When a dangerous asteroid threatens Earth, humanity will have to work together, NASA says

[Admin]

Earth's oft-squabbling nations will need to set aside their differences, at least for a while, when a big, dangerous asteroid puts our planet in its crosshairs.

When a dangerous asteroid threatens Earth, humanity will have to work together, NASA says : Read more

 

[Classical Motion]

NASA should know better. NASA needs to test and find several methods on it's own right now. Depending on future cooperation is foolish.

We have plenty of targets and Mars as a pivot for it. Let's learn how to steer them now.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, international cooperation is great but how is that going so far?
If a space rock is headed towards the US, the US has the absolute right to deal with it unilaterally.
The undertone of the article is that some sort of international group should have some level of decision making power. Like, for example, Russia could veto our proposed action in the Security Council. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I think that this particular exercise sounds rather unrealistic, even for the not so distant future.

The emphasis on the response on the ground seems out of place. We know that some people refuse to recognize reality and fight to the death over "principles", and can expect that even in any sort of impact prediction. Some won't believe it and won't move. Some will blame it on others and fight them. Some will not want others to come to their country from the projected impact areas and will stall the processes.

But, what the more rational and inventive engineers and scientists do during all of that political running in circles screaming and shouting is what will determine the fate of us here on Earth. So, better for those people to be trying now to coordinate internationally about how to decide on the best defense tactics.

Experiments such as DART need to be done now. Not just DART type, but other types of tactics need to be tested.

Scientific visits and sampling of various types of space objects need to be done now. We need to share the findings internationally.

Quick launch capabilities need to be arranged now. And Space Force and SpaceX are working on that now.

And a billion dollars for a probe shouldn't be a problem with funding stuck in Congress. Musk could do that with pocket money - and probably would.

To me, the real technical issues that can be resolved by research and planning are the ones we need to focus on now, not the politics. We don't want Russia launching a mission to blow-up the same thing that NASA is launching a mission to deflect by impact and China is launching mission to deflect by attaching a rocket motor. The conflicts could cause all three to fail, even if all of them would individually succeed. So, it is the technological response that we need to coordinate internationally.

But, I agree with Bill that we also must have the ability to act alone. There is always the possibility that the projected impact would look like an opportunity for some group that is an adversary of the people in the impact area, and they could intentionally stall the U.N. or any other multinational decision making group.

 

[Atlan0001]

To borrow from Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, and 'complexity systems' scientists:

When an evil, a threat to all, combines and comes to a point, it will be necessary for the disparate to temporarily associate for the good of all.

 

[COLGeek]

I truly understand and appreciate the sentiment, but I'll not start holding by breath in anticipation just yet.

Even with an impending catastrophic event, I don't see the level of international cooperation desired, I am sad to say.

 

[zombie_reaper]

Destroying a large asteroid on a collision course with Earth is a significant challenge, but several methods have been proposed by scientists and space agencies. Here are some potential solutions:

1. **Kinetic Impact**: This involves sending a spacecraft to collide with the asteroid at high speed to change its trajectory. NASA's DART (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) mission is an example of this approach.

2. **Nuclear Explosives**: Detonating a nuclear device near or on the asteroid could potentially change its course by either blowing it apart or pushing it off course. This method is controversial due to the risks associated with nuclear explosions in space.

3. **Gravity Tractor**: A spacecraft could fly alongside the asteroid for an extended period, using its gravitational pull to slowly alter the asteroid's trajectory. This method requires precise navigation and a long lead time.

4. **Laser Ablation**: Focusing powerful lasers on the asteroid's surface could vaporize material and create a thrust that changes the asteroid's path. This approach requires advanced laser technology and significant power sources.

5. **Solar Sails**: Attaching large reflective sails to the asteroid could use the pressure of sunlight to gradually alter its course. This method is slow but could be effective given enough time.

