could_use_a_snack t1_jakk1b5 wrote
Reply to comment by CptHammer_ in NASA’s DART data validates kinetic impact as planetary defense method | DART altered the orbit of the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos by 33 minutes by mepper
>Done, now put your money where your mouth is.
My entire comment is basically doing this. I encourage the spending on scientific research and contribute to it when I can.
>Or answer this question: what's the best case scenario you can imagine that this research will help Earth?
We need to know what effect we can have on a dangerous asteroid. The only way is to run some tests to see. So the best case scenario is that we have the data available to make a correction to the orbit of such an object if we need to.
And before you ask "what's the chances of needing to" I'll compare it to having a fire extinguisher on hand in my house, even though most households never have a fire. I'd like to be prepared.
CptHammer_ t1_jaktgg6 wrote
>So the best case scenario is that we have the data available to make a correction to the orbit of such an object if we need to.
Wow, best case you can imagine is super limited. I thought for sure you'd go into astroid wrangling for convenience of mining. Nope, you're happy with, probably not going to need it, but if we spend an unbelievably higher amount of money then we might just maybe not kill ourselves unintentionally simultaneously ignoring petty issues on the big blue marble.
I'm just more confident that this technology will be used specifically to aim astroids at Earth. How do I know? Humans always say, "but this time it will be different." Sure resting on the fact that it's a technical difference in weapons, major advances that could change human civilization always, 100% of the time, get weaponized.
This is no different.
could_use_a_snack t1_jakvh5g wrote
This would be ridiculously hard to weaponize. You have to find an asteroid that was already coming extremely close to earth to be able to adjust its course enough to hit the earth, and then it wouldn't be possible to know where it would hit. And it would probably cost more than just dropping a bomb exactly on target by a factor of 10.
CptHammer_ t1_jal5p3i wrote
If we can get a vehicle to an asteroid using math, I'm pretty sure there's an equally simple formula to get on to earth at the appropriate time and space.
To speculate otherwise shows how dangerous you think the technology is at its current situation.
could_use_a_snack t1_jalbltl wrote
Sure. You can do the math, but moving a rock that weighs 1000s of pounds to actually change course is crazy hard. And would take a lot of energy.
Go look up the term "delta V" and read up a bit on it. 99.99% of the math to get that prob to hit the asteroid was done before it launched. If it was off by even a degree when it launched, they wouldn't have been able to correct its course enough to hit the target.
CptHammer_ t1_jalwwk6 wrote
>they wouldn't have been able to correct its course enough to hit the target.
Which is probably why you support more funding. We haven't perfected the weapon yet.
could_use_a_snack t1_jan4xdm wrote
>Which is probably why you support more funding. We haven't perfected the weapon yet.
Your statement shows that you are just trying to troll me. They did hit the target. Perfectly. Physics just makes it really hard to overcome an error. This will never be used as a weapon. It can't be.
I hope that you are either still in school and haven't taken basic 9th grade physics yet or have just forgotten what you have learned.
Either way, If you would like to have a reasonable conversation on this topic, you seem to be worried and I could help you understand that you don't need to be, I would suggest you brush up on orbital mechanics, and the launch capabilities that we currently have. Until then have a great day.
CptHammer_ t1_jaounbm wrote
>This will never be used as a weapon. It can't be.
You're saying basically it's impossible to do what they did. And you seem to also think that practice doesn't make perfect.
>I hope that you are either still in school and haven't taken basic 9th grade physics yet or have just forgotten what you have learned.
I've taught physics at a collegic level. This is barely a physics problem and more of an economic problem. We already know we can divert astroids, how much will it cost to put it where we want it?
You're probably unaware of proposals to aim astroids into a Mars orbit for mining. Mars orbit before lunar orbit just to prove we won't make accidents. Lunar orbits rather than earth orbits because we actually don't need much material back on earth. Only to replace the materials we sent to space. And of course it's an extra risk.
The idea of mining astroids in place is too dangerous and too costly as it's simply easier to bring things to the mill rather than moving mining operations so often. It's why we don't build a saw mill in every tree grove for lumber production, we move the logs to the mill.
could_use_a_snack t1_jap1qve wrote
You make some good points.
This is not what they did however. They didn't aim an asteroid anywhere. They caused it to change its orbit.
Yes you can move an asteroid to orbit a planet, but it will take years to do this. Making several minor adjustments over a long period of time. Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.
And the mill towns I've seen (I live in one that isn't one anymore) are always right next to the forest, if not in the middle. Moving huge trees is costly, you mill them as close to the source as possible and then transport the finished product to its destination.
And. If you did teach physics, I feel sorry for your students, anyone that doesn't want to see science funded shouldn't be teaching it.
CptHammer_ t1_japefzp wrote
>Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.
I don't think they're trying to hide it. Did you skip past the part where I said putting them in lunar orbit? It would take a push of the button at precisely the right time to send one to earth. Once they've been reduced to the appropriate size for the deviation they want to cause.
Even worse is if I'm wrong and a government isn't behind it but a terrorist. I'm telling you any perceived good is outweighed by the inevitable bad.
could_use_a_snack t1_jaq2wgn wrote
Wait, are you suggesting that what would amount to a trillion dollar industry capable of getting multiple asteroids into orbit around the moon, will be accomplished by a terrorist organization?
I'm done talking to you. You are just being ridiculous now.
CptHammer_ t1_jaqo8hh wrote
No, I'm saying once the benevolent portion of the plan is finished a terrorist could turn it into a weapon. I don't care how benevolent a plan you suggest any new technology will be weaponized.
It's like you're trying to suggest terrorists invented bombs with their own R&D to come to the conclusion you did.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments