Please answer the question below:
1. Why are scientists concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids? [1 pt]
2. Why are scientists concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to “move them out of Earth’s way”? (List at least 3 reasons) [3 pts]
3. Describe how the proposed “Gravitational Tractor” will work. [2 pts]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
239 comments:
1 – 200 of 239 Newer› Newest»Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because asteroids are really big and even the smallest can cause a lot of damage. so actually, scientists shouldn't be the only ones worrying.
Landing on an asteroid in order to steer it away from earth is potentially problematic because asteroids have a weak internal structure and they also have a low surface gravity. this would make it difficult for a craft to link up. Also, asteroids rotate, so each time the gravitational tractor gave a thrust, it would push it in a different direction.
Ideally, the gravitational tractor works by hovering near the asteroid and giving thrusts moving the asteroid out of earth's way. Or there would be a gravitational tractor that would pull the asteroid away from earth instead of push, although the first method is preferred by scientists because it is a more feasible plan.
I think this is a weird idea, and probably a huge waste of money because the chance of an asteroid hitting the earth is very small, and it was estimated that it occurs once every 100,000 years...so, yeah. what's the point?
i mean i guess it's good to be prepared, but it might not be so good if we spend all our time worrying about something that might or not happen in a hundred thousand years, while global warming or something more urgent is happening. other than that, it seems like a simple idea (pushing an asteroid?) with a lot of complications.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids because even an asteroid with a width of 200m could cause widespread damage and loss of life.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them out of Earth's way" because the surface gravity is too weak. Asteroids are likely to have a tough terrain which would make land mechanics very difficult and impractical. In addition, asteroids rotate, which would cause a land mechanism to do much more work than it would need to do if it were in space.
The Gravitational Tractor would work by using its own gravitational force to tow the asteroid in a different direction. The Tractor would use thrusters to balance out the forces of gravity acted upon the asteroid.
I think this Gravitational Tractor is a good idea, however it seems improbable for the time we're in. I mean, when was the last time we landed on the moon? Our space technology and experience needs to develop more before we try to move asteroids. I feel like this is like a 5 year old trying to join the Majors. We just need more experience before we try to develop huge ideas like this.
1.well the concern lies in the fact that in general people don't like dying or having monuments to their existence destroyed. Asteroids don't discriminate, they won't look for the most baron places to hit, they're big pieces of rock, who likes being hit with rocks? nobody.
2.-the surface gravity of the asteroids is too weak to be held in place
-attachment would be difficult due to the rough and unconsolidated surface
- Asteroids rotate. To land on them this movement would have to be stopped, and that's an annoying process that wastes resources
3. The craft would hover over the asteroid, and use a gravitational tow line to provide a virtual attachment to the space craft. To insure equilibrium the craft would be designed like a pendulum with the heaviest components pointing towards the asteroid. Propellants point away from the asteroid to avoid kicking up dust and such. Tow it to a safe distance and alter its trajectory and there you have it, a safer, asteroid free Earth.
In all I applaud NASA for their truly revolutionary idea in creating another truly magnificent model that will never see fruition, congrats NASA, you've done it again. NASA's group of invalid managers couldn't shoot a bottle rocket. For all of those who complained about how throwing money at a problem is not a solution should have a field day with this one. Not only does NASA leech public funds, but human capital. Some of the nation's best and brightest work with NASA only to see their ideas bungled in the process and delayed for decades (example: a mars rover was set to retrieve a sample from Mar's surface "ten years from now" 30 years ago). Even if this craft went airborne can we put all of our faith in a group that has churned out some spectacular failures in recent history? (tragic crash of space shuttle discovery and the loss of the Mars Polar Lander craft) But hey, I'd like to see NASA prove me wrong on this one, bring it back to NASA's triumphant hay day of the lats 60s. Godspeed NASA, just don't mess this one up.
Scientists are worried about a collision because even a small one could of only 200m in diameter could cause widespread damage and loss of life. Scientists think that it was a meteor that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, what would happen if such an impact were to happen again!
Scientists are concerned about landing on an asteroid because asteroids have weak gravitational feilds which means the ship would have to gave an attachment mechanism. Problem is, asteroids are likely rough which makes stable attachment difficult. Finally since asteroids rotate the attached engine would be firing in different directions. All possible solutions to this problem would be cost time and add unneeded complexity.
The "Gravitational Tractor," on the other hand, would use its own gravitational pull to attract the asteroid in the desired direction. With a big enough mass, and engine thrust to balance out the asteroid's gravitational attraction, scientist believe that this would be the best solution.
Personally, I think this is important, and pretty cool (I like how the equations are just what we're learning in class and that I can understand that what they are talking about is actually pretty simple). I really am a huge supporter of anything pertaining to building a better space program, because I'm a bit of a pesimest and I feel that if we are too late to save this planet we're going to need other options. That sounds bad... But anyway, asteroids are a risk, a small on, but it is important to be prepared for a potentially disasterous situation.
some, I do understand where you are coming from when you say that it would be a waste of money because you shouldn't go building pbomb shelters and live in North Dakota for safety. But I still think this could be important. I agree with you that we should be more focusing on global warming and curent problems. maybe we should just keep a good watch for asteroids and keep this idea in mind if we need it.
reva-t, I don't think we should just go around moving asteroids, i mean I think we have no idea what the reprecussions would be!!! But I do think that building this technology is a way to gain more knowledge about space travel. the space program is only not moving because of the lack of value that is placed on it. I actually think this whole thing is rather simple. I don't realy know, but I don't think 20 tons is bigger than aqnything we've ever built, and as it said in the article many of the force requirments have already been created in sorts. So I think the problem with the space program is that people are failing to think big.