Given the scenario in the image, where there's a 72% chance of impact on July 12, 2038, it's crucial to act quickly. The first step would be to conduct a detailed assessment of the asteroid's size, composition, and trajectory. Based on this data, an international effort involving space agencies and experts would determine the best approach.

### Proposed Plan:
1. **Assessment and Monitoring**:
- Deploy telescopes and space probes to gather precise data on the asteroid.
- Continuously monitor its trajectory and make adjustments to the strategy as needed.

2. **Kinetic Impact Mission**:
- Design and launch a kinetic impactor mission to collide with the asteroid and alter its course.
- This could be supported by secondary missions to gather data and ensure success.

3. **Backup Plan**:
- Prepare a secondary mission involving nuclear explosives as a last resort if the kinetic impactor fails.
- Coordinate international efforts for rapid deployment.

4. **Public Communication**:
- Keep the global public informed about the asteroid and the steps being taken to mitigate the threat.
- Ensure transparency to maintain public trust and cooperation.

By combining these approaches with international cooperation and technological expertise, it would be possible to mitigate the threat posed by the asteroid and protect major cities such as Dallas, Memphis, Madrid, and Algiers from potential impact.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Fourteen years of warning time might be a very optimistic scenario. As we study the solar system in more detail, we will probably get a pretty good idea of what is in orbits inside Jupiter's orbit, and have long warning times of potential collision dates. So, the risk will probably be greatest for collisions with objects coming in from the Oort Cloud or interstellar space that would hit Earth on its first pass around/by the Sun. Worst case would be that the object is first at a detectable range when not in a detectable position, due to being on the other side of the Sun from the Earth. We might only have about a year's warning time before impact and less time to avoid an impact. So, that is what we really need to plan for. And, the laser ablation approach seems optimal for that scenario, so I think we should be putting some serious effort into developing and demonstrating it.

 

[JamesK111]

1. America doesn't have to deflect the asteroid, we just need to slow it down enough for the USA to rotate out of the way. Once again Canada gets a free ride (Emo Phillips)
2. It's absurd that practically zero dollars are spent on how to stop the phenomenon that we know wiped out 90% of life on Earth in the past, but want to spend trillions and further impoverish the world's poor trying to stop a potential for what is at most a manageable climate change over the next century.

 

[JamesK111]

Not necessarily true. If it is going to hit a U.S. city, why would Russia or China spend the money to "save" us?

That was "JamesK111" only post to Sapce.com. And, it really doesn't make any sense. So, why bother to engage in a conversation about it. We might be talking to a bot.

1. It was a joke - apologies for the misfire.
2. Not a bot. A real person who worked on Kepler, Phoenix, MER (Spirit & Opp. to the public), MSL (Curiosity), Cargo & Crew Dragon, M20 (Perseverence)

I rarely comment on Space.com and couldn't remember my login.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I deleted my post when I saw the correction, but apparently the "notification" of my post had already been e-mailed.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Yes, international cooperation is great but how is that going so far?
If a space rock is headed towards the US, the US has the absolute right to deal with it unilaterally.
The undertone of the article is that some sort of international group should have some level of decision making power. Like, for example, Russia could veto our proposed action in the Security Council. Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't see this undertone. The following quote implies, to me, that they're specifically talking about an international issue.

If we talk about multiple nations and people having to move around, and responding to a very large area, that could be a challenge," Lewis said. "We need to organize and start discussing what it would really take to coordinate a large effort.

I doubt that an international framework for disaster relief would prevent America from dealing with an American problem in an American way, but I don't really know much about international politics.

---

To me, the real technical issues that can be resolved by research and planning are the ones we need to focus on now, not the politics. We don't want Russia launching a mission to blow-up the same thing that NASA is launching a mission to deflect by impact and China is launching mission to deflect by attaching a rocket motor. The conflicts could cause all three to fail, even if all of them would individually succeed. So, it is the technological response that we need to coordinate internationally.

That assumes that humanity has the capacity to launch multiple deflection missions. And I don't see how these missions would conflict with each other. NASA loves international dissimilar redundancy, so this might even be the preferred outcome.

