[FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
epgrondine at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 7 18:34:44 EDT 2007
Actually, if the impacts at Rio Curaca(1930) and Rupunini (1936) were
fragments of Comet Schwassmann Wahmann 3, then we face a problem in 2022.
It seems likely diversion could be done by hitting the fragments with masses
designed to impart a maxiumum momentum (I lack a good word for these), if
done EARLY enough. Of course, that requires optimal tracking, and Griffin
is just sitting there, hoping it will all go away, and that Morrison can
shoo the crowd away.
(After all, Morrison has long held that comets and their fragments do not
hit, causing only 5% of impacts. And Nemsis has not been seen recently.
Actually, for that matter, Nemesis has not been seen ever, despite NASA
spending ("wasting") tens of millions of dollars on searches for it at
Morrison's suggestion.) so...
Of course, using a Solid State Heat Capacity Laser to ablate the fragments'
masses into a jet reaction would be the best method, but then Griffin is
just sitting there, so...
You can expect Russia to follow its stated plan (which I translated from
Ruslish to English for the CC several years back):
in other words, use a nuclear charge, along with tracking probes. While the
best way to use a charge like this is iin stand off mode...
China has long stated its policy to maintain its nuclear explosive
capabilities for exactly such a use, and the CZ5 is currently scheduled to
go operational in 2014, so...
Man and Impact in the Americas
>From: "Jens Kieffer-Olsen" <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>
>Reply-To: dstdba at post4.tele.dk
>To: "'Matula, Thomas L.'" <MATULAT at uhv.edu>,<FPSPACE at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
>Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:37:48 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matula, Thomas L. [mailto:MATULAT at uhv.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:08 PM
> > The first thing you need to do, regardless of if it is a
> > Long-term Comet, Short-term Comet or NEA, is get on site
> > information. This means getting a survey spacecraft to it as
> > fast as possible. This means a small craft to allow
> > high-delta V for a rapid intercept with a standard battery of
> > reliable instruments to survey it (size, mass, composition,
> > etc.). You also want to have a series of small probes that
> > would be used to plant seismographs on its surface to
> > determine its sub-surface structure. All information will
> > need BEFORE developing your deflection mitigation strategy.
> > So what you want to do is develop a standardized NEO Reconn
> > craft. Actually a standardized production run of craft,
> > standing by reading to be launched on short notice. And you
> > want to test the prototype craft by actually surveying
> > selected NEOs now so you know it will be reliable and provide
> > the data needed.
> > Again who has experience managing such a multi-vehicle
> > program? NASA which builds and struggle to manage a single
> > space telescope or the U.S. Air Force which has built and
> > operated a series of space telescopes? Or an organized that
> > has managed such multiple spacecraft for decades?
> > Same for the second robotic spacecraft needed for NEO
> > deflection/mitigation. Basically a "transport" spacecraft
> > that would carry whatever the defection/mitigation mission
> > requires. From devices to "paint" the NEO to pure "mass" as a
> > gravity tug to explosive devices. Whatever computer modeling
> > based on the data collected by the NEO Reconn Sat shows would
> > be most effective for THIS particular comet or asteroid. And
> > again, you need field tests to determine the impact of such
> > strategies on different NEOs to verify the models on your computer.
> > And since humans are not in the loop your costs would not be
> > as much as a human spaceflight program. Probably less NASA
> > has spent on the Mars Program in the last decade or two. But
> > again you won't get NASA off its Mars fixation, so you give
> > this mission to the U.S. Air Force which has the capability,
> > resources and DESIRE to do such a mission.
> > Again who are you gonna call when the world needs saving? An
> > agency who regards that as part of its core mission of
> > protecting the U.S.A. or an agency that would regard it as a
> > distraction from its science studies and search for Mars bacteria?
> > Tom
> Point is, Tom, that even though the US Congress is on the
> path towards understanding the PHO challenge and how to
> meet that challenge, they are still a bit short. Like
> everyone else NASA prefers directives that make sense.
> The US Congress fails to appreciate that a doubling of
> the scope of PHO detection by searching for objects
> wider than 40m rather than 140m would bring the impact
> risk entirely under control. At half the full cost they
> pick up a mere 10% of impacts. One is reminded of senator
> Bob Kerr who met demands to cut Apollo funding by asking
> the proponents, if they wanted to only go 90% of the way
> to the Moon. - I bet that there are guys at NASA who can
> tell whether a directive is mature enough to deserve
> full backing, or so incongruent that a hesitant approach
> is required in order not to waste resources.
> By completing the >40m survey in 2029 as I have called for
> a couple of impactors-to-be would be identified, as well
> as the corresponding dates of impact. The discussion of
> whether to practice deflection missions would become moot,
> since we could set out right away doing the real thing.
> Diverting a 50m object due to hit in 200 years is a
> reasonable freshman's exercise to throw at NASA ( or at
> the Air Force ). Feel free to call it a practice mission
> if you must, but to the majority of mankind I'm sure it
> would be seen as a case of timely precaution.
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
More information about the FPSPACE