Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Is Going To Crash a Satellite Into an Asteroid (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the on-purpose dept.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is moving ahead with plans to try out deflection techniques on a passing asteroid to prepare for future, threatening space matter. From a report: The space agency has entered the preliminary design phase for its Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART). This represents the first trial of what's called the "kinetic impactor technique" of asteroid deflection. Put another way, NASA hopes that by hurling a refrigerator-sized spacecraft at one of the space rocks at a speed roughly nine times that of a bullet, it can knock the asteroid off course and save the Earth. The plan is to launch the first DART satellite at a binary asteroid called Didymos ("Twins"); the twin asteroids are scheduled to pass by earth in 2022 and 2024. (Neither pass poses any threat, according to NASA.) By striking one of the two asteroids, scientists will be able to measure the impact of the collision.

89 comments

  1. CNN doxxing and blackmailing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    liquidate the assets. Liquefy the executives.

    1. Re:CNN doxxing and blackmailing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yeah, they should just let people do things that result in never ending streams of death threats against their employees.

      You know what? If I were CNN, I wouldn't have bothered asking for the apology and then hidden his identity, I'd have exposed the little Nazi shit anyway. I think someone should.

    2. Re: CNN doxxing and blackmailing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Hey, just doxxing is better than doxxing and then blackmailing. So you're better than CNN anyway. This is an example of damning with faint praise.

    3. Re:CNN doxxing and blackmailing by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I don't quite understand why anyone would assert that doing a public act somehow means you retain your right to anonymity.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re: CNN doxxing and blackmailing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Indeed. I don't quite understand why anyone would assert that delivering a message somehow means you retain your right not to be shot.

    5. Re: CNN doxxing and blackmailing by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Has he been shot?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. "What could possibly go wrong?" by Jhon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... said the Saurian physicist about 65 million years ago.

    1. Re:"What could possibly go wrong?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didymos is less than a kilometer in diameter. Even if it is a solid asteroid and not a rubble pile it wouldn't be capable of anything more than regional devastation.

    2. Re:"What could possibly go wrong?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say the twins pose no harm to Earth. Things could change after the impact.

    3. Re: "What could possibly go wrong?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh is that all?

    4. Re:"What could possibly go wrong?" by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1
      This is why they are impacting an asteroid that is already orbiting another larger asteroid

      1 They can park an orbiter to monitor the effects

      2 The impactor will only make a slight change in it's existing asteroid centric orbit thus preventing any significant change in it's solar orbit.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  3. dead for tax purposes by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "What," said Trillian in a small quiet voice, "does asteriodcrash mean?"
    "It means," said Marvin, "that the probe is going to crash into the asteroid. Asteroid. . . . Crash. It's very simple to understand. What do you expect if you steal Hotblack Desiato's stuntprobe?

    --

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

  4. Manned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or Unmanned?

    1. Re:Manned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      It will be manned by a crew of middle eastern descent. It was determined that they were the most suited for the job.

    2. Re:Manned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea, if you had limited it to Sammy Hagar and Dr. Oz.

      But, all these people of Middle Eastern descent won't fit on one satellite:
      Jerry Seinfeld, Andre Agassi, Salma Hayek, Omar Sharif, F. Murray Abraham, Marlo Thomas, Paula Abdul, Natalie Portman, Vince Vaughn, Teri Hatcher, Steve Jobs (after exhumation) , Shannon Elizabeth, Catherine Keener, Ralph Nader, Tony Shalhoub. . . .

      Better yet, you would be an excellent lightweight proxy!

    3. Re: Manned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians or don't you care?

    4. Re:Manned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump was told that manning the satellite is a more important job than President, so he sabotaged the vote and was able to get the job. They were going to send a trained monkey.

    5. Re: Manned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion, Area, Religion, Religion...

      One of these things doesn't belong.

      (all of them)

  5. Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    An asteroid that doesn't pose a threat might have its orbit altered enough that it now does pose a threat. This is idiotic. Furthermore, it might break off pieces that would pose a threat. This is incredibly dumb.

    1. Re:Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are hitting a mountain with a ball of tinfoil, it will be ok

    2. Re:Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the break off thing is more of a worry on some asteroids that are loose collections of rubble. Those certainly come apart. This type is more solid; likely will not break apart. If this works, and it changes the orbit to now be a threat - well, it has proved out to work. Now just hit it again.

    3. Re:Idiotic by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Wow! You best get on the horn to NASA and share your stunning insight because I'm sure nobody involved in the project realizes the danger.

    4. Re:Idiotic by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Wow! You best get on the horn to NASA and share your stunning insight because I'm sure nobody involved in the project realizes the danger.", he said is his best "Frasier Crane" voice.

    5. Re:Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An asteroid that doesn't pose a threat might have its orbit altered enough that it now does pose a threat

      Unless you are claiming there will be a huge violation of the conservation of momentum, there is only a limited change in the course when hitting a large mass with a much smaller one not going much faster. It would be pretty easy to tell if in the next several orbits there would be any chance of possible changes to the orbit allowing it to hit Earth or not.

      In the very long run after many orbits, prediction of the position becomes difficult due to the chaotic nature of many bodied orbits, but that would also be far enough in the future we couldn't tell if it would hit us or not untouched, and would give plenty of time to change it again if this small test is enough to change it from miss to hit.

      Furthermore, it might break off pieces that would pose a threat.

      Again, there is conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy. There is only so much velocity change you can make for a bunch of pieces, and they will mostly retain their current momentum as the center of mass of whatever results will be the same if it breaks up or not. Yes, if you managed to get lucky and transfer all of the energy and momentum into a small chunk, you could radically change its velocity... but at that point you're talking about something the same size as the impactor, which would not be a threat to Earth.

    6. Re:Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was much more entertaining the second time I read it, next time put "In my best Frasier Crane voice..." at the beginning instead of at the end.

      I said, in my worst Patrick Warburton voice.(see)

  6. No danger from the asteroids... by aicrules · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Neither pass poses any threat, according to NASA.

    So what happens when the test works really well and suddenly that asteroid is knocked into a collision course with earth? What could possibly go wrong? While I would imagine the test isn't enough to cause a major trajectory change, this quote seems like the start of an end of the world movie.

    1. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by aicrules · · Score: 0

      I wish I could mod myself redundant...i deserve it for thinking I was going to have an original post.

    2. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched a documentary last night detailing alien mining installations all over the surface of the moon and NASA's feverish attempts to cover up the Truth. Why aren't we crashing stuff into the invading Aliens?

    3. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, there will be dozens more people who think they came up with the idea and somehow NASA scientists didn't.

    4. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      presumably because an alien civilization that can get to our moon would be mostly unphased by us throwing refrigerator-sized satellites at them.

    5. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

      At worst, they'll have a real use-case when they try the experiment again.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by spikenerd · · Score: 1

      Good point. We should avoid preparing for the future so we can minimize the total number of experiments with potential to go wrong!

    7. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, if it works "really well" and that asteroid is knocked into a collision course with Earth, we could always do it again and knock it somewhere else.

      I'm pretty sure that NASA is smart enough to swat it "away" from Earth so that, at the very least, they'd have sufficient time to swat it away again.

    8. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      truman was warned that nuke reaction of first manhattan project nuke test may not end. he said, fuck it.

    9. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So what happens when the test works really well and suddenly that asteroid is knocked into a collision course with earth?

      Nothing, because it won't happen. Any change of the asteroid's orbit that we're capable of effecting at this point in our technological evolution with non-nuclear means is barely measurable, and even the nuclear option would be negligible.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: No danger from the asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of the street cred the guy who warned would have now if it had turned out to be true.

    11. Re:No danger from the asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't how it happened, as the threat of a fusion reaction from the first fission bomb was considered zero because enough data on fusion cross-sections already existed. There was a question posed by Teller about whether a fusion based bomb could start a nitrogen fusion chain reaction, but Bethe quickly showed that it was impossible even with a fusion bomb. You can read the document refuting that possibility yourself, as it has been declassified for some time and titled " "Ignition of the Atmosphere with Nuclear Bombs."

    12. Re: No danger from the asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The environmentalists will never allow the use of nukes against asteroids. We will have to throw wind turbines.

    13. Re: No danger from the asteroids... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Yeah it would look something like the shape of his shadow permanently emblazoned on the chunk of street surface that he had been standing on as it floats through space in the orbital path formerly occupied by Earth.

    14. Re: No danger from the asteroids... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Environmentalists are in no position to allow or disallow the use of nukes against anything, governments are.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  7. they take out the HBO satellite! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    they take out the HBO satellite!

    1. Re:they take out the HBO satellite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be able to torrent GoT

  8. I predict AEAOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I predict "an equal and opposite reaction"

  9. Yup! What could go wrong? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    The plan is to launch the first DART satellite at a binary asteroid called Didymos ("Twins"); the twin asteroids are scheduled to pass by earth in 2022 and 2024. (Neither pass poses any threat, according to NASA, as long as refrigerator sized hard metallic objects are not slamming into the agglomeration of rocks and ice held together with weak gravity ) By striking one of the two asteroids, scientists will be able to measure the impact of the collision and be the first one to hide under the desks, like school children in cold war era, if the deflected asteroids home in on us

    Fixed it for NASA.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Yup! What could go wrong? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be worried about the one they hit - be worried about it's angry, defensive twin.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Yup! What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be worried about the one they hit - be worried about it's angry, defensive twin.

      Exactly. Because they are close to each other and have significant gravitational effect on each other, the other will be deflected also, only a bit less. Where? We don't have big and fast enough computers to predict where, given all the objects in the solar system, fast-moving rotating target with center of mass where? That's an equation with a thousand degrees of freedom. Imagine two really big rocks in space connected by a slinky. It could get exciting, in a bad way.

    3. Re:Yup! What could go wrong? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The nature of the asteroid is just another thing to be taken into account. Dense heavy and you are really battling inertia and of course light easy to penetrate means you might pass through but you will still transfer energy into it (if you understand the compression and resistance to penetration and how it distributes to the rest of the mass, you will understand quite a lot is transferred.

      The advantage of a purely kinetic versus nuclear, is that if you fuck it up, you will still get hit but at least you will be less likely to scatter radio active mass all over the atmosphere. Assuming of course the meteor itself ain't radioactive. Also a solid kinetic dart could be fired by a very long barrelled steam cannon with multiple ignition points or more accurately many solid kinetic darts (technically does not have to be a dart if fired from space, a simple sphere would be better, wider is better).

      Of course miss and some time in the future you could seriously offend some one way out there somewhere, hell, in a few hundred thousands years you might impact a colony we founded.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  10. Murica! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't they have announced this on the 4th of July?

    1. Re:Murica! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1234 and it's
      POOR leadership again.
      NASA should scheduled "live-streamed" the Independence Day asteroid deflection.
      dats a NASA I'd support where do you want my wallet.

      still I predict AEAOR. (I stick to my guns on dat)

  11. I'm no math jeanyus, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this a fairly straightforward calculation? And given the exact details of this asteroid's spin and other variables aren't the results going to be fairly accurate for just this one asteroid and maybe not extrapolatable to others? I ain't no English jeanus, either.

    1. Re:I'm no math jeanyus, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "I ain't no inglish geen yus neither". If you haven't be diagnozed wit dis lexica perhaps you should get cheked... I can "extrapolate the amount of toothpaste on a given day to the results of a hard impactor collision with an asteroid, but it may not be particularly accurate - probably within 3 or 4 orders of magnitude. The energy available for transfer will be known accurately but the amount actually transferred depends on the size and mechanical (physical) properties of the target. The critical question of how that transferred energy is distributed but I don't know if this experiment even addresses that (directly). We're not going to larn much wit ownlee won speriment.
      I think its brilliant what they're planning. The maximum information is to slam a hard impactor into a small asteroid. The problem with that is the smaller the target the larger the perturbation of its orbit. And we really don't want to create our own extinction level impact, do we? So, the naive approach (to maximize safety is to slam it into an enormous one where any perturbation will be insignificant. Of course doing that means we'll get (probably) very little useful data in return. Choosing to target a small asteroid orbiting a larger one is in many ways the best of both worlds. Nice work. The guy/gal who suggested this approach should be named.

    2. Re:I'm no math jeanyus, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha!

      "...properties of the target."

      Right. It will be very specific to this collision. Just because it works for this one doesn't mean we know it will work for the next one, but I guess we'll learn something.

      '...create our own demise.'

      We don't need an asteroid for that. :) Besides, we know if we do nothing we're gonna get hit, so might as well try and do something...otherwise there will be a missed funding opportunity. :) That WAS pretty smart picking two of them in orbit with each other. I wonder if we'll be able to see anything like when the Grail probes hit the moon?

