[extropy-chat] NEO deflection

[The Avantguardian]

--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
wrote:

> 
> On Aug 10, 2005, at 10:04 AM, The Avantguardian
> wrote:
> 
> > A carefully planned operation using very powerful
> > chemical or nuclear rockets, solar sails, or even
> > shaped nuclear charges could allow for two
> preferable
> > scenarios to "minor deflection".
> 
> As far as 'the easiest' goes - my understanding is
> that a proximity  
> detonation of a nuclear device would allow the
> heated side of the  
> object to become propulsion. Not only would the
> explosion work to  
> nudge, but the remaining eminations from the side of
> the body facing  
> the detonation could provide thrust for days as it
> cools.

Well nukes certainly have the energy to do the trick.
Since the initial estimate of mass of MN2004 is 46
million metric tons, a 50 megaton nuke would impart
slightly more than the equivalent of a ton of
conventional explosive per ton of asteroid. 

The problem however is briefly addressed in the
article. Unless we know that the asteroid has
sufficent structural intergrity, we might literally
blow it apart. Then we have a swarm of "dirty" meteors
to deal with instead of an asteroid. It might be a
gravel type ateroid to begin with. Firing nukes at it
sounds like a last ditch sort of thing. Actually
taking careful measurements of how brittle the
asteroid is and then deciding how suddenly or slowly
we accelerate it would be the best bet. Save the nukes
for a hail mary.

> 
> 
> > The first possibility is that we modify its
> trajectory
> > such that we use the earth's gravity well to sling
> > shot it into the moon. Thereby forever eliminating
> the
> > threat from that particular asteroid.
> 
> Hm. I like the sound of this and actually finding
> utility in these  
> objects. I have a mathless thought to share however:
> A body on the  
> Torino scale that has been judged worth of taking
> action against, is  
> then sling-shotted around the Earth (requiring more
> than an  
> approximation of its mass) and imparted enough
> energy to leave  
> Earth's well again, but then strike the moon, which
> has 1/6g pull.
> 
> How much of that final interaction would/could make
> it back to Earth?  
> The impact would almost certainly have to end up on
> the side facing  
> Earth, given the angles and the required assurance
> that we don't put  
> the object in a ballistic orbit.
> 
> yes? no?

Well there is certainly the possibility of a meteor
shower from the ejecta of the moon but I doubt any of
the pieces would be torino scale objects themeselves,
barring a NEO on the scale of Ceres. Also keep in mind
that the moon and the asteroid are roughly spherical
so we could use billiard ball type dynamics such that
most of the ejecta was at an angle relative to the
earth, like a bank shot.  



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs