Destroying Asteroids

[Owen Lucas]

I'm no rocket scientist but I don't think a nuclear ICBM can just be pointed at any asteroid in the sky and expected to reach it while it is safely out of detonating close enough to earth not to shower us with radioactive asteroid debris. Though that's probably better than getting impacted by a massive rock, I think the solution would be a little different. To reach an asteroid further away in outer space, a Falcon Heavy or SLS would be used with a modified ICBM payload. Aren't ICBMs designed to barely get out of our atmosphere to get the warheads into position? Again, not a rocket scientist.

This reminds me of the Columbia disaster with the broken thermal tile. There were questions by the public why the Space Shuttle couldn't just fly to the international space station for safety had they known the heat shielding was compromised. The Space Shuttle didn't have enough fuel on board (or maybe even capable of holding that much fuel) to change their orbital plane to reach the ISS which was in a higher orbit.

In reality NASA most likely knew about the tile being broken and the fate of the crew. Supposedly the CIA /NSA or who ever controls our spy satellites offered to rotate and take a closeup of Columbia but NASA supposedly declined, or did they? They could have known the shuttle was doomed and there was no way the next shuttle in line, Discovery, was going to be up and running safely in 2 weeks to rescue Columbia. The solution going forward in case there was a damaged tile was a spacewalk to apply a special epoxy repair kit.

Anyway didn't mean to digress, here's some really interesting article on the subject:

The audacious rescue plan that might have saved space shuttle Columbia

The untold story of the rescue mission that could have been NASA's finest hour.

arstechnica.com

Shuttle return to flight: Testing puncture repair kits

In our third special preview of the upcoming space shuttle flight, New Scientist examines how astronauts will test techniques to repair the orbiter's heat shield in space

www.newscientist.com

 

[MolaKule]

If a nuclear bomb is detonated in space where does all the energy go? It must start traveling, and in all directions. The sun is billions of fusion reactions happening all the time, what’s up with that and how does that change the planets orbits? All I know is the sun emits radiation. If an asteroid is anywhere near a star it is receiving heat. Our little bombs are no match for star power. Just some questions probably obvious to many.

Using hunch science I guess our little bombs aren’t going to do a thing of consequence to a massive rock. It will be interesting to see what happens to the 1/2 mile size one that has enough gravity to hold a 500 lb moon in orbit. That was very interesting to know about the little moon. The center of the asteroid has to be very hot from gravity I would think, just like the earth only on a small scale.

...In space, all of this energy will be transferred to the asteroid. Since the asteroid is thermally speaking a blackbody (or grey body), a large amount of energy will be absorbed by the asteroid and the temperature of the asteroid will increase significantly and very fast.

Asteroids are not dry bodies but have entrapped gasses and moisture so if a huge amount of energy is transferred to the asteroid quickly, it will literally blow itself apart. The higher the bomb yield, the greater the amount of particles blasted off, but the resulting size of particles will be smaller, becoming small meteorites if they do enter our atmosphere.

In the study, the Thermonuclear device is just meters away from the surface of the asteroid so most of the device's energy will be transferred to the asteroid.

Smaller meteorites from the fragmented asteroid will burn up in the higher atmosphere as they enter.

 

[MolaKule]

I'm no rocket scientist but I don't think a nuclear ICBM can just be pointed at any asteroid in the sky and expected to reach it while it is safely out of detonating close enough to earth not to shower us with radioactive asteroid debris. Though that's probably better than getting impacted by a massive rock, I think the solution would be a little different. To reach an asteroid further away in outer space, a Falcon Heavy or SLS would be used with a modified ICBM payload. Aren't ICBMs designed to barely get out of our atmosphere to get the warheads into position? Again, not a rocket scientist...

The delivery vehicle for the Thermonuclear device was not addressed to any extent in the article since that was not the focus of the original paper, but it would be a rocket with enough takeoff thrust for the payload and with a sufficient number of stages to deliver the device to the asteroid. We have the technology to do this and have done this procedure many times in our various space programs so this is not an unknown.

Just look at the recent Mars delivery vehicles as an example.

As with current heavy delivery modules, this last stage would be programmed or commanded to park a few meters from the asteroid and then detonated.

 

[Job]

In the study, the Thermonuclear device is just meters away from the surface of the asteroid so most of the device's energy will be transferred to the asteroid.

Smaller meteorites from the fragmented asteroid will burn up in the higher atmosphere as they enter.

I would guess if they spit on an asteroid of any size like 1/2 mile the result would be the same. I don’t think any nuke will disturb it. The thing has it’s own moon thats how much mass it is. Have to wait and see if the calculations are supported by outcomes. They talk about cannonballs too which would be direct collision. They could try throwing a qtip against a brick wall too and measure the changes. They need to move on, there are other job openings.

 

[Owen Lucas]

I would guess if they spit on an asteroid of any size like 1/2 mile the result would be the same. I don’t think any nuke will disturb it. The thing has it’s own moon thats how much mass it is. Have to wait and see if the calculations are supported by outcomes. They talk about cannonballs too which would be direct collision. They could try throwing a qtip against a brick wall too and measure the changes. They need to move on, there are other job openings.

I think every little bit of energy would count, especially if the effect is created far away enough the slight deflection could make a big difference in the approach angle to earth and could send it onto another trajectory.

 

[MolaKule]

I would guess if they spit on an asteroid of any size like 1/2 mile the result would be the same. I don’t think any nuke will disturb it. The thing has it’s own moon thats how much mass it is. Have to wait and see if the calculations are supported by outcomes. They talk about cannonballs too which would be direct collision. They could try throwing a qtip against a brick wall too and measure the changes. They need to move on, there are other job openings.

The Physics of nuclear energy transfer to various objects and the science of orbital mechanics are very well established, so the simulations have an excellent chance of being correct.

For the direct impact project DART here is some info, (no discussion of cannonballs ):

Planetary Defense - DART

NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), built and managed by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) for NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), was the world’s first planetary defense technology demonstration that validated one technique of asteroid deflection...

www.nasa.gov

NASA Invites Media to Launch of Double Asteroid Redirection Test - NASA

Media accreditation is open for the upcoming launch of NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, an evaluation of technologies for

www.nasa.gov

 

[PandaBear]

So a nuke would generate a pressure wave in the vacuum of space?

If you blast the warhead on one side of an asteroid it should push it, but just a matter of how far due to momentum. Warhead has mass and so does the asteroid, if you blast / hammer it hard enough with a warhead it should move a slight bit, but the asteroid better not be too heavy or else it will be useless.

If a nuclear bomb is detonated in space where does all the energy go? It must start traveling, and in all directions. The sun is billions of fusion reactions happening all the time, what’s up with that and how does that change the planets orbits? All I know is the sun emits radiation. If an asteroid is anywhere near a star it is receiving heat. Our little bombs are no match for star power. Just some questions probably obvious to many.

Using hunch science I guess our little bombs aren’t going to do a thing of consequence to a massive rock. It will be interesting to see what happens to the 1/2 mile size one that has enough gravity to hold a 500 lb moon in orbit. That was very interesting to know about the little moon. The center of the asteroid has to be very hot from gravity I would think, just like the earth only on a small scale.

Sun is massive, and its gravity pull is strong compare to the continuous "fusion" that releases its energy. Can a nuke on earth knock it out of the orbit? Not going to happen, it is not even going to knock out a hurricane. If you want to knock an asteroid off target by a little then it is going to either be a small asteroid or a large nuke. It won't crush it but it may steer it off course a little, but to make it useful it has to be something massive enough that our atmosphere cannot breakdown, so it would need to be big, and our nuke need to be big to blast it off course.

So, if we are building something this massive, aim this well, shoot to the space, we can use it to bully the rest of the world to listen to us or else. Since we are going to do this to save humanity we can also use it to hit anywhere on earth, and that means other countries would also want to match the fire power. We are already #1 in the world in military power, do we want to escalate this nuke war further? I think this would be one of the biggest reason not to do this. It would also be for our own good since if we figure out how to do it others eventually will, and it would eventually trickle down to unstable rouge people and use it for something we don't want to. Oh, this would likely be expensive too.

