Author Topic: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041  (Read 13976 times)


Offline Captain Scarlet

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Cambridgeshire, England
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #1 on: 12/28/2006 10:16 AM »
Yeah, let's jump on board and ride the thing around the solar system! :)

Offline Marcus

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #2 on: 01/04/2007 07:17 PM »
Attach rockets to it and nudge it's orbit into an Earth-capture trajectory, then mine the bejeezus out of it!

Oh, but please make sure that's a gravitational capture and not a lithosphere capture.
OPS!
One Percent for SPACE!

Offline oscar71

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #3 on: 01/05/2007 05:51 AM »
Wow, that's going to be 6 days after I turn 70 (God willing, and if He doesn't, there will be hell to pay!!).  The Orion guys have been talking about sending humans to asteriods, this might be a contender, just ride it back close to home.

Offline Rocket Ronnie

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #4 on: 01/05/2007 10:48 AM »
Quote
Marcus - 4/1/2007  2:00 PM

Attach rockets to it and nudge it's orbit into an Earth-capture trajectory, then mine the bejeezus out of it!

Oh, but please make sure that's a gravitational capture and not a lithosphere capture.

Would that make it visable to the naked eye on earth?

Offline Marcus

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #5 on: 01/05/2007 02:14 PM »
Quote
Rocket Ronnie - 5/1/2007  3:31 AM

Quote
Marcus - 4/1/2007  2:00 PM

Attach rockets to it and nudge it's orbit into an Earth-capture trajectory, then mine the bejeezus out of it!

Oh, but please make sure that's a gravitational capture and not a lithosphere capture.

Would that make it visable to the naked eye on earth?

If we do it right: No.
If we do it wrong: Yes, but only for a very short time.

This wasn't a serious suggestion, by the way. As someone suggested in another thread, we should probably practice with other planets--and set up self-sustaining coloneies elsewhere--before we go about throwing big rocks at the Earth and hoping we miss just right.

Still, imagine the possibilities of an earth-captured asteroid. Spacecraft/station construction. Refueling station. Space elevator anchor.
OPS!
One Percent for SPACE!

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #6 on: 01/05/2007 06:52 PM »
One more reason I want large LVs. The more fuel you have to really push that thing--the better.

Offline HD209458

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Cambridge, MA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #7 on: 01/10/2007 08:05 PM »
I've been thinking about how one might actually try to slow this thing down into an Earth orbit. Taking information from this JPL website:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2006xg1.html

2006 XG1 has a mass of about 4E11 kg and an excess velocity (with respect to Earth) of 14.87km/s. An SSME (as a representative rocket) has an exhaust velocity of 4500m/s. That would mean you would need to expel about 10^12 kg of exhaust from one to kill off enough momentum for 2006 XG1 to be captured. Clearly impractical.

So what if instead you went up and buried several nuclear bombs some fraction of the way along the velocity axis of 2006 XG1? Then you would set the bombs off, and cleave a large section of the asteroid off, effectively using it as your propellant mass.

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #8 on: 01/10/2007 10:39 PM »
Quote
HD209458 - 10/1/2007  1:48 PM

So what if instead you went up and buried several nuclear bombs some fraction of the way along the velocity axis of 2006 XG1? Then you would set the bombs off, and cleave a large section of the asteroid off, effectively using it as your propellant mass.

Or blast the asteroid into flinders, with minimal change in direction or velocity.

If you want to use nukes, use Casaba Howitzer-type nukes at a standoff.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline Marcus

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #9 on: 01/10/2007 11:46 PM »
You wouldn't want to try bringing the asteroid into an Earth-capture orbit by brute force. That will probably "NEVER" be possible. Rather, you'll want to engineer a complicated flight design that includes several planetary swingbys to bleed off momentum and change course so that the asteroid coasts into a geocentric orbit with just the smallest of man-made nudges.

Or if you were really daring (like mad scientist daring), you could try aerobraking for faster results.
OPS!
One Percent for SPACE!

