New asteroid defence: a coat of paint
Posted on: February 24, 2013 - 11:25am
Offline
New asteroid defence: a coat of paint
Quote:
any future mission to divert an asteroid might have vacancies for those with a talent for re-decoration and a penchant for a paintbrush.
The still theoretical process would involve dusting an approaching asteroid threatening Earth with a thin coat of paint, reports Phys.org. By doing so, the reflective qualities of the lump of space debris would be altered. This, in turn, would change the amount of sunlight reflected by an asteroid on an Earthbound trajectory, producing what is known as the Yarkovski effect, so called after a Russian engineer who discovered it in 1902.
As the reflective qualities of the asteroid are changed, the dusk side becomes warmer than the dawn side causing the dusk side to radiate more thermal protons, each with a tiny momentum. These radiating photons act like a rocket thruster and, the theory goes, cause the asteroid to alter course.
By Robert Myles
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/344127
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Doesn't seem practical.
Obviously not to you. You'd need to be intelligent to understand the concepts. Sorry.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh yeah, painting an asteroid is a lot easier than using small satellites to change the orbit of the asteroid?? Yep.. completely missed out on that logic.
We already know you're too stupid to see the difference between a billion dollar satellite and a ten thousand dollar paint job. No need to constantly advertise your stupidity.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
LMAO.. yeah.. 10,000 paint job. Keep on traveling down that pipe dream.
(edit)
...and it wouldn't take a billion dollar satellite to change the course of a asteroid. Even the Mars Curiosity didn't cost that much (2.5 million with all the testing equipment, etc).
Ok there retard. You go ahead and keep thinking you are smarter than NASA researchers while I laugh.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I think the point is that a paint job acts in an exponential manner - the initial effect is tiny, but the asteroid will continue to divert from its path at ever greater increments, so the net change after a large time becomes very large. The alternative of a large initial force, such as a rocket boost, will provide a slight shift in path, but it'll be quite minor if the asteroid is big (>1km wide), and may not be enough to deviate it enough to stop a collision. Deviating something very slightly in an orbit doesn't really change the general path of the orbit much, and there can still be many points of intersection with the original orbit.
So it really depends on when the asteroid is predicted to collide, and how much warning we get. Painting something that will hit in 30 days will do sod all, but if it's calculated to hit in 100+ years, the exponential effect of continued photon emission will rack up and be significant enough to deviate it and save the earth.
It's really got nothing to do with cost - it's more about feasibility given our technical skill.
Anything projected to hit in 30 days will hit in 30 days. Nothing would stop a rock of sufficient size that close.
However, if this method were used on an asteroid similar to Apophis, it would be effective in as little a window as 20 years.
Also, cost is always a factor.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I agree. Some retarded people don't seem to understand that logic.
Also painting would be very difficult. The logistics of painting a tumbling asteroid with dust would be quite difficult. Getting enough on the astreroid and also getting it in the right place would be extremely complicated. Of course, the person who thought up this idea didn't really go that far when they suggested the idea.
http://www.space.com/19905-dangerous-asteroid-deflection-paint.html
Lol. Always fun to watch a retard contradict and insult himself all in one phrase at the same time as proving he didn't research the topic sufficiently to see a delivery method was in fact proposed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Admitedly I hadn't done the maths on this, but Apophis would have negligible long-lasting global effects (local damage of a few 1000 kms) and would not wipe out humankind. Not that we wouldn't be pissed if it hit us, but in this case yes, cost is a factor.
If we're talking about identifying something on a par with the Chicxulub meteor and stopping it completely destroying all human life on the planet, then no, cost is not a factor.
I suspect that if another Chicxulub meteor came along the world would work together to stop it from hitting Earth. The issue is which method would work best for such a large rock?? As you stated previously, time is a factor. What if they don't see it months away from Earth? What if they only see it a few weeks in advance?
I also suspect that there would be arguments over who builds what, who pays for it, who launches it?
Is there something blocking our view? How the hell does an asteroid sneak up on us?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
It's a really big sky. For the most part, NASA is the only one searching it. And asteroids and comets can be pretty dark unless close to the sun or highly reflective.
There's an article every other week these days, talking about yet another near Earth object flying harmlessly past. And yet noone saw the one that exploded in Russia coming.
Finally, cost is ALWAYS a factor. It has been a factor in anything and everything our species and all its progenitors have ever done and will ever do, until such time as we can conjure matter and energy out of thin air.
A puny asteroid, even a huge one, is NOT an exception to the rule.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I had heard there have been several near misses which were blocked by the Sun.