I can probably come up with 1000 other ways humanity will end and this is likely on the bad side of cost benefit scale to prepare for.

I don't think people even want to use a nuke to steer a hurricane away, let alone an asteroid.

 

[Job]

The Physics of nuclear energy transfer to various objects and the science of orbital mechanics are very well established, so the simulations have an excellent chance of being correct.

For the direct impact project DART here is some info, (no discussion of cannonballs ):

Planetary Defense - DART

NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), built and managed by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) for NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), was the world’s first planetary defense technology demonstration that validated one technique of asteroid deflection...

www.nasa.gov

NASA Invites Media to Launch of Double Asteroid Redirection Test - NASA

Media accreditation is open for the upcoming launch of NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, an evaluation of technologies for

www.nasa.gov

I got cannonball from another article, nothing wrong with that description. Laugh all yas want. Here a Dr. Statler uses crashing golf carts into the little moon asteroid to get the idea across. No need to talk over people to make images they learn from. They are crashing the golf carts into the small asteroid not the mother asteroid. I don’t think we can change any orbit of a large asteroid with our bombs. The earth is still orbiting and we have bombed it a lot. Without running to the internet again, the moon was thought to be formed from a large object cleaving the earth, then it flowed back into two rough balls the earth and the smaller moon. My underlying theme is as humans, we are nothing.
What is really interesting to me is a rock a half mile in size can have enough gravity to orbit a small moon. Throw a wad of paper up in the air, it is pulled back down to the surface. It is made out of wood fibers.

Redirecting Asteroids - NASA

Tom Statler describes a NASA planetary defense mission to test technologies and capabilities for redirecting asteroids. HWHAP Episode 215.

www.nasa.gov

 

[MolaKule]

No one is making fun or laughing, we are simply exploring the physics of the Spheral simulation and comparing it to the DART project.

P.E.K.[/B]]Here a Dr. Statler uses crashing golf carts into the little moon asteroid to get the idea across.

He is simply making a comparison using the concept of scale or proportions. The important concept here is that a fast moving object of lower mass will have a large kinetic energy on impact. The same thing happens when a bullet of high velocity, but of low mass, strikes an object of high mass but little velocity. Momentum is imparted to the impacted object.
In physics, the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum governs such objects.

P.E.K.[/B]]I don’t think we can change any orbit of a large asteroid with our bombs. The earth is still orbiting and we have bombed it a lot...

There no comparison with the total energy of the bombs we have detonated on earth verses the total mass and energy of the earth.

You're still confusing the DART (kinetic impact) project with the Spheral (atomic blast) simulation.

If many asteroids are, as described below by Statler, we don't have to change the orbit - we simply explode a nuclear device near this dustball and we get very small particles. It appears that at least two of the asteroids analyzed so far are nothing more than agglomerated and "spongy" dust/gravel balls, with large interstitial spaces.

It may be that most asteroids are not "heavy metal" bodies at all, but simply chunks of agglomerated and "spongy" dust and gravel.

And if that is the case, the whole Dinosaur extinction theory goes out the window.

"...Surprise number two was the OSIRIS-REx (Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification Security-Regolith Explorer) spacecraft at the asteroid Bennu, that is now on the way home with its sample. When it did its sampling attempt and touched down very gently on the surface with its TAG sampler to just do a touch and go, that's what TAG stands for, it touched the surface and the surface didn't push back. It just sort of went into the surface. It sort of paints a picture of this asteroid that if you walked up to the side of the asteroid and you poked it, your arm would just go right into it. It was amazingly delicate material. And so, because we've got evidence that these asteroids can be, you know, very, very delicate material and slow to respond, I'm anticipating some surprises when we actually execute the kinetic impact on Dimorphos..."

P.E.K.[/B]]What is really interesting to me is a rock a half mile in size can have enough gravity to orbit a small moon.

