Slashdot Mirror


California Professors Unveil Proposal To Attack Asteroids With Lasers

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday's twin events with invading rocks from outer space — the close encounter with asteroid 2012 DA14, and the killer meteorite over Russia that was more than close — have brought the topic of defending mankind against killer asteroids back into the news. The Economist summarizes some of the ideas that have been bandied about, in a story that suggests Paul Simon's seventies hit "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover": Just push it aside, Clyde. Show it the nuke, Luke. Gravity tug, Doug. The new proposal is an earth orbiting, solar-powered array of laser guns called DE-STAR (Directed Energy Solar Targeting of AsteRoids) from two California-based professors, physicist Philip Lubin (UCSB) and industrial statistician Gary Hughes (Cal Polytechnic State). Lubin and Hughes say their system could be developed and deployed in a range of sizes depending on the size of the target: DE-STAR 2, about the size of the International Space Station (100 meters) could nudge comets and asteroids from their orbits, while DE-STAR 4 (100 times larger than ISS) could evaporate an asteroid 500 meters in diameter (10 times larger than 2012 DA14) in a year. Of course, this assumes that the critters could be spotted early enough for the lasers to do their work."

161 comments

  1. Actually there were three events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There was also a meteor that was seen from San Francisco

    1. Re:Actually there were three events by rcamans · · Score: 2

      One hit Cuba as well. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/second-meteor-video-cuba-two-1712957. I did first ost on it, but /. never posted it.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    2. Re:Actually there were three events by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I saw one in Los Angeles a few days ago also. It's not the first I ever saw under similar city lighting conditions, but there does seem to be a rash of bigger ones of late.

    3. Re:Actually there were three events by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Proof that God hates Communists! First, Russia, then San Francisco, now Cuba.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  2. They can call it by ionix5891 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Death Star

    1. Re:They can call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ability to destroy an asteroid is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

    2. Re:They can call it by flyneye · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm thinking Atari had it before Star Wars did. Did they channel Ronald Reagan to come up with this idea?
      There are millions of "Asteroids" champs out there just drooling to do the "space drone" piloting thingy.
      I'm thinking the government knew all along and the video game was a last ditch attempt to find the ultimate savior of the world, fully trained.
      They've known about the Asteroid attack for years, recent Islamic Prophesy masks the fact that it is entirely the work of Iranians, secretly not enriching uranium, but operating a giant electromagnet aimed at the Van Halen belt. Mohammed predicted hemmorhoids would befall sinners and politicians who drew him into the Sunday Funnies. All in all though, it boils down to a $cientologist Plot. L.Ron Hubbard went to his cupboard to get his ticket to go on a Tom Cruise. But when he got there, the cupboard grew hair, but G.Gordon Liddy grew none. It's all connected, you'll see! Or at least smell.
             

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:They can call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have been contacted by Lucasfilm Licensing LLC regarding their IP properties. That's why it's DE--- STAR, remember Lin---s ?

    4. Re:They can call it by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Atari had it before Star Wars did. Did they channel Ronald Reagan to come up with this idea?
      There are millions of "Asteroids" champs out there just drooling to do the "space drone" piloting thingy.
      I'm thinking the government knew all along and the video game was a last ditch attempt to find the ultimate savior of the world, fully trained.

      And those of us who were pretty mediocre at the game, but were addicted to high score boards are totally screwed.

      I can just imagine this conversation taking place as I am being abducted in a black Choplifter helicopter being taken to some hidden training facility...

      "So, Scarletdown. Due to your exemplary performance on the Asteroids machine at the Truck Corral in Baker, Oregon back in March of 1980, you have been selected for our exciting new Asteroid Defense Initiative."

      "You're kidding. I always sucked horribly at Asteroids. I even frequently got creamed by the big flying saucer... The BIG one! How lame is that?"

      "Not according to our records. We have evidence that you scored 72,000 on that day, which you affirmed by signing the scoreboard as SCA. Your score was second only to the legendary FUK, who exceeded a quarter million. Because of your performance, you will be commanding one of our new Asteroid Demolition Assault Craft."

      "No no no! You have it all wrong. That wasn't really my score. That was an abandoned high score, which I did not want to see go once again to A _ _."

      "Nice try, but you are not going to weasel out of your duty to the planet. We know you have the reflexes for this task, and more. In fact, later, we will see about getting you on the ABM team due to your high score on the Missile Command game that you achieved a month later at the Grizzly Bear Pizza Parlor, scoring only a little lower than CNT."

      "Please! You have to believe me. You are making a huge mistake!"

      "Nonsense. You will do just fine. Space Avenger ASS and Space General SLT will see to it that you are properly trained, and you will come back a hero."

      "whimper..."

      "No whining."

      "sigh... Fine. But if I do make it back alive, do you guys have a mounted ostrich airborne jousting squadron I could sign up with? That was one that I did earn my scores on legitimately."

      "I'll put you in touch with Miss SEX, and see what they have. Also, Grandmaster DIK is interested in talking to you about your performance in the Summer of 1989 on the Legend of Kage game that was at the 7-11 in Midwest City, Oklahoma. His department is having a real bad ninja problem..."

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    5. Re:They can call it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      called DE-STAR (Directed Energy Solar Targeting of AsteRoids)

      With a few adjustments:

      Directed Energy And Tracking Helped by Solar Targeting of AsteRoids = DEATHSTAR

    6. Re:They can call it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Or Jar Jar's ability to redirect The Force via Scooby-Doo-like accidents.

    7. Re:They can call it by davydagger · · Score: 1

      close enough. its called the DE-STAR, star wars jokes???

      I heard there was a whitehouse.gov petition to build a death star recently. mabey it had some form of an effect?

    8. Re:They can call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the White House thought that petition was a joke...

  3. "Killer"? Meh. by tibit · · Score: 1

    Killer meteorite over Russia. Yeah, sure. In your dreams.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    1. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by Pale+Dot · · Score: 1

      Injurious because hundreds were reportedly injured? Harmful perhaps? Terrifying like a terrorist bombing that wounds but kills noone? Not really that destructive, but lots of other nonlethal adjectives to choose from.

    2. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Terrifying like a terrorist bombing that wounds but kills noone?

      Which Noone was killed?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    3. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But meteors are more likely to kill you than terrorism! If that doesn't make you panic, then you might be too rational to enjoy this fear/hype-fest. For those that it does make panic, imagine 9/11, but with meteors! But instead of being groped at airports and bombing everything in sight, we need to build giant space lasers. We also need to torture people and monitor your phone calls, but we'll explain that later.

      Btw, anyone who has ever scored higher than 20 million on Asteroids needs to contact NASA immediately (an equivalent score on Blasteroids will also be considered).

    4. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by Teresita · · Score: 0

      You know, if asteroids were really a big problem, then life on Earth wouldn't have gotten a toehold, and no one would be here to worry about it. Ain't the Anthropic Principle grand? This just sounds like a way to separate US taxpayers from their money through fear, not unlike the War on Terrah.

    5. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by number11 · · Score: 1

      You know, if asteroids were really a big problem, then life on Earth wouldn't have gotten a toehold, and no one would be here to worry about it. Ain't the Anthropic Principle grand? This just sounds like a way to separate US taxpayers from their money through fear, not unlike the War on Terrah.

      But just think how useful the orbital lasers will be for earth wars, too. Who can be trusted not to just take a shot or two to "save $NATIONALITY lives"?

    6. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're absolutely right, from a biological perspective. There have only been a handful of impacts that did any serious damage to the biosphere, but those mostly wiped out everything except for a few "lottery winners" low on the food chain. Humanity, well all mammals really, kind of won the last round when all the dominant animal life was killed off and "rodents" were able to inherit the Earth. However the asteroid that would destroy New York (city or state, your choice) isn't even worth mentioning on those scales, and humanity is occupying an ever larger portion of the surface. Just think of how much the damage would have cost had that Russian meteor blown out the windows in a major metropolitan area, and that one was downright tiny.

      Plus, unlike the "war on terror" that has spent ~$1.5 Trillion to little effect beyond deposing some marginally related governments, a system that can deflect dangerous asteroids away from us also has considerable productive use as well: we could deflect valuable asteroids into near-Earth orbit, even capture them into stable Earth or Lunar orbits for processing. That is typically the oft-unspoken goal of most of these sorts of plans, but the big money all comes from the defense department, so that's how they get pitched. Science and economic development projects have to fight over the budgetary crumbs which couldn't feed a project like this. Even the Cold War "Star Wars" missile defense program was designed to double as an asteroid guidance system, or so I've heard.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "noone" is correct in many flavors of english besides american english. no need to make fun of someone just because you're ignorant.

    8. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by davydagger · · Score: 1

      1000 people where hospitalized, which is fairly major

      then we have damage to infastructure, and collapsed buildings that are definately ruining the lives of many Russians, and making them very misrable. Someone has to pay for, or use resources to fix the infastructure, and it has to be done before people freeze, working in the extreme cold is going to be painful for the workers.

      Also, a blown out window in that part of Russia is a big deal, because it gets cold enough to kill.

    9. Re:"Killer"? Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > unlike the "war on terror" that has spent ~$1.5 Trillion

      Earths budget for detecting neo is about 3-4 million dollars.

  4. Knee... by dohzer · · Score: 1

    ,,, meet jerk.

    1. Re:Knee... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      ,,, meet jerk.

      Gotta love the sheeple out there! Baaaaaa!

    2. Re:Knee... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as the project is funded by Californians, I say go for it. They don't seem to mind dismal-looking cost/benefit analyses

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Knee... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      As long as the project is funded by Californians, I say go for it. They don't seem to mind dismal-looking cost/benefit analyses

      One problem with California, is that many of the people that can do math have already left the state. When people vote for dumb policies, sensible people move elsewhere, leaving behind the dumb people to vote for even dumber dumber policies, causing even more sensible people to leave ....

    4. Re:Knee... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      I think Penn Jilette said it best.

      "When you vote for the lesser of two evils you get ever-increasing evil."

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  5. But would they be ... by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... fricking lasers? Would there be sharks?

    1. Re:But would they be ... by Nkwe · · Score: 2

      ... fricking lasers? Would there be sharks?

      Yes. Yes there would be: Sharks in Spaaaaaaaaace!

    2. Re:But would they be ... by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Sharks are endangered. Even if they are to be used in a way that benefits the entire ecosystem of the planet there will be enough clamour from the hippies to prevent it. That's why Dr Evil has ill-tempered mutant sea bass.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  6. I say by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Let them come! I will welcome our new overlord mineral invaders!

  7. Why lasers instead of mirrors? by eth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be much more efficient (and cheaper) to just use mirror arrays to focus the sunlight directly, rather than use expensive and inefficient solar panels to process the sunlight into a laser first?

    Then, instead of sitting uselessly in space 99.999% of the time (or maybe 100%, even), they could focus sunlight onto ground-based power stations (or space-based, if we actually get mining operations going up there), and help pay for themselves.

    It would also be a bit harder to weaponize. A DE(ath)-STAR in orbit? What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What would be best is a multi-role station. The power generated when "idle" could normally be beamed down to earth via microwave, etc (if that is even possible - I assume the station could not be geostationary because of the extra propulsion required to launch so much mass to that higher orbit).

      Another use would be similar to the iss, where there are also modules for astronauts to do science in, as well as them being there to help maintain and assemble the station.

      The power generated could also be beamed to long-distance probes that use an electrical ion type drive. Any extra energy they receive from the station simply allows them to accelerate faster. That may be more feasible than beaming the power down to earth.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar panels are used to store energy, which can be released on a moment's notice.

      The effectivenes of reflective surfaces is limited to how much light shines on them.

      Think about it.

    3. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, it's a scaling issue - reflective surfaces are literally just sheets of mylar. How much surface area could we launch compared to the cost of solar panels/capacitors/laser emitters?

    4. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solar panels are used to store energy, which can be released on a moment's notice.

      Why bother even posting when quite clearly you have not the slightest clue about technology?

      Solar panels store nothing.

    5. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by lxs · · Score: 2

      You could always use the sunlight itself to pump your laser skipping the electricity part altogether.

    6. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Worthless_Comments · · Score: 2

      Batteries store energy. Solar panels are not batteries.

      Think about it.

    7. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some good reasons

      1) Batteries for energy buildup from sunlight
            a) which would allow for stronger beams at least for a short while
            b) could be on the side away from the sun

      2) Mirror arrays would have to be constantly adjusted meaning
            a) it's not exactly more simple, requiring much more complex calculations and a system of mirrors that can be adjusted to aim everywhere
            b) introduces aiming lag time (depending on how fast you can reposition them to aim)
            c) greater fuel usage

      3) Durability, harder to protect mirrors from micrometeors

    8. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That however would be a copyright infringement on the novels "Troy Rising" Also the prior idea may serve as prior art to prevent patents ... so saving the earth wouldn't be profitable. /s (kind of)

    9. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by number11 · · Score: 1

      What would be best is a multi-role station. The power generated when "idle" could normally be beamed down to earth via microwave, etc

      For some reason, I get this image of the kid next door, the one who used to fry ants with his magnifying glass.

    10. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      It would also be a bit harder to weaponize.

      Believe it or not, I like the fact that we can weaponize it. Not because I like the idea of using it as a weapon, but because if it can be weaponized, it's more likely that it'll get funded and built. And it's something we need to have, if we want to survive. Chances are that eventually that asteroid will come. It could be 100,000 years from now, but it could also be 10 years from now.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    11. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First we need better ways to detect the incoming asteroids. As far as I know the once over Russia was a complete surprise.

    12. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And batteries can't release all the energy that quickly. If they could, a normal AA battery would be a bomb.

      Now if it was stored in huge capacitors, the discharge could be much faster, but there are other problems with this, including leakage and temperature.

    13. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246460/

      Anti-asteroid technologies' potential to unite humanity towards a common goal is usually undermined by the depressing reality that almost any technique used to prevent an asteroid strike could be weaponized, or at-least, potentially be used to create a strike deliberately.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_technology_concerns

      It remains to be seen if the baby will get killed in the cradle because of it's distrust for it's neighbors.

    14. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lots of things store energy, many of them cheaper than batteries. Batteries are just one of the few technologies efficient enough to where the energy loss of storing hydrocarbon energy can be cost justified. Opportunistic energy storage frequently get's neglected because of this subtle distinction.

      -Gravity based potential energy storage is fairly efficient. With pump efficiencies near 95%, pushing water uphill is an easy solution that is within the skills of anyone capable of plumbing.
      -Thermal energy storage is frequently free. It is a matter of thermal load-balancing. It's moderately disgusting how many megawatts of coal and gas turbine power are wasted on Air Conditioning and Heaters every year. There are many substances with a high specific heat that can store solar thermal for heating water and PCMs that can act as a thermal low pass filter.
      -Organic Rankine cycle does not require the high carnot efficiencies of heat engines like ICEs or Gas turbines. By drawing a vacuum in the working fluid you can lower the temperature required for a Liquid->Gas phase change, just like a boiling water reactor uses it to raise the temperature.

    15. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slight problem.
      The Laser array needs to be moved close in to the asteroid you want to evaporate.
      It absolutely cannot beam power to earth, as it'll be too far away.
      It needs months, or even years to evaporate or deflect the asteroid.

    16. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the DESTAR and similar applications, there is a better method of storage than those mentioned in previous post: storage as kinetic energy in a high speed flywheel.

      Flywheel energy density is much higher than batteries, especially in space where friction losses can be minimized and there is no need for a failure containment vessel, so long as the thing is kept oriented in a safe direction (do not build space station modules that cross the plane of flywheel rotation). Energy can be withdrawn very efficiently, at a much higher rate than batteries support, and with much more control than is possible with capacitor storage. Final construction can be done in orbit, making this probably the easiest system to deploy on a large scale.

      --
      Will
    17. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      A more direct use of sunlight would be titanium white paintballs, to make one side of the asteroid highly reflective. Then just wait.

      We have the technology now to identify worthwhile targets and to hit them with the paintballs. The only thing we might be lacking in is caring enough about future generations to invest in something now that won't pay off for a hundred or more years.

      --
      Will
    18. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Would somebody who knows a bit about laser technology speak to this question:

      Would a laser capable of slowly burning off material on a distant asteroid be suitable as a weapon against an enemy on the Earth's surface? I am guessing that beam attenuation in the atmosphere would severely limit the energy delivered to a target on the ground (but the overhead light show might be distracting).

      On reflection (pun intended) it seems this question has two parts. The second part:

      If an orbital laser weapon is developed, would a simple mirror of stretched mylar be sufficient to protect military assets in its shade? Could a smoke screen or fogger be used to protect areas?

      --
      Will
    19. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, the raw power available via reflection is much greater for a given cost, the real problems are likely:
          Focus - a laser has an incredibly tight beam that spreads very slowly while a large parabolic reflector with variable focus that can hit something many millions of miles away with even a tiny fraction of the reflected power is probably beyond our engineering ability.
          Aim - a reflector can only target something in roughly the same direction as the sun drastically limiting the defensive potential, and meaning we're mostly limited to targeting near-earth objects when they're nearly on the opposite side of the sun rather than when they're closer and more of the beam will actually hit it

      As for focusing sunlight to ground-based stations - probably not a good idea. If you want to extend the "daylight" hours of a large area you're probably okay, but try to focus it into a tight beam for a power receiver and you'll be doing as much damage as a similar powered laser. Orbital power stations typically are imagined to use tight beam microwave transmissions because the atmosphere is transparent to microwaves - Deliver a similar beam of focused raw sunlight and you'll likely create really drastic atmospheric effects, possibly even a nice showy plasma beam if the energy density is high enough.

      By the same argument, not really so hard to weaponize. In fact since a reflector would probably only be able to hit an asteroid with a tiny fraction of the light it reflects, but could easily hit the Earth with all of it, a reflector of a given effective power would have far more weapon potential.

      Where reflectors really make sense is with focused power stations - big reflectors to collect sunlight and focus it onto something that can convert it to microwaves for transmission, whether that be photovoltaics + lasers, light-pumped masers, or whatever. No sense using a square kilometer of solar panels if you've got a square meter that can handle a million times ambient power densities.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      if that is even possible - I assume the station could not be geostationary

      A geostationary orbit would only be necessary if there was a single receiver on Earth. But MW receivers are far cheaper than satellites, so we could have many, all around the globe.

      because of the extra propulsion required to launch so much mass to that higher orbit

      Propulsion using standard rockets is expensive, but remember: this thing will have lots of electrical power available. So you could use that power to run an ion thruster. It will take a while to reach the higher orbit, but the cost will be far lower than a rocket.

    21. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Geostationary is actually relatively cheap once you've made it to low orbit, it's just that while it's truly wonderful for the things it's good at (like "parking"communication satellites or power stations) for many applications it's not really that great - you get a half-second round-trip communication delay, you'll only ever be above one point on the equator, and it *is* more expensive to reach.

      What I'd actually expect is that a power station would be built in high LEO where it's still convenient o get to but there's nothing much "above" it, and equipped with ion drives so that it can then lift *itself* into geostationary orbit once it starts generating power.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the beam is scattered somewhat by the atmostphere, creating localised hotspots can be worthwhile in it's own right as a weapons outcome. These could concevably create or modify weather systems, for example precipitating, strengthening or possibly steering major cyclonic storms.

    23. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      You can't focus a reflection of a light source to a smaller angle than the apparent size of the light source. From near earth, the sun appears to be about half a degree across, so the tightest focus you could achieve is also half a degree across.

      Presumably you'd want to use this at fairly large distances, say 150 million km (the distance from the earth to the sun, which is the range the lasers were to be designed for). At that distance your tightest focus would be about 1.4 million km across (the size of the sun, not coincidentally). And unless you could make your mirror a lot bigger than the sun, you wouldn't light up the asteroid more than the sun already did.

    24. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      On flywheels storing huge amounts of energy: what about when you need to boost/adjust the orbit? The need to be able to rotate the craft for such maneuvers would necessitate a low-friction gimbal between the flywheels (assuming you have two counter-rotating ones) and the spacecraft. The possible orientations allowed for such corrections is also limited by the safety requirements of keeping important stuff out of the plane of rotation. Any drift in that plane of rotation, or imbalance between the two flywheels, could be catastrophic.

      A cool idea to be sure, but it seems to me that it is quite a bit more complicated than batteries, especially when it comes to safety.

    25. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I am guessing that you do not remember that the original plans for the shuttle and the ISS included a "space tug" that would take cargo from the LEO that was all that the shuttle could manage to do and boost it to the ISS, which would actually orbit above the atmospheric envelope, at three times or more the distance to LEO. What a concept, putting a satellite high enough that it did not require frequent re-boosts and course corrections!

      The space tug never made it past the concept stage, it died even before the manned, reusable first stage died. Its a wonder that the shuttle actually worked. After Apollo, the whole manned space program became nothing better than the camel designed by a committee.

      Put the laser satellite in an appropriate orbit, and the occasional course correction could be folded into the routine maintenance of the flywheel(s). Those would need to be spun down every once in a while for inspection anyway.

      The other point about gimbals is perhaps one that I do not understand. Flywheel energy storage is in use today on research ships and in some medical transport vehicles, where it is key to assuring steady power for critical equipment. These systems always use gimbals, and the engineering involved appears to be fully mature, very well understood. I would expect any flywheel used on a satellite would also be within a gimbal, and I would expect that in a microgravity and hard vacuum environment, the engineering of that system would be a lot simpler than what we do now for the oceanographers and EMTs.

      But I am not confident that I understand the question about gimbals, so maybe I am not addressing the concern.

      --
      Will
    26. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Rather than melting the barrels of all the Bad Guy's tanks, we would rain on his parade. Such a deterrent has never before been considered, as far as I know.

      Seriously though, if these lasers would be powerful enough to weaponize weather, then we should certainly agitate to get one built. The ability to shift a Katrina or Sandy hurricane even a degree or two off its projected course could save a lot of lives and damage. We have demonstrated an ability to control nuclear weapons, so I am confident that we can use the same kinds of treaties and strategies to prevent weather wars.

      --
      Will
    27. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      Put the laser satellite in an appropriate orbit, and the occasional course correction could be folded into the routine maintenance of the flywheel(s). Those would need to be spun down every once in a while for inspection anyway.

      With a station that exists to shoot at asteroids, wouldn't you expect to have to constantly change where the laser is pointing though? At some point, that portion of the craft is going to cross the rotation plane, unless you have TWO lasers (one on each side) and even then what happens if the target happens to be in the 'dead zone' for a significant portion of time?

      BTW, A quick search got me this page, so at least NASA thinks that lower energy flywheels are a great idea: http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/general_info/flywheel.html

    28. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      With a station that exists to shoot at asteroids, wouldn't you expect to have to constantly change where the laser is pointing though?

      I may be wrong, but the impression I have is that the laser(s) would stay focused on a specific target for months or years before moving to another target. The targets would be closer to aphelion than perihelion, since it would be easier and take less energy to deflect them when they were far from the Sun than when they were closer. So their relative motion is very slow and very easy to track from any Earth orbit whose plane was roughly perpendicular to a line from the Earth to the asteroid.

      Except possibly for asteroids that were orbiting in the same plane as the Earth, a satellite orbiting at more than 7,000 miles could be kept on target continuously without changes in its attitude. This is much lower than geosynchronous orbit (although well above what the Space Shuttle was able to achieve, but then you have to realize that the Shuttle was more like a souped up suborbital ballistic object than a true space craft that could attain a stable orbit--- it never fully escaped the Earth's atmosphere).

      --
      Will
    29. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      The targets would be closer to aphelion than perihelion, since it would be easier and take less energy to deflect them when they were far from the Sun than when they were closer. So their relative motion is very slow and very easy to track from any Earth orbit whose plane was roughly perpendicular to a line from the Earth to the asteroid.

      Ah, that makes sense. I guess then, you just don't spin up the system until you've already oriented the craft properly for the asteroid you want to shoot at.

    30. Re:Why lasers instead of mirrors? by stuffeh · · Score: 1

      Here's a simple (thought) experiment for you. Go outside (or use any single fixture) and hold a mirror right in between the light source and a coin. Now try to shine/aim a beam of light at the coin at from your mirror. What is your conclusion?

      Now do the same, but allow the mirror to move a little slightly. Now compare the strength of this beam of light one if the target was between the mirror and the light source, but off to the side a little.

      From this (thought) experiment we have come to the conclusion that the maximum brightness of the beam of light is when the target is between the mirror and the source of light (assuming the target doesn't cast a shadow on the mirror), anywhere else and there would be a decrease in the brightness of the light from the mirror.

  8. Spotting may be the problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the hard part is spotting them faster than laser shots.

    There are not that many options for seeing something faster than speed of light...

    1. Re:Spotting may be the problem.. by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with asteroids are the ones that aren't spotted. The well-known large ones are easy to spot but suddenly a new one shows up and causes trouble.

      The earlier you can see them the better - and early enough you may be able to at least do something about it by nudging the trajectory just a fraction to make it miss or hit something harmless. If possible - let it crash into the moon instead. Spectacular - but the risk to humanity is lower.

      On the other hand - there are places here on Earth where an impact would solve some problems.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Spotting may be the problem.. by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 2

      This is where things get interesting.

      The ability to direct kinetic weapons accurately from above is very likely to be of huge military importance in the future. I imagine that it's far easier to nudge an asteroid slightly so that 40 years hence it won't hit Earth than it would be to redirect it to target any particular spot on entry. Indeed, I imagine for any particular asteroid, there would only be so many places it could be forced to hit.

      However, I cannot help but imagine that in multiple governments may start by working together with various satellite systems to push asteroids around. But decades into the future this may be a weird sort of arms race to see who can push the asteroid the most to get it to smack the enemy.

  9. Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about boring mirrors in LEO? They need not weight much, but an array of mirrors could reflect a non-trivial amount of energy onto an asteroid per pound of spacelaunch. Not a satellite designer, but I'm guessing that 100m2 of mirror will weight less than a kilo, and that some creativity will let you get a lot of mirror per kilo of nav and positioning equipment on the bus.

    1. Re:Mirrors by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      How well can you focus mirrors over such a Long distance? And could you use a reasonable % of their surface during the time they are exposed to the sun?

    2. Re:Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And how would you prevent these magical mirrors from moving away from the sunlight pressure?

    3. Re: Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since you asked, I'd use fraction wheels to aim them both for targetting and to point them towards and away from the sun to build energy when in orbit. See, when speed needs to increase and the sun is behind you, go perpendicular to the rays. This could also be used to throw a bit more light out there for searching for the smaller asteroids.

    4. Re:Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd make them with mostly aluminized mylar, so they'd get pretty flat when stretched. I'd also use them to push a bit of sunlight around when not zapping asteroids to get enough light out there to help the optical search. It's entirely possible that with an order of magnitude more light on something that it would get brighter.

  10. What could go wrong? by cohomology · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry for being a pessimist, but I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

    Consider a trillion dollar weapon of mass destruction in space.

    It will never get through Congress.
    There will be construction delays lasting a century.
    Your enemies will be able to destroy it, cheaply.
    Bright high school students will play with it.

    --
    Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
    1. Re:What could go wrong? by ArmchairAstronomer · · Score: 2

      What asteroids/meteors? Those were American/Chinese/N Korean missiles.

      http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16977509-meteor-sparks-rumors-conspiracy-theories-in-russia?lite

      And we haven't even heard from our 'Tin Foil Hat' brigade yet.

      This proposal would clearly be:
      - Against God's will
      - A government conspiracy to subjugate us
      - A plan by the Freemasons/Communists/Bankers/Democrats/Republicans to subjugate us
      - Contrary to a natural cycle of extinctions

      And most importantly "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S FAULT"

      This is just a friendly reminder that we will eventually go extinct, and it will be our own damn fault.
       

    2. Re:What could go wrong? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yeah, can we actually wait for someone to say something before we go putting words in their mouths and then denouncing them for the words we put in their mouths? Or is that not how this works? Extinct WTF

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Just thank your lucky stars that this didn't happen 3000 years ago, or we'd have to endure another book in the bible.

