Russia may send spacecraft to asteroid

[Blackstar]

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.

So, you think that other countries of the world would get together and spend potentially billions to deflect an asteroid that might affect only a poor country?  Or would they just wait until after it hit and send blankets?

[yinzer]

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.

So, you think that other countries of the world would get together and spend potentially billions to deflect an asteroid that might affect only a poor country?  Or would they just wait until after it hit and send blankets?

Apophis is going to make a close flyby of the Earth in 2029 and has a small chance of hitting in 2036.  A 600 meter difference in the location of the 2029 flyby would move the impact point from missing the Earth, along a path from Kazakhstan across Sibera, down the Pacific Ocean halfway between Hawaii and LA, across Central America and Venezuela and across the Atlantic nearly to the coast of Africa, to missing the Earth again. 

If the asteroid hits Siberia no one will really care, if it hits off the West Coast of the US it could cause catastrophic tsunami damage.  Deflecting it before the 2029 flyby requires five orders of magnitude (!) less delta-V than afterward.

Most of the money that would have to be spent to deflect the asteroid before the 2029 closest approach would have to be spent well before that, so yeah, I think that rich countries might well do so.

And anyway, most of the purpose of scientific and human spaceflight is to shovel money to aerospace contractors and to show off to the rest of the world.  Deflecting an asteroid that would otherwise hit Peru serves those causes almost as well as the building ISS does.

[Namechange User]

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.

So, you think that other countries of the world would get together and spend potentially billions to deflect an asteroid that might affect only a poor country?  Or would they just wait until after it hit and send blankets?

Apophis is going to make a close flyby of the Earth in 2029 and has a small chance of hitting in 2036.  A 600 meter difference in the location of the 2029 flyby would move the impact point from missing the Earth, along a path from Kazakhstan across Sibera, down the Pacific Ocean halfway between Hawaii and LA, across Central America and Venezuela and across the Atlantic nearly to the coast of Africa, to missing the Earth again. 

If the asteroid hits Siberia no one will really care, if it hits off the West Coast of the US it could cause catastrophic tsunami damage.  Deflecting it before the 2029 flyby requires five orders of magnitude (!) less delta-V than afterward.

Most of the money that would have to be spent to deflect the asteroid before the 2029 closest approach would have to be spent well before that, so yeah, I think that rich countries might well do so.

And anyway, most of the purpose of scientific and human spaceflight is to shovel money to aerospace contractors and to show off to the rest of the world.  Deflecting an asteroid that would otherwise hit Peru serves those causes almost as well as the building ISS does.

Seriously?  You really think governments think that far ahead and actually say, 'well it'll be cheaper if we do something now or in the near future and it may save us a headache and more expense in 30 years time' ?  Have you not seen Armegedon, Deep Impact or any of the hundreds of similarly plotted movies?

[Danderman]

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?

There are always uncertainties in trying to predict a trajectory many years out (its only possible to do something about an asteroid strike if you find it early); imagine the consequences of a decision by a US president NOT to mount a mission to save us from an asteroid strike when it turns out that the asteroid is NOT going to hit Peru, its going to hit Los Angeles.

There are occasions when asteroid paths are influenced by objects that we didn't consider, in ways that we haven't considered.  If I read somewhere that an asteroid was discovered on a track that would lead to impact with Peru in 2020, I would think that Murphy's Law would intervene for sure.

[yinzer]

Apophis is going to make a close flyby of the Earth in 2029 and has a small chance of hitting in 2036.  A 600 meter difference in the location of the 2029 flyby would move the impact point from missing the Earth, along a path from Kazakhstan across Sibera, down the Pacific Ocean halfway between Hawaii and LA, across Central America and Venezuela and across the Atlantic nearly to the coast of Africa, to missing the Earth again. 

If the asteroid hits Siberia no one will really care, if it hits off the West Coast of the US it could cause catastrophic tsunami damage.  Deflecting it before the 2029 flyby requires five orders of magnitude (!) less delta-V than afterward.

Most of the money that would have to be spent to deflect the asteroid before the 2029 closest approach would have to be spent well before that, so yeah, I think that rich countries might well do so.

