Re: [Utah-astronomy] Deep Impact revisited
Chuck sez...
Rethinking it, a 1-kilometer object could be reduced to small rocks, rubble, and dust with repeated detonations of conventional explosives- no nukes needed.
As a former little boy, I can certainly see the appeal in blasting the living s*** out of a threatening asteroid or comet. But I'm a long way from being sold. When I think of the tons and tons and tons of material (or materiel) to be lifted to quite distant moving targets, it just doesn't add up for me. Just like the whole so-called "Star Wars" missile defense, it shares more with the Maginot Line than with a successful plan. The French squandered their treasury on the Maginot Line and the Germans just drove around it. I think that if we got our minds set on a big blow-em-up strategy, we'd miss out on cheaper and potentially more effective tricks. Of course the big defense contractors would love it. Job security for decades. Cost Plus. For a 'what it' scenario, imagine you've got to get rid of a Temple-Tuttle class comet. Boost up a few truckloads of soot and spread them over the thing. Let the sun take care of it over a few years. Or imagine a big microwave emitter with solar cells. Land the thing on the comet (or just orbit) and point the emitter down toward the surface. Maybe sprinkle a little popcorn on it, too. For an asteroid, send a few ion drive engines. Use a few to damp the rotations and another to gradually nudge the orbit. It mighttake decades to move it. These may be the dumbest ideas yet, but the point is not to be crippled by the only techniques we know.
Quoting Michael Carnes <michaelcarnes@earthlink.net>:
As a former little boy, I can certainly see the appeal in blasting the living s*** out of a threatening asteroid or comet. But I'm a long way from being sold. When I think of the tons and tons and tons of material (or materiel) to be lifted to quite distant moving targets, it just doesn't add up for me. Just like the whole so-called "Star Wars" missile defense, it shares more with the Maginot Line than with a successful plan. The French squandered their treasury on the Maginot Line and the Germans just drove around it. I think that if we got our minds set on a big blow-em-up strategy, we'd miss out on cheaper and potentially more effective tricks. Of course the big defense contractors would love it. Job security for decades. Cost Plus.
For a 'what it' scenario, imagine you've got to get rid of a Temple-Tuttle class comet. Boost up a few truckloads of soot and spread them over the thing. Let the sun take care of it over a few years. Or imagine a big microwave emitter with solar cells. Land the thing on the comet (or just orbit) and point the emitter down toward the surface. Maybe sprinkle a little popcorn on it, too. For an asteroid, send a few ion drive engines. Use a few to damp the rotations and another to gradually nudge the orbit. It mighttake decades to move it. These may be the dumbest ideas yet, but the point is not to be crippled by the only techniques we know.
Until a different and more able technology emerges, I'm in favor of using and refining the technology we have. Thanks to defense contractors, star war missle defense technology and NASA scientists, we have the ability to drive something nasty into an object at great distances. And armed with the right warhead, maybe reconfigure it enough to effect a change in it's trajectory, and it doesn't take much of a change to cause a miss (knock on wood), especially when the threat is a long ways out. I'm in favor of researching new technologies, but I'm not willing to discard one technology before we have a working replacement in hand. We can resort to throwing soot, popcorn or fairy dust for that matter, at the problem if this doesn't pan out. ;) And speaking of defense contractors, they and their employees provide a valuable service to this country, and they, like you and me, have families to feed, so I'm in favor of providing them the work. _______________________________________________
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Until a different and more able technology emerges, I'm in favor of using and refining the technology we have. Thanks to defense contractors, star war missle defense technology and NASA scientists, we have the ability to drive something nasty into an object at great distances. And armed with the right warhead, maybe reconfigure it enough to effect a
Guy, please understand that I'm not talking politically here but am speaking purely technically as an software engineer. I have absolutely zero faith in the ability of defense contractors to make a working missile defense and equally little faith in their ability to control the path of any large body in space by means of explosions. The complexity of the required software is orders of magnitude greater than the couple of cooked demos that sort of, kind of, worked. Perhaps with a few years of sustained testing (another term for all-out war), a few of the kinks could get worked out. But systems that complex never, ever, ever work the first time in the real world. Never. Simulations help, as do war-gaming and unit tests. But the real world always throws surprises at you.
I'm in favor of researching new technologies, but I'm not willing to discard one technology before we have a working replacement in hand. We can resort to throwing soot, popcorn or fairy dust for that matter, at the problem if this doesn't pan out. ;) And speaking of defense contractors, they and their employees provide a valuable service to this country, and they, like you and me, have families to feed, so I'm in favor of providing them the work.
I'm certainly not against defense contractors, but there are far too many careerists among them who are interested in pouring money into things that just don't work (the Osprey comes to mind). I've interviewed an awful lot of engineers leaving defense contractors and have found their innovative abilities and creativity have been crushed by the job. A lot of them have a difficult time doing commercial work because their flexibility has been beaten out of them. Seems like it ought to be the other way around. It's far too easy to pour your money and manpower down a rathole. I know you don't care for welfare programs and that's just what an asteroid defense program could be. It's a way for bird colonels to stay busy when they really should just get mustered out. If you're really interested in fighting asteroids (I personally think humanity poses a great danger to humanity), then the thing to do is fund a number of small innovative groups to develop a broader range of technologies. Let that stew for a while and see what you get. Chances are that we have a much broader range of choices available to us.
Quoting Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net>:
I have absolutely zero faith in the ability of defense contractors to make a working missile defense and equally little faith in their ability to control the path of any large body in space by means of explosions.
You will never know what you are capable of unless you try. If you fail on the first attempt, or, several first attempts and then throw your hands in the air and quit, then you can never expect to succeed in anything. When developing any type of weapons system you never hit a home run the first time up to bat. Whether it's the delivery system (weapon) or the software (ballistics engineer), it takes a skilled team and continuous practice to work out the kinks and make the required corrections to hit the target. Even the worlds most dangerous weapon, a Marine sniper, rarely works alone. He has a spotter who continually feeds him environmental data that will throw the round off target. The sniper then takes this information and makes the necessary adjustments to the weapon.
The complexity of the required software is orders of magnitude greater than the couple of cooked demos that sort of, kind of, worked.
Didn't we just hit a comet with something on July 4th? And didn't someone land a probe on an asteroid recently? I'm pretty sure that the software exists. It might need a little tweaking here and there, but Im not ready to throw in the towel just yet on these projects yet. We've been hitting targets in space with various probes for years. Some have not been so successful in landing correctly, but who cares when the object is to destroy something. Secondly, we don't really know what will happen if we were to hit an asteroid or comet with a warhead. We have a lot of nuclear wepons on this planet that we probably ought to be thinking about getting rid of before they all fall in the wrong hands. Why not pick some targets outside our atmosphere, and do a little target practice? Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Perhaps with a few years of sustained testing (another term for all-out war), a few of the kinks could get worked out. But systems that complex never, ever, ever work the first time in the real world. Never. Simulations help, as do war-gaming and unit tests. But the real world always throws surprises at you.
Bingo! We agree... BTW, I have 2 kids in Iraq who are hoping our defense contractors continue to get things right.
participants (3)
-
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Michael Carnes -
Michael Carnes