      Pretty cool.

    3. Re:I'm no math jeanyus, but... by Phil+Karn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually no, it's not a straightforward calculation. That's why they want to conduct the test.

      It's not a simple collision like we learned about in physics class, with the change in the asteroid's momentum coming entirely from the impactor. The impactor will hit at extremely high velocity (by earth standards), meaning that it will carry a lot of kinetic energy (one half mass times velocity squared) in a small volume. This kinetic energy will vaporize and blow off part of the asteroid, which because of the asteroid's small size, will completely escape.

      The mass of the ejecta will greatly exceed the mass of the impactor, so even though it may move much more slowly than the impactor it will carry away considerably more momentum (mass times velocity). The momentum of this ejecta will have most of the effect on the asteroid's trajectory.

      But it's unknown exactly how much momentum will be carried away by the ejecta as this depends on the makeup of the asteroid, its density, porosity, how quickly the impactor stops and releases its energy, etc. So that's why they want to try it.

      A similar effect was at play in the JFK assassination that helped cause the counter-intuitive "back and to the right" motion of his head that had so many people incorrectly thinking there was a second shooter.

    4. Re:I'm no math jeanyus, but... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The mass of the ejecta will greatly exceed the mass of the impactor, so even though it may move much more slowly than the impactor it will carry away considerably more momentum (mass times velocity).

      It will only "carry away the momentum" if you hit it against the direction of its motion. Depending on the hit point, you can nudge it in practically any direction (although some are more favourable from the POV of celestial mechanics and our technological limitations).

      But it's unknown exactly how much momentum will be carried away by the ejecta as this depends on the makeup of the asteroid, its density, porosity, how quickly the impactor stops and releases its energy, etc.

      But you ought to be at least able to consider a perfectly inelastic collision as the minimum for your momentum transfer. Seems like everything else is an (uncertain) bonus.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  12. Make Asteroids Go Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MAGA

  13. question is .... by kiviQr · · Score: 0

    According to NASA "Neither pass poses any threat" - question is will they poses a threat after we hit them with DART? Or will we learn in 2151 that NASA's experiment from 2022 had a cascading effect and one of the Didymos/twins is going to hit earth.

    1. Re:question is .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      you are the 3rd person to say this, quit creaming your pants to make a pathetic attempt at an original thought and fuckin read yo

    2. Re:question is .... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yer right. We shouldn't attempt deflection experiments on asteroids because they might go wrong. We should wait until one has our address stamped on its ass and then either be too late to deflect it or have one Hail Mary shot at it.

  14. More corporate welfare from Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    This just takes our money and gives it to corporations. It's stupid to spend so much money on something that will just be destroyed.

  15. Re:I predict AEAOR by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    I predict "an equal and opposite reaction"

    The asteroid will fire a satellite back at us!

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  16. I hope it fails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I mean, what if the satellite crashes into a McDonald's, serving Egg McMuffins to aliens?

    How would you feel if you knew that NASA deprived an alien colony of its supply of Egg McMuffins? Are you a xenophobe? Are you a heartless monster?

    No... we must not conduct such experiments, and take the risk that an asteroid may hit the Earth, causing a worldwide extinction of all species, because almost all of us have some white DNA in us, and white people are pure evil, and that means we deserve to die. I'm white, and even though I didn't own any African-American slaves, I recognize that I am evil, and that I deserve to die. I hope that African-Americans rape my two daughters, and do their part to destroy my white DNA.

    While eating delicious Egg McMuffins. 365Black.com

  17. What there not a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About this exact scenario. I forget the name but you can probably guess what happened.

    1. Re:What there not a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The one with Bruth Willith and Marky Mark and the Funky Bunth?

      I get a fick erecthun wheneber I thee Marky Mark and hith abth... *flops his limp wrists around*

    2. Re: What there not a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Sir, win today's internet award.

  18. You mean... by bferrell · · Score: 1

    Not on accident?

  19. ITT by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    People who don't understand that a refrigerator sized satellite won't blow apart or make large changes to the orbit of a 527 billion kg asteroid.

    1. Re:ITT by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering what happens when the fridge hits at 6 time the speed of a bullet. (WTF is that? Why can't they just give a velocity?)
      Will it vaporize? Punch through?

      I'd like to see them harness another, much smaller asteroid, by landing thrusters on it. Then, using it's much larger mass, impact with much lower velocity. Slowly change the orbit of the conglomerate to bring it all into a near Earth orbit and then use it as the beginning of a space station.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:ITT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who don't understand that a refrigerator sized satellite won't blow apart or make large changes to the orbit of a 527 billion kg asteroid.

      Things look pretty easier when you convert that to only 527 million tons.

    3. Re:ITT by erapert · · Score: 1

      They're planning on impacting the moon of Didymos-- nicknamed Didymoon-- not Didymos itself.
      At present the mass of Didymoon is unknown, but certainly smaller than 527 billion kg.

    4. Re:ITT by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If we can change its velocity by 1 cm/s, after 1 year, its position will have changed by almost 316 K. That may not sound like much, but it would probably be enough to change a grazing impact to a very near miss. And, of course, the faster the projectile, the higher the kinetic energy is and the more effective it is. And if we can't get a higher impact velocity, we can always make the projectile more massive; this won't raise the kinetic energy much, but it will improve the momentum which might be enough.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:ITT by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      its position will have changed by almost 316 K

      Its position changes by a temperature?

  20. The real story here: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    NASA Is Going To Crash a Satellite Into an Asteroid on Purpose

    I mean, accidental hypersonic impacts into things is kind of old hat. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  21. Funny thought by sumsguy · · Score: 1

    FTA: "Neither pass poses any threat, according to NASA." It would be hilarious if that collision will suddenly change the asteroid's path to collide with Earth.

    1. Re:Funny thought by gtall · · Score: 1

      Only if it lands on your head leaving the rest of us rolling in glee.

  22. Downsides? by Holi · · Score: 1

    Are they the least bit worried that they put an asteroid on an eventual collision course?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:Downsides? by gtall · · Score: 1

      NASA Scientist: Let's deflect an asteroid.

      NASA Supervisor: But what if we deflect it into the Earth, we'd better run some simulations with our supercomputers first.

      NASA Scientist: Bah, humbug. Let's just wing it.

  23. Dear NASA by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Dear NASA,

    If you ever wish to remain relevant, you had best put someone (a human), on a celestial body, and quick. The Moon is always an option, as is Mars, Venus, etc. But at the current rate things are going, people are focusing a bit too much on...earthly affairs. They are forgetting that there are other worlds out there, and that they are accessible to us; hence, they begin to care too much about what they have here, in front of them. And as such, they are beginning to feel claustrophobic, even when there is plenty of space, both on Earth and elsewhere.

    1. Re:Dear NASA by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Venus most certainly is not an option.
      Besides Moon and Mars there are not many options anyway, Titan? Europa?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  24. So NASA hits a rock... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... causing that rock to change course and unexpectedly alter the trajectory of another rock or rocks either by gravity or impact which finally brings that killer rock we're all worried about crashing down on our heads here on Earth. I hope they made enough calculations for what it will effect far out in to the future. I think it's good they're testing stuff like this but they should be REALLY careful doing it.

  25. Asteroids beware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...here comes Frigidaire!

  26. BOINK!... by ZNetracer · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that was reminded of the satellite crashing into the mother ship at the beginning of Independence Day?

  27. Be careful of the shrapnel by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    Just sayin

  28. Not satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By definition, the objects needs to be in orbit for it to be a satellite.
    These are spacecrafts, impactors, whatever, but not satellites.

  29. Starship Troopers by TheStickBoy · · Score: 1

    But its common knowledge that these asteroids are being sent by the Arachnids.
    You know its true, we gotta send our soldiers to Klendathu



    "We thought we were smarter than the Bugs"

  30. Deep Impact by Zorro · · Score: 1

    They already did this with a comet. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/deep-impact/

  31. I guess it's better than having NASA crashing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an asteroid into a satellite.

  32. In soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...asteroids crash YOUR satellites!

  33. Calling Bruce Willis by gazelam · · Score: 1

    Needed: 1 drilling team willing to crash their spacecraft craft into an asteroid, drill a hole in it, place a nuclear weapon and then kiss their asses goodbye. Send CV and client testimonials to NASA, c/o CraZY Eddie, PO Box 1998, Canaveral, FL

  34. Oh no. Its going to hit North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a terrible miscalculation.