re: the people's elbow
i completely agree. throwing money is one thing, but it's even worse when it's something that can go so wrong. also, this might not be everyone's opinion, but spending billions of dollars to go to the moon, send a robot on mars when there's nothing there seems like a huge spendage that maybe we don't have. also, what was the point of sending a dog into space?? nothing was accomplished with that, and the poor doggy just died. and going off of what reva-t said, it should wait a while until we have the equipment, research and money to do it. right now, there are more important/urgent things.
re: roger2
people can't live on mars - there is too much carbon dioxide and not enough oxygen in the air. and if eventually people were going to move to a different planet, it would have to be in some different solar system probably...i guess.
and the only reason it might be too late to save this planet is because nothing is happening. and i said it before that throwing money at problems (like global warming) doesn't always help. but using it in the millions doesn't either. actually, for the global warming problem, money could help. you could all buy electric cars!
but i agree that it's nice to see that the "stuff" we learn in class isn't just something glaz makes up. other people use it too!
In response to the people's elbow:
I agree that NASA is sucking out capital like crazy. Obviously there have been some tragedies which delayed 'progress', but in this day in age our space technology should be far more safisticated than it is now. NASA had the potential to be great.
re: some
i have to disagree. billions of dollars could be 'well spent' if it were given to the right people.
Government funded programs like NASA can only do so much. But when you think about it, an organization has to be free from all limitations (government restrictions and morals in order to do something. With our God-based government and with people believing the world is flat, we're not going to get anywhere.
1. Scientists are concerned with asteroids hitting earth obviously because theres a chance that a large amount of people could die and/or strike important monuments, such as our capital.
2.- there is a chance that the space craft could crash on the asteroid and have no way of getting back.
-scientists would have to come up with a LARGE amount of funding to put a 20 ton nuclear-electronic propelled vehicle into space.
-The rotation of the asteroid would be difficult to control.
3. The space craft would hover over the asteroid and pull the it without physical attachment, but using a gravitational tow as a line. The space crafts engines must be actively throttled to control the verticle position of the equilibrium. the horizontal component is controlled by engines on opposite sides of the space craft. The space craft can be made stable by building it like a pendulum, with the heaviest point hanging closest to the asteroid.
1. Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids because even "an asteroid with a width of 200m could cause widespread damage" and loss of life on earth.
2. Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them out of Earth's way" because...a) the surface gravity is too weak b) asteroids most lieekly have tough terrain which would make "land mechanics" very difficult c) most asteroids rotate so an engine anchored to the surface propells the asteroid in a perpetually changing direction.
3. The tractor would work by hovering above the asteriod and by using gravitational forces to tow. The Tractor would use thrusters to balance out the forces of gravity acted upon the asteroid and maintain its horizontal location by differential thrusts from engines on each side of the tractor.
I think this hole idea is pretty sweet, it reminds me of the tractor beams in starwars and its a pretty mind blowing revelation that we are actually proposing technology that is at least reminisant of the fantastical futuristic depictions in star wars.
I also think its imperative to our planets survival. though we may not see a day when an asteroid threatens to actually hit our planet and cause massive destruction, its a good means of preservation for generations after us and our planets continual existance.
ok... i posted mine before, but it seems wanted to disappear.
Well I think the answer to 1 is quite obvious, If even a small sized asteroid hit the earth, the results would be catastrophic. Those not killed in the initial impact would face starvation, as the impact would cast dust and debris into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun, and causing mass extinctions. I heard somewhere that the (purely mathematical) odds of your dying in from an asteroid impact are higher then your chances of dying in a car crash, because while a asteroid strike may be very uncommon, if it happens... pretty much everyone on Earth is dead.
The are numerous problems with landing directly on an asteroid. For one, they have a rocky, uneven and often unpredictable terrain that would be difficult to land on. Furthermore, they usually have an unpredictable rotation, so it would be difficult to align the spacecraft with the ground. Lastly, due the small mass of the asteroid, it has little gravity, so if you could land, the spacecraft might not remain locked on the surface, and slight movements could cause it to float away. However, i think its worth nothing that they successfully landed the Shoemaker Probe on an asteroid in 2001, so it can be done... it's just risky.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESATBWK30JC_Life_0.html
The gravitational tractor is really quite an ingenious idea, certainly better then just sending a nuclear warhead to blow it up, as we see in Hollywood (Armageddon, and more enjoyably, the 1950s classic "The Day the Sky Exploded") Of course, doing this would just mean 10000 smaller, and probably more deadly asteroids, but i digress... The Gravitational Tractor will work by Hovering near an asteroid for a long period of time. The gravity of the tractor will change the course of the asteroid, as the asteroid would be attracted to the tractors gravitational force. The Tractor however, would not be pulled in by the asteroid's gravitational field, because it uses angled thrusters to keep it moving at a proper speed that cancels out the asteroids gravitational pull. While the forces between the two are negligible, over a long period of time (a year, in the article's example), it has a large enough effect to change the course of the asteroid. Unfortunately, we need to know the asteroid is coming long before it hits, like 30-40 years, giving us time to build the tractor, launch it, and send it to the asteroid, and then it needs several years (and great enough distance from the earth) for the course adjustments made by the tractor to have enough of an effect to move the asteroid out of our way.
I think its a good plan, but its risky... if we spend a billion dollars and 20 years to send the thing over, and then it just crashes... well... we'd be kinda screwed.
In response to all the general things on NASA:
I think NASA has done great things in the past, and can continue to do so, but, as with pretty much all government funded programs, it's not the most efficient way of getting things done. I think it's great that NASA has this idea, and i support their continuation to research and design it, but if the federal government will continue to hover over NASA, and fund programs that are more about the fame or money then scientific progress... things wont be all that different
We all know about the X-prize and space ship one, well the X-prize has now been applied to countless other projects, with NASA they just get funding to get the project done by 2010, and when things don't get done until 2020, it something that has become expected.
However, there are plenty of brilliant and competent people who could accomplish amazing goals when they work together in small groups, in competition against other similar groups.
It's the basic theory behind Capitalism, competition drives progress... I'm not saying we should abandon hope in NASA, but there are plenty of common, independently working people, who could accomplish the same things with enough funding.
And for some's reponse to roger2
Obviously we can't live on Mars as is, but there are a number of ways, (all of which are a good century ahead of out time, given current progress) to put people on mars.
One obvious way is a Mars base, Biodomes that have an internal atmosphere, and various other advanced artificial environments. The other, is the long, but theoretically very effective procedure of Terraforming.
By creating and pumping oxygen into the atmosphere, along with other gasses, we could create an Earth like atmosphere. Once a thick enough atmosphere has developed, we can supplant water and other resources on the planet. Obviously this won't happen within any of our lifetimes, or likely our grandchildren lifetimes... and without some sort of "Genesis Device", it is a process that could in itself take 100 years, all after we develop the know how to accomplish it.
So, point in short, we can, and assuming we don't all kill ourself, will... move out across the solar system, and perhaps further (There are valid theorems for Faster Than Light Technology that don't break Einsteins law that nothing can travel faster then the speed of light... purely theoretical, or, truly, hypothetical, as we won't have means of testing them for a long long while). But, even if we do end up living on other planets or in other solar systems... right now... that is not an option, and the time it will take for us to find ways off this planet is far longer then the amount of time it could take us all do die if were not careful. So, we really do need to consider issues such as Global warming, and even meteor impacts. Someday we may be able to survive without earth, but not anytime soon, and even if we build a civilization across the cosmos... wouldn't you still want Earth, a place for humans to call "home"?
i agree with tom halsall this idea is pretty far out there and its really interesting, but it would a long time to construct and i don't really think theres a way in testing it. so far its just a educated theory. that would be pretty cool if it happened though.
If there was an asteroid that could do catastrophic damage to earth would we really have enough to time to react to it? and build this space craft in time?
Scientists are concerned about the possibility of a collision between an asteroid and the earth because even a small asteroid, only 200 meters across could cause large amounts of damage.
Redirecting an asteroids path by landing on it has certain problems. As the asteroid moves, it spins, which makes it hard not only to land a space-craft on it, but also to direct it with any acuracy at all. Also, little is known about the internal structure of asteroids, which could make anchoring a space craft onto it impossible.
The proposed plan, to tow an asteroid using gravity avoids both of the problems posed by a surface landing. Since the craft never touches the asteroid, it would not be affected by the surface or spin. When the space craft gets near an asteroid,it would alter the path using its own gravitational field. To prevent the asteroids propelent from interfering, its rockets will be angles past the asteroid, allowing the greatest force by gravity to be imparted. This pulls the asteroid off of its previous path and saves earth...possibly. POW! POW!
well, if i was a scientist, "widespread damage and loss of life" would not be somethign to be thrilled about. If an asteroid that is only 200 meters could cause such decimation, then the asteroid Ceres would be a real life Armageadon (933m).
As i am all for the preservation of human life on Earth, i applaude this scheme to ward off such possible projectiles towards Earth. Of course, in the beginning of such a preposterous idea there would be a lot of wasted money with protoypes and such that would explode/fail miserably (such as the Mercury MR-4 or the STS-41-D).
There is many technical problems that NASA or anyone elses technology have near-to-none experience with. THe gravitational pull of the spacecraft due to the spin would have to be orchestrated in such a precious fashion that with present day technology, it would be tricky. Lucky for human kind, almost no asteroids hit Earth. Though if one does come close, im sure something will be done to stop it.
Anecdote: my moms neighbors 1 week old car got hit with a miniture asteroid and was totaled.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because asteroids are so huge that their impact on Earth could be fatal to life as we know it.
Scientists are concerned about having to land a spacecraft on the surface of ansteroid to move it out of the way because asteroids have a rough surface, which makes it hard for a spacecraft to land on it. Also, because the asteroid rotates, it would be difficult and would waste a lot of power to stop the asteroid's rotation. Thirdly, the surface gravity of an asteroid is very weak and can't hold a spacecraft without an attachment mechanism, which isn't guaranteed to work.
The proposed "gravitational tractor" is supposed to hover above the asteroid without touching it and use gravity as a towline. It's supposed to "tow" the asteroid out of the collision course with Earth.
I agree with reva-t because it is important to be thinking into the future, especially when it comes to the safety of our planet. I also feel that we do need to immediately try to come in contact with these asteroids. Since the asteroid 99942 Apophis isn't supposed to come until 2029, we should use the time we have now to develop better technology to deal with these asteroids. There really is no time like the present to prepare for the future, so we should the time while we still have it and before we run out of it.
I completely disagree with "eucha-gonna-do-about-it." We have 22 years according to scientists to create soemthing to stop this asteroid that's coming. It's definitely worth it to take the time and money to spend it on protecting us from a supernatural force such as an asteroid. The best action is always the precautionary action when lives are hanging in the balance, and that's exactly what we need to do- be on the safe side.
-Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because even a small asteroid of about 200 m can cause significant loss of life and great devastation and wreckage.
-Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them out of Earth's way" because, firstly, asteroids are described as "weak and unconsolidated", which could make a strong attachment harder to achieve. Also, the asteroids rotate which makes the engine attached to it switch directions a lot. To remedy this problem could be costly and wasteful of both time and propellant. Additionally, the surface gravity of an asteroid would be too weak to hold the craft in place.
-The proposed "Gravitational Tractor" would work by the spacecraft hovering over the asteroid, with gravity as a "toeline". There will be a throttling of engines both vertically and horizontally. To insure that the spacecraft is stable, it would be designed like a pendulum; the heavier parts would be closer to the asteroid.
- I personally think that worrying about asteroids is not necessarily the most important thing we should be allocating a huge amount of time and resources towards figuring out at the moment. Though of course it's important, I think that we might just be putting a lot of our money into a sinkhole, and the work put into this craft will never really amount to anything. It seems to be very much in the developmental, beginning stages, and while its important for us to be prepared for disasters, I think there more pressing issues that scientists should be devoting their time to. I also feel like its kind of building on sensationalist fear , and we need to look at everything logically and realize that the likelihood of an asteroid is VERY improbable. However, at the same time I do recognize that we can't just leave a foreboding mess for future generations to figure out and we obviously need to explore the possibility. I realize I'm contradicting myself here, but I don't think that there can really be a black or white answer.
I agree with roger2 in that I think there are more pressing problems to deal with at the moment, but we shouldn't completely neglect the impending issue of asteroids; it still is an issue, just not one that's incredibly important right now as global warming or other environmental or political messes that we;ve gotten ourselves into. Research should continue, but perhaps not with a ridiculous amount of funding that could be better spent in the here and now and with problems that are more likely to occur
I also agree with the people's elbow in that NASA does not have the capability to carry out grand plans as they once did, there is not a great deal of support on the federal level for the programs to execute the production of new crafts and fancy innovations in the astronomically expensive and calculated way that they need to be carried out. There are simply more immediate impacting issues we must deal with and we're already in devastating debt. At this point, it's all about priorities, and asteroids and NASA in general just aren't on the top of the list.
Scientists are worried about collisions between Earth and asteroids because collision with a SMALL asteroid would cause "widespread damage and loss of life." The affects from a larger asteroid could be much worse.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on the asteroids in an effort to move them away because:
1. it would be hard to attach because surface gravity would not hold it
2. the surface is probably rough which will make attachment even more difficult
3. because the asteroid would be rotating, it would be moving the engine causing the engines thrusts to move the asteroid in different directions each time
The gravitational tractor would eliminate the problems of having to land on the asteroid because it would simply hover above it. It would tow the asteroid in a different direction using the force of gravity and using the engine's thrusts to propell the asteroid.
Though this sounds like a pretty reasonable idea, it will years for the tractor to change the course of the asteroid. This means we will have to know in advance that there is a large chance of it hitting us for this plan to work. The other part I am iffy about is the chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth is extremely small (the article mentioned a specific one would the probability of 10^-4). I would rather have us use our money and technology to cure world hunger and other current problems than on a problem that has a very small chance of happening.
re: wucha-gona-do-about-it
You're right, we wouldn't have time to react to an asteroid. The craft, however, is a preventive measure. I'm sure building on it would start well before any asteroid of threatening size approached the earth (let's keep our fingers crossed).
1. It's a big concern because even a relatively small asteroid could do a whole bunch of damage. Obviously it's falling from a pretty high distance up, leading its speed to be pretty astronomically large.
2. 1) Asteroids are likely to be rough and have uneven surfaces, making attaching spacecrafts to them difficult.
2)Asteroids rotate, so it would be nearly impossible to keep the thrusters on the towing device facing in the same direction.
3)Asteroids also have a low surface gravity, so it would take a ton of effort to even keep the spaceship in place in the first place.
3. The Gravitational Tractor would work based on the idea that a certain amount of thrust in one direction can cancel out the gravitational force attributed to the asteroid. A spacecraft would hover over an asteroid, and use a certain amount of thrust (calculated using GmM/r^2) to force that asteroid in the opposite direction, thusly saving Earth.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between asteroids and Earth because even a small collision can have huge effects.
The concerns about landing on asteroids come from the fact that a docked asteroid needs an attachment because the surface gravity is too weak to hold it. Also, asteroids are "rough and unconsolidated" which makes them hard to get a hold on. Asteroids are always changing direction. This makes the timing for firing the engine very complicated as it could only fire when it is rotated it the correct direction.
The gravitational tractor would use it's gravitational force to "tow" the asteroid away from Earth. Thrusters would balance out the force of gravity that acts on the asteroids.
I think as an idea, this is really cool. However I'm not convinced that it should be put into effect immidiately. I feel that we should probably wait untill we know that there is actual danger of an asteroid hitting us before we gear up for war against them.
Or, if NASA has nothing better to do, go for it.
1. The most obvious explanation as to why scientists are concerned is that an asteroid colliding with the earth would cause a lot of destruction and death.
2. One reason scientists are concerned about landing on asteroids is because asteroids have a rough surface; this makes it very difficult to secure the craft on the asteroid. Another reason is that an asteroid has a rotating axis; the engine would trust in a constantly changing direction. Also, attempting to reorientate the axis would just add a lot of complexity and wasted time to deflect the asteroid.
3. The Gravitational Tractor works by hovering above the asteroid and pulling it with it's own gravitational force.
Some- I think it's a good thing that scientists are looking into this. While it may not be an urgent problem, why not avoid a potentially dire problem for the future?
I agree with Roger2- The equations are definitely easy enough to understand. I think that this makes the idea more interesting; it is such a simple idea yet at the same time it's very unorthadox and different.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids, because anything that involves injuries or death is an obvious concern. An asteroid as wide as around 200m could cause loss of life, and this is a problem -- it could happen at any time.
They are concerned about having to to land on asteroids in order to move them because first, they would need to use an attachment mechanism due to the weak gravity. Though another problem arises, in that the surface of asteroids tend to be rough and unconsolidated -- making any attachment mechanism hard to use. Finally, most asteroids rotate. This is a problem because if you change the spin, or reorient the spin axis, then complexities are added and it's just a waste of resources. It's not efficient enough.
