Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would we do about it if we did spot it? It would be very difficult to hit a 70-ft object moving at several miles per second. Not very likely!
At the present time, it's pretty hard to guess what could be done, but probably not much. I agree that hitting a 70-foot object traveling at several miles per second is a difficult and very complex task, but it can and has been done before. Probes have been dropped on asteroids. We've hit a moving comet with an impactor. So, we know it can be done. It's a matter of determining the path and speed of an object, allow for the amount of time it takes to send and receive communication signals, which are all taken into consideration in establishing a flight path to intercept the object. It's the same way we manage to put landers and rovers on the surface of Mars, the Moon or the moons of other planets, all of which are in constant motion at very high speeds. The only big difference is the size of the targets. Considering the enormous distances, intercepting even large targets is a mind-numbing task. Our present technology is indeed rather primative and even a slight miscalculation can result in failure. There's still a great deal about space that's unknown and undiscovered, but technology is improving and seems to help out surprisingly well.
At the present time, it's pretty hard to guess what could be done, but probably not much. I agree that hitting a 70-foot object traveling at several miles per second is a difficult and very complex task, but it can and has been done before. Probes have been dropped on asteroids. We've hit a moving comet with an impactor. So, we know it can be done. It's a matter of determining the path and speed of an object, allow for the amount of time it takes to send and receive communication signals, which are all taken into consideration in establishing a flight path to intercept the object. It's the same way we manage to put landers and rovers on the surface of Mars, the Moon or the moons of other planets, all of which are in constant motion at very high speeds. The only big difference is the size of the targets. Considering the enormous distances, intercepting even large targets is a mind-numbing task. Our present technology is indeed rather primative and even a slight miscalculation can result in failure. There's still a great deal about space that's unknown and undiscovered, but technology is improving and seems to help out surprisingly well.
I agree it's difficult but can be done. As far as an impactor that is detected at a "safe" distance...besides some of the techniques mentioned earlier IMHO MASS DRIVERS are an acceptable alternative that is relatively cheap and proven technology with minimal effort; relative to other solutions. My point was that given enough time there is at least a chance of changing the asteroids trajectory; but finding one as it is passing by is simply unacceptable because there is no time to react at all...except for the "Cold War" strategy...LOL.
Keep in mind that the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet...whose largest fragment was less than a mile across; caused impact features larger than the Earth as it collided with Jupiter.
I agree it's difficult but can be done. As far as an impactor that is detected at a "safe" distance...besides some of the techniques mentioned earlier IMHO MASS DRIVERS are an acceptable alternative that is relatively cheap and proven technology with minimal effort; relative to other solutions. My point was that given enough time there is at least a chance of changing the asteroids trajectory; but finding one as it is passing by is simply unacceptable because there is no time to react at all...except for the "Cold War" strategy...LOL.
I agree with your point about changing the trajectory. And the only way we'll ever know what we can do and what will successfully work, is to actually go to asteroids and test different techniques. It's worth keeping in mind that asteroids, in general, come in two basic flavors: stony and nickel iron.
While there are valid applications for using a mass driver, I would think using it to whittle down an asteroid might be okay given longer periods of time. For those that sneak up giving only a few days to a few weeks, it might be better to consider a different option. What becomes of the debris ejected from the mass driver? If the asteroid is spinning, which is most likely, the field of debris would be much wider, even though the fragments would be smaller. If the debris continues following the same trajectory, we'd want to be sure the debris is small enough to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere. Otherwise, we could end up with a firey rainstorm of fragments. The same idea applies to trying to blow up an asteroid with a nuclear bomb. You could end up with numerous incoming fragments blazing a long trail across the planet.
Another problem is related to the composition of an asteroid. If it's a collection of reasonably loose material, a mass driver could be useful. But if an asteroid is mostly a solid chunk of nickel iron, it might not work as easily.
Personally, I think the use of a nuclear explosion might be more useful in altering an object's trajectory. The explosion would have to be detonated at a reasonable distance so as not to turn the asteroid into fragments, but to use the force of the explosion to nudge or push the asteroid's trajectory off course. How many explosions would be required to move the object far enough would depend on the size of the target.
I agree with your point about changing the trajectory. And the only way we'll ever know what we can do and what will successfully work, is to actually go to asteroids and test different techniques. It's worth keeping in mind that asteroids, in general, come in two basic flavors: stony and nickel iron.
While there are valid applications for using a mass driver, I would think using it to whittle down an asteroid might be okay given longer periods of time. For those that sneak up giving only a few days to a few weeks, it might be better to consider a different option. What becomes of the debris ejected from the mass driver? If the asteroid is spinning, which is most likely, the field of debris would be much wider, even though the fragments would be smaller. If the debris continues following the same trajectory, we'd want to be sure the debris is small enough to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere. Otherwise, we could end up with a firey rainstorm of fragments. The same idea applies to trying to blow up an asteroid with a nuclear bomb. You could end up with numerous incoming fragments blazing a long trail across the planet.
Another problem is related to the composition of an asteroid. If it's a collection of reasonably loose material, a mass driver could be useful. But if an asteroid is mostly a solid chunk of nickel iron, it might not work as easily.
Personally, I think the use of a nuclear explosion might be more useful in altering an object's trajectory. The explosion would have to be detonated at a reasonable distance so as not to turn the asteroid into fragments, but to use the force of the explosion to nudge or push the asteroid's trajectory off course. How many explosions would be required to move the object far enough would depend on the size of the target.
I agree with your points. For a mass driver...I am only referring to vast distances of at least 5 Astronomical Units. Although I did forget to take the rotation of the asteroid into account. We would have to time it to "rev" up only at certain rotational points. Also I am more thinking of altering the asteroid's course with the driver; while also lessening it's mass. The debris streaming off the impactor is, in essence, a form of "rocket engine". And for every action; there is an equal and opposite reaction.
As far as nickel asteroids go, I agree it would be far more difficult, but possible....perhaps laser cutting techniques.... employed with the drivers would be more effective.
I agree that at safe distances a thermonuclear detonation, in front of the impactor, may be enough to alter the trajectory towards Earth. As you say it's all in the distance. That's why finding them as they go by Earth is just unacceptable IMHO; we need to detect them much further out in the solar system in their orbits.
Midwest U.S. April 14, 2010 (yep, this month). I'm not sure what the estimated size of this object was. It wasn't a whopper, but certainly big enough to create an impressive show. Events like this happen fairly often. We don't always see them because of various reasons, such as those on the other side of the planet from the observer, those that happen in daylight hours, and those that happen with no cameras to capture the event.
Not everything hits the Earth. On April 10, 2010, a comet flies straight into the Sun. That's one we can take off the list of big stuff that could hit the Earth.
Thanks for the additional videos. Just goes to prove how much debris is still out there and that we are unaware of quite a lot of asteroids/impactors. Also we must keep in mind that any asteroid's orbit can be destabilized, at any time: by a rogue asteroid, a comet, even a large gravitational wave or a shock wave from a more distant impact.
Contrary to popular belief there are still untold(and unmapped) thousands of comets and asteroids in the solar system; although the period of maximum bombardment is long over....it will essentially continue, albeit at a slower rate, until the end of the solar system as we know it.
Also don't forget the ASTEROID BELT as well as the OORT CLOUD and the KUIPER BELT all contain almost countless numbers of potential impactors.>>> Asteroid belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also we must keep in mind that any asteroid's orbit can be destabilized, at any time: by a rogue asteroid, a comet, even a large gravitational wave or a shock wave from a more distant impact.
There are no "shock waves" in space resulting from impacts, as there is no air in space to carry the wave.
There are no "shock waves" in space resulting from impacts, as there is no air in space to carry the wave.
LOL...there are shock waves in space....when a star explodes for instance the shock wave travels up to thousands of light years....this is what causes molecular clouds to collapse into new protostars. You don't need an atmosphere to propagate a shock wave....only to HEAR one..
I'm an amateur astronomer... I know there are shock waves from various things - but not from IMPACTS, which is what YOU said, genius.
That's not quite true. Where I would agree is that an impact or collision between a couple of asteroids or comets isn't going to generate shock waves that would make much difference to the Earth, except for a big chunk that could barrel down on the Earth.
But could a couple of asteroids colliding in space cause a shockwave? If it can't be done in space, then an exploding supernova wouldn't be able to show the results of a shockwave either. It gets into understanding more about shockwaves. A shockwave results from a massive release of energy. That energy is going to be transferred somewhere. In a scenario involving a couple of colliding asteroids, that collision is going to release energy.
It's easy to think that space is pretty empty and has no atmosphere, so how could a couple of asteroids cause a shockwave? It turns out that space isn't as empty as might be thought. There are atoms, dust, gasses, plasma, and all sorts of stuff in space. It's more concentrated in a solar system. When an explosion or a collision takes place, the energy released is carried by all that stuff which is what a shockwave is. It's the rapid transference of energy taking place at the scale of atoms.
I would agree that, apart from the potential of a hefty chunk hitting the Earth, the impact of a couple of colliding asteroids in space would have little, if any, effect on the Earth from any shockwave. The primary reason is related to scale. Shockwaves from asteroids are too small to make any difference to the Earth, not to mention that our atmosphere would cause most, if not all, to be absorbed or bounce off. With a supernova, which produce tremendous shockwaves (even colliding galaxies produce shockwaves) the evidence is more obvious and noticable because of the large scale of it. The bigger the objects, the bigger the shockwave. The impact of colliding asteroids in space can create a shockwave, albeit, rather miniscule in relation to the scale of the vast distances of the solar ststem.
The point is that shockwaves are not soley unique to a planet's atmosphere. They take place in space as well because space itself also contains a lot of material in it. It's just that the stuff in space isn't as densely compressed together.
Does that make sense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
