![]() In both cases, if the time got too short, the researchers found no mission would be successful at diverting the rock. There were no situations where a type 0 mission made sense for Apophis. Given more time, type 2 missions were sometimes better, depending how difficult it appeared to be to deflect from its course. If time was short, a type 1 mission was usually the best option: collect data quickly in order to properly aim the impact. ![]() There were just a handful of instances where type 1 missions made sense.Īpophis was a different, more complicated story. If time was short, though, a quick-and-dirty type 0 mission was the way to go. Given enough time, they found, type 2 missions were almost always the right way to deflect Bennu. The researchers developed a method for calculating which mission is best based on two factors: the time between the mission start and the date the planet killer will reach its keyhole, and the difficulty involved in properly diverting the specific planet killer.Īpplying those calculations to two well-known planet-killer asteroids in Earth's general neighborhood, Apophis and Bennu, the researchers came up with a complex set of instructions for future asteroid deflectors in the event one of those objects started heading for a keyhole. Related: Crash! 10 biggest impact craters on Earth Type 2 missions are even better, but take yet more time and resources to get underway. But they also take more time and resources. Type 1 missions are more likely to succeed, the researchers wrote, because they can determine the incoming rock's mass and velocity far more precisely. Without precise information on the object's mass, velocity, or physical makeup, the impactor mission will have to rely on some imprecise estimates, and has a higher risk of failing to properly knock the incoming object out of its keyhole. The problem with "type 0" missions, the researchers wrote, is that telescopes on Earth can only gather rough information about planet killers, which are still faraway, dim, relatively small objects. Then all the information from the scout and the first impact are used to fine-tune a second small impact that finishes the job. A "type 2" mission where one small impactor is launched at the same time as the scout to knock the object a bit off course.A "type 1" mission where a scout is launched first and collects close-up data about the asteroid before the main impactor is launched, in order to better aim the shot for maximum effect.A "type 0" mission where a single, heavy spacecraft was fired at the incoming object, aimed using the best available information about the object's makeup and trajectory to knock it off course.In the end, they landed on three options for missions that could reasonably be prepared on short notice if a planet-killer asteroid were spotted heading toward a keyhole: ![]() Nuclear detonation is problematic as well, they wrote, because it's uncertain exactly how an asteroid will behave after a nuclear explosion and because political concerns about nuclear weapons could cause problems for the mission. Paek and his co-authors tossed out most of the more exotic asteroid-deflection schemes out of hand, leaving only nuclear detonation and impactors as serious options. That will keep the object from getting on the route toward an impact in the first place - at which point saving Earth would require far more resources and energy, and involve much more risk. The easiest time to stop an object from hitting Earth is before it hits one of those keyholes, according to the paper. Related: This newly discovered asteroid is the second-closest natural object to the Sun "A keyhole is like a door - once it's open, the asteroid will impact Earth soon after, with high probability," Sung Wook Paek, lead author of the study and a Samsung engineer who was an MIT graduate student when the paper was written, said in a statement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |