Moving an asteroid

[patentman]

This was an interesting read. (Link is to popular science magazines website).

 

[kcthomas]

wouldn't smashing it from behind and smashing it head on give it the same deviation in speed?

 

[Smilin]

I think a prolonged nudge of lesser force might work a bit better than an impact.

 

[MrDudeMan]

so why not just send a nuke and use the force of that to give it a nudge? this sounds like a big waste of money to me...we have plenty of nukes we could use to try to change the orbit of a rock...why not use those?

 

[Falloutboy]

just send a ton of "bunker buster" style nukes at the thing and hit the same side each time, should give sufficent push to get it to not hit us

 

[AluminumStudios]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
so why not just send a nuke and use the force of that to give it a nudge? this sounds like a big waste of money to me...we have plenty of nukes we could use to try to change the orbit of a rock...why not use those?

Nukes aren't really viable in my eyes for several reasons. The most significant being that there is a very significant chance that it could shatter the asteroid or break up enough of it that rather than having one rock flying at us Earth would have a cosmic shotgun blast. Or at least a scenario like when Shoemaker-Levey9 broke up and slammed into Jupiter - each part would have created massive devistation on a terrestrial planet.

The other thing about a nuke that you need to keep in mind is that they work best in an atmosphere. Their devastating force is partially created by the atmosphere that they compress and push along in a shockwave. Space is a vacuum with nothing with nothing to push back on the force that blows away from the asteroid so their efficiency as bullies to push the asteroid is probably compromised significantly.

 

[JeffD1121]

Im going to laugh when they mess things up and change the asteroids path so that it will come towards the Earth.

 

[AluminumStudios]

Originally posted by: kcthomas
wouldn't smashing it from behind and smashing it head on give it the same deviation in speed?

I think the idea would be to speed it up so it crosses a point in Earth's orbit BEFORE Earth does thus just missing us.

If we speed it up and it is ahead of Earth there is no danger. If we slow it down and Earth passes in front of it with the plan being that Earth get's out of the way in the nick of time, it may speed up via Earth's own gravity and hit us anyway.

It seems safer to have it cross our orbit early rather than later.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: AluminumStudios

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
so why not just send a nuke and use the force of that to give it a nudge? this sounds like a big waste of money to me...we have plenty of nukes we could use to try to change the orbit of a rock...why not use those?

Nukes aren't really viable in my eyes for several reasons. The most significant being that there is a very significant chance that it could shatter the asteroid or break up enough of it that rather than having one rock flying at us Earth would have a cosmic shotgun blast. Or at least a scenario like when Shoemaker-Levey9 broke up and slammed into Jupiter - each part would have created massive devistation on a terrestrial planet.

The other thing about a nuke that you need to keep in mind is that they work best in an atmosphere. Their devastating force is partially created by the atmosphere that they compress and push along in a shockwave. Space is a vacuum with nothing with nothing to push back on the force that blows away from the asteroid so their efficiency as bullies to push the asteroid is probably compromised significantly.

i see what you are saying, but the nuke would still have to create more of a push than just throwing a satellite at a rock, even if it was screaming.

oh and lol @ cosmic shotgun blast. that was good stuff :laugh:

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
just send a ton of "bunker buster" style nukes at the thing and hit the same side each time, should give sufficent push to get it to not hit us

if they were designed like our bunker buster nukes it would penetrate in the surface of the roid and then when it goes off it would vaporize part of the astroid and that expansion of gas would act like a rocket and give it a push, do that a half doazen times and you could prolly make more than enough adjustment in the roids path

 

[AluminumStudios]

Yeah, I guess a nuke would give more of a kick than a satellite type thing if we were in dire straights and were willing to risk breaking up the asteroid.

The tests that the original link pointed to were engineering proof of concept tests that were planned. It would probably a little hard to get government permission to do them with a nuke

If these tests work and it really had to be done in the future, they'd probably build a large impactor like NASA slammed into that comet back in July. I'd assume they'd calculat it's mass and shape to deliver a somewhat controlled force (as opposed to this test which is just a satellite as you point out.)

 

[DrPizza]

I say, shatter them to smithereens... More nights of the year with meteor showers = :thumbsup:

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: AluminumStudios
Yeah, I guess a nuke would give more of a kick than a satellite type thing if we were in dire straights and were willing to risk breaking up the asteroid.

The tests that the original link pointed to were engineering proof of concept tests that were planned. It would probably a little hard to get government permission to do them with a nuke

If these tests work and it really had to be done in the future, they'd probably build a large impactor like NASA slammed into that comet back in July. I'd assume they'd calculat it's mass and shape to deliver a somewhat controlled force (as opposed to this test which is just a satellite as you point out.)

:thumbsup:


the reason i thought of nukes is because it would make for some sweet action if you could see it through a telescope