And anyway, most of the purpose of scientific and human spaceflight is to shovel money to aerospace contractors and to show off to the rest of the world.  Deflecting an asteroid that would otherwise hit Peru serves those causes almost as well as the building ISS does.

Seriously?  You really think governments think that far ahead and actually say, 'well it'll be cheaper if we do something now or in the near future and it may save us a headache and more expense in 30 years time' ?  Have you not seen Armegedon, Deep Impact or any of the hundreds of similarly plotted movies?

30 years, no.

But I like to think that if it was 2024, there was a 10% chance that Apophis would hit us in 2036, and we could do something about it now for $10B but after 2029 we might not be able to do anything about it at all, that we'd spend the money now.

Maybe this is naive.  But $10B is hugely less money than is involved with the climate change stuff.  Orders of magnitude less.  And there aren't the thorny open-ended political issues.

[Robotbeat]

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.

So, you think that other countries of the world would get together and spend potentially billions to deflect an asteroid that might affect only a poor country?  Or would they just wait until after it hit and send blankets?

Neighbors of that country would definitely want to deflect the asteroid... Millions of refugees are a huge social problem that could cost billions easily. Besides, that country would be pursuing every sort of legal avenue to deflect the asteroid. If those who could do something did nothing instead, those people would be treated by the victims as if they were responsible for the attack. You'd have a fresh batch of terrorists.

No, not acting in the face of such a catastrophe would be unthinkable. Just look at the outpouring of help after the tsunami hit Sumatra (and other areas). 230,000 people died and $7 billion was donated by the worldwide community (and billions more spent by the countries affected). If an asteroid, even as small as the Tunguska Event, hit a very densely populated area, 10 or even 100 times that many deaths are quite possible.  If it was certain that such an event were otherwise inevitable (but far enough away that you could still move it away), I guarantee that hundreds of billions would not be too large of a sum. Even a trillion dollars may be spent. And remember, those would be a trillion dollars spent on Earth instead of being blown to bits by an asteroid. Besides, there'd be a huge public outcry from all sides if the governments did nothing.

[ChrisSpaceCH]

[
No, not acting in the face of such a catastrophe would be unthinkable. Just look at the outpouring of help after the tsunami hit Sumatra (and other areas). 230,000 people died and $7 billion was donated by the worldwide community (and billions more spent by the countries affected).

Exactly. You said it: huge outpouring of help AFTER the tsunami hit. Never mind the fact that the danger was known and an efficient tsunami warning system was technically possible years before and could have saved most of those hundreds of thousands for a fraction of the cost...

If an asteroid, even as small as the Tunguska Event, hit a very densely populated area, 10 or even 100 times that many deaths are quite possible.  If it was certain that such an event were otherwise inevitable (but far enough away that you could still move it away), I guarantee that hundreds of billions would not be too large of a sum. Even a trillion dollars may be spent.

Sorry, but I believe this to be wishful thinking. You are forgetting one of humanity's most persistant characteristics: the capacity of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. Remember, it would more likely be scientists who would predict a ">50% chance of it hitting in X years, but by spending Y billions now we can reduce the chance to <10%". I can already hear the politicians arguing about whether the science is accurate, and if it is worth spending that kind of money in the current economic climate etc. Expect plenty of ad hominem attacks against the scentists themselves (scientists have never had such bad press as today, with anti-intellectualism and anti-science movements being as strong as during the dark ages, and not only in the US).

Besides, there'd be a huge public outcry from all sides if the governments did nothing.

No, I don't think so. Understand how the modern human functions: There would be a huge outcry if we spent the Y billions and it turned out it wasn't needed. If it hit, however, most people would claim it was just the will of [insert appropriate deity here]. Millieniallism and apocalyptic thinking is IN, more so than at any time since the dark ages, and not just in America. Personally, I think this is one of the gravest threats to our society today: the huge number of people who expect THE END, the good number who look forward to it, and the growing few who actively try to bring it about.

[ChrisSpaceCH]

(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?

You're right. I'm sorry. I changed it.