      Actually, it's pretty similar to some of the existing books. Hmmm.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:What could go wrong? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      The best part about your article: "when something falls--it's man-made."

      Gravity is a US secret-weapon.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    5. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      This one comes to mind. The difference is, Lot saw that one coming, this time we were completely off guard.

      And, you know, you only have to "endure" the bible if you actually read it. There's a lot of wisdom in that book.

      To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

      A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to reap, and a time to sow;

      A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

      A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

      A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

      A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

      A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

      A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

      If that sounds familiar to folk music fans, Pete Seeger Plagairized almost all of it in 1959; The Byrds popularized it in 1965. There are reams of similar wit and wisdom in that book.

    6. Re:What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      And, you know, you only have to "endure" the bible if you actually read it. There's a lot of wisdom in that book.

      I agree that there is a lot of wisdom there. I disagree that you can avoid it. A big to-do was made of which Bible Obama was sworn in on, just as a simple example. Not that most self-described Christians actually read it, or behave like they've read it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:What could go wrong? by Bomazi · · Score: 1

      The problem with SDI was not the science, but the political idiocy of spending a fortune undermining deterrence instead of working toward mutual disarmament, and the economic impossibility of dealing with countermeasures.

      Since you can't negotiate with an asteroid, and that they tend not to deploy decoys, this should work a lot better than SDI.

    8. Re:What could go wrong? by node636 · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong with quoting a Reagan policy? Lets just assume for a second that such a project will be beyond the limited purview of the United States Congress. This issue does involve the entire world after all.

    9. Re:What could go wrong? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Sorry for being a pessimist, but I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

      Consider a trillion dollar weapon of mass destruction in space.

      It will never get through Congress.

      A measly trillion not get through Congress? Please. I've got $14 trillion in debt that says otherwise. Ronnie didn't have that.

      There will be construction delays lasting a century.

      Uh, I don't care who you ask right now, that would be called "creating jobs".

      Your enemies will be able to destroy it, cheaply.

      Given what it would be used for (saving the entire planet), our enemies would be idiots to attack that. Point taken though.

      Bright high school students will play with it.

      Well, other than Matthew Broderick, we've managed to keep all of our ICBM nuclear arsenal out of the hands of script kiddies for the last few decades, so I'd hope we would be able to do the same for a weapon 1,000 times more powerful.

    10. Re:What could go wrong? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I've never read Twilight. I still have to endure it in the sense it is a part of wider culture. It is allowed to be a part of wider culture and I have to put up with it to the extent that this represents a collection of everyone else freedom of expression. I'm allowed to not be happy about it.

      That said I agree there is some wisdom in the Bible, and some good poetry too. Same goes for the Quran and the Vedas and a whole bunch of other holy text. They didn't end up holy texts by accident.

      On the other hand you quoted that nice poetic section of Ecclesiastes immediately after referencing us to a section in which YHWH commits one of his minor genocides and punishes a woman for the grave sin of checking over her shoulder. All this shortly before an act of incest which due to constraints of the lineage had to be an essential part of his plan. I'm sure there are some good bits in Twilight too, doesn't mean I don't consider it the female equivalent of rape porn.

    11. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's hard to avoid mention of it, but note the buzz about which bible Obama used was history, not religion.

      Not that most self-described Christians actually read it, or behave like they've read it.

      Indeed. Look at Newt Gingrich as a perfect example. I believe Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to atheism than Richard Dawkins could ever dream of.

    12. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      On the other hand you quoted that nice poetic section of Ecclesiastes immediately after referencing us to a section in which YHWH commits one of his minor genocides and punishes a woman for the grave sin of checking over her shoulder.

      Look at the context. You are to God what a program you wrote is to you. The "genocide" is akin to your looking at some code you wrote, saying "man, I really fucked that up" and deleting it. Lot only escaped because he did what his programmer told him to do, when Lot's wife looked back, that particular program didn't do what the programmer wanted it to -- she was buggy code. As to the incest, that was the fault of the daughters, but perhaps those buggy programs were spared because the programmer wanted to reuse some of the non-buggy code.

      Of course, if you're a painter rather than programmer, substitute "painting" for "programmer." If you're a writer, substitute "chapter".

    13. Re:What could go wrong? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Context? For genocide.

      You are justifying genocide, and to do it you are advocating tyranny. There is a difference between the computer programs I write and the people that YHWH mercilessly slaughters, the computer programs I write are not sentient. If I create twenty thousand synthetic intelligences and then delete them then I am guilty of genocide and an thoroughly unpleasant individual unworthy of worship.
      Why the quotes around genocide there by the way? If I intentionally slaughtered two entire cities worth of people and wiped out their culture what crime do you suggest I am guilty of?
      Besides YHWH is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, he cant 'fuck up'. Extermination and death as a punishment for failing to comply precisely with his instructions are part of his plan. And the reasoning you are espousing here has been used to justify wholesale slaughters through the years.

      And this is exactly my point, one cannot simply avoid 'enduring' the Bible by not reading it. The reasoning it promotes, the beauty of it's poetry and allegory, the foundation of much of the Western tradition (for better and for worse) is infused with that documents legacy.

    14. Re:What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's hard to avoid mention of it, but note the buzz about which bible Obama used was history, not religion.

      Yeah, maybe not the best example. Politicians (and as you point out, even pop artists) quote from it whenever convenient. But mostly you are probably right - they just invoke God and don't actually quote the Bible.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I suspect that many of them are closet atheists.

    16. Re:What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You mean Bill Clinton, model Christian, wasn't being sincere about his church appearances??? Surely, you go too far! :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call Clinton a "model Christian", but it isn't up to me to judge him for his peccadillos. He probably is as good a Christian as me, I'm far from perfect even though I try (hell, I got seduced by a married woman last week). It seems that Christians make lousy Presidents; Carter seemed a good man, but he sucked as President. Of course, he didn't suck nearly as badly as Bush, who I don't think has a conscience.

    18. Re:What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call Clinton a "model Christian"

      Sorry, that was meant to be a bit of hilarious sarcasm...

      Bush is a good guy, but he has a very simple outlook on life. Simple people shouldn't be president. That said, Obama has not changed many of Bush's policies (which is why I didn't vote for him in the last election).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Bush is a good guy

      I can't agree with that. He may and probably is very easy to get along with, but enriching his cronies at the expense of the entire economy is just wrong. Bush is an oil man, gasoline prices more than quadrupled during his Presidency, and that was one of the biggest causes of the great recession. Another was slashing taxes on the rich. Starting a war with Iraq because Hussein threatened his dad was both stupid and evil.

      Obama has not changed many of Bush's policies (which is why I didn't vote for him in the last election

      I voted Green Party for the same reason, but if Illinois had been a swing state I'd have voted for Obama just to keep Mister "fuck the 99%" out of office. If the Republicans had run anyone worth voting for I'd have voted for him, but they haven't run a decent candidate since Eisenhower.

    20. Re:What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think China had a lot more to do with gas prices than Bush. Agreed that his motivation for Iraq seems to be at the very least, suspect.

