There have been nuclear weapons tests in space.
Current surveys have almost a 50% chance of detecting a “death plunge” small object with enough time for civil defense measures; future surveys have the potential to do even better with appropriate observing protocol.
In a decade, if everything planned works out, we might be able to see half the objects the size of Asteroid 2017 001, which was only discovered three days after it skimmed Earth, and 10% of the objects similar to the Chelyabinsk air-blast (which could have easily leveled counties or impacted the ground).
Why even bother financing such a program if it's to be so completely ineffective, especially with volunteer options like ATLAS doing just as much?
If it's to be a funded project we should build 10m-70m telescopes, whatever is necessary (size is neither cost nor payload confined as a Hubble/WFIRST-type mission could support over a 110m telescope), to actually do the job while also cataloguing pretty much the entire asteroid belt, solar system, it's moons and much of the Kuiper Belt.
I'd really like to see updated current data, but the original study makes it pretty clear you can't just add in the new detections, you also should make use of the additional data to refine the population size estimates.
... if you can build a >10m space telescope for the cost of NEOCam, you should probably submit a proposal to NASA.
Quote from: hop on 08/05/2017 07:16 pm... if you can build a >10m space telescope for the cost of NEOCam, you should probably submit a proposal to NASA. NEOCam is planning a 0.5m primary, which if reground as a secondary would suggest a primary collecting diameter around 7m and associated 25% increase in launch mass. But why would I submit such a proposal to NASA considering the state of their current programs (SLS, ISS, Commercial), their planned ones (DSG and..?) and their dysfunctional administrative system (program management, selection, budgeting, etc)? If they got better, better options like this and others will both become available and be selected. For now it's still better than ESA, but still not worth the time nor high expectations.
NEOCam is planning a 0.5m primary, which if reground as a secondary would suggest a primary collecting diameter around 7m and associated 25% increase in launch mass.
Could you please describe how this telescope design that you keep alluding to would work?
[. But why would I submit such a proposal to NASA considering the poor state of their current programs (SLS, ISS, Commercial), their planned ones (DSG and..?) and their dysfunctional administrative system (program management, selection, budgeting, etc).If they got better, better options like this and others will both become available and be selected. For now NASA's still better than ESA, but still not worth the time nor effort or expectations.
NEOCam is planning a 0.5m primary, which if reground as a secondary would suggest a primary collecting diameter around 7m and associated 25% increase in launch mass. But why would I submit such a proposal to NASA considering
Quote from: RonM on 08/05/2017 09:20 pm... Hubble "only" has a 2.4m mirror. Sorry, ft to m SNAFU. 43ft ~ 6.5m for Kepler , 110ft ~ 33.6m for WFIRST , 294ft ~ 91m for JWSTPoint being very large telescopes aren't the financial and technical hurdle so many assume. And if such telescopes were available, they'd be requested for missions such as asteroid detection. Which is in itself proof that the current proposals aren't based on mission demands, but the low bar of beggars. So I ask what's the point of a project that will take forever, be incomplete when "finished" while not addressing the most likely source of impacts and only one we can stop: small meteors - especially when good options are available?If you're going to do something, do it right. Don't offer snails, call it gourmet and demand hundreds of $millions.Quote from: Jim on 08/05/2017 09:54 pm...ESA doesn't even come close and has worse "problems". On that, we're in complete agreement. I'd add it's not just their space program, but entire scientific endeavours.
... Hubble "only" has a 2.4m mirror.
...ESA doesn't even come close and has worse "problems".
Quote from: Propylox on 08/05/2017 09:05 pmNEOCam is planning a 0.5m primary, which if reground as a secondary would suggest a primary collecting diameter around 7m and associated 25% increase in launch mass.No, that's not how it works. A 7m mirror would have nearly 200 times the surface area of a 0.5m mirror. How could you possibly build a 7m telescope that only masses 25% more than a 0.5m? Hubble "only" has a 2.4m mirror.We don't need large space telescopes to find asteroids. Multiple NEOCam missions would be nice to speed up the survey.Please do some research before you post.
One of the points I have been trying make lately is that it takes a space telescope to really ascertain asteroid threats. JWST is so late and overcost ($10B+ and climbing) it really makes you wonder about the impact Will be if it fails. There is no way the telescope of JWST is 91m. More like 6.5m.Does JWST have specific goals to monitor asteroids or inbound comets that are Earth grazing? I always (or 17 years ago) got the impression it was to be used for deep sky surveys using a variety of IR cameras/sensors. Are there dedicated space telescopes for asteroids flying now???
Let's not psychoanalyze each other, k?
On top of the impactor we put a smaller version of the proposed Orion damper with a large nuke behind it. The impactor now has a high delta-V. Just Before impact, we detonate the nuke and give the impactor at huge boost in speed. Plus any energy the nuke itself Projects around the plate.
Quote from: puttelino on 08/21/2017 09:20 amOn top of the impactor we put a smaller version of the proposed Orion damper with a large nuke behind it. The impactor now has a high delta-V. Just Before impact, we detonate the nuke and give the impactor at huge boost in speed. Plus any energy the nuke itself Projects around the plate.What do you gain by transferring energy from the nuke, to the impactor and then to the target? Why not cut out the middle man?In general, nukes have the highest energy density, so launching a combination of nukes + kinetic impactors gives you less capability than using the same mass of nukes alone. Kinetic impactors are technically and politically simpler, so they are attractive in cases where they provide sufficient energy in a reasonable launch mass.