[Robotbeat]

...
No, I don't think so. Understand how the modern human functions: There would be a huge outcry if we spent the Y billions and it turned out it wasn't needed. If it hit, however, most people would claim it was just the will of [insert appropriate deity here]. Millieniallism and apocalyptic thinking is IN, more so than at any time since the dark ages, and not just in America. Personally, I think this is one of the gravest threats to our society today: the huge number of people who expect THE END, the good number who look forward to it, and the growing few who actively try to bring it about.

Terrorist attacks (including suicide attacks) are motivated by geopolitics, not by merely "trying to bring about the end." You might as well say that terrorist attacks are motivated primarily by sexual frustration.

Millenialism reached its peak in the late eighties and has been in decline ever since, with a relapse or two within the last decade but still in decline. Even Creationism has reached its peak and is declining. I have a feeling that Protestant Evangelical Christian denominations are going to go the way of the rest (majority) of Christianity and eventually reconcile their faith with evolution.

I think a real problem that can be addressed is to not force feed people your own favorite flavor of politics while you school them on some scientific principle. This has happened too often in the past and is the primary reason we are so screwed up today. That applies to you atheists out there, too. The whole Creationism movement was a reaction to atheists who tried to use science to try to further their own agenda. Thanks.

A lesson to be learned here is that people's political and theological/philosophical beliefs are usually much more important to them than some abstract scientific principle. Use a scientific principle to try to threaten someone's political/philosophical/theological belief system, and you far more often make that person mistrust science than the other way around. If the science is more important to you than your own philosophical beliefs, then try using a judo move and show someone how their belief system fits in with this or that scientific principle.

EDIT:To bring this back a little closer to the topic, I've seen many people who strongly believe in God respond in outpouring of personal resources (time, money) to natural disasters that YOU are implying they would simply blame it on God and be on their way. In fact, the OPPOSITE thing can happen: their theological beliefs provide a strong motivation for them to help others. A fatalistic attitude is NOT a universal trait for people of faith anymore than it is for atheists or agnostics. Empathy, on the other hand, IS a nearly universal human trait. And, with the recent popularity of "cause marketing," it is a trait trending upwards.

[E.P. Grondine]

I think that when WISE goes into operation a large number of dead comet fragments are going to be seen for the first time.

In any case, "smaller"  impact are not a hypothetical problem.

I think that the entire space paradigm is going to shift. So far its been based on an Earth like Mars, and unrealistically low transportation costs.

I think that protecting spaceship Earth from impact is going to emerge as a final undeniable driver for space exploration, and yes, firms will make money providing those goods and services. They already have, for that matter.

As far as post-impact mitigation goes, I once considered writing a comedy where California, Oregon, and Washington are washed away by an impact mega-tsunami. Canada and Mexico come to help, and end up at war over the remains. But then I have a strange sense of humor.

[E.P. Grondine]

Exactly. You said it: huge outpouring of help AFTER the tsunami hit. Never mind the fact that the danger was known and an efficient tsunami warning system was technically possible years before and could have saved most of those hundreds of thousands for a fraction of the cost...

Yes. The warnings of those who had worked through the historical records of earlier tsunami were ignored.

Sorry, but I believe this to be wishful thinking. You are forgetting one of humanity's most persistant characteristics: the capacity of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. Remember, it would more likely be scientists who would predict a ">50% chance of it hitting in X years, but by spending Y billions now we can reduce the chance to <10%". I can already hear the politicians arguing about whether the science is accurate, and if it is worth spending that kind of money in the current economic climate etc. Expect plenty of ad hominem attacks against the scentists themselves (scientists have never had such bad press as today, with anti-intellectualism and anti-science movements being as strong as during the dark ages, and not only in the US).

That is certainly true. We can observe the treatment Firestone and his team are getting right now as an example.

No, I don't think so. Understand how the modern human functions: There would be a huge outcry if we spent the Y billions and it turned out it wasn't needed. If it hit, however, most people would claim it was just the will of [insert appropriate deity here]. Millieniallism and apocalyptic thinking is IN, more so than at any time since the dark ages, and not just in America. Personally, I think this is one of the gravest threats to our society today: the huge number of people who expect THE END, the good number who look forward to it, and the growing few who actively try to bring it about.

