Deep Impact is an Anti-Astroid Weapons Test

[paradoxical]

NASA are wonderful masters of creating ruses. I don't mean to create yet another recalcitrant conspiracy theory....I wish to apply real science to a little bit of a hypothesis I've been contemplating: Deep Impact is actually a weapons test. <br /><br />The recently launched Deep Impact asteroid smashing satellite is far more than a mere "Oh, let's see what's inside an asteroid!” It is, perhaps, more of a "We'd better figure out how to smash one of these goddamn things before one smashes into us!" <br /><br />According to NASA (www.deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov) “The Deep Impact mission is the first to explore a comet's interior by using a spacecraft to create a crater, allowing us to look deep inside" He, he, sounds a bit corny, eh? <br /><br />But anyway, I do not think this is a credible reason for wanting to spend a few hundred million. I can understand the sensitivity of not wanting to reveal the true reason for such a mission. <br /><br />Can you imagine the public reaction if NASA had said "The Deep Impact mission is the first to explore how a high velocity object, fired directly into the path of a space rock, may effect its overall trajectory." The press would have a field day "NASA PREPARES FOR ASTROID STRIKE - WEAPONS TEST IN PROGRESS." I for one would immediately start thinking about heading out into the bush with my weapons cache and women in tow. <br /><br />I think there is real science in seeing what happens when you slam ballistic objects into an asteroid. How much force is required to nudge, say, a 100 million ton clump of ice and rock? How far away from Earth will we need to engage the target? Will we need to add nuclear weapons to increase the effect of the resulting blast? Is it practical to fire warheads, or will we need to drill explosive into its depths? <br /><br />These are all highly valid scientific questions that are surely on the minds of all forward thinking governments, and I think NASA have taken the lead to try and answer a few of them. <br /><br />That'

 

[vogon13]

<br />Some people subscribe to the blunder theory of history. Others like the conspiracy theory of history. In this case, the mission investigators are most likely genuinely interested in the science of this mission. There is probably an office somewhere in the Pentagon slowly realizing this might be an interesting experiment to keep an eyeball on. Don't know that any of this is more or less sinister than most other things that occur. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

I too, see a similarity, but not much of a conspiracy.<br /><br />Our entire space program is built on the backs of ICBMS. Is it the ultimate swords into ploughshares victory? Or is it all practise for engineers to keep their skills tuned in case we need them to do something different, perhaps making something aggressive?<br /><br />It is fascinating to see which missions get funded. There is a high precentage that share some sort of military return. Deep Impact is a test of a kinetic kill vehicle. Its targeting algorithms are directly analogous to those that could be used to take out an incoming missile.<br /><br />To me, these similarities exist because it's cheaper to repurpose existing knowledge and capability, rather than struggle to invent something from the ground up. The military gets many bucks, develops much nifty stuff, why not re-use some of it to learn new things?

 

[mental_avenger]

Deep impact is not designed to either move a comet or destroy it, there simply isn't enough energy involved. 19 gigajoules (which is about the equivalent of the amount of energy released by exploding 4.8 tons of TNT, or about the amount of energy used in an average American house in one month.) will not be enough to noticably effect the orbit of the comet. Studying the interior of a comet is a worthwhile goal in itself. It may provide information vital to preventing comet collisions with Earth in the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

The biggest downside to nuking an approaching heavenly body is that the results are a total unknown. You might turn it into a shotgun blast, have no effect whatsoever, or render it a superb light show with minor damage to the ground. As with IR astronomy in the 70s this is a case where defense and science are totally on the same page. It would be nice if the military took a serious interest in this and maybe funded some of the research.

 

[paradoxical]

No, there is no conspiracy here, but a "motivational" hypothesis. <br /><br />Since Earth is in no immediate threat, NASA is softly experimenting with landing on asteroids (when the NEAR spacecraft came to a soft landing on the asteroid Eros) and smashing into them (the impending Deep Impact mission)<br /><br />Wanting to know what constitutes the inside of an asteroid is 20% of the motivation. But wanting to know how to deflect or destroy one is 80%. So we now know we can land on them, which would be pretty useful if we decided on the so called MADMEN approach (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/madmen_techwed_040519.html). And pretty soon we’re going to end up with some really useful data about what happens when we ram into one. Who really knows what happens when the kinetic energy of a 25 000 KMH ballistic probe slams into ice and rock in space? It has never been done before. The data will be invaluable. New theories will inevitably arise, thus helping us to determine which approach is most practical. <br /><br />It is clear that NASA and perhaps all astrophysicists with half a brain are deeply concerned about future impacts. If we consider that the first Earth-crossing asteroid was discovered in 1932 and that by 1990 about three dozen were known, then we realise the odds of an impact are rising. Most discoveries now are made by American searchers in programmes which began just four years ago. They now find Earth-approaching asteroids at a rate of more than 400 every year! So it is certainly a case of when, and I think we owe it to future generations to commence the search for an answer now. <br /><br />Deep Impact is a weapons test.<br />

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Deep Impact is a weapons test.</font><br /><br />Deep Impact is a peaceful impactor test.<br /><br />Alfred Nobel created TNT for safety reasons. TNT and other high explosives are used in mining daily. We use explosives, not weapons, to peacefully shape our world.<br /><br />However, that same TNT and those other high explosives are also used to create bombs which are used to kill and maim people, and to destroy technological infrastructure, in order to further political goals. We use weapons to shape our society.<br /><br />Impacting a comet shapes our world, not our society. Comets do not harbor political aspirations. Therefore, Deep Impact is not a weapons test.<br /><br />Yes, it is a test, but of a tool which we may employ later to save our collective skins. As such, it is a very worthwhile and peaceful mission, worthy of high praise.<br /><br />Show me a space target with political aspirations, and I'll be happy to agree with you. Deep Impact is a weapons test only if we pretend that the target is an alien mother ship.<br /><br />Please do not dishonor this effort with the title of "Weapons Test". That phrase alludes to the reprehensble A-bomb weapons tests of past years. Deep Impact may look like a weapon, but so did the sword before it was beaten into a plowshare.

 

[paradoxical]

Na, you've lost it man...linking weapons test with political aspiration...your interpretation way off the mark.<br /><br />I'm stating something as a hypothesis....you have some kind of alien mothership/political agenda mindset.<br /><br />Way off man

 

[dannydare]

I know we have seen a few movies recently where asteroids are blown up en-route, which is good for drama and visual effects but that is a crap way to deal with a giant rock on a collision course with earth. Even if you did split it up the mass would continue mostly on the same course and wreak havok.<br /><br />Just slamming a heavy bullet into it also wont make much difference unless the speed and mass of the bullet produces significant thrust against the big rock.<br /><br />If you detect it early enough then you do the math, working out at what point in its orbit you can have the most effect, you fly up something to strap on to it, and apply as high and as continuous a thrust in the desired direction as you can manage. If you can use some of the asteroid's material as reaction mass all the better.

 

[igorsboss]

I just don't like the war-like connotations of the phrase "Weapons Test" when it refers to a valid and worthwhile peacetime impact test.<br /><br />Otherwise, naturally I agree that Deep Impact is about asteroid deflection target practice.

 

[robert_miller]

For an interesting conspiracy theory, check out the following site:<br /><br />http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos1.html<br /><br />Otherwise, I prefer something a little more practical. For example, one of my favorite bookmarks is <br /><br />http://www.rocketscientists.ca/<br /><br />From here, most of my favorite links are just one click away.<br />

 

[paradoxical]

Ok...astroid deflection test...Deep Impact mission....I can reframe it to those. <br /><br />What is fundamental about this impact is the data collated when the object hits. It will clearly explain how much would be required on a macro scale to initiate a change in trajectory.

 

[najab]

><i>Wanting to know what constitutes the inside of an asteroid is 20% of the motivation. But wanting to know how to deflect or destroy one is 80%</i><p>Then they will be sorely disappointed considering that Deep Impact is going to hit a <b>COMET</b> not an asteroid.</p>

 

[najab]

><i>A good part of NASA's budget comes from military...</i><p>Once again, show us the figures you're basing this claim on.<p>><i>...and there are close ties there (the astronauts are almost all active service military pilots)</i><p>One more time: the astronaut corps on the whole is about 50% military. Of 132 active astronauts, 70 are either active or reserve military (Source: Astronaut Handbook). The reason that so many Shuttle <i>pilots</i> are military is that to qualify as a Astronaut Pilot you have to have 1500 hours logged in a performance jet. There are very vew civilians who meet this requirement - though there are a couple in the astronaut corps today. Interestingly, NASA's most famous astronaut - Neil Armstrong - came into the program as a civilian test pilot at Ames.</p></p></p>

