|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« on: 04/03/2006 04:45 PM » |
|
Well, they don't have Bruce Willis, but they didn't mince their words on the intro: "If a large asteroid such as the recently identified 2004 VD17 - about 500 m in diameter with a mass of nearly 1000 million tonnes - collides with the Earth it could spell disaster for much of our planet. As part of ESA's Near-Earth Object deflecting mission Don Quijote, three teams of European industries are now carrying out studies on how to prevent this." http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMC43NFGLE_index_0.html
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 04/03/2006 04:45 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MartianBase
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 04/03/2006 05:53 PM » |
|
Well if they don't have Willis at least they got a nice sized launcher, since the Titan-Centaur was retired NASA no longer has payload to match the Protons or Arianes. At least Delta, Stick and Atlas seem to be one their way to launching a medium/heavy load
|
|
|
|
dmc6960
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 04/04/2006 06:43 PM » |
|
MartianBase - 3/4/2006 12:53 PM
Well if they don't have Willis at least they got a nice sized launcher, since the Titan-Centaur was retired NASA no longer has payload to match the Protons or Arianes. At least Delta, Stick and Atlas seem to be one their way to launching a medium/heavy load Delta already has launched a heavy load (although not with 100% success, but they fixed that, 2 more plan the launch this year). Atlas can launch a heavy load within 2 years of a request for it, which they have not recieved yet.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 04/04/2006 07:49 PM » |
|
MartianBase - 3/4/2006 12:53 PMWell if they don't have Willis at least they got a nice sized launcher, since the Titan-Centaur was retired NASA no longer has payload to match the Protons or Arianes. At least Delta, Stick and Atlas seem to be one their way to launching a medium/heavy load Stick will not be used for anything but CEV. NASA does not have any ELV's, by law, they must buy launch services and EELV's will do just fine
|
|
|
|
Jamie Young
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 04/07/2006 12:53 AM » |
|
What is the current most powerful launcher on the planet?
|
|
|
|
MartianBase
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 04/07/2006 01:52 AM » |
|
Jamie Young - 6/4/2006 7:53 PM
What is the current most powerful launcher on the planet? Good question, STS doesn't launch beyond LEO no more and even during its best days the majority of its payload was all Shuttle, Proton is a very good launcher but it ain't very heavy, Ariane can launch some big stuff to GTO but it also isn't very good for the biggest heavy lifts, Energia was a great one with a bit more takeoff thrust than the giant Saturn-V but the project is dead and the roof caved-in on the Energia building in '02, China is launching manned flights but nothing in the very heavy class, Japan seems to be going backwards, Musk's tiny Falcon failed but a big Delta and big Atlas might be coming along someday soon.... I did a quick search on the heavy subject http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19472&page=3http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/about1373-0-asc-135.htmland it looks like our friend publiusr might be the person to ask
|
|
|
|
mr.columbus
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 04/07/2006 12:43 PM » |
|
Jamie Young - 6/4/2006 8:53 PM
What is the current most powerful launcher on the planet? I guess in this context (Asteriod deflection mission), you ask for the most powerful launcher, currently in use and successfulyl flying. 1. Ariane 5 ECA is currently the most powerful launcher, if you apply the criteria above. 2. Proton has nearly the same capacity to LEO as Ariane 5 ECA, but can launch only considerably less to GTO. 3. Delta IV's first and only launch of the heavy launcher was a partial failure (as mentioned above). It therefore, although it would be more powerful than Ariane 5, does not meet the above criteria. All other launchers that would exceed or rival the payload capacities of the rockets mentioned above, are either out of production or have not flown yet.
|
|
|
|
Ventrater
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 04/10/2006 11:22 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Ventrater
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 04/21/2006 12:27 AM » |
|
ESA has selected three European consortia to do competing studies on an asteroid-deflection mission that could be launched as soon as 2011. The three groups chosen are Alcatel Alenia Space, EADS Astrium and QinetiQ, which have EACH  been given approximately 450,000 euros for a preliminary design of the mission, dubbed Don Quijote. The mission would include two small satellites; one satellite would collide with the asteroid, and the other would watch the collision from close and measure the resulting change in the asteroid’s trajectory. [Space News 04/17/06
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 04/28/2006 10:25 PM » |
|
MartianBase - 6/4/2006 8:52 PM
Jamie Young - 6/4/2006 7:53 PM
What is the current most powerful launcher on the planet?