The general consensus among the experts in the field of impact studies has been that funding will be provided after the next one hits.

[William Barton]

Maybe the best thing that could happen to us all would be for a large asteroid to hit the Moon. That would certainly get everyone's attention. Although given the short attention spans of many people I know, maybe we'd have to arrange for a large asteroid to hit the Moon once every two years, in late October, starting this year...

[iamlucky13]

I'm not exactly sure where this thread is going at the moment, but given the discussion about last minute responses, I wanted to make a point about 2004 MN4 in particular.

I know nuclear weapons are criticized on the basis that you're likely to fragment a large impactor into multiple medium-size ones and possibly just make things worse, but Apophis isn't that large of an object. It's around 300 meters across. We've made craters an order of magnitude bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

When Bravo was detonated, it formed a fireball almost four and a half miles (roughly 7 km) across within a second. This fireball was visible on the Kwajalein atoll over 250 miles (450 km) away. The explosion left a crater of 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (75 m) in depth.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/tours.htm

Sedan was a cratering experiment as part of the Plowshare program - the peaceful uses of nuclear explosives. The 104-kiloton nuclear device explosion displaced about 12 million tons of earth, creating a crater 1,280 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep. This underground test was conducted on July 6, 1962.

Some of that missing material was vaporized, the rest of it gained a fairly substantial amount of delta-V, and none of it remained in very large pieces.

The W88 warheads in service now on the Trident missiles have about four times the yield as the Sedan device.  The B53 warheads that were taken out of active service under treaty but not dismantled are based on the same design as the Castle Bravo device and almost as big.

[Downix]

I'm not exactly sure where this thread is going at the moment, but given the discussion about last minute responses, I wanted to make a point about 2004 MN4 in particular.

I know nuclear weapons are criticized on the basis that you're likely to fragment a large impactor into multiple medium-size ones and possibly just make things worse, but Apophis isn't that large of an object. It's around 300 meters across. We've made craters an order of magnitude bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

When Bravo was detonated, it formed a fireball almost four and a half miles (roughly 7 km) across within a second. This fireball was visible on the Kwajalein atoll over 250 miles (450 km) away. The explosion left a crater of 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (75 m) in depth.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/tours.htm

Sedan was a cratering experiment as part of the Plowshare program - the peaceful uses of nuclear explosives. The 104-kiloton nuclear device explosion displaced about 12 million tons of earth, creating a crater 1,280 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep. This underground test was conducted on July 6, 1962.

Some of that missing material was vaporized, the rest of it gained a fairly substantial amount of delta-V, and none of it remained in very large pieces.

The W88 warheads in service now on the Trident missiles have about four times the yield as the Sedan device.  The B53 warheads that were taken out of active service under treaty but not dismantled are based on the same design as the Castle Bravo device and almost as big.

This reminds me, do the Russians still have a Tzar Bomba hanging around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

50% more powerful than Bravo, plenty of overhead to make sure that there's nothing left of the great snake.

I'd suggest naming whatever we launch at it, however, Set.  For, so it is written, "Only the mighty spear of Set would keep Apep at bay" in the ancient texts.

[ChrisSpaceCH]

This reminds me, do the Russians still have a Tzar Bomba hanging around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

50% more powerful than Bravo, plenty of overhead to make sure that there's nothing left of the great snake.

I'd suggest naming whatever we launch at it, however, Set.  For, so it is written, "Only the mighty spear of Set would keep Apep at bay" in the ancient texts.

The Tsar Bomba was a one-off design made purely for propaganda purposes. It had absolutely no military utility (and, incidentaly, was so big and heavy that it required a specially modified delivery aircraft). The largest operational Russian nuke had, I believe, a yield of around 25 Megatons (still a pretty darn big bang!). These monster weapons also had only one concievable military objective: Blowing up Cheyenne Mountain. I don't know if any of these are still around, though blowing up a mountain probably isn't too different from blowing up an asteroid...