|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 12/31/2009 04:17 PM » |
|
Excerpt from my news media client advisory:
15. Carl Sagan once warned that building an asteroid defense capability MIGHT be MORE dangerous than NOT having one. He argued that the very low odds of an asteroid impact were less hazardous than the chance of a madman (or mad nation) seizing control of the defense hardware and diverting a formerly SAFE asteroid fly-past INTO a collision.
16. Carl (an old friend) had read too much science fiction, and I told him so. Any feasible asteroid deflection scheme in the next century or two would be so 'gentle' that it would take years to shift the space rock's orbit, allowing time for other nations to interfere in the process.
17. More significantly, the system would be unable to make final course corrections fast enough to 'stay on target' as the flight path prediction uncertainty dropped rapidly with decreasing time and distance to impact. In Mission Control jargon, where I worked both rendezvous and avoidance maneuvers for orbiting satellites, the terminology is that the guidance system would not have sufficient 'control authority' ('push') to make the last-minute adjustments that would only become revealed when it was too late to make them.
18. Perminov did make one comment worth dwelling on -- that the activity would have to be an international one. In practical terms this is true, even tough international projects are almost always more expensive, more time consuming, and less productive [the opposite of the 'conventional wisdom'].
19. But asteroid deflection, and the much more pressing issue of orbital debris clean-up, MUST be undertaken in a world consensus mode, since unilateral efforts could be stymied by objections of some space powers not party to the project. And you can bet on Russia demanding a piece of the action -- and the funding -- or standing in the way.
|
|
|
|
Patchouli
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 12/31/2009 07:53 PM » |
|
Excerpt from my news media client advisory:
15. Carl Sagan once warned that building an asteroid defense capability MIGHT be MORE dangerous than NOT having one. He argued that the very low odds of an asteroid impact were less hazardous than the chance of a madman (or mad nation) seizing control of the defense hardware and diverting a formerly SAFE asteroid fly-past INTO a collision.
16. Carl (an old friend) had read too much science fiction, and I told him so. Any feasible asteroid deflection scheme in the next century or two would be so 'gentle' that it would take years to shift the space rock's orbit, allowing time for other nations to interfere in the process.
17. More significantly, the system would be unable to make final course corrections fast enough to 'stay on target' as the flight path prediction uncertainty dropped rapidly with decreasing time and distance to impact. In Mission Control jargon, where I worked both rendezvous and avoidance maneuvers for orbiting satellites, the terminology is that the guidance system would not have sufficient 'control authority' ('push') to make the last-minute adjustments that would only become revealed when it was too late to make them.
18. Perminov did make one comment worth dwelling on -- that the activity would have to be an international one. In practical terms this is true, even tough international projects are almost always more expensive, more time consuming, and less productive [the opposite of the 'conventional wisdom'].
19. But asteroid deflection, and the much more pressing issue of orbital debris clean-up, MUST be undertaken in a world consensus mode, since unilateral efforts could be stymied by objections of some space powers not party to the project. And you can bet on Russia demanding a piece of the action -- and the funding -- or standing in the way.
They didn't think there was as many NEOs as there really tuned out to be when Carl Sagan made that statement. I think if he knew what we know now he'd have a different opinion on the subject. A good sized asteroid impact would be much worse then a nuclear war and countless millions of times worse then anything a terrorist organization could pull off. A nuclear exchange for example would not produce a half mile high tsunami. Seeing how fragile civilization is historically I can safely say it probably would not survive a Chixculub type event. Nice animation of what's out there. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Animations/EarthRide2008.gif
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamlucky13
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 12/31/2009 09:40 PM » |
|
Lies, damn lies and space plans reported by Russian media. --Antares
Note that the media in this case is RIA-Novosti, the parent of the same fine Russia-Today English-language site that has continued to circulate claims that the Soviets built Buran to steal Skylab and that the RSA is planning to restart the Buran program to save NASA from the gap.  If he was correctly quoted and translated true, the head of the Russian Space Agency isn't exactly inspiring confidence at the moment: Perminov said he had heard of Apophis' threat to Earth from a scientist who had calculated that the asteroid was getting closer and would "surely collide with Earth in the 2030s," according to Russia's RIA Novosti news service. http://www.space.com/news/091230-russia-asteroid-apophis.htmlMulti-national missions shouldn't be based on hearsay. NEO currently puts the odds at 1/250,000. I feel for the Russians living on a meager budget in the shadow of their former space accomplishments, but their continuously tossing around projects that are hardly even concepts as programs that will occur in hopes they'll stir up enough interest to get funding is tiring.
|
|
|
|
E.P. Grondine
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 01/03/2010 12:39 AM » |
|
As Russia was hit at Tunguska and Sikote Ailin, their perspective on the impact hazard is different than that in the US. Perminov may be looking for internal Russian support, and expects to maintain parity with the US, ESA, Japan, and China. For the latest on China's intention to build CAPS, see the press announcement on CE2 over in the Chinese section. What does China intend to do on the Moon? Easy: "construct an observatory". Bottom line, Astronaut Shweikert's Apophis tagging mission is likely on, with the ability to quickly be changed into a diversion mission if the calculations are wrong. I look for a medium to medium heavy launcher to be used. Russia expects to be included in any international discussions. For earlier Russian plans, see: 2001 An improved English translation of THE RUSSIAN POSITION PAPER ON PLANETARY DEFENSE by Anatoly V. Zaitsev http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc020701.html
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 01/03/2010 03:20 AM » |
|
Bottom line, Astronaut Shweikert's Apophis tagging mission is likely on,
with the ability to quickly be changed into a diversion mission if the calculations are wrong. I look for a medium to medium heavy launcher to be used.
