SPACE OPERATIONS: Planetary Defense Plans
 

I know we've talked about this before (i think in teh general forum), but hee's today's article form strategypage.com:


SPACE OPERATIONS: Planetary Defense Plans

March 23, 2004: Planetary Defense. The close passage of asteroid 2004FH (42,000 kilometers from Earth) brings to mind the question as to whether or not anything can be done about one that is going to hit. This asteroid, being only 100 feet across, was small and probably would have detonated in the atmosphere. However, even that sort of impact could ruin a city’s day. The Tunguska event of 1908 was either a small icy comet or meteorite that detonated about ten kilometers up with a force of up to 30 megatons. Had that occurred over a major city, the results would have been catastrophic.

Air Force Space Command has been working on this mission, sending the Clementine probe up, and testing lightweight technology developed via the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s. The asteroid flyby portion of Clementine’s mission failed, and Clementine II, a mission to dart asteroids, was cancelled in 1997. However, a NASA probe, NEAR-Shoemaker, launched by a Delta II, entered into orbit around the asteroid Eros on February 14, 2000, and eventually landed on it. This was an important, if unheralded milestone in carrying out the mission of planetary defense. If you can land a space probe on an asteroid, you can land another kind of spacecraft on an asteroid.

The real challenge, however, is finding and tracking an asteroid to get a long-enough lead time to apply that technology. Asteroid 2004FH was detected on March 15th – less than four days before its close pass. NEAR-Shoemaker took 28 months to develop and four years to approach Eros. There may also be an issue with booster availability. The Titan 4 is probably the booster that would be used. However, the Air Force has a total of ten left, albeit with no launches scheduled (prior to 2004 there had been as many as five launches a year – present capability is eight launches a year, but can surge to twelve). The Delta III booster, which is almost as capable as the Titan 4, failed in two launches (destroyed in 1998 after going off-course, the next flight put a satellite in the wrong orbit. A third launch was with a dummy payload). The Titan II, a refurbished ICBM, and the previously mentioned Delta II could also be used to launch an interceptor.

Should an asteroid be headed for Earth, the interceptor to rendezvous with it would probably be carrying a nuclear weapon. The objective would be to either deflect the asteroid by detonating the nuclear weapon a short distance from the surface of the asteroid or to go for a hard kill. The latter would be accomplished through a nuclear detonation that would either disintegrate or fragment the asteroid by placing the nuclear weapon in contact with the asteroid’s surface. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)

Interesting. Seems iffy though. I think that planetary defense should be a coordinated effort between nations. If we put our heads together, I imagine we can produce a defense mechanism thats a bit more reliable.

I've tried to think of ways to get rid of big asteroids/comets headed towards us, and in the end the 'nuke it to hell' system is the only thing I come up with. The deflection proposal is interesting, but I'd think it would only put it in a narrow orbit with the Sun, allowing the chance for it to get pulled by another object and come back and hit us.

1 km is more like a death knell though. It's a tricky operation to try to break something that friggin' huge up, risking lots of large debris, or deflecting it, risking it coming back later. I don't think there are any objects bigger than 5 km left that could hit Earth--that we can track anyway. There are probably millions in the Oort Cloud, but the biggest ones there have orbits too stable to change towards us.

100 ft is nothing though for space rocks. The average shuttle would be comparable in size. If it's that small, it's going to burn up in the atmosphere, and it's a waste of resources to try to shoot away. Overall, I'd say have a system for all nations to have a say in, in order to shoot these things down if it is needed, rather than risk everyone firing nukes at it, causing a tremendous amount of overkill and radiation fallout.

I agree. All countries should put their heads together.

don't you mean this?

the U.S will pay for and develop everything, while Europe sits tight and bosses America around, then takes the credit when the project bears fruit? :rolleyes:

they already tried that aproach in regards to defense. in reality, only america is maintaining steady military R&D plus a large, well trained and equiped force, and France throws a hissy fit everytime America doesn't bow down and lick their boots.

ahaha.

yeah. If we put the UN on this issue, two things could happen: we'd never agree, or agree to do something idiotic (a camel is a horse designed by commitee), or whatever gets agreed upon, US would foot the bill.

look at the "international" space station. A great international effort. But if the US wasn't funding it, it would be in the drink.

granted, if the Russians weren't involved, it wouldn't be manned right now anyway, due to the grounding of the shuttle. But at least NASA would have had to have the balls to send another shuttle up anyway to get the gusy down. (but seriously, how much time do we need to make sure foam doesn't fall off the shuttle again?)

Yes, yes, America is better than everybody, thats fine. But I think that defense of the PLANET should MAYBE be the responsibility of more than just us. THATS what I meant.

Uhh... I would think R&D, along with pretty much Science, Math, Art, etc. etc. nowadays is pretty interconnected. I don't think we're worried that France might steal our Save the World plan. "Oh dear god! Those frogs could... save us all!"

Hey... I should make a movie about frogs saving the world.

Anyway, I don't think the UN or any other bureaucratic commitee has to be involved in this. Personally, I don't see why Europe wouldn't be happy to help. After all, it's not like they're going to say, "We'll have no part in this benevolent scheme of yours!"

Seriously, any country with a brain and a budget will help us.

<But at least NASA *would have had to have* the balls to send another shuttle up anyway to get the gusy down. (but seriously, how much time do we need to make sure foam doesn't fall off the shuttle again?)>

About the amount of time it takes to get some independant companies to compete for a better craft design, and build some, and train people to use them, and test them, and finally send them up. I'd give it three years if it were an ideal world, more than five at the current rate.


*Terrific! :D

good intentions, and you're absolutely right. Every country should contribute. But they never do. Kazahkstan sent a grand total of 20 troops to Iraq, and all of a sudden they are part of the coalition and are making demands and wanting benefits. It's not a question of america being the best (even though we are) its a question of how much OTHER countries want to contribute, which if history shows, is typically peanuts.

umm, most military R&D is completely independent of each other. I think the two closest is America and Britian. But nonetheless, America has it's own tanks and airplanes (Abrams A2s, and JSF) and Europe has its own tanks and airplanes (Challenger 2s and Su-37s)