      Ironically, I think the first Bush was a pretty good Republican. He was willing to violate his no tax pledge for the sake of the fiscal health of the country, even if Clinton reaped most of the rewards. I think I voted for the Libertarians or something in the last election. It was definitely a 3rd party. My state was also pretty safe for Obama (PA), but I don't think I could have voted for him in any case. Romney bothered me for the same reason that Hillary bothers me... his ambition exceeds all else. Nixon was like that, and he was scary as hell. I don't think Romney is quite as... damaged... as Nixon, but I don't like that mentality.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:What could go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Ironically, I think the first Bush was a pretty good Republican. He was willing to violate his no tax pledge for the sake of the fiscal health of the country

      I was referring to Junior.

  11. Asteroids With Lasers by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why attack asteroids with lasers? Aren't asteroids without lasers dangerous enough?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Asteroids With Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why attack asteroids with lasers? Aren't asteroids without lasers dangerous enough?

      It's not about the lasers.

      It's the aliens who put the lasers on the asteroids that are the real danger. They MIGHT have oil!

      Drone strikes are NOT going to happen. And the US won't bomb them and say there's no "hostilities".

    2. Re:Asteroids With Lasers by youn · · Score: 1

      Asteroids with lasers are ok - it's sharks with lasers you have to worry about :p

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  12. Bond or Powers? by ExRex · · Score: 1

    After hacking the controls of the DE-STAR a Supervillain demands a ransom of $1 trillion or he will turn the lasers on Earth. Only an International Man of Mystery or a Double Naught Spy can save us from the photonic clutches of, who? Dr. Evil or SPECTRE?"
    Coming to a theater near you.

    --
    The closer you are to the code, the happier you are. - Ancient Geek Proverb
    1. Re:Bond or Powers? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      After hacking the controls of the DE-STAR a Supervillain demands a ransom of $1 trillion or he will turn the lasers on Earth. Only an International Man of Mystery or a Double Naught Spy can save us from the photonic clutches of, who? Dr. Evil or SPECTRE?" Coming to a theater near you.

      So you have to build laser systems on Earth first, capable of destroying the orbiting station. And of course, many nations must control these stations so that no country could take control of the space weapon and use it against all others. I'm excited to be part of this program! Also, these systems would be useful for attacking other countries' satellites in case of a war (or as the opening move in one).

    2. Re:Bond or Powers? by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      I've seen this movie. I think in the end, they just end up with a house full of popcorn.

  13. Death Star project under new name. by hessian · · Score: 1

    I think it's great: the Earth clearly needs a death star to defend against incoming asteroids, comets and meteorites.

    It will also come in handy if we ever have a rebellion against our UN space program...

  14. Re:People Are Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I call these interesting people Space Nutters. They have a doomsday religion and believe in it fervently. The odd thing is that they think space is deadly, constantly threatening us, but they also think the solution is to leave this planet to go LIVE in space.

  15. Side benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only one unfortunate aiming mistake away from an interesting military application. The military industrial complex, now with extra sneakiness.

  16. Re:People Are Interesting by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are right. We've never been hit by anything larger. We should definitely wait until something gets really, really close before we take any action.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  17. RFID cloud near Mars by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Create an articificial cloud somewhere near Mars, of
    RFID-chips. Think of the possibilities.

  18. First "pew! pew! pew!" post by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Also, oblig: "will they use sharks too?"

  19. You think that one's big? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1
  20. Re:People Are Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, you do realize that the proposals to "go live in space" is not about finding a safer place to live, right? The main reason to find other places to live is because it means that no single event can wipe out the whole species (more colloquially known as not having all eggs in one basket). If thinking that makes me a space nutter, well, I guess I'm okay with that.

  21. we just proved we don't need anything by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    despite all the Russian politicians drawing attention to themselves, we've just proven that even an unusually sized asteroid isn't a problem worth spending one dime solving. we can keep watch on objects over 35 meters, but anything smaller isn't worth the effort

    1. Re:we just proved we don't need anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So tell me. What do we do when something that IS over 35 meters is coming straight towards Manhattan or London or Tokyo? Make fun of the politicians 'drawing attention to themselves' as they lament the imminent death of millions?

    2. Re:we just proved we don't need anything by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      those are spotted far away with years of advance notice. altering orbit a trivial problem.

    3. Re:we just proved we don't need anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell me. What do we do when something that IS over 35 meters is coming straight towards Manhattan or London or Tokyo? Make fun of the politicians 'drawing attention to themselves' as they lament the imminent death of millions?

      Uh, get out of the way?

    4. Re:we just proved we don't need anything by tragedy · · Score: 1

      A half megaton explosion isn't worth the effort?

  22. Orbit? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the heck would they put something like this in Earth orbit? That would mean at least some time with no sunlight, and would mean it could only fire the lasers at certain points in the orbit - and would spend a lot of time moving the lasers around to counteract the orbit. Something like this should sit at Lagrange points. If they even talked about putting it in orbit of Earth, they don't have the knowledge to develop something like this. Anyway, they should be placed at Earth-Sun L3, L4, and L5. You'd need to be able to refuel them every once in awhile as these points are only meta-stable and you would definitely need thrusters (just like Earth satellites do).

  23. Re:People Are Interesting by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    I don't build my own roads. I don't have my own Department of Defense. I don't have my own power plant. There are lots of things that I depend on the government for. I'd suggest that tracking and intercepting dangerous objects in space is preferable to trying to live underground.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  24. It's not the rocks you've got to worry about by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's keep things in perspective. There are no verified records of anyone being killed by a falling meteor, ever. There are some sketchy stories that can't be confirmed - but even if we believe all of them, the number is still pretty damn small.

    Now consider all the wars, genocides, and random violence that humans have inflicted on each other.

    1. Re:It's not the rocks you've got to worry about by jandar · · Score: 1

      Now consider all the wars, genocides, and random violence that humans have inflicted on each other.

      These real threats have the unfortunate feature of being changeable and measurable. Going against asteroids has no immediate measurable effect and is therefore a perfect venture for any politician.

    2. Re:It's not the rocks you've got to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that you would be symutaniously emplacing a weapon system in the ultimate high ground. Global projection of miltery power much?

    3. Re:It's not the rocks you've got to worry about by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Let's keep things in perspective. There are no verified records of anyone being killed by a falling meteor, ever. There are some sketchy stories that can't be confirmed - but even if we believe all of them, the number is still pretty damn small.

      Yeah, way to keep things in perspective. Here, let me paint another picture for you. If we're ever hit by a sizable meteor, there won't be any "verified records" to tend to.

      Or humans for that matter.

      So, yeah, the number will be pretty damn small. Like one. As in The One.

      Now consider all the wars, genocides, and random violence that humans have inflicted on each other.

      Yeah, I'll take my chances with the meteor, considering many of the pointless reasons we've gone to war. You'll have a better chance of changing anything talking to a rock in space.

    4. Re:It's not the rocks you've got to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention ever increasing tuition fees in colleges in California. I am still waiting for them to come up with a scheme to address this problem.

    5. Re:It's not the rocks you've got to worry about by tragedy · · Score: 1

      There is, however, a verified record of a falling meteor causing a half-megaton blast in Russia two days ago. About a hundred years ago, there was a 10-15 megaton blast, also in Russia that was almost certainly a falling meteor. That would seem to demonstrate at least some potential for destruction.

