2004 MN4

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 10:31:00

@ 2136 the asteroid will hit now where on the Earth will it hit?

BWhite · 2004-12-27 10:53:11

If you plan ahead far enough, ion drive would seem ideal for moving some H-bombs nice and close, perhaps with a solid fuel penetrator rocket motor to be ignited at a range of maybe 50 miles to deliver the H-bomb.

Maybe this is a reason to build two JIMO class vessels.

Good practice would be to orbit a solar ion surveyor to match orbits and study it up close as well as "tag" 2004 MN4 with a transponder for more accurate trajectory calculations.

A Deep Space-1 or SMART-1 class mission using a chemical stage to approximate the orbit of 2004 NM4 with ion drive to fine tune a matching trajectory as close as desired.

$250 million? We could get started right now.

= = =

Add:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/2004mn4or.gif]Orbital map courtsy of JPL

This guy will pass Earth many times between now and 2029.

Tag it with a solar ion companion in the next few years - - this doubles up the benefits by surveying the heck out of an NEO and also accomplishes a practice run on the calculations needed to whack it with some H-bonbs if necessary.

= = =

Calling our orbital mechanics experts!

How difficult would it be to position a solar ion drive robotic craft on a parallel orbit within 100 miles of this asteroid?

Can we do a simple transfer orbit? I see this as being like a "stern chase" from naval warfare - - use solar ion to accelerate from behind and slowly close the distance until the orbits are nearly identical.

Edited By BWhite on 1104167521

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 11:07:27

I'm wondering what type of weapon in our arsenal would be appropriate to blast it. Most of our warheads are either compact quarter-megaton bombs for cruise missiles or MIRVs, or else old huge multiton multimegaton monsters, which unfortunatly don't have all the safeties that modern bombs do.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 11:08:47

Sounds good but we should whack it enough to capture it in either Earths Orbit or the Moons orbit!!

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 11:18:29

Errorist, this thing is not that big. It really isn't worth going through all the trouble and risk to capture it, since its probobly just made of rocks or base metals.

If we nuke it, particularly with a penitrator, there won't be much left of it either.

BWhite · 2004-12-27 11:18:45

I'm wondering what type of weapon in our arsenal would be appropriate to blast it. Most of our warheads are either compact quarter-megaton bombs for cruise missiles or MIRVs, or else old huge multiton multimegaton monsters, which unfortunatly don't have all the safeties that modern bombs do.

That seems like a legitimate reason to practice.

Hit it 10 - 15 years in advance with back up weapons for every subsequent orbital cycle. SMART-1 cost less than $100 million. (Too small, but it gives a reference point)

Build 5 or 6 solar ion delivery vehicles for use around 2016 or 2018. Put them all in the same orbit as the target.

Whack it after it passes by Earth and chase it with follow up weapons as needed.

= = =

$5 billion would seem more than sufficent enough to deliver several weapons.

Edited By BWhite on 1104168133

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 11:31:24

I prefer the idea of sticking with chemical engines if at all possible for the interceptors, ion engines are awfully slow.

The USAF has a warhead called the B83, which weighs in at a little over two tons, and has a yeild of 1.2MT on the high setting. It is designed to attack hardend surface bunkers/silos and fused for ground detonation, so it already has some impact resistance inherint to its design. The prime canidate and the most powerful weapon in the current arsenal. "Plan B" would be the W88 used on the Trident-II missile, which has a yeild of 0.5MT and is already tailored for in spare carriage (as it rides an ICBM). I wonder if the whole Trident-II warhead bus could be carried whole and unmodified to the target.

BWhite · 2004-12-27 11:39:59

I prefer the idea of sticking with chemical engines if at all possible for the interceptors, ion engines are awfully slow.
The USAF has a warhead called the B83, which weighs in at a little over two tons, and has a yeild of 1.2MT on the high setting. It is designed to attack hardend surface bunkers/silos and fused for ground detonation, so it already has some impact resistance inherint to its design. The prime canidate and the most powerful weapon in the current arsenal. "Plan B" would be the W88 used on the Trident-II missile, which has a yeild of 0.5MT and is already tailored for in spare carriage (as it rides an ICBM). I wonder if the whole Trident-II warhead bus could be carried whole and unmodified to the target.

Delta II with an additional Centaur and a B83 or W88?

Less than $500 million excluding the bomb, which we surely have plenty in stock.