The Gravitational Tractor will use its own gravitational pull to tow the asteroid in the direction it wants it to go.
I think this is a good idea, if not a bit too revolutionary for our time period, just because I don't know if we're ready for such a big step. I think it should be done, though, and I'm not so sure it's a waste of money if it's protecting us from possible death. I don't want a giant rock landing on or around me any time soon, no matter how rare the chance is.
Scientists are concerned with asteroids because even the smallest asteroid can cause widespread damange and loss of life.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them out of Earth's way" because
1. The surface gravity is too weak 2. Asteroids most likely have tough terrain which would make "land mechanics" very difficult
3. Rotation of the asteroid causes problems
The gravitational tractor will work with no physical attachment, but rather by using gravity as a towline. The vertical position is controlled by the engines being actively throttled, and the horizontal position is controlled by differential throttling of engines on opposite sides of the spacecraft.
I think the idea is really awesome, but I don't think it is worth spending the money at this moment to try to work on this. It could be a total fluke and the asteroid could change paths in 22 years. Theres a huuuge risk involved with how sure NASA is that an asteroid will in fact hit Earth.
In response to lilaley I completely agree and I feel that this is at beginning stages of planning and that the money should be spent on other things scientifically... if an extremely massive asteroid appeared, would the tractor still work?
1. Scientists are concerned about the collision between earth and an asteroid because if one occurs there would be “wide spread damage and loss of life”.
2. Scientists are concerned about having to land on an asteroid in order to “move them out of the Earth’s way” because many factors could make this process potentially problematic. One of these factors is, the surface gravity of an asteroid is extremely weak and because of this it is difficult to hold the asteroid in place. Also, because of the weak surface gravity if we were to land on it we would need to use an attachment mechanism, but due to the rough and unknown terrain this could prove to be difficult. Finally, asteroids are constantly in a state of rotation and it is necessary for the rotation to stop in order to land.
3. The Gravitational Tractor works by using forces of gravity in order to tow the asteroid. The Gravitational Tractor in essence uses its own forces to manipulate the direction the asteroid is going in. It creates a “tow-line”. It is possible for the Gravitational Tractor to do this because it has a big enough mass and a powerful engine which helps the tractor pull the asteroid in the right direction.
I agree with “Reva-t”, I feel that we are kind of leaping before we look...we have this huge plan...but nothing is coming. It’s always a good idea to have a plan, yet we have a lot of other things we need to learn about space and a lot of exploration of space to do. The odds of this happening in the near future are slim, and even if an asteroid was coming we would be able to know it was coming because of the technology we have and we would have an adequate amount of time to get a plan together. I feel that funds would be better spent on other immediate dangers, like "some" said shouldn't we be focusing on concerns such as global warming?
I agree with the statement “lalalaa” said that was in response to “lilaley”, I also feel that this is at the beginning stages and money should be spent elsewhere. How do we even know this would work? It just doesn’t make sense to be focusing on an event that will probably not happen in the near future, probably by the time an asteroid is threatening the earth we will have more advanced technology and this plan will be out of date.
Scientists are concerned about collisions with asteroids because they are large and even small asteroids can cause massive damage. I would be be afraid of of an asteroid crashing into me.
Landing on an asteroid to steer it away is difficult and problematic because asteroids have a weak internal structure and low surface gravity; which would make it hard for a space craft to link up with it. Also, because asteroids rotate, every time a gravitational tractor gave thrust it would cause the asteroid to move in a different direction.
The gravitational tractor would work by hovering near the asteroid and thrusting it out of Earth's way.
The other technique is to use a tractor that would pull the asteroid away from earth instead of push it. Scientists prefer the first method because it is more feasible.
I like this plan that nasa has created, despite the incredible amounts of money that it would cost. It is always nice to know you are safe. If nasa goes through with this I will be able to put on my footsie pjs and sleep in peace knowing that a giant asteroid is not going to fall on me.
Scientists are very concerned with a collision between the earth and an asteroid becasue the impact would cause such widespread desturction and loss of life. The problem that faces scietist with docking on an asteriod to steer it away and causes them concern is that the process would need much more power than a chemical rocket can produce. Also, a normal rocket is unconsolidated and rough, therefore not allowing proper procedure to occur when a spacecraft lands on the asteriod. Finally, an asteriod rotates, so when the craft sends a thrust into the asteriuod, the thrust will be directed in different directions due to the rotation.
The gravitational tractor would work by putting a gravitational force on the asteriod, and would pull the asteriod away from the earths path, and would use thrusters to balance out the gravitational forces on the asteriod.
I think this is a great idea because it seems like it would have a better chance of moving the asteriod than using the old way. The only thing is that the technology we have right now probably isnt up to the status that this project would need.
in response to roger2:
I also agree that it is pretty cool how we are learning those equations in class. It allows use to connect to the article and for us to understand it better. Also i agree with your point about how we would need a backup plan if we screw up the earth anymore. Its always a good idea to have a backup plan if there is a chance of disaster, like an impact with an asteriod.
wucha-gona-do-about-it said...
If there was an asteroid that could do catastrophic damage to earth would we really have enough to time to react to it? and build this space craft in time?
with the technology that we have today we would be able to predict it and attempt to build the gravitational tractor. And besides, if your gonna go out, you might as well go out with a fight, even if we dont have enough time.
1) If even a small ateroid were to collide with Earth, there would be a lot of damage done, and a lot of people, plants and animals dead.