  25. Build it on the far side of the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, such a laser can't be put into orbit around Earth, as the potential for it to be used as a weapon obviously means it won't fly, and having such a weapon on the ground would both be subject to dissipation in the atmosphere, and could also be considered an advancement in the nuclear-weapons arms race (since it could shoot down missiles and satellites too).

    So, build this defense on the far side of the moon, which is tidal-locked and can never point directly at Earth; you don't even have to lose much coverage by doing this, because you can put the lasers just beyond the 'horizon' on the moon, where Earth goes beyond visibility (though this 'horizon' varies somewhat, because even though the moon is tidal-locked it still 'wobbles' a bit, causing the placement of the horizon to change over a certain area).

    You can even exclude a certain amount of orbital coverage from the lasers too (e.g. exclude vision of most satellite orbits), making this a very adjustable system, which could provide very decent protection against asteroids, and with only a relatively small area lacking coverage at any particular time (and even then, only temporarily lacking coverage).

    Great reason to go back to the moon :)

  26. Re:People Are Interesting by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    They have a doomsday religion and believe in it fervently.

    Only if you consider history, geology, paleontology, and math to be religion. Face it, those who are born always die. We will become extinct some day, probably either by our own hand or by our lack of action.

    You, on the other hand, worship at the altar of ignorance. Or maybe under its bridge.

  27. Re:People Are Interesting by mcgrew · · Score: 0

    Wow, such willful ignorance. That's equivalent to reinforcing your roof to withstand a nuclear bomb, moron.

  28. Let it hit by Kjella · · Score: 2

    If we could observe small objects to aim these things, we could also send people to bomb shelters/evacuate them that'd take a lot of the punch out of it and just brace for impact. For the really large objects then firing this laser at a dino-killer won't do anything anyway. From a WP article: "In 1998, NASA formally embraced the goal of finding and cataloging, by 2008, 90% of all near-Earth objects (NEOs) with diameters of 1 km or larger that could represent a collision risk to Earth. The 1 km diameter metric was chosen after considerable study indicated that an impact of an object smaller than 1 km could cause significant local or regional damage but is unlikely to cause a worldwide catastrophe."

    So even at 100 times the ISS with a year of advance warning, it can only prevent a smaller regional disaster (1/2 diameter = 1/8th the volume and 1/8th the energy of a 1km asteroid). It is quite probably cheaper, simpler and more guaranteed to work to slowly evacuate that region over that year or to prepare necessary shelters and supplies to just wait it out. This is just stone, not nukes so there's no radiation damage, once the dust clears you're free to exit the shelters again and while crops and animals might be lost there's no long term poisoning of the water and food chain. In short, compared to all the other dangerous places choose to live with earthquakes and volcanos and whatnot with far more immediate danger this seems like a total waste of money and effort. Now dino-killers would be nice to have a defense against, but this is not it.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Let it hit by swillden · · Score: 1

      If the lasers can evaporate a 500m object in a year's time, they should be able to alter the orbit of a 1 km object enough to make it miss.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Let it hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that we don't know how to reliably predict the region where an asteroid will hit.

  29. Innocent bystanders by macraig · · Score: 1

    Why do they wanna attack defenseless innocent asteroids that are just minding their own business?

  30. Better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Friggin' sharks with friggin' lasers attached to their heads...
     
    ...IN SPACE!

    1. Re:Better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Sure. Asteroids, right. by screwdriver · · Score: 1

    There is no way this wouldn't be used to take out terrestrial ground targets.

  32. Massive and expencive fail if built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunetly current solar panels are so low efficiecy that these d-starts will be laughted by asteroids. Considering we cant even see most of them comeing, recently the one that dropped in russia, consider that hitting in middle of large city...

    And small asteroids that these d-start woul be efficient against are not dangerous, since to mostly burn up in atmosphere.. Its the big ones that will wipe us out. big ones like size of small mountains. Shoot that with laser and it gigles and keeps on comeing.

    There was recently calculations that even few nukes would not do squat about big asteroid comeing. So how wold low efficiency laser array work any better. And before you say becouse we see them comeing, etc... Consider this. We currently shoot moon with laser, very very good optical laser. in this distance the damn beam widens to 1 km wide in moons end, leading to very very low energy density, Theres that little reflective aparatus in moon that reflects this back, and scinetist use this to measure distance between earth and moon.

    Knowing this, we have no chance in hell useing lasers against asteroids and evaporate them before they hit.

  33. A futile endeavor by electrostaticcarrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real threat is not from the occasional asteroid, but from swarms of small cometary rocks. Such swarms do not provide any single, easy target to spot and attempt to take out in advance.

    They have struck before on a larger scale - with regularity - as documented e.g. by Clube and Napier. Much of their research focused on the long-past break-up of a very large comet and the periodic intersection of Earth's orbit with its remains - which has led to cometary showers, with their impact on societies in more ways than one, also leading among other things to religious developments - ideas of gods and their actions and judgments.

    Historically, peoples have looked to their leaders to protect them from catastrophe - and when their leaders fail to do so, i.e. something happens that they simply cannot control, such as a rain of fireballs and meteorites exploding in the atmosphere, then a people will blame its leaders and get rid of them - often violently. This seems to be a basic feature of human psychology, one repeatedly seen in action throughout history.

    Knowing this, the leaders have the need to reassure their people that they have things under control - historically, there have e.g. been systems of ritual and sacrifice. Nowadays, reassurances come in a different form: That the sky is watched, that major events only happen "once in a lifetime" (or, earlier, that such things simply couldn't happen - which was long the consensus), coupled with simplistic ideas of weapons and other solutions to take out the threat - solutions that will never be adequate if/when the time comes for real. People are only too happy to play along with such reassurances, to develop them and then to take them and run with them, since the alternative is not too pleasant - recognizing that there is no way to avert such disasters when they arrive.

    A very recent book by a historian, "Comets and the Horns of Moses", discusses this whole subject, and much more connected to it. It goes into the history of cometary interaction with our planet - which has long seemed to follow cycles - and both how it has affected life on Earth and how humanity has responded to it - the social, cultural, and political dynamics involved, both in-between and during times of cometary disasters. Looking at the history and the present, it further goes into what seems likely to be coming up. I'd recommend it for the interested.

    http://www.amazon.com/Comets-Horns-Moses-Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/dp/1897244835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360956345&sr=8-1&keywords=comets+and+the+horns+of+moses

    In the present time, one of several clues is the reported sightings collected by the American Meteor Society, which have increased roughly exponentially since 2005 - with 463 events on record for 2005, the increase accelerating year by year with 1628 for 2011 and then 2219 for 2012. Thus far this year - i.e. in one and a half month - there's been 322.

  34. Wait, just build it in China. n/m by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > California Professors Unveil Proposal To Attack Asteroids With Lasers

    Well, best get started now. They're pushing 10 years to get environmental approval to deepen certain shipping ports by 6 feet to accommodate the new supertanker size of the expanding Panama Canal. I can't even begin to imagine the paperwork for a laser 10x the size of the ISS.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  35. We have global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely we need a panic name for this. How about 'Galactic Bombardment'.