There is no such initiative
|
|
|
|
E.P. Grondine
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 01/03/2010 09:51 PM » |
|
Bottom line, Astronaut Schweikert's Apophis tagging mission is likely on,
with the ability to quickly be changed into a diversion mission if the calculations are wrong. I look for a medium to medium heavy launcher to be used.
There is no such initiative
Right now, but that is subject to change. While the US has a hole in the medium heavy launcher capacity (thanks, guys), Ariane5, CZ5, or perhaps the heavy Angara may be used. (Please forgive my spelling errors, but I've had a stroke. I particularly tend to botch personal names.)
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 01/03/2010 10:04 PM » |
|
Right now, but that is subject to change.
While the US has a hole in the medium heavy launcher capacity (thanks, guys), Ariane5, CZ5, or perhaps the heavy Angara may be used.
It isn't going to change. There is no need for such an initiative. Also the US doesn't have a hole in the medium heavy launcher capacity, Delta IV Heavy has just has much and even more performance than the vehicles you listed.
|
|
|
|
E.P. Grondine
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 01/05/2010 09:18 PM » |
|
Please realize that we are entering weapons reduction negotiations, and this is a way of indirectly bringing in space weapons platforms under a defensive rubric by an aggressive Russian leadership. Think of it as part of an opening move in chess ... meant for diplomats not space cadets.
no one is of no consequence, nooneofconsequence. Yes, we are entering into weapons reductions negotiations, and they're most likely going to end up having to include Europe and China as well this time. Two other defense matters under negotiation are Ballistic Missile Defense systems, and preventing the weaponization of space. Again, this is no longer a bi-polar world, but a multi-polar one, as Bush Snr put it. In my opinion, the tragedy of Russia is that after the fall of communism they just wanted to be like the US, and the advice we gave them on the transition process was terrible, leading to much suffering and misery. For example, no one here told them that they should limit the amount of ownership by any one individual in any state enterprise. Ronald Reagan once hoped for a common threat that would unite mankind, and we certainly have one in the impact hazard. A common hazard faced by everyone on this planet.
|
|
|
|
ChrisSpaceCH
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 01/05/2010 09:35 PM » |
|
Ronald Reagan once hoped for a common threat that would unite mankind, and we certainly have one in the impact hazard. A common hazard faced by everyone on this planet.
Considering how wonderful international cooperation is working in the face of the far more immediate and pressing common threat of Climate Change, I have little hope of us getting our act together if we actually detected an asteroid with our name on it. In fact, nations that expect not to be directly affected by the projected impact might even sabotage any attempt at deflection, expecting to profit from their adversary's forced return to the stone age after the asteroid strike. And you would definately see religious nutjobs attempting (suicide) attacks to prevent any asteroid interceptor from launching (using rethoric such as "don't interfere with [appropriate deity]")
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 01/05/2010 10:12 PM » |
|
Climate change doesn't affect everyone equally, and the burden of lowering emissions will not be evenly spread. I saw a UN report that said global warming will increase rainfall in the Sahara. Russia and Canada (and Minnesota  ) could perhaps benefit from global warming. Changing the world's climate is disruptive for everyone (and would cause large social upheavals if it happens very rapidly), but it is not universally bad for everyone. A large asteroid is bad for just about everyone, and does not require some countries to essentially trash huge portions of their economy and infrastructure to fight.
|
|
|
|
RafaelCE
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 01/05/2010 10:26 PM » |
|
(using rethoric such as "don't interfere with God/Allah/Gaia/Grand Poobah's will")
Maybe off topic, but I'd say I enjoy this forum and members for being so respectful of everyone's thouths and belief. How about rephrasing to "higer power" instead of any specific name?
|
|
|
|
Blackstar
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 01/05/2010 11:00 PM » |
|
A large asteroid is bad for just about everyone, and does not require some countries to essentially trash huge portions of their economy and infrastructure to fight.
It is extremely unlikely that a large one would hit Earth. It is much more likely that it would be a relatively small one. If it is only going to hit off the coast of Peru, why would Russia care? Or China? Or Europe?
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 01/06/2010 12:54 AM » |
|
A large asteroid is bad for just about everyone, and does not require some countries to essentially trash huge portions of their economy and infrastructure to fight.
It is extremely unlikely that a large one would hit Earth. It is much more likely that it would be a relatively small one. If it is only going to hit off the coast of Peru, why would Russia care? Or China? Or Europe?
Soft power--much the same reason governments donate time and money to help other countries during or after natural disasters. If you save some random country from being hit by an asteroid, you'd have to screw up your PR pretty badly to make them not appreciate you for it.
|
|
|
|
E.P. Grondine
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 01/06/2010 01:50 AM » |
|
Better than Perminov's statement: http://www.brahmand.com/news/Scientists-will-develop-automatic-space-rovers-to-study-Asteroids/2854/1/14.htmlAfter their Moon probes, China's next target is an asteroid. Those who point to Mars and Grunt should keep in mind exactly what Phobos and Deimos are. "large" is a relative term. Is an impactor, say a dead comet fragment, that kills 60,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 people "large" enough? As far as "soft power" goes, whoever takes the lead in impactor detection will take the leadership role in space, in my opinion. For China's space leaderships' desire to build an observatory on the Moon, see the Chinese launchers section here. The US has already done NEAR and Deep Impact, Japan Hayabusca (sp?). Russia intends to try to maintain parity.
|
|
|
|
