Posted on 04/10/2006 1:11:18 PM PDT by presidio9
The best technique is a network of nuclear powered mass-drivers, as many as needed per errant asteroid.
They would land on, and then redirect, using the body's own material, into a safer or more useful orbit.
Certain rules might need to be established in order to prevent hazardous small rocks from flitting about the system. The size of the propellant mass-load, the direction of the expelled mass, and so forth.
Such devices could be used to harvest asteroids from any orbit, from the asteroid belt, the Trojans, Earth grazers and even the Oort Cloud. The longer it has to act, the less drastic action is required.
Please note, this could be a requirement made on privately funded business ventures. They would be unlikely to object too much, because they could bill for services, and reap the harvest of material.
Nukes are fine, but we will need more power for longer. What's the next step up?
Most people limit the definition of Nuclear to mean Fission. I don't.
However, heavy metal power production may be more effective "out there."
If nuclear power can move a sub for years, why wouldn't it be sufficient power for the asteroid?
Since the device is intended for operation in a remote location, shielding is less of a problem, and the unit could be crudely simple.
Need more power. In addition, we cannot be shipping mass out there.
--The risk of an asteroid collision with Earth is extremely remote.
Really?
Yes, the odds are very long for the next century or so. Something a hundred miles across we don't know about now could blast through the solar system from out of deep space, moving maybe three hundred thousand miles per hour, and smack the moon or earth anytime, but there wouldn't be a chance of doing anything about that event.
You misunderstand. The mass is already there. Otherwise, there's no point in going.
Day One ... Nuclear powered Mass-Driver "DAVID" arrives on station, anchors in, and finds guide stars.
On day two, DAVID begins "slinging" his pebbles, in a direction away from expected shipping lanes, and the slow transfer of momentum gradually begins to move the asteroid along DAVID's planned trajectory.
Profit margin. Got to bring that up now and then.
Mentioned in post twenty-one.
DAVIOD's planned trajectory could end in a harvesting orbit for the materials remaining after relocation.
Most asteroidal material is assumed to be of moderately loose aggregate, easy to disassemble as described. The more solid centers could well be valuable metals and ores.
Yeah. When we want to do "star wars," the world whines like a stuck pig. When the EU wants to, er, "deflect asteroids," well, it's more like entertainment.
That's an indirect way of saying a business needs a profit margin on the project and no profit seems likely with that particular implementation.
Have to assume no core and uniform composition all the way through. Not going to bet on that hand.
Well, if it's just a dang rock that nobody wants, we can park it any old where. The money would be in the contract to move it.
If nobody wants to pay the cost of moving it, well -- it's on their heads.
It will cost $50 billion, and ten years lead time. Think NASA can swing that? Maybe Lousiana would chip in.
I could use all the lead time I can get.
However, that price tag came out of the wrong hat. We are talking lean, mean, and dirty pool here. Not NASA standards -- more like an Israeli cost-plus-markup.
Gimme a couple of decommisioned Navy Reactors, some good electronics and navigational equipment, and of course, plenty of room, physical and legal.
And profit.
Why do I get the notion this would'a been a piece of cake in the late sixties?
--Yes, the odds are very long for the next century or so.
I thought I read that an asteroid capable of doing massive damage if it hits the earth in the right (wrong) spot (and by massive damage I mean wipe out a city) happens on average once every two hundred years. Luckily most land in the ocean. The last one hit less than two hundred years ago but that doesn't make me feel any better.
They have odds, like getting hit by lightning, having an SUV attack out of nowhere, a Force 5 tornado through the living room. An asteroid in the vegetable garden is a very long shot by comparison.
--An asteroid in the vegetable garden is a very long shot by comparison.
But what they said was this.
--The risk of an asteroid collision with Earth is extremely remote.
I object to the precise meaning of the words. I wouldn't call it "extremely unlikely" at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.