  36. Nitpicking for beginners (unsuccessful) by jandar · · Score: 1

    To quote No_one:

    no one, no-one or noone, an English indefinite pronoun

  37. The inherent danger of this... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    A space-based platform with enough power to vaporize asteroids? Is there any chance, whether intentionally or accidentally, that it could be pointed at something less asteroidal, like people?

    A more realistic and practical system would be to hit the asteroid head-on with a projectile of extremely high density, like a politician. Can you say Congress cluster-bomblet?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  38. I think I've heard about this somewhere before: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Ace Combat 04: Shattered Skies. They didn't use lasers (instead opting for giant cannons), but the effect could easily be the same.

  39. Removing threat is easy, spotting it, not so much by terjeber · · Score: 1

    All the ideas that are brandied about are interesting, but ultimately a waste of time. The problem is much more fundamental that that. We currently do not have the capability of spotting them reliably and effectively, and no government agency is (in reality) working on fixing this rather fundamental problem - this includes NASA, we can not spot these killers by sitting on earth and looking up, we need to get a telescope up in solar orbit to find them efficiently. This means, as the world currently stands, the first warning we will get when an asteroid is on collision course with the earth, is going to be the massive flash generated when it enters the atmosphere, and shortly after, the monumental shaking of the earths crust as it touches down. Deflecting or destroying it at that point becomes rather moot.

    Thankfully a private foundation lead by former astronauts and others

    has taken it upon it self to fix the issue, and is working with NASA, Space-X and others to launch a detector by 2018 that will actually find most of these buggers, so we can deflect them (easiest option) in time.

  40. please close your floppy drive by nanospook · · Score: 2

    A problem has been detected and windows needs to shutdown to protect your satellite. Error 0x00002.

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  41. A More Elegant Solution by Rocketboy0 · · Score: 1

    Why not just whack anything really big with the ISS - just ram it. At least that $140 Billion will have been useful. Just have to coordinate with the Russians to get the residents off first...

    1. Re:A More Elegant Solution by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters, the ISS isn't a spaceship with anything like the manoeuvrability or acceleration to do anything remotely like that. Furthermore, the ISS isn't exactly what you would call sturdy. It's a step up from aluminum foil. I'd go on, but the suggestion was just so ridiculous I'm sure I'm just rising to some bait.

  42. How's the interplanetary travel? by node636 · · Score: 1

    I wholly support this discussion because it is a logical stepping stone and a small segway from the question, "What happens when the object is too large to protect ourselves". By that time I hope we haven't squandered the resources required to get off this planet and are well on our way to achieving such a feat.

  43. Cue international protests in 3.. 2.. 1.. by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I'll bet anyone $100USD that as soon as a project like this was approved, there'd be outraged protests from anti-U.S. countries around the world claiming that it's actually a space-based weapon that will be turned against them as a means of blackmailing them into giving in to U.S. demands. North Korea would probably have a full-on grand mal seizure over it.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  44. SDI Defence??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perfect cover for building a sheild aganst ICBMs

  45. Sympathetic idea, now for the implementation ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    I like the idea of taking out insurance against a possible catastrophic meteor hit.

    In previous discussions we have seen references to more 'soft-force' solutions, such as spraying paint on the meteorite to have it nudged it off course by sunlight pressure or mounting a small ion-motor on the surface.

    The more 'robust' approaches proposed here like blowing it up (opinions are sharply divided as to how much good that would do though) or vaporising it by aiming big lasers at it have a big disadvantage. They're basically big weapon systems in orbit, whose target could very well be meteorites, among other things.

    As regards the lasers, what's to stop such a laser from taking aim at a satelite that we don't like and treating it as a meteorite? And if you believe that the BRIC countries will agree to such a setup, just consider what the reception here would be if the entire system would be built and operated by e.g. the Chinese or the Russians. Or by a collaboration of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, and Cuba. Or India, Brazil, South Africa, and Pakistan.

    The most natural and politically neutral (from a jurisdictional point of view) would be to build the system by a group of nations and allow it to be controlled by e.g. the UN security council. Of course that idea will live only as long as it takes for the first tea-partier to hear about it and start screaming his/her head off.

    If we push ahead with a system, who's willing to bet that BRIC countries won't race to have their own version up in the same timeframe?

    Building the darn thing might be the least of our worries.

  46. Re:People Are Interesting by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    Wow, such willful ignorance. That's equivalent to reinforcing your roof to withstand a nuclear bomb, moron.

    Not all meteorites are that powerful. Of course, since those it would help with are so unlikely, why opt for individual protection anyway?

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  47. space based weapons by brillow · · Score: 1

    Good luck getting other countries to sign onto this. There are already UN treaties about space-based weaponry. No one is going to put up with a country having giant orbital lasers which could just as easily vaporize large metropolitan areas as they could space rocks.

  48. Re: Attack Asteroids With Lasers by Boawk · · Score: 1

    How the hell are you going to keep the sharks alive during their ascent into space?

  49. Re:People Are Interesting by swillden · · Score: 1

    Have you reinforced your home's roof to resist meteorite impacts? No? Then why do you expect the entire human race to?

    I have insurance to address the possibility of small impacts.

    Using insurance to spread financial risks doesn't work for impacts that take out a significant portion of the human race.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  50. Professor Jerry Hathaway? by memzilla · · Score: 1

    If the movies have taught us anything, there are only two practical applications of space-based laser weapons: Making enormous Swiss cheese, and burying nerdish boot-licks in housefuls of popcorn. Oh ... and vaporizing human targets from space!

  51. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a system IF deployed would be used against any human being by any Country Prime Minister or President, any district Magistrate (State of said country) any Mayor of any city of any country.

    Events as of yesterday happen perhaps once in 100 years.

    The costs of such a system cannot be justified by the facts, of the 'stated' purpose ... that open the doors to re-purpose the system for killing of humans cate blanche ... the scourge of the United States of America according to the President of the United States of America is the Citizens of the United States of America ... and All other countries of Earth and the [snicker snicker] United Nations will jump on the wagon to kill their own scourges willy nilly.

    Sequester

    Sequester is the only way to end the illegal wars of the USA in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Northeast Africa and southeast Asia.

    To kill the Beast, Starve the Beast.

    There will be pain .... There will be blood ... The blood of the Washington DC bureaucrats will flow.

  52. fry earthlings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention the capability to fry earthlings, like those at a too-rowdy Afghan wedding party.

  53. Re:People Are Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There are lots of things that I depend on the government for.

    Considering that this planet uses only about 3-4 million dollars per year to detect neo, we could do a lot better work as individuals if we wanted to. E.g. US has probably hundreds of people who could single handed fund similas system and if we would use crowd sourcing...

  54. Silly professors by govett · · Score: 1

    California Professors Unveil Proposal To Attack Asteroids With Lasers? Professors, it might be more efficacious to attack asteroids with laser beams instead.

  55. Yes, as you all realised in 0.0034 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some geek has been waiting his entire life to work on the DE(ath)STAR.

    Brilliant!

  56. laser by hanalasertech · · Score: 1

    laser machine ,laser weapon?i only can do laser marking .www.hanalasertech.com

  57. Re:People Are Interesting by tragedy · · Score: 1

    You do know that the planet we live on is already _in_ space, right?