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #10 on: 01/11/2007 04:17 AM »

There are a number of asteroids with much lower C3 at approach than 2006 XG1.  Here's some data from the JPL site taken and sorted by C3.  The V-infinity (which is the square root of C3) is the last column.

(2006 QQ56)    2007-Jan-10    18 m - 39 m     1.55
(2006 JY26)     2007-Mar-23    0.0899   35   5.7 m - 13 m    2.38
(2006 JY26)     2007-Jul-07    0.0812   31.6   5.7 m - 13 m    2.54
(2003 YN107)     2007-May-22    0.0617   24   15 m - 33 m    3.09
(2003 WP25)     2007-Jan-16    0.1218   47.4   35 m - 79 m    3.52
(2006 UQ216)     2007-May-09    0.1963   76.4   9.3 m - 21 m    3.72
(2003 WP25)     2007-May-09    0.1237   48.1   35 m - 79 m    3.93
(2000 LG6)     2007-May-09    0.0795   30.9   4.2 m - 9.3 m    4.18
(2006 BJ55)     2007-May-30    0.1453   56.6   38 m - 85 m    4.3
(2006 XP4)     2007-Jan-09    0.0736   28.7   46 m - 100 m    4.62
(2006 SU217)     2007-Jul-08    0.1655   64.4   22 m - 49 m    4.69
(2006 UQ17)     2007-Jan-02    0.0291   11.3   110 m - 240 m    4.99
(2002 VX91)     2007-Feb-16    0.1746   67.9   40 m - 89 m    5.15
(2006 VP13)     2007-Mar-18    0.1992   77.5   53 m - 120 m    5.34
(2005 CN61)     2007-Mar-08    0.1507   58.7   23 m - 52 m    5.44
(2000 CQ101)     2007-Apr-21    0.194   75.5   750 m - 1.7 km    5.55
(2006 SY5)     2007-Mar-14    0.1082   42.1   100 m - 230 m    5.65
(2002 VX91)     2007-May-27    0.1873   72.9   40 m - 89 m    5.69
(2006 YH14)     2007-Jan-13    0.0995   38.7   61 m - 140 m    6.26
(2005 CN)     2007-Jun-30    0.1883   73.3   68 m - 150 m    6.39
(2006 YU1)     2007-Jan-20    0.1816   70.7   170 m - 370 m    6.41
(1999 SK10)     2007-Jan-30    0.1153   44.9   350 m - 770 m    6.45
(2006 RH2)     2007-Feb-07    0.1811   70.5   9.8 m - 22 m    6.56
(2006 YP)     2006-Dec-30    0.0582   22.6   50 m - 110 m    6.76
(2004 GU9)     2007-Apr-30    0.1744   67.9   150 m - 340 m    7.01
(2003 WE)     2007-Jun-26    0.0614   23.9   34 m - 77 m    7.07
(2006 VW2)     2007-Apr-11    0.1475   57.4   150 m - 330 m    7.21
(2006 HR29)     2007-Apr-17    0.1042   40.5   200 m - 440 m    7.44
(1998 VO)     2007-May-07    0.0633   24.6   250 m - 550 m    7.59
(2006 XY2)     2006-Dec-30    0.1843   71.7   82 m - 180 m    7.65
(2006 YD12)     2007-Jan-02    0.0926   36   80 m - 180 m    7.68
(2002 AA29)     2007-Jan-09    0.1841   71.7   41 m - 91 m    8.2
7341 (1991 VK)     2007-Jan-21    0.0679   26.4   1.2 km - 2.7 km    8.67
(2003 LN6)     2007-Jun-28    0.1572   61.2   34 m - 76 m    8.97
(2006 XB)     2007-Feb-14    0.1033   40.2   190 m - 420 m    9.59
(2005 UG5)     2007-May-25    0.1458   56.7   36 m - 79 m    9.61
(2003 EF54)     2007-Jul-06    0.1523   59.3   270 m - 600 m    9.72
5011 Ptah     2007-Jan-21    0.1982   77.1   1.0 km - 2.3 km    10.12
139622 (2001 QQ142)     2006-Dec-29    0.1381   53.7   580 m - 1.3 km    10.13