Heh! No big deal.

Edited By BWhite on 1104169224

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 11:52:38

I was thinking somthing a little bit heavier, a Delta-IV/Atlas-V Medium class with a single B83 modified for higher shocks and with a heavy (think a ton or two) hardend penitrator tip. It would be deliverd by a bus for course correction, power, and control facilities that would be placed on an intercept trajectory by the launchers' stretch heavy Centaur stage.

Just to be sure, fling a dozen of them. Two each per launcher, per intercept opportunity.

BWhite · 2004-12-27 12:39:53

Well, okay. . .

In the meantime, a light ion drive recon vessel can still match orbits and take a gadzillion photos to better choose where to hit the thing. For a few hundred million dollars or less, that mission could fly within a few years.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 13:11:30

How about a dozen or so MOABS? (Mother Of All Bombs) 20,000 lbs of High explosive. It think they may need O2 from our atmosphere, though.If not then why not fill them with TNT.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 13:15:46

How about a dozen or so MOABS.(Mother Of All Bombs) I think those need O2 from our atmosphere,though. If so, then fill them with high explosives instead.OOPS, did it twice again.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 13:31:30

MOAB does require oxygen from our atmosphere to operate, nor would a thermobaric weapon be preferable anyway. TNT or derivitive chemical explosive simply does not have the punch needed to the job with certainty. Even a 1.2MT bomb is a little small. Plus, the smaller the weapon is physically, the easier it can penitrate the target and produce more effective results.

If pushing it is too big a risk or too big a deal, nuke it

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 13:50:21

Is there any chance of this thing being caught in a orbit about the Earth without any outside intervention?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 13:51:53

No.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 14:28:47

Ok then how about with Mans intervention?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-12-27 15:19:45

I prefer the idea of sticking with chemical engines if at all possible for the interceptors, ion engines are awfully slow.

True, ion engines are slow, but chemical rockets are horridly inefficient. It would take an enormous amount of LOX and hydrogen to get the job done, and that's the most efficient fuel combination for chemical rockets.

How much of the old NERVA technology do we have sitting around? I imagine it wouldn't take more than four or five years tops to get a decent-sized nuclear rocket into production. Nuclear rockets have both the power and the efficiency to get the job done, the only problem is that we don't have any ready to go right now. Still, we have 25 years to move 2004 MN4.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-27 16:34:51

Ok then how about with Mans intervention?

The inertia change is too great to accomplish somthing like that without a huge undertaking. This would probobly require a next-generation propulsion technology like GCNR or VCR/VASIMR.

We're not talking landing anything big, just a half dozen tons for a nuclear asteroid buster. How much fuel would that need?

BWhite · 2004-12-27 18:19:49

Someone at the space dot com http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … t=]message board asserts 2013 and 2021 are our windows of opportunity to whack this asteroid.

Whether or not this is true, I would prefer whacking it before it began its final orbit towards a rendevouz with Earth.

Commodore · 2004-12-27 19:03:41

It would seem were out of the woods.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news148.html]Possibility of an Earth impact in 2029 Ruled out

Frankly, I'm disappointed. :;):

ERRORIST · 2004-12-27 19:35:51

We could still capture it if is made of some carbon.

Commodore · 2004-12-27 19:37:49

We could still capture it if is made of carbon

We could capture it no matter what its made of.

But we just lost any chance to fund such operation.

MarsDog · 2004-12-27 21:45:44

1 ton of TNT = 4.185x10^9 Joules

The volume of a sphere = 4/3 x Pi x r^3
Assume density = 5 times water : radius of asteroid = 195 meters

Mass = 5 x (4/3) x Pi x 195^3 = 155297142 kg = 155297 metric Ton

Surface blast of 1 ton TNT, assume blast travels directly away from asteroid center.

let m1 and v1 be for mass and velocity of asteroid (m2 and v2 for explosive gasses)

m1 * v1 = m2 * v2 or v2 = m1/m2 * v1 from conservation of momentum

(m1 * v1^2)/2 + (m2 * v2^2)/2 = 4.185x10^9 assume all energy goes into motion

(m1 * v1^2)/2 + (m2 * (( m1/m2 * v1)^2)/2 = 4.185x10^9

m1 * v1^2 + m2 * ( m1/m2 * v1)^2 = 2 x 4.185 x 10^9

(m1 + m1^2/m2) * v1^2 = 8.370 x 10^9

v1 = sqrt(8.370^9 / (m1 + m1^2/m2) = sqrt(8.370^9 / (155297 + 155297^2))
approximately: sqrt(8.370 x 10^9 / 155297^2) = 0.34 meters per second

After heat and other losses, 10 cm/second ?

=====================================

Earth radius = 6,358,644 meters

So you would need
63586440/(360*24*365) = 20.1 years before possible Earth collision.

One Kiloton TNT enough? better recheck

========================================

Miss Earth, but hit the Moon ?

SpaceNut · 2005-04-18 05:56:08

Well after a quick search on NEA's and reading the April fools thread I guess I will settle for this real one.

Asteroid Danger Scale Revised to Be Less Alarming

Astronomers have changed the controversial Torino Scale, which categorizes the danger of an asteroid hitting Earth, to avoid needlessly scaring the public.
The new scale still ranks the danger level from 0 to 10, with 10 representing certain global catastrophe. The key change is to the description of lower-ranking threats.

Asteroid Warnings Toned Down

To date, the highest level a comet has been rated is 4. In December 2004, an asteroid had a 1 in 45 chance of hitting Earth by 2029. Newly analyzed data caused that warning to wane.
Scientists suspect there are 1,100 celestial objects large enough to cause a doomsday impact. NASA's Near Earth Object Program Office says 765 come close to crossing Earth's orbit.
With images from movies like Armageddon and Deep Impact fueling the public's fears, astronomers hope the new Torino wording will do a better job of explaining data about asteroids and quell overreaction to initial findings.

Now we would not really want to panic if the sky is falling when it would only be that close would we....

SpaceNut · 2005-04-18 10:25:26

Worry about Earth’s gravity may lure deadly asteroid
That it might be deflected into a much closer orbit.

A HUGE asteroid which is on a course to miss the Earth by a whisker in 2029 could go round its orbit again and score a direct hit a few years later.
Astronomers have calculated that the 1,000ft-wide asteroid called 2004 MN4 will pass by the Earth at a distance of between 15,000 and 25,000 miles — about a tenth of the distance between the Earth and the Moon and close enough to be seen with the naked eye.

Well what can we do other than:

As a safety precaution, some experts are calling for 2004 MN4 to be “tagged” with a transponder that would constantly radio its position. Scientists hope that this would provide enough warning to allow emergency action if necessary, possibly by diverting the object away from the Earth. Other instruments on the probe could provide information about its composition.

But without tracker beams from star trek or photon topedo's what else should we do. We should not wory that is for sure but how do we prepare if it should be deflected into a dangerous orbit. Can we really do anything before it is to late?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-12-27 10:31:00

Re: 2004 MN4

#52 2004-12-27 10:53:11

Re: 2004 MN4

#53 2004-12-27 11:07:27

Re: 2004 MN4

#54 2004-12-27 11:08:47

Re: 2004 MN4

#55 2004-12-27 11:18:29

Re: 2004 MN4

#56 2004-12-27 11:18:45

Re: 2004 MN4

#57 2004-12-27 11:31:24

Re: 2004 MN4

#58 2004-12-27 11:39:59

Re: 2004 MN4

#59 2004-12-27 11:52:38

Re: 2004 MN4

#60 2004-12-27 12:39:53

Re: 2004 MN4

#61 2004-12-27 13:11:30

Re: 2004 MN4

#62 2004-12-27 13:15:46

Re: 2004 MN4

#63 2004-12-27 13:31:30

Re: 2004 MN4

#64 2004-12-27 13:50:21

Re: 2004 MN4

#65 2004-12-27 13:51:53

Re: 2004 MN4

#66 2004-12-27 14:28:47

Re: 2004 MN4

#67 2004-12-27 15:19:45

Re: 2004 MN4

#68 2004-12-27 16:34:51

Re: 2004 MN4

#69 2004-12-27 18:19:49

Re: 2004 MN4

#70 2004-12-27 19:03:41

Re: 2004 MN4

#71 2004-12-27 19:35:51

Re: 2004 MN4

#72 2004-12-27 19:37:49

Re: 2004 MN4

#73 2004-12-27 21:45:44

Re: 2004 MN4

#74 2005-04-18 05:56:08

Re: 2004 MN4

#75 2005-04-18 10:25:26

Re: 2004 MN4

Board footer