2) A ship docking on an asteroid and applying force to move it wouldn't work for a few reasons:
-most asteroids do not have enough gravitational pull for a ship to dock on them
-our ships cannot create a force great enough to influence an asteroid
-asteroids rotata, so even if we could dock on one, the force we would apply wouldn't be directed in the correct direction for long enough
3) The gravitational pull would be the result of the ship's heavy parts being placed closest to the asteroid. The ship would have to hover for a good long time, enacting it's gravitational pull to slowly steer the asteroids away from Earth.
re: some
werd, before we go off exploring other planets, maybe we should fix out own. We got this global warming thing going on, and war. War sucks. We should really think long and hard as to whether or not this planet is even worth saving. Thinking about the human race, do we deserve this awesome planet to live on? We treat it like kids with magnifying glasses treat ants.
The reason scientists are are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids is not only is it an actual threat, but even the smallest of asteroids (200m) could cause major damage to Earth.
The concerns about landing ON the asteroid itself are...
-the spacecraft would need an attachment device, because the surface gravity of the asteroid is not enough to hold it in place
-the asteroid is going to be rough and not really suitable for landing a spacecraft on
-asteroids rotate, and in order to propel it away from its desired path, lots of energy would be wasted on stopping its rotation.
In general, landing on the asteroid itself causing too much time, money, and energy to be wasted.
The gravitational tractor will work by hovering above the asteroid, and using its own gravity to pull the asteroid away from its path towards earth.
Scientists are worried about an asteroid hitting earth because just one can cause a lot of damage, and it doesn't need to be very large, only 200 meters in width.
Scientists are worried about having to land on an asteroid because asteroids have a very low Fg and landing on one would require tethers, and cables to be attached to the asteroid itself. Another reason that they are worried is because the asteroid rotates, which make it difficult to direct the thrusts of the engine, because they must always be switched to a new direction. The materials that make up an asteroid are also unknown and make it difficult to predict whether or not astronauts will be able to keep their hold on the asteroid.
The gravitational tractor would work by pulling on the asteroid by using a gravitational "line". The space craft would hover above the asteroid, using it gravity to tow the asteroid, after having neutralized the asteroid's gravity. The space craft itself would be stabilized by placing the heaviest components near the asteroid and the engines away from the asteroid.
Scientists are worried about asteroids for the same reason the dinosaurs should have been. Meteors cause damage. They really do.
Landing on an asteroid would be an extraordinarily difficult. asteroids have weak internal structures and and low surface gravity, which make the attachment of a craft hard enough. In addition, as everyone has said before me and will continue to say being as it is mandatory; asteroids rotate and the thrust of an attached craft would continually push the asteroid in different directions.
By using its own gravitational force to pull the asteroid, the tractor can move it in one constant direction without actually coming into contact with it.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth and asteroids because even the smallest of asteriods can cause widespread damage and kill a large number of people. Given a big enough asteriod, an impact could cause global climate change and possibly an armageddon.
Landing on an asteroid to 'move them out of earths way' provides additional variables that scientists would have to account for in developing a method of changing the trajectory of the asteriod. Things like surface topography, asteroid rotation, and surface compostion.
The 'gravitational tractor' would be shaped like a pendulum with the heavier end above the asteroid and the engines on the opposite side. The tractor would use gravity as a tow line and in effect pull the asteroid into a new trajectory in which it doesn't hit earth.
At first glance I think that this proposed way of changing the trajectory of an asteriod is feasible... maybe not plausible. But after thinking about it for a time, the amount of lead time it would take to move the asteroid is much too long. It would take 20 years to move a 20 tonne asteroid... which really means that we would need to spot it 40 years before so that we could get the tractor out to it. What if the asteroid wasn't visible on radar and no one knew about it until it was 5 years from Earth? We'd be screwed over. But it also is very unlikely that an asteroid would hit earth in the near future. The time and money would be better spent if it was invested in something else like alternate fuel sources
Re: reva-t
I completely agree. Before we go rushing off to build some really expensive piece of technology, we should consider investing some time and money into developing our space program first. Sure we landed on the moon... almost 40 years ago. We've sent probes to other planets and continued to build the international space station. But we're still using old shuttles that reach low orbit to do it. Before rushing to solve an issue that isnt urgent, we should better the technology we have.
Re: the peoples elbow
I get what your saying about NASA being unable to turn out most of what they say. But I'd like to point out that some of NASA's disasters like what happened to the shuttle Columbia wasnt NASAs fault. No one could have known that during that particular launch one of the heat resistant tiles was going to break off. The entire shuttle is constantly flexing during launch.
But NASA has done some pretty important things since we landed on the moon. Disasters aside, in colaboration with other countries we've helped build the international space station. Within the past couple weeks, an american astronaut fixed part of the solar panals on the ISS and a crew up there now is preping for Harmony a module that will connect Destiny (a US module), Columbus (a European module) and Jem-Kibo (a Japanese module) along with the air docks. NASA is part of a large international cooperation team to put together this space lab which is amazing in itself.
1. Scientist are concerned about collisions between earth and asteroids because if a small asteroid about 200 m big collided with earth, there woud be a huge amount of damage and a great loss of life.
2. Scientists are concerned to land on asteroids because of their "roughness" and it would be very difficult to land on it and place a rocket on it to puch it away from earth. It would also be difficult because of the asteroids rotation. the rockets would have to go off at certain times when the rotation was "right." Doing this would be very difficult.
3. The "Gravitational Tractor" will work by having thusters on the end or it and pushing away the asteroid. Also the Tractor vould fly right next to the asteroid and the gravitational pull between the tractor and asteroid would push or in this case pull the asteroid away from earth.
well, its a very big deal for scientists to think about asteroids hitting earth because the collision they would cause would be collosal and horrific for humans and many other species. It would be a complete disaster for many different reasons.