(2006 YA)     2006-Dec-29    0.0506   19.7   63 m - 140 m    10.38
(2005 NW44)     2007-Jun-18    0.0591   23   210 m - 480 m    11.09
(2001 BE10)     2007-Jan-19    0.1051   40.9   400 m - 900 m    11.13
(2002 EW8)     2007-Mar-21    0.1059   41.2   53 m - 120 m    11.22
141484 (2002 DB4)     2007-Apr-27    0.1944   75.7   1.4 km - 3.1 km    11.31
(2001 CP36)     2007-Jan-27    0.1237   48.2   48 m - 110 m    11.34
(2005 ES70)     2007-Mar-11    0.0722   28.1   52 m - 120 m    11.76
(2006 VD13)     2007-Feb-17    0.1495   58.2   450 m - 1.0 km    11.91
(2006 BA9)     2007-Apr-16    0.1465   57   71 m - 160 m    11.94
(2001 YE4)     2007-Jan-04    0.033   12.9   210 m - 470 m    11.95
(2003 FU3)     2007-Apr-30    0.082   31.9   180 m - 390 m    11.97
(2002 BM26)     2007-Jan-23    0.1741   67.7   260 m - 580 m    12.4
(2001 UX16)     2007-Mar-18    0.1838   71.5   120 m - 270 m    12.77
(2004 KH17)     2007-Jun-06    0.0773   30.1   110 m - 240 m    13.03
(2002 DO3)     2007-Jun-28    0.1346   52.4   120 m - 260 m    13.68
(2000 UY33)     2007-Apr-25    0.186   72.4   100 m - 230 m    13.82
138859 (2000 WN63)     2007-Jun-05    0.1738   67.6   390 m - 860 m    13.88
(2002 EQ9)     2007-Mar-22    0.1028   40   360 m - 800 m    13.97
(2004 KG1)     2007-May-19    0.1236   48.1   41 m - 93 m    14.01
(2002 JQ9)     2007-May-05    0.1726   67.2   380 m - 850 m    14.08
(2004 RN251)     2007-Feb-04    0.0612   23.8   18 m - 40 m    14.17
(2004 RE84)     2007-Mar-12    0.0823   32   100 m - 230 m    14.59
138127 (2000 EE14)     2007-Mar-07    0.1646   64.1   1.1 km - 2.5 km    15.04
(2003 HB)     2007-May-23    0.0891   34.7   310 m - 700 m    15.55
(2004 XK14)     2006-Dec-31    0.1711   66.6   94 m - 210 m    16.06
(2003 YL)     2007-Apr-17    0.1874   72.9   290 m - 650 m    16.24
(2004 HZ)     2007-Apr-20    0.1183   46   95 m - 210 m    16.8
(2006 VV2)     2007-Mar-31    0.0226   8.8   1.3 km - 2.9 km    16.96
138727 (2000 SU180)     2007-Mar-07    0.1139   44.3   430 m - 960 m    17.74
136900 (1998 HL49)     2007-Mar-14    0.1083   42.1   890 m - 2.0 km    18.4
1862 Apollo     2007-May-08    0.0714   27.8   1.5 km - 3.3 km    19.18
(2002 HQ11)     2007-Apr-05    0.1602   62.3   470 m - 1.0 km    19.65
(2006 CJ)     2007-Jan-31    0.0264   10.3   240 m - 530 m    20.94
(2006 EK53)     2007-Mar-12    0.1825   71   66 m - 150 m    21.33
(2006 AM4)     2007-Feb-01    0.0135   5.2   110 m - 250 m    21.36
(2003 HA)     2007-May-15    0.1885   73.4   1.5 km - 3.3 km    23.43
(1991 GO)     2007-Apr-15    0.1807   70.3   290 m - 640 m    23.71
(2005 AD13)     2007-Jun-18    0.0852   33.1   700 m - 1.6 km    23.75
(2006 WE129)     2007-May-26    0.1648   64.1   270 m - 600 m    25.14
(2001 XP1)     2006-Dec-30    0.1913   74.4   700 m - 1.6 km    25.21
(2001 HB)     2007-Apr-08    0.158   61.5   220 m - 490 m    27.45