It is fascinating. Most likely the larger asteroid had enough mass to capture the smaller asteroid and form a binary mass system. http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

P.E.K.[/B]]Without running to the internet again, the moon was thought to be formed from a large object cleaving the earth, then it flowed back into two rough balls the earth and the smaller moon.

That theory has been debunked due to the recession rate of the moon.

 

[Job]

No one is making fun or laughing, we are simply exploring the physics of the Spheral simulation and comparing it to the DART project.


He is simply making a comparison using the concept of scale or proportions. The important concept here is that a fast moving object of lower mass will have a large kinetic energy on impact. The same thing happens when a bullet of high velocity, but of low mass, strikes an object of high mass but little velocity. Momentum is imparted to the impacted object.
In physics, the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum governs such objects.


There no comparison with the total energy of the bombs we have detonated on earth verses the total mass and energy of the earth.

You're still confusing the DART (kinetic impact) project with the Spheral (atomic blast) simulation.

If many asteroids are, as described below by Statler, we don't have to change the orbit - we simply explode a nuclear device near this dustball and we get very small particles. It appears that at least two of the asteroids analyzed so far are nothing more than agglomerated and "spongy" dust/gravel balls, with large interstitial spaces.

It may be that most asteroids are not "heavy metal" bodies at all, but simply chunks of agglomerated and "spongy" dust and gravel.

And if that is the case, the whole Dinosaur extinction theory goes out the window.

"...Surprise number two was the OSIRIS-REx (Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification Security-Regolith Explorer) spacecraft at the asteroid Bennu, that is now on the way home with its sample. When it did its sampling attempt and touched down very gently on the surface with its TAG sampler to just do a touch and go, that's what TAG stands for, it touched the surface and the surface didn't push back. It just sort of went into the surface. It sort of paints a picture of this asteroid that if you walked up to the side of the asteroid and you poked it, your arm would just go right into it. It was amazingly delicate material. And so, because we've got evidence that these asteroids can be, you know, very, very delicate material and slow to respond, I'm anticipating some surprises when we actually execute the kinetic impact on Dimorphos..."




It is fascinating. Most likely the larger asteroid had enough mass to capture the smaller asteroid and form a binary mass system. http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm



That theory has been debunked due to the recession rate of the moon.

Moon Facts

The Moon was likely formed after a Mars-sized body collided with Earth several billion years ago. Earth’s only natural satellite is simply called “the Moon” because people didn’t know other moons existed until Galileo Galilei discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter in 1610. In Latin, the Moon was...

solarsystem.nasa.gov

NASA still believes in the moon formation theory.
There is absolutely no chance a large asteroid never hits earth again. Just as sure as tectonic plates keep drifting, nothing is going to stop this.
Does it matter some asteroids may be soft agglomerations while others are solid dense matter? The moon isn’t pock marked from pillows hitting it. That has to be true.

 

[MolaKule]

...Does it matter some asteroids may be soft agglomerations while others are solid dense matter? The moon isn’t pock marked from pillows hitting it. That has to be true.

You may be mixing up Asteroids and Meteorites. Meteoroids are lumps of rock or metal that orbit the sun and crash into moons. Meteorites are space rocks that fall to Earth's surface.

Meteorites and meteors are divided into three types:

"Stony Meteorites
Stony Meteorites are made up of minerals that contain silicates—material made of silicon and oxygen. They also contain some metal—nickel and iron. There are two major types of stony meteorites: chondrites and achondrites.

Chondrites themselves are classified into two major groups: ordinary and carbonaceous. Ordinary chondrites are the most common type of stony meteorite, accounting for 86 percent of all meteorites that have fallen to Earth. They are named for the hardened droplets of lava, called condrules, embedded in them.

Carbonaceous chondrites are much more rare than ordinary chondrites...As their name implies, carbonaceous chondrites contain the element carbon, usually in the form of organic compounds such as amino acids. Carbonaceous chondrites also often contain water or material that was shaped by the presence of water.

