I'm all for the setting up of a satellite to track these asteroids more accurately but wouldn't it make sense to concurrently develop a way to divert the path of said asteroids? Spotting a biggie and then not being able to do anything about it seems rather pointless.
Ex-NASA group plans private, crowd-funded asteroid hunter
A group of former astronauts, astronomers, engineers, and the ubiquitous Tim O’Reilly (presumably for the publishing rights) are getting together to try and punt a privately-funded space telescope to scan for dangerous asteroids. Since the question is not “if” Earth is struck by a large object but “when” (the last big hit was …
-
-
Friday 29th June 2012 00:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Detection comes first
If money is no object then "yes", but it's generally hard to raise money for space projects so starting with on just one is pragmatic, and:
(1) diversion will "always" be a slow process - small amounts of thrust well in advance (sorry Michael Bay...) - so you need to see the impending collision a long time in advance - possibly years
(2) detection is an extension of things we're already quite proficient at - chances are quite good that Sentinel will work as expected first time. Diversion is a whole new ball game - a number of possible avenues exist but generally require exciting new tech and quite possibly we'll need several options eg for diverting a gravitationally bound hailstorm vs a big coherent lump. So both poorer bounds on problem and higher investment required
(3) the moolah for diversion will be more forthcoming if Sentinel finds a load of scary fellow-travellers
(4) maybe the Planetary Resources will invent the necessary diversion tech anyway as part of their NEO quarrying scheme - in fact maybe Sentinel will become their "bounty hunter" (unlikely since there won't be a perfect overlap between "things worth quarrying" and "things worth dodging")
-
-
-
Friday 29th June 2012 07:19 GMT h4rm0ny
Technology Side-Benefits.
I'm totally up for contributing to this on one condition - any revenue from technology side benefits: patents, gizmos and doohickeys, that spin off from this and are profitable are either (a) distributed amongst investors or if too small for individuals to care, put into a foundation to fund further work on this.
It's a great idea and worthwhile, but I'm not putting money into it just so that some company can use it as research bed to make money from.
-
-
Friday 29th June 2012 09:13 GMT jon 72
Re: It's all very well
It's all right Loyd.. some of us do remember that asteroids are by their very nature are spaceworthy and several other writers have also hollowed them out & bolted on engines. As it takes less energy to rendezvous with an object that crosses Earth orbit than get to the moon I dare say somebody is watching the skies for something suitable.
-
-
-
Friday 29th June 2012 12:32 GMT TeeCee
Re: <40m
Yes, but there would still be a lot of other people around to go: "Ooooo, that was nasty", an effect you don't get with the big ones.
Small town with significant hole in it = Oopsie.
Total extinction = A Big Fat Hairy Deal.
We can address the concerns of the "Even one death is one too many" merchants after we've ensured the survival of the species.
-