Furthermore, I believe adversaries would be more technologically cooperative than politically. i.e., if a meteoroid was headed for the USA, then Russia and China wouldn't want the USA to fail to deflect it. What if we were wrong, and it's headed for Russia? What if the USA fails to redirect it away from Earth, but now it's headed for China?

A country-destroying meteoroid is a problem for all of Earth, and I think anyone with valuable technology will know that.

Compare that to humanitarian efforts, where selfishness does little to motivate.

---

Fourteen years of warning time might be a very optimistic scenario. As we study the solar system in more detail, we will probably get a pretty good idea of what is in orbits inside Jupiter's orbit, and have long warning times of potential collision dates. So, the risk will probably be greatest for collisions with objects coming in from the Oort Cloud or interstellar space that would hit Earth on its first pass around/by the Sun. Worst case would be that the object is first at a detectable range when not in a detectable position, due to being on the other side of the Sun from the Earth. We might only have about a year's warning time before impact and less time to avoid an impact. So, that is what we really need to plan for. And, the laser ablation approach seems optimal for that scenario, so I think we should be putting some serious effort into developing and demonstrating it.

I think it makes sense to start with scenarios that we could reasonably handle. It opens an international dialog that might actually result in near-term action. If they asked, "What should we do if a meteoroid would land next year", then the answer would be "Pray or Spend all the money".

And neither the people nor the politicians will be willing to spend so much on a threat that hasn't mattered for thousands of years, based on one simulation made and performed by a group they've never heard of.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Cisventure Astronaot has nicely demonstrate the kind of thinking that will lead to failure.

Not doing things to prepare because they are hard or might not actually be needed leaves the situation unresolved until it is too late. At that point, "pray or spend all the money" is all that is left. Better to spend the money sooner on preparations for the perceived risks.

Regarding the need for international cooperation on the approach to solving the problem that arises, I am surprised that Cisventure Astronaot cannot see the potential for different types of missions conflicting with each other. For instance, attaching solar sails that then move the asteroid enough to mess up the aim of an explosive devise might blow off the sails but not move the asteroid enough because it was off target. Remember, all of these things need to get launched long before they arrive to do their missions at the incoming asteroid - except for the ablation technique. The ablation strategy arrives at the speed of light. And, if build ahead of time, it gets applied at the speed of decision.

 

[Atlan0001]

In his (1890CE) book 'The Influence of Sea Power Upon History', Alfred Thayer Mahan essayed that the best -- and ultimately cheapest, considering the alternative -- of all possible protections of the homeland were and are permanent "far flung colonies and bases" (To quote forum member Catastrophe from elsewhere here on the forum as to one reason why, they will "carry their observable universe with them" . . . and for yet another imperative reason, they will be wanting to capture those asteroids for their own capital reasons)! A someday future 'The Influence of Space Power Upon History' will identify exactly the same importance of the physics as did Mahan.

History always repeats in its large aspect (in its "time reversal"), its top of the line or order physics, even if not repeating its finer details (not exactly that is)!

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Not doing things to prepare because they are hard or might not actually be needed leaves the situation unresolved until it is too late. At that point, "pray or spend all the money" is all that is left. Better to spend the money sooner on preparations for the perceived risks.

I agree. I didn't mean to argue that we shouldn't prepare, but that the simulation they ran is more likely to result in preparation than the one you proposed.

Regarding the need for international cooperation on the approach to solving the problem that arises, I am surprised that Cisventure Astronaot cannot see the potential for different types of missions conflicting with each other. For instance, attaching solar sails that then move the asteroid enough to mess up the aim of an explosive devise might blow off the sails but not move the asteroid enough because it was off target. Remember, all of these things need to get launched long before they arrive to do their missions at the incoming asteroid - except for the ablation technique. The ablation strategy arrives at the speed of light. And, if build ahead of time, it gets applied at the speed of decision.