 

[vogon13]

Although considered very unlikely (almost a joke) one of the briefing panelists entertained the idea the comet might be fluffy enough so that impactor would penetrate all the way and emerge on far side of comet, thus spoiling mission. Erk! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>You can check for yourself on NASA's website. I don't know where you got your information...</i><p>Er, Steve, I put the link right there. It's a link to NASA's astronaut handbook. On page 80 (I think, I don't have it here with me) there's a list of the astronauts who are either active duty or in the reserves. I did a quick count and got 70 (I may be off one or two either way, it was a *really* quick count) out of a total of 132 astronauts.<p>><i>NASA's latest class was almost all military.</i><p>You mean the 2004 Astronaut Class?<p><br />The astronaut candidates:<br /><li>Mission Specialist-Educator Joe Acaba: A 36-year-old teacher at Dunnellon Middle School in Florida and a former Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic.<li>Mission Specialist-Educator Ricky Arnold: A 40-year-old math and science teacher at the American International School of Bucharest, Romania; he's also taught in Morocco, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.<li>Pilot Randy Bresnik: A 36-year-old Marine Corps major, F/A-18 pilot and experimental test pilot who's getting married this month in a Scottish castle.<li>Mission Specialist Chris Cassidy: A 34-year old Navy Seal who has done two tours of duty in Afghanistan.<li>Pilot Jim Dutton: A 35-year-old U.S. Air Force major and F/A-22 test pilot who flew combat air patrols over northern Iraq in the 1990s.<li>Mission Specialist Jose Hernandez: A 41-year-old engineer at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston; grew up as a migrant farm worker before settling in Stockton, Calif.<li>Mission Specialist Shane Kimbrough : A 36-year-old U.S. Army major and flight simulation engineer at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston; served as a platoon leader in an Apache helicopter company during Desert Storm.<li> Mission Specialist Tom Marshburn: A 43-year-old flight surgeon at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston; also an avid mountain climber and a private pilot.<li>Mission</li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></p></p></p></p>

 

[paradoxical]

najaB...excellent analysis there pal.<br /><br />Let's just call it...a space rock!!<br /><br />Derrrrr

 

[nexium]

Not clearly. Details of the asteroid surface will change the trajectory by widely varing amounts: ie lots of volitles will behave like a jet engine when vaporized. Much less trajectory change will occur if the surface is very smooth, reflective and boils at 2500 degrees c = 4532 f or the asteroid is a gravel pile instead of having excellent cohesion and adhesion. Neil

 

[bobvanx]

6 of 11??<br /><br />Steve, what list are you looking at? I only see 4 military personel in that list. Does serving as a flight surgein at a NASA base make you military?<br /><br />I also wonder how, even if you are using a list that shows 6 of 11, 54% military service falls with the "almost all" range?<br /><br />"None" is of course zero, while all the other non-specific amounts are "squishy," (how many is "some?") but surely "almost all" would indicate more than 90%?

 

[najab]

><i>Frist of all, it's 6 out of 11 being miltiary...</i><p>Which six?</p>

 

[jcdenton]

<font color="yellow">Does serving as a flight surgein at a NASA base make you military?</font><br /><br />I also counted 4 ex-military personnel, and aside from that flight surgeon, there was also someone from the Peace Corps, but that's not military I believe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>It's very interesting that you find it easy to evade the truth by using false statistics. But this must necessarily enlighten others as to your methods, which have been in the past and present, neither up front, logical or factual in too many cases.</i><p>Huh? Making a claim, presenting the data and providing a link to the source isn't being upfront, logical or factual?</p>

 

[najab]

*bump*<br /><br />Still waiting....

 

[najab]

You still haven't said which six.

 

[nexium]

Stevehw and najaB think like military. Can't we just say some NASA people are and were military and military objectives occasionally become NASA objectives and git on with the thread?<br /> If we detonate a low yield nuke on the surface of an asteroid/comet, that surface will likely be atypical composition compared to typical killer asteroids/comets. Uneveness of the surface will be less canceled than for a larger nuke. Also results may not be proportional or square law for even a ten time scale up. Several simultanious blasts may produce radically different results than the the same number of kilotons consectitively. Neil