Good question,
STS doesn't launch beyond LEO no more and even during its best days the majority of its payload was all Shuttle, Proton is a very good launcher but it ain't very heavy, Ariane can launch some big stuff to GTO but it also isn't very good for the biggest heavy lifts, Energia was a great one with a bit more takeoff thrust than the giant Saturn-V but the project is dead and the roof caved-in on the Energia building in '02, China is launching manned flights but nothing in the very heavy class, Japan seems to be going backwards, Musk's tiny Falcon failed but a big Delta and big Atlas might be coming along someday soon....
I did a quick search on the heavy subject
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19472&page=3
http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/about1373-0-asc-135.html
and it looks like our friend publiusr might be the person to ask Just an advocate mind you. STS has the edge, even if you don't add the weight of the orbiter. Proton is a bit too far north. 20 tons of payload for STS is all payload. With Proton or any other craft, part of the payload has to be allowcated to maneuver fuel and whatnot. So in terms of size and mass of pure payload--its STS, for the orbiter does all the work. Titan IV was better at certain missions, but in terms of overall mass to LEO it is STS hands down. If only those SSMEs had been RD-0120s under the ET...
|
|
|
|
realtime
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 04/30/2006 06:12 AM » |
|
A dinky little impactor won't make much difference on a great big rock except maybe to break it up so it hits like a shotgun blast instead of a hollow-point.
One interesting idea is to land one or more robot thrusters on the rock. It uses the rock's material itself as propellant and pushes it just enough to make it miss the earth.
Of course there's a lot of undeveloped tech required for that approach and it requires a long lead time, but then again, if the rock isn't discovered many months or years in advance there's not much we can do about it anyway.
|
|
|
|
kevin-rf
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 05/01/2006 02:59 AM » |
|
realtime - 30/4/2006 1:12 AM
A dinky little impactor won't make much difference on a great big rock except maybe to break it up so it hits like a shotgun blast instead of a hollow-point.
Doubt it would do that much. Remember NASA's deep impact mission did not break up comet temple, just made a big hole in it. Still if you change an asteriods speed by an inch a second it adds up to 30 million inches a year (~500 miles). That may be enough for a miss. Actualy there was a concept out a few months ago that was kinda of neat. An ION engine powered spacecraft has enough power to hover over an asteriod. You hover in front of the asteriod it speeds up and crosses the earths path sooner (before we run it over), you hover behind the asteriod it slows down and crosses the earths path later. It won't work for someone spotting a smudge in a CCD frame and realizing it is inbound. But could work for the majority of cases where we spot an earth crosser and realize that on it's present course one of it's future close encounters will put it earth and the object in the same spot.
|
|
|
|
realtime
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 05/01/2006 04:20 AM » |
|
You wouldn't think such a small mass would have that much effect, would you?
This might be a good job for Simon's laser ablative motor. Park a chunk of ablative metal or plastic on the surface and blast at it with a laser for weeks or months. Maybe you don't even need the propellant chunk, just blast the rock's surface directly. Might be more effective on large objects.
OT, but it must be harrowing for the mission planners to make sure they don't do more harm than good. That is, maybe by their actions they manage to put off a hit on orbit "n" but ensure it on orbit "n+m"? Yikes!
|
|
|
|
Hotol
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 05/03/2006 09:50 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 05/04/2006 05:51 PM » |
|
I would love to see a Teton type near miss over the Beltway with sonic booms shattering every window in DC. before big Nickel-Iron skips back into space.
Maybe then Griffin would get a bigger budget.
|
|
|
|
spacefire
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 05/05/2006 09:03 PM » |
|
I think if you deploy a large focusing mirror in space you can do away with lasers. In fact, a few mirrors at Lagrange points should allow you to control the asteroid's trajectory by vaporizing its surface at certain spots. kinda like burning holes with a lens 
|
|
|
|
