapor going in the opposite direction would likely miss Earth on the other side, and would be relatively insignificant even if it did hit. We get dust and vapor hitting us all the time. Or were you talking about the satellites being space junk? In that case I'd say if we have only so many orbital slots to allocate, using several of them to stave off extinction is a better use than more spy and com sats.
0/10 unless you're not sitting in a heated room
Exactly how many gigatons is "several million nuclear bombs"?
I mean, obviously it's largely irrelevant at the scales they're talking about and the layperson reads that as "several million times the hiroshima bomb" which is what they're going for. But can we stop dumbing down this shit and actually try to educate people just a little?
I believe the supposition is that the lasers could act over a long time and at very long ranges when compared to kinetic methods which would have to wait until the thing got close before acting. The earlier you start pushing on the object the less you have to push in order to change its course sufficiently. As far as supplying power, in addition to solar and onboard reactors there is also the possibility of beaming energy from the ground. It would be inefficient, but then you just send way more energy than is needed at the other end.
Keep YOUR deity to YOUR self. I'll go with Mal on this, "If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back..."
... have the LHC generate a black hole, and time it so the black hole intercepts the asteroid and eats it?
Apparently they never played "Asteroids"...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
It would have to be a slow moving asteroid, and lasers will have no effect on comets.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
We don't have a laser that can cut apart something as large as a large building much less a mountain sized meteor. The point of the laser is the equivalent of spraying a beach ball ball with a squirt gun. A small shift in trajectory (basically a little nudge), at distances like a parsec can change the final position by more than the diameter of the Earth, which would turn a direct hit into a near miss. As long as we have several decades of warning that a meteor is a threat, we have time to bump the asteroid enough to change its course without too much effort, but if we don't find it until it's on final approach, then the amount of power needed to avert tragedy is much greater.
We are talking about a 400 lb payload. Compare that with the 1800 lb of a voyager probe.
You should have taken Latin in high school/college, then.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
This sounds like an idea I had recently.
I wonder if the spacecraft actually have to get close to the asteroid for this to work. I mean, once you're in orbit, you're more than half way to anywhere you want to go, but I still wonder if a system like this wouldn't be more responsive and easier to maintain if we kept it in earth orbit? Do we have lasers that won't diverge more than a meter over a few gigameters of distance?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I played this game years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroids_(video_game)
Lasers are more efficient because they use bits of the asteroid itself as reaction mass.
This idea is to use lots of little lasers instead of one big one. The big one could theoretically be directed Earthward, maybe, but the little ones almost certainly can't. They're too small to have much effect through the atmosphere.
If some military with launch capabilities wants to put lasers in orbit, you won't even know about it. Why would they advertise it by calling it an asteroid shield?
"At the end of the day the energy requirements are the same."
No.
Conventional rocket: you have to haul up the fuel and the reaction mass. Also very inefficient
Ion thruster: very efficient, can be solar powered, but you still have to haul up the reaction mass
Lasers: probably more efficient than a conventional rocket, can be solar powered, don't need reaction mass (they use the asteroid for that)
The amount of stuff you have to haul up to the asteroid is GREATLY reduced using the laser solution, and therefore the total required energy is much less.
Its for... asteroids where asteroid means: hostile target.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
at distances like a parsec
I do not think it means what you think it means...
Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
To clarify Gordonjcp's statement, reading the f'ing article is not popular. The idea of zapping asteroids with lasers is probably a pretty popular idea around here.
Would that still apply if the source of the laser is out of the atmosphere and the human in question is within the atmosphere, quite a distance away?
an autonomous network of satellites orbiting earth safely out of reach, with lasers powerful enough to deflect a huge asteroid - what could possibly go wrong?
If some military with launch capabilities wants to put lasers in orbit, you won't even know about it. Why would they advertise it by calling it an asteroid shield?
You advertise it so you can put a bigger laser in orbit; since this is a popular threat scenario you can probably militarize the hell out of space before people wake up to object. But then again, maybe I'm a cynic.
all about time. IF you had enough time, you could just launch rocks and have a robot pt them on the asteroid. the increase in mass will changes it's course.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The proposal is to put smaller lasers up.
I was thinking of the satellites - again, they might accomplish their mission better roving in a Solar orbit rather than stuck around Earth... also, I'm thinking it's going to take more than one or two big solar panel arrays to make any appreciable impact on asteroid tragectory...
The proposal is to put smaller lasers up.
Meh, really?
Yes, exactly. No-one Rs TFM if they can help it, but zapping pretty much anything with lasers is always cool.
"Accusative" always seemed too confrontational to me, though.
Your argument is the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was huge. So it would necessarily take one as big to cause significant damage, and thus take too much laser to move. Thus, the laser must be for only weapons.
What if a 2 km square meteor could cause catastrophic damage, and could easily be mitigated through lasers. Is it worth putting lasers in the sky that could mitigate the disaster while also destroying space junk at the cost of militarizing space?
(Note: the answer lies in the fact you already think there are lasers up there)
Bla blah about the size of the state of Texas. Texas, asshole. Blah blah crayons.
Unless I'm extremely misinformed, Texas is a wee bit bigger than an estimated 10 km (about 6 miles). While still big enough to be a huge problem, Texas-sized it wasn't.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
day of the triffids
The article: the details it has.
We can't even tell if an asteroid will hit Earth or not with reasonable precision, we can only calculate a chance. Controlling or even telling where will it hit Earth is impossible, which means anyone who tries this has a fair chance of directing the asteroid on themselves.
I'm pretty sure the same thing that keeps that from working is the same thing that keeps us from getting cooked by the sun.
Why go to the bother of lofting power supplies and creating lasers when there is a nonstop source of radiant energy at the center of our solar system?
Just create a bunch of mirrors and point them all at the same spot on the side of the asteroid, create the big gas plume, and send it on its way.
Context, it doesn't really mean anything to you then.
wouldn't it be more efficient to have the lasers ground based and just give them extra juice to overcome any losses in the atmosphere? Seems like it would be a lot cheaper and avoid that "militarization of space" problem.
if they are too big then they run the risk of being damaged by debris.
I wouldn't entirely put that past the Americans though.
So we shouldn't try to do things(or discuss them) because it falls outside the scope of things we can currently hope to deal with. I will SFTU as I have nothing to gain from dealing with you. These crayons are more fun than you too. I wonder where my imagination will take me?
Ok, and what do you think s/he thinks it means ?
Hard to maintain focus through the atmosphere. You could focus well enough to hit a collection array in LEO but probably not well enough to vaporize rock at distances measured in AU. It also occurs to me that the charging beam could be constant while the ablation beam could be pulsed for energy density.
A parsec (pc) is ~3.26 light-years . It would be amazing if we could even see a non-luminous 10 km rock at that distance, let alone hit it with a laser -- we'd have to aim at where we think it would be 3.26 years later, to begin with. For some scale, Pluto is about 39 AU~=5.5 light hours ~=0.000192 pc from the Sun; the Kuiper Belt extends to about 50 AU~=7 lh~=0.000245 pc out; and the heliopause is somewhere between 90 AU~=12.5 lh~=0.000436 pc and 230 AU~=32 lh~=0.00111 pc. The nearest star to the Sun, Proxima Centauri, is about 4.2 light years away, ~1.29 parsecs.
So no, we're not going to be shooting lasers, shark-head-mounted or otherwise, at "distances like a parsec".
Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
Oh ok I see what you meant, I imagined it was your point in fact, but your 'blunt' post (so to speak (no offense intended, really)) led me to think you were aiming at something much more basic like 'a light year is a unit of distance, not time, please stop mixing them up' you know the kind of posts :)
cheers