Offline RHAnthony

  • I'm in yer planetz, talkin 2 ur roverz
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #11 on: 01/11/2007 09:19 AM »
"Although it could hit us, the most likely estimate guesses that 2006 XG1 will pass by on October 31, 2041 at a distance of only 5,000 km (3,100 miles). Consider that the Moon is about 385,000 km away. Whatever happens, itíll be a close call."

So, does this mean it's going to pass between us and the moon?  What are the chances it hits the moon, and if so what is the estimated damage caused, and therefore the estimated effects on the Earth if we ... lose the moon!?

Wow.  That could SUCK.

Offline refsmmat

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #12 on: 01/11/2007 12:58 PM »
Discussion on the Minor Planets Mailing List clarifies discussion of 2006 XG1:

Based on its designation this object must have been discovered about three weeks ago.

The error bars of where it might be on Halloween 2041 are quite large.  A 5000 km miss distance is just one possibility of thousands, and I think the center of the probability swarm is quite far off.

More observations are needed.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #13 on: 01/11/2007 02:25 PM »
I wouldn't recommend trying to catch XG1--the C3's too high.  You want to look for an asteroid that will make a close approach and have a low C3.  C3 is an energy term whose square root is the velocity difference between the Earth's velocity vector and the asteroid's velocity vector at closest approach.

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #14 on: 01/11/2007 03:08 PM »
Quote
RHAnthony - 11/1/2007  3:02 AM

 What are the chances it hits the moon, and if so what is the estimated damage caused, and therefore the estimated effects on the Earth if we ... lose the moon!?


Most likely impact energy would be about 1,600 megatons. Trivial. Another rather small crater for the moon. To actually destroy the moon, you're talking about hitting the moon with something a good fraction the size of the moon. This thing is dinky.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #15 on: 01/11/2007 03:09 PM »
Quote
Marcus - 10/1/2007  5:29 PM

 you could try aerobraking for faster results.

Indeed. And the neat thing is, you wouldn't need to aerobrake at *Earth.* Hint, hint...
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline simonbp

Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #16 on: 01/11/2007 04:18 PM »
Heck, why not slow it down enough to gently lithobrake at the Moon, conveniently next to a Lunar base...

Simon ;)

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #17 on: 01/11/2007 07:39 PM »
I wonder what the effects would be, a, what, 14 km/s impact to the moon of a 10^11 kg mass...
Maybe if it had ice or carbon, it could be useful, if it wouldn't vaporize, but I'm somewhat worried.
I wonder how long it'd take for the dust to settle... In principle of course it should be fairly quick as there is no air on the moon, all the dust would follow elliptic trajectory except those with over escape velocity having hyperbolic. There should be plenty of old impact craters on the moon for study.

Here's a nice tool for earth impact estimates:
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #18 on: 01/12/2007 05:45 PM »
I'd have no problen having it dump speed in some way in order to have in in a lunar orbit, so it wouldn't be such a great deal when it falls to the surface.

I wonder if the same method used to cut up the Kursk would work with rugged Nickel Iron asteroids--the use of a long cable to slice it up. Package the smaller bits into ballutes sent up--and brink it back a few tons at a time.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Close Call with Asteroid 2006 XG1 in 2041
« Reply #19 on: 01/12/2007 06:51 PM »
Probably not, on the cable.  You need something to push the cable against the thing you're cutting, which with the Kursk was the weight of the Kursk and probably the buoyancy of the ships holding the ends of the cable.  Harder to arrange in space.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Tags: