NASA Asteroid report blasted ;)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
DALLAS, Texas -- A former Apollo astronaut blasted the U.S. space agency today in its handling of a Congressionally-mandated study on dealing with the threat of Near Earth Objects (NEOs) striking the Earth.<br /><br />Russell "Rusty" Schweickart, the lunar module pilot for the Apollo 9 mission, called a recently issued NASA report on dealing with Earth-threatening asteroids, "flawed" and "not valid." <br /><br />Schweickart noted that Earth impacts of huge space rocks are rare. But as history has shown, a cosmic-smashing event is a very real occasion-when both the Earth and an asteroid can be at an ugly intersection of time and space. "It's those circumstances which we want to avoid," Schweickart said here today at the 26th annual National Space Society's International Space Development Conference. <br /><br /> SDC link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
The bottom line is that Michael Griffin's folks are trying hard to keep any more money from being diverted from Orion. That's why the report rather disingenuously proposes a nuclear solution, which the report's authors know will be a political non-starter for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />Political non-starters don't cost anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
A

astroguard

Guest
Rusty Schweickart and Clark Chapman have separately reviewed NASA's Final Report and have provided their technical critiques to NASA, all of which is available for download here.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Thanx for that link! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
It's not that I disagree with his opinion, but I don't see any specific explanation offered as to how to deal with an object of significant mass that might be presently unaccounted for.<br /><br />IOW, it seems prudent to identify every NEO that we can and place the appropriate threat level that they pose.<br /><br />I think we all know that a "rogue" asteroid or comet is the biggest threat, but unless I'm missing something here, the dead hand of Kepler says that there IS no avoidance of ugly intersections of space and time.<br /><br />I'd be very interested to know what "inside information" Mr. Schweickart has that the general public does not in terms of how we could definitively prevent a nicely massive, but undetected NEO from smashing us up upon its detection.<br /><br />Is this an unspoken call for massive amounts of space based nuclear weaponry? I'd guess that a few hundred megatons might be the answer to a body a few kilometers in diameter, but under current international treaty, that's not happening.<br /><br />Is he suggesting that we should have a flotilla of Big Earth-based thermonuclear warheads mounted on boosters capable of trajectories outside Earth orbit?<br /><br />IIRC, the biggest thermonuclear yield ever documented was about 50 megatons.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Dragon04:<br />IIRC, the biggest thermonuclear yield ever documented was about 50 megatons.<br /><br />Me:<br />That was the former Soviet Union Tsar bomba test of October 1961.<br /><br />Operational nuclear weapons are not anywhere near that yield normally and even at 50 megatons...would not have much effect on a large asteroid say five miles or more in diameter. Deflection of the asteroid would be they key here and nuclear explosives could be used for that purpose although a flotilla is not necessary IMO simply because the chance of more than one asteroid being on a collision course with earth at any given time is much less than the already low probability of a single large asteroid being on a collision course.<br /><br />Like cancer, early detection is the other key. The earlier detected, the smaller the explosive would need to be. The reason being that interception of the roid could take place long before it reaches earth vicinity and a small nuclear nudge should do the trick in changing the roids trajectory just enough to miss earth.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Mr. Schweickart is suggesting but seems everyone likes to find something wrong with whatever NASA does these days. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
How about a sufficiently large space tug boat that could sit on the ready either in earth orbit or on the moon. With enough early warning it could deflect asteroids up to a certain size without detonating any nuclear devices. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Is this an unspoken call for massive amounts of space based nuclear weaponry? I'd guess that a few hundred megatons might be the answer to a body a few kilometers in diameter, but under current international treaty, that's not happening. <br /><br />Is he suggesting that we should have a flotilla of Big Earth-based thermonuclear warheads mounted on boosters capable of trajectories outside Earth orbit? <br /></font><br /><br />I would bet that some future politician would use that as an excuse to deter a hostile super power, such as Russia or China.<br /><br />Nuclear weapons orbiting the earth, is not a good idea. Most likely, they'd end up aimed at earth or falling back to earth. OTOH, anything that is used for the future moon program, could theoretically be used as a long range booster, which would be a good idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
<i>. . . without detonating any nuclear devices.</i><br /><br /><br /><br />Where's the fun in that ??<br /><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>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
bdewoody:<br />How about a sufficiently large space tug boat that could sit on the ready either in earth orbit or on the moon. With enough early warning it could deflect asteroids up to a certain size without detonating any nuclear devices.<br /><br />Me:<br />This is certainly a possibility, and one that would be politically more acceptable than a nuclear armed device. I have seen studies where ion propulsion would be utilized by a spacecraft that attaches itself to an asteroid to nudge it off collision course and in this sense, this idea is similar.<br /><br />Its only downside is that it could become very complicated and for the purpose of asteroid deflection, the kiss principle should definetely be applied. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Gravity tug; you park a spacecraft weighing several tens of tons with an ion or plasma RCS in a parallel orbit to the asteroid. Over time, and with lots of course corrections, it changes the asteroids course just a enough for a miss. Calculation heavy but mechanically simpler. Problem is you have to get it there early. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Early detection and arrival. Now the question becomes...which method is cheaper? A nuclear explosive sent to deflect the roid? Or the tug? And although it would seem people would be willing to pay most any price to save earth...there will be those who will dicker over price as long as there is no actual impending threat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Replies
124
Views
13K
Astronomy
MeteorWayne
M
M
Replies
22
Views
826
Astronomy
Boris_Badenov
B
M
Replies
0
Views
522
Astronomy
MeteorWayne
M
M
Replies
40
Views
2K
U

Latest posts