In this statement you only prove that theoretically two missions could conflict (which I admittedly didn't know), but that was not my only point against your argument (which was that we should work on technological cooperation instead of political cooperation).

Also, even though it's theoretically possible, I think it's unlikely that something like that would occur for multiple reasons (some I've already mentioned). e.g., not talking about how well your mission is going would be throwing away free prestige, and endangering everyone. I doubt there's a country capable of deflecting a meteoroid that wouldn't talk about it. So everyone will think twice about interfering.

The majority of my rebuttal is untouched.

---

p.s. @Unclear Engineer, did you know that if you type the "@" symbol followed by a letter, then an autocomplete dialog will appear? I mention this because you misspelled my username. /npa

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Fixed the additional "a" in Cisventure Astronot. Typing "@ and a letter is not working for me in these text boxes. Usually I proof read, but sometimes I get pressed for time or interrupted and just hit "post reply" on the way out.

Regarding the gaming/planning sessions for international cooperation - good luck with that. The U.N. does not have a track record that warms the heart about achieving international cooperation. And agreements are quite frequently broken.

We have had some luck with technological cooperation, although that has also broken down between the U.S. and Russia, recently.

We really can't count on any cooperation, so developing our own defenses against incoming astronomical bodies seems prudent.

What we could probably achieve is technological agreement on what tactic or set of tactics are the best options for specific types of situations. Having some comfort about what each national entity is capable of doing would help make consistent decisions among the technologically capable nations. So, if defensive devices are developed ahead of time and their test results are shared internationally, that gives us the best situation for quickly and effectively dealing with specific threats.

And, if we can succeed in deflecting the bolide headed our way, then the social cooperation needed to move what might be hundreds of millions of people out of the way would not be an issue, because it would not be needed.

 

[Bob_ATL]

Another story about giving others a free ride and decision authority without hard work and spending.

Who decides if the USA saves Columbus Ohio instead of Paris? Should the USA save Tehran?

Today, only USA talent and assets can reliably react to a city killer. Why do others deserve any involvement in this decision and spending process? When other countries or group of countries contribute $70 billion annually to space programs, they will deserve a seat at the table.

Does anyone think this is going to happen?

 

[COLGeek]

I think it is easy to lose sight that this sort of event would potentially have global catastrophic impact.

Not simply a matter a single isolated area. We clearly know of a former life changing impact. Imagine it now and what the consequences would be.

Rise of the cockroach?

 

[billslugg]

Moving a rock so it misses you but hits someone else would be an act of war. Anyone on the receiving end could legally fight against it. Certainly any attempt to move something would be to move it so it completely misses Earth.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Things are not so clear as presented in the opinions above.

A space rock threatening (part of?) Earth might be anything from a "planet killer" several miles wide to a city devastator, to an ice melter in Greenland, or a tsunami creator in one of the oceans. And, who gets hit if nobody does anything might not be real clear at the point in time that the decision needs to be made whether to do something and, if so, what.

And, then there is the predictability of the result of whatever attempt is made to deflect the threat. Will a planet killer completely miss, or turn into several city killers, tsunami creators, and ice melters if we hit it with an explosive, or even a large inert impactor? Will some technique for deflecting the object without breaking it up succeed in creating a complete miss, or maybe not be as effective as predicted and just move the point of impact?

There is going to be a lot involved in making a decision about who should do what. The more we know about the threatening objects and the farther the development of the defense mechanisms has been pushed by the time we have that decision to make, the better that decision can be.

As for a "free ride" by the technologically incapable nations, that's just the way life works. Not being able to protect yourself because you might end up protecting somebody else, too, or even instead, is not a logical reason to remain defenseless. Most of the money needs to be spent well before the threatening object has been detected.

And, the decisions of the capable countries to launch is not going to be blocked by some international organization haggling until actual doomsday. The nations with the ability need to coordinate their efforts - and now would be a good time to start doing that.