If a comet were to hit the back of the moon, could we watch?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

willpittenger

Guest
Suppose a comet or asteroid was predicted to hit the back side of the moon. (Shoemaker-Levy 9 -- only closer!!!) How much notice would we need to send some probes there to watch. Such probes would have to be positioned beyond the moon's orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Unless we could toss together a probe using spare parts on short order, I'd say a couple years' notice, anyways.<br /><br />Barring using an already existing design, the probe has to be engineered, bids need to be put out, components need built, pre-flight testing needs done, not to mention a launch vehicle has to be built.<br /><br />It brings up an interesting question though.... Do we currently have some such probe built and in storage waiting for such an event, and if not, why not? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
"Do we currently have some such probe built and in storage waiting for such an event, and if not, why not?"<br /><br />Possibly because it would cost a lot, and it's use may never be needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Dawn would seem to approximate what you are looking for.<br /><br />Additionally, the back-up copy of Mariner 10, currently sitting in the Smithsonian, as I recall, would be suitable if refurbished.<br /><br />(Smithsonian has several musem pieces that are 'real' and could be refurbished for something like this)<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>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
Chandra and Spitzer observatories should be able to watch (though not in visible light) immediately. In addition, any of the several interplanetary probes should be able to watch, from a greater distance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Additionally, the back-up copy of Mariner 10, currently sitting in the Smithsonian, as I recall, would be suitable if refurbished<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />This is a little off topic, so I apologize, but I used to be proud of seeing unused space hardware in the Smithsonian. Now, fully facing the budget crunch, I am incredibly saddened that this hardware never saw flight.</p></blockquote></p></blockquote>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Chandra and Spitzer observatories should be able to watch (though not in visible light) immediately.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />But not they could not view any direct results. Ditto for Hubble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
<font color="yellow">But not they could not view any direct results. Ditto for Hubble. </font><br />Why not?<br /><br />Spitzer is quite far from the Earth/moon in an earth-trailing heliocentric orbit (9 million miles away), and should be able to see the lunar farside with ease, given favorable geometry.<br /><br />Chandra should be able to see at least half of the farside at apogee (45,000 miles from earth) given favorable geometry since it has a huge looping elliptical orbit about the earth. <br /><br />Of course Hubble could not view it, it is in a very close near-earth orbit. I quite specifically never said Hubble could. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
L

liquidspace2k

Guest
Well aren't comits pretty big, so if you couldn't see the initial impact, i would think that it would throw rocks back up into the air, and come down on other places on the moon and even some would come towards earth. <br /><br />We could probably watch all the rocks crash back onto the moon, and hopefully none of the rocks that come towards earth are big enough to destroy a city or two.. But even tho that would still be better than the comit directly hitting earth itself.
 
B

baktothemoon

Guest
Of course, once the James Webb space telescope goes up in 2010 then we could watch a lunar impact with ease, since that would orbit around L3 and always be behind the moon.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
 
B

baktothemoon

Guest
"But even tho that would still be better than the comit directly hitting earth itself"<br /><br />Even a comet striking the moon would still be bad for Earth. Even if all the debris falls back to the moon, Earth would still be affected. If the moon's orbit is moved even slightly by the impact then it would have an effect on all of the tides, eclipses, it would move all the Lagrange points, and could mess up some of our satellites' orbits. Earth would be effected by even the slightest change. On the other hand, if it was a larger asteroid that strikes the moon, then Earth could be drastically effected. Some science fiction writers have suggested that if the moon's orbit was shifted closer to Earth then the moon could break up on it's closest approach, read "The Time Machine" or watch the movie.<br />That would be a doomsday scenario, but would be very bad for us. <br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I'm going to reply to two of you at once (apologies to anyone viewing this in threaded mode):<br /><br />Dragon04 sez:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Unless we could toss together a probe using spare parts on short order, I'd say a couple years' notice, anyways.<br /><br />Barring using an already existing design, the probe has to be engineered, bids need to be put out, components need built, pre-flight testing needs done, not to mention a launch vehicle has to be built.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not neccesarily. If it doesn't have to be anything fancy, then pre-existing designs are fine. Just look at how fast New Horizons was put together. It could be done a lot faster. And there have been a number of mission cancelled recently in various stages of completion; if the financial accounting could be sorted out to transfer the assets, one of these could be made ready relatively quickly. I would think that in a pinch, and assuming it doesn't have to be a super fancy spacecraft, you could get something ready in under a year. Six months would be really pushing it, though, and in any case, you'd probably end up bumping some other mission to get a launch. This would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, though, so I could see it getting sufficient priority. Assuming, of course, that scientists were able to accurately predict the impact far enough in advance and with enough certainty that the financial risk of developing a spacecraft that might not get to see anything if the comet misses is acceptable.<br /><br />vogon13 sez:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Additionally, the back-up copy of Mariner 10, currently sitting in the Smithsonian, as I recall, would be suitable if refurbished.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I doubt it. Refurbishing would be extensive; I'm sure any electronics on board would need to be replaced by now. The bus should still be in good shape, but the electronics probably are not. It woul <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's canceled. Dream on.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />James Webb has not been canceled. You're thinking of TPF which is "indefinitely postponed", which in turn means "canceled" as we learnt from DAWN.<br /><br />James Webb is however under review, so it would be fair to say that it may still be canceled. This is what NASA says about it:<br /><font color="yellow"><br />JWST Trade Study Status<br />The JWST cost estimates have increased significantly, and now far exceed the program budget. These increases come from a combination of additional required work, schedule slip, the delay in a firm decision to accept the Ariane 5 launch vehicle offered by ESA, and increased reserves to meet NASA standards. As a result, NASA Headquarters has directed the JWST project to evaluate technical options, and plans to establish a Tiger Team of scientists to work with the JWST Science Working Group to prioritize the capabilities of JWST, based on recent scientific progress and on changes to other available observatory astronomical capabilities in space and on the ground. <br /><br />One bounding case study was already completed. If the mission requirements were relaxed to such a degree that the mirror area were reduced by half, the instruments need cover only 1 to 5 microns, and the spectrograph need not have a multi-object capability, then less than half of the JWST objectives in the current NASA roadmap could be completed. The descoped JWST would not be able to observe the first galaxies in the early universe, the most important original objective. This reduced capability mission was still projected to exceed the current program budget. <br /><br />Currently, in collaboration with its international partners, NASA intends to use the prioritized capability report to generate alternate mission plans that match the available resources. Once these plans are developed, NASA will work with its partners and the scientific community to select</font>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
How were they thinking of getting something that large into deep space? Remember, once launched, it could not be serviced like Hubble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Ouch. That doesn't sound very encouraging for JWST.<br /><br />Things have gotten awfully tight in the space business recently, and I've found myself speculating exactly why. It's like there's a grudge against Earth orbiting satellites somewhere that budgets get figured out.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Not to get too far offtopic onto JWST, but I believe they were planning to launch it with an Ariane V. (It's a team effort between NASA and ESA, after all, and ESA has an obvious preference for a European rocket.)<br /><br />The spacecraft would not be serviceable, but that's true of all but one of the space telescopes in use today. Chandra can't be serviced. Spitzer can't be serviced. It's the current trend. Basically, although the ability to upgrade Hubble has been extraordinary, some feel it's not really worth making another servicable spacecraft, preferring instead to make them disposable -- when they break, they replace them instead of fixing them.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
Prior to hearing about the early "planet finder" concepts, I expected Hubble's replacement to end up in either the Earth/Sun L4 Lagrange point or the Earth/Sun L5 Lagrange point. I have a suspicion that JWST would not end up that far out.<br /><br />What was the upper stage supposed to be? I figure even an Ariane 5 would need help. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Emil Enchev
  • Locked
Yes, the Moon is Hollow, like the most of the other celestial bodies - if they were not hollow, that would be unscientific.
Replies
18
Views
6K
Our Solar System
COLGeek
COLGeek
Admin
Watch NASA assemble the massive Artemis 2 rocket that will take humans back to the moon (video)
Replies
0
Views
318
Article Commentary
Admin
Admin
Admin
Watch NASA roll its huge Artemis 1 moon rocket back to the launch pad tonight
Replies
0
Views
670
Article Commentary
Admin
Admin
Admin
The out-of-control rocket about to hit the moon is not a SpaceX Falcon 9, astronomers now say: report
Replies
1
Views
906
Article Commentary
sam85geo
S
W
  • Locked
If Korolev had lived long enough, would the N1 have been a success?
Replies
3
Views
803
Our Solar System
JonClarke
J

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom