this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
47 points (94.3% liked)

[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz

10767 readers
2 users here now

This community is dormant, please find us at !space@mander.xyz

You can find the original sidebar contents below:


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

UCLA-led study of NASA’s DART mission determines that the strategy presents previously unanticipated risks

Unanticipated? Really? It was the very first thing that crossed my mind when I heard about DART - what happens to all the bits that break off?

Maybe I should give NASA a call... ;-)

[–] _wintermute@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Yeah, seems pretty unlikely NASA scientists didn't predict debris from a >13,000km/hr collision of rock and half a ton of metal lol

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I remember reading about this idea in the 90s when Armageddon came out.

[–] FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I knew this from playing Asteroids on my Commodore 64. I don’t believe that they hadn’t considered it.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Asteroids on a Commodore 64??? That would have been dope to 11 year old me.

[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but is this really that bad?

Like, people always freak out about "turning one falling object into many" because they would still share the same collective kinetic energy, but smaller objects are far more likely to burn up high in the atmosphere rather than penetrate for a destructive impact.

The article describes 37 boulders, each with a ~15kT kinetic energy. We have record of meteor events in this magnitude, and they aren't terribly destructive. Nor is it more than a footnote in terms of Earth's daily total energy budget; the Earth isn't going to be cooked by a meteor-swarm of this scale.

It'd seem to me that the biggest risk would actually be peppering Earth's orbital region with far smaller objects that could still damage satellites, no?

[–] Agamemnon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Just two things to consider: A deflection attempt at scale would generate much more debris. And peppering the atmosphere with hundreds of 15kT impactors over the course of minutes will still heat most surfaces with line of sight to the event(s) above their flash point, because you have just optimized the conversion from kinetic to radiative thermal energy.

(I blame CGI for notoriously underselling the brightness of meteors)

[–] doomkernel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

Task failed successfully!