However, the most efficient method would be actually land (I know - maybe even impossible?) on it, and use propellers to change its trajectory. We don't have too much throwaway high-tech to crash it on asteroids...
Interesting. I'd not considered the loss of mass as a means of propulsion.
Obviously there was the kinetic energy transfer but the impact ejacted some of the asteroids mass opposite to it's trajectory further increasing it's trajectory change.
When the impact happened the news articles seemed to imply some surprise about that as well which seemed strange to me. I just wrote it off to the journalist just not being up to speed on the subject matter. The size of the debris field trailing also seemed to be a surprising result.
Instead of pointing out that exact measurements finally came in (of long term movement change), journalist instead focused on the obvious outcome that everyone expects and knows
Wild that we went from "can we even deflect an asteroid" to measurably changing a solar orbit. 150 milliseconds sounds tiny until you realize compounding over decades makes that a meaningful trajectory shift. The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive.
Well, the article says that the effect of the impact was much larger than the scientists expected. That doesn't really give a lot of confidence in how good we are at predicting these things.
> The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive.
Is it? Isn’t it the case that we can’t even detect the vast majority of objects on a potentially problematic intersection path with earth? I feel like the most likely scenario is that by the time we realize we’re about to get slammed by an asteroid, it’s way too late.
Some have suggested attaching a solar shield to objects to add drag to alter the course. However, that would require a much more precise landing and some sort of drilling/anchoring effort. A kinetic impact like this is always going to be more efficient.
What is the feasibility of changing asteroid orbits to impact a specific location on earth? What is the circular error probable with current technology?
23 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 47.2 ms ] threadHowever, the most efficient method would be actually land (I know - maybe even impossible?) on it, and use propellers to change its trajectory. We don't have too much throwaway high-tech to crash it on asteroids...
Obviously there was the kinetic energy transfer but the impact ejacted some of the asteroids mass opposite to it's trajectory further increasing it's trajectory change.
Cool demonstration, hopefully not needed one day.
Since kinetic energy is proportional to v squared, that highly depends on how you measure v...
Instead of pointing out that exact measurements finally came in (of long term movement change), journalist instead focused on the obvious outcome that everyone expects and knows
Is it? Isn’t it the case that we can’t even detect the vast majority of objects on a potentially problematic intersection path with earth? I feel like the most likely scenario is that by the time we realize we’re about to get slammed by an asteroid, it’s way too late.
Or in other words, 1 meter per day
Why not say that?