Ordinary chondrites can be classified into three main groups. The groups indicate the meteorite’s quantity of iron. The H chondrite group has a high amount of iron. The L chondrite group has a low amount of iron. The LL group has a low amount of iron and a low amount of metal in general." NG

 

[MolaKule]

Moon Facts

The Moon was likely formed after a Mars-sized body collided with Earth several billion years ago. Earth’s only natural satellite is simply called “the Moon” because people didn’t know other moons existed until Galileo Galilei discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter in 1610. In Latin, the Moon was...

solarsystem.nasa.gov

NASA still believes in the moon formation theory...

NASA isn't the final arbiter of scientific fact.

Many theories of moon formation have been rejected as have been proposed. The current theory is that a large object called Theia bumped into the Earth knocking out a big chunk of matter to become the Moon. Because of friction by the Earth's ocean tides, caused by the gravitation of the Moon, the Earth's rotation is slowing down and the day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. In physics we say the Earth is losing Angular Momentum. By the Conservation of Angular Momentum, this loss must be gained by the Moon, so the Moon is receding from the Earth by 1.5 inches per year.

Doing the math: The recession rate would have been greater in the past, since it is a steep inverse sixth power function. Working backwards the Moon could not have been closer than 11,500 miles or else Earth's gravity would have shattered it. But even if the Moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.78 billion years to reach its present position. Even this theoretical period is much much too young according to radiometric dating of rocks.

In science you must eventually reject those theories that yield conflicting data, and we haven't even explored the Problems of the "Roche" limit.

Here are some Summary points from a NASA paper asking which Moon formation theory is correct and one of the better NASA papers:

SUMMARY POINTS 1. The Moon is isotopically indistinguishable from Earth, presenting a grave challenge to the giant impact theory. Although the theory still stands, it is on uncertain footing. 2. The Moon is not blasted from Earth in the standard model of the giant impact. It is mostly a collisionally captured remnant of Theia’s mantle, hence the isotopic crisis. 3. The standard model is the least energetic of the giant impact models, forming a much lower-temperature disk (∼3,000 K) compared with those in competing models (∼10,000 K), and it produces the most Theia-like Moon. 4. The standard model can be fixed, perhaps, by giving Theia and Earth a common origin or ancestor, or by plastering the Moon with Earth-equilibrated material, or by homogenizing Earth and the protolunar disk. 5. If Earth-Moon angular momentum was lost during evection, then previously discarded hypotheses are on the table (fission of a fast-spinning Earth, accretion of twin protoEarths) while new ideas (like hit and run) can venture forth without this constraint. 6. A faster Theia might have continued downrange after dredging up a hot disk of primarily Earth-derived material. The hit-and-run scenario offers substantial advantages over other theories, although the ultimate fate of Theia requires study. 7. Hydrodynamic simulations are approximate at best and limited in scope, but they are of enormous utility in developing hypotheses, inspecting processes and outcomes, and validating models. They require ongoing connections to geochemistry and theory.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/E-Asphaug/publication/280321193_Impact_Origin_of_the_Moon/links/55bb9a8e08aec0e5f4418e9f/Impact-Origin-of-the-Moon.pdf

 

[Job]

NASA isn't the final arbiter of scientific fact.

Many theories of moon formation have been rejected as have been proposed. The current theory is that a large object called Theia bumped into the Earth knocking out a big chunk of matter to become the Moon. Because of friction by the Earth's ocean tides, caused by the gravitation of the Moon, the Earth's rotation is slowing down and the day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. In physics we say the Earth is losing Angular Momentum. By the Conservation of Angular Momentum, this loss must be gained by the Moon, so the Moon is receding from the Earth by 1.5 inches per year.

Doing the math: The rate would have been greater in the past, since it is a steep inverse sixth power function. Working backwards the Moon could not have been closer than 11,500 miles or else Earth's gravity would have shattered it. But even if the Moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.78 billion years to reach its present position. Even this theoretical period is much much too young according to radiometric dating of rocks.

In science you must eventually reject those theories that yield conflicting data, and we haven't even explored the Problems of the "Roche" limit.

Here are some Summary points from a NASA paper asking which Moon formation theory is correct and one of the better NASA papers:

SUMMARY POINTS 1. The Moon is isotopically indistinguishable from Earth, presenting a grave challenge to the giant impact theory. Although the theory still stands, it is on uncertain footing. 2. The Moon is not blasted from Earth in the standard model of the giant impact. It is mostly a collisionally captured remnant of Theia’s mantle, hence the isotopic crisis. 3. The standard model is the least energetic of the giant impact models, forming a much lower-temperature disk (∼3,000 K) compared with those in competing models (∼10,000 K), and it produces the most Theia-like Moon. 4. The standard model can be fixed, perhaps, by giving Theia and Earth a common origin or ancestor, or by plastering the Moon with Earth-equilibrated material, or by homogenizing Earth and the protolunar disk. 5. If Earth-Moon angular momentum was lost during evection, then previously discarded hypotheses are on the table (fission of a fast-spinning Earth, accretion of twin protoEarths) while new ideas (like hit and run) can venture forth without this constraint. 6. A faster Theia might have continued downrange after dredging up a hot disk of primarily Earth-derived material. The hit-and-run scenario offers substantial advantages over other theories, although the ultimate fate of Theia requires study. 7. Hydrodynamic simulations are approximate at best and limited in scope, but they are of enormous utility in developing hypotheses, inspecting processes and outcomes, and validating models. They require ongoing connections to geochemistry and theory.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/E-Asphaug/publication/280321193_Impact_Origin_of_the_Moon/links/55bb9a8e08aec0e5f4418e9f/Impact-Origin-of-the-Moon.pdf

So the best theory still is a rock hit a rock and now we have the moon. Not stopping a big one with a bomb. Boom, all humans go bye bye, if even there are any still. All the physics remains doing it’s thing. That’s what the topic sort of was. All done, bitog rehab is next.

 

[MolaKule]

So the best theory still is a rock hit a rock and now we have the moon. Not stopping a big one with a bomb. Boom, all humans go bye bye, even there are any still. All the physics remains doing it’s thing. That’s what the topic sort of was. All done, bitog rehab is next.

No, just a theory that has been contradicted by math and physics.

It has been shown through thermal physics and orbital mechanics that an asteroid can be dispersed by a thermonuclear device.

NASA plans such a mission to an asteroid object in our solar system to test this concept.

It has been shown through Newtonian physics and orbital mechanics that an object can nudge a binary asteroid system from its current course and this is where the NASA DART project is going to test that concept.

As to the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you are attempting to say, but laughter and derision are no substitute for logic, scientific reasoning, and discourse.

 

[Snagglefoot]

The Dart launch was successful. We’ll see what happens in Sept of 2022.

 

[Jetronic]

Since the last earth killing asteroid occurred 66 million years ago...the odds of one hitting in the next 50 years are exactly .00000001% or .0000000%. at MOST. Sleep well.

I'm sure that was the chance 65.999.999 years ago, but every year since the chance has gone up...

 

[manicrodder]

Hey what a coincidence. Apparently there is a launch next month to test the concept of striking an asteroid with a missile. This is from the Washington post.

View attachment 74419

Hey, do like Bezos and sell seats on this adventure!

 

[Pablo]

This will take care of most if not all asteroids.
View attachment 78975

"These are not the roids you are looking for............."

==================================================================================

Just as an aside, before I retired. I worked on that!

Redmond-based company involved in NASA asteroid-impact mission

Redmond-based company Aerojet Rocketdyne has designed the propulsion system for NASA’s DART mission, launching Tuesday.

www.kiro7.com

 

[Owen Lucas]

"These are not the roids you are looking for............."

==================================================================================

Just as an aside, before I retired. I worked on that!

Redmond-based company involved in NASA asteroid-impact mission

Redmond-based company Aerojet Rocketdyne has designed the propulsion system for NASA’s DART mission, launching Tuesday.

www.kiro7.com

Pretty cool! We have a rocket scientist in our midst?

 

[alarmguy]

I was joking to my wife, lets hope NASA has the DART project correct and doesn't deflect a non threatening asteroid towards earth instead of away! ) I mean, no science is perfect.