Because of the weak interior structures of asteroids, a potential landing on an asteroid could go wrong. Aparently the movie "Armegedan" didn't agree with reality. But anyways, rotation will be hard for a craft to get a good spot or for scientists to find a spot to land, and also they have low surface gravity.
The space craft would be in a pendulum shape, and use a gravitational pull, not actually touching the asteroid, and the heaviest part of craft will be towards the asteroid, this pull would bring it out of harms way, and change its ultimate trajectory.
1)Scientists are concerned about a collision between Earth and Asteroids because it could cause catastrophic damage to Earth's surface and its inhabiatants.
2)One problem with landing on asteroids is their weak gravitational pull. They are afraid that the robot could just float off of the asteroid.
Another problem is the surface of the asteroid. Because the surface is rough, it would be difficult to keep the robot connected to the surface.
Asteroids rotate, this is a known fact. This could cause problems when trying to "boost" the asteroid in a certain direction, the position of the asteroid would have to be known. A boost in the wrong direction could put us in more danger than before.
3)The idea of the tractor is that we would have a spacecraft hover above the surface of an astroid. After a certain amount of time, the gravitational pull from the spacecraft would move the asteroid out of its original path and would thus miss Earth.
In responce to 'some':
I do not agree that we can not address this issue. We understand what an asteroid can do to a population (Dinosaurs) and it could be worse, depending on the size. Of course we should address the problem of global warming but we must think ahead to this topic. Think about it, a meteor shower is very common, which are just asteroids hitting our atmosphere. Whos to say that a large one wouldn't hit us.
Astroids have collided with earth, come close to colliding with earth, and have collided with other masses in space. With the millions of astroids in our galaxy, there is a great cahnce of one coming in our direction and collding. A collision with a large astroid will end all most all life on earth.
Landing on an astroid can be tricky. First of all, it's probably spinning and rotating, landing on it would be difficult. Second of all, once you land, one has to find a way to latch onto the uneven, broken and maybe even crumbling surface because there is no gravity to hold a spacecraft on it. The third reason it would be difficult to move it out of the way would be because if the astroid is rotating/spinning, a spacecraft would have to stabilize the entire astroid and then thrust away, or thrust once a rotation so that it only thrusts in one direction. This would be very difficult.
The Gravitational tractor would use it's mass to hover over the astroid and use it's thrusters to pull the astroid away using its own gravity for tension. Eventually, the astroid would be out of earths path and cause no harm to our planet.
1. Scientists are worried about asteroids colliding with earth mainly because it would cause a lot of damage on earth even if it was a small asteroid.
2. scientists are concerned about having to land on ateroids in order to move them out of earths way because
*since asteroids are rough, it is hard to make a stable attachment
*asteroids usually rotate which would force an engine to go into different directions
*They also cant be easily attached because asteroids dont have strong surface gravity
3.The gravitational tractor will be designed like a pendulum and will use gravity as an attachment and be able to force the asteroid a different way that is'nt torwards earth.
- i think that this would be a really good way of getting rid of asteroids if it works, although i think something like this would cost a lot of money and would be kind of hard to make. moving asteroids is something that i havent really thought of before i read this article, so i dont really have that much knowlege on exactly how the gravitational tractor would work.
I disagree with some that we shouldn't try to stop an asteroid from hitting the earth becuase although the chances of it happening is very small, but if it doese happen we will all be very sorry that we didnt try to do anything to stop it.
I also kind of agree with him/her because there are also a lot of other pressing issues that humans need to deal with, but that doesnt mean that people shouldnt work on making a gravitational tractor
i also agree with reva-t in that space travel is still a new thing and we are not that experienced at it yet. The graviational tractor seems like it would be very complicated to make and therefore it might be better to wait for a while until we have more knowlege about space travel and then we could make the gravitational tractor more efficient.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because they can cause damage and end lives all over Earth.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids to "move them out of Earth's way" because asteroids often have rough surfaces that make it difficult to stabilize any attachments. Another reason is that the surface gravity of an asteroid is too weak to hold a docked asteroid in place. Another reason is that most asteroids rotate. To stop the rotation of an asteroid is a waste of time and propellant.
The proposed "Gravitational Tractor" involves a spacecraft to hover an asteroid and uses gravity to tow the asteroid. The spacecraft must stay in the same position as the asteroid rotates underneath it.
The proposed Gravitational Tractor seems like a good idea, but I think scientists need to research it more before testing anything out.
I agree with Reva-t, the Gravitational Tractor is a bit ahead of its time. I don't think it's way ahead of it's time, but we are definitely not ready to try it out soon.
Roger2: I agree that this topic is important and a growing space program is important as well. Although, I think that asteroids are not a small risk. Yes, we won't have to worry about them now, but there will be a horrific outcome to a collision between Earth and an asteroid in the future.
Scientists are concerned about collisions because asteroids, no matter how small, will have an influence on earth, is they were to hit the surface. Even a smaller asteroid could alter the atmosphere as well as end up with human casualties.
Physically landing on an asteroid hurtling at earth to steer it away could be bad because of the weak internal structure, not to mentuon low surface gravity, which would make it difficult for the space ship to land on the surface of the asteriod, and then the fac thtat asteroids rotate, the gravitational tractor would just cause the asteroid to rotate in a different direction.
The Gravitational Tractor works works by getting close to the asteroid, and it would hover there and it would lightly tap the the asteriod out of earth's way. Or there would be a tractor that would pull the asteroid away from earth instead of pushing earth, but scientists like the first idea better because its more possible.
I dont think this is a good idea, personally. the funds needed in order for this to work would be ALOT of money, not to mention the asteroid coming at earth probably wont be big enough in the first place to make it though the atmosphere without burning up. And even the ones that would be big enough probably will be too large for this machine to push away.
In response to wutcha gonna do about it
true, if we would have enough time to react, but if we already had it built, and all we had to do was launch it, i dont think it would make a difference.if we were able to launch and get it into space in time then the question would be if we could get the craft up to the asteroid. and then if the asteroid was small enough to have the craft be effective in pulling it away. i mean think about it. if the machine is smaller than the asteroid, PLUS the gravity of earth pulling it in, would there be much of a chance for the machine to actually work?
I agree with some when they said that there is asteriod earth contact every 100,000 years or so. are we do for one any time soon? otherwise who knows, if its so far into the future, there might be new, more effective technology which would be more effective in this situation. Or, for a very depressing thought, human life might not even exist, with all of the troubles we seem to be having right now.
I think that asteroids pose a mortal threat to our world and are an inevitable problem that we must confront. I disagree with Polkadot because i think we do have to worry about them now rather than later when we may have other things going on in the world that demand more time attention and finances.
in response to some
We can't presume that the human race won't see the same prospected apocalypse that wiped the world of the dinosaurs. True, there may be more pressing matters on the plate of the human race right now we can't be so sure that this won't happen, asteroids colliding with Earth isn't exactly an outlandish prospect. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but hell, I'll be honest, I'm not big on space rocks grinding me and my possessions into the turf. Maybe I let the media force feed me fear, but don't come knocking when I'm eating my canned peaches in my shelter waiting for the dust to settle (only kidding).
In response to 'reva-t':
I do not believe that this idea is ahead of its time. This idea is not a new one. In fact, this idea first came to life in 2005, and has been discussed by many scientists. I personally think that this is very possible right now.
If you want to see something farfetched, and you can ask Mr. Ferrara about this. A professor at one university (I'm not sure which one) has developed a plan to save Earth when the sun has expanded. He plans on "grabbing" an asteroid from space an moving it in between Earth and the Sun, thus spreading our orbit so we could live. That seems a little ahead of our time, considering the sun isn't expanding any time soon.
P.S. The chance of an asteroid hitting Earth directly is 1-in-300, not 1-in-100,000
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article196112.ece
I don't agree what you say nerd. Personally, i would love to spend billions of dollars to make it easier for me to sleep at night. I find that when something as pressing as a asteroid hurtling towards Earth is in my thoughts I have a wee bit of trouble sleeping. I understand that you may want to live on the edge and be dangerous but others like to play it safe and not get blown up.
At the risk of sounding redundant, I also a agree that it is a rash move to jump into this project immediately. Especially since we have no real reason to believe that we are in serious danger.
It would be insulting to the people who are fighting for real causes if the gravitational tractor were made. Just because it's cooler-sounding and has to do with space does not mean it's more important.
Jack, it has nothing to do with "deserving" the planet. We have it, and letting it get destroyed is more insulting to the planet than trying to save it.
I agree with polkadot when she says that preparing for asteroids is good. I think it is a good point because if we prepare for an incoming asteroid we also beef up the rest of our spacey stuff. I think is always important to prepare for a danger that may or may not come. Its like going into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction; we didn't know if they were there, but it still seemed like a good idea to go in.
1)Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids because even a relatively small asteroid making physical contact with the Earth would cause immense damage to our planet, and take many lives. According to the article, an asteroid of 200m would be very dangerous to Earth and Human life. And obviously most scientists do not want to die, or to see horrific damage inflicted onto the planet.
2)Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them our of Earth's way" for a few reasons. 1)Because surface gravity of the ateroid is too weak to hold the docked ateroid tug in place. 2) It would be very difficult to attach to the ateroid since they are very roughly textured. 3)Also, asteroids are constantly rotating, so the engine attached to the asteroid must constantly be rotating/changing direction with the asteroid. Stopping the ateroid's rotation or manuvering the engine only when the ateroid rotates to a certain position wastes time and is too complicated.
3)The "Gravitational Tractor" will work by hovering over an asteroid, and tows it by using its gravity instead of physical attachment.
In response to "Some" :
I disagree with your last third statement. I think the "gravitational tractor" is a great precaution. I mean, if we can do it, why not? It may cost a lot of money...but what about the fate of the planet and human life? Why not take an extra step to ensure the safety of our planet. There will always be immediate and more pressing problems facing our planet and humanity-that will never change-so why not look to the future if we have a possible solution right now?
I agree with Roger2 when they say "But anyway, asteroids are a risk, a small one, but it is important to be prepared for a potentially disasterous situation."
Taking extra precautions are key. If we didn't take any precautions, and never planned for the day an asteroid would devastate the planet, then we'd all obviously die. Sort of simular to what I said in my other response, if we have a solution now, why not test it and perfect it? So that when a threatening ateroid does come our way, we are as prepared as possbile.
re: roger2
If there was a large chance that an asteroid would collide with Earth, I would be all for building the gravitional tractor. But currently, problems like world hunger, the threat of the superbug and global warming have a much higher chance of causing the whole world harm. You said that we are too late to save this planet, and I completely disagree. While youre the pessimist, I am the complete optomist in this situation. Its about having the attitude that we need to save the planet and the we STILL CAN save the planet that is going to get something accomplished.
IN response to wucha-gonna-do-about-it:
The reason why the scientists are planning the construction of this space tractor now, twenty something years before the asteroid is projected to hit earth, is so that they can be prepared and not have to react and be unprepared when the time comes.
I agree with abcd1234 with the statement that by the time an asteroid is threatening Earth we will have better technology, eliminating this plan. I think the plan should be in the minds of scientists now.. but I think that they major money should not be spent yet and that they should continue to try to perfect this invention because our technology can become so accurate and highly developed by the time the asteroid is closer to doing us some harm.
in response to SOME:
i think that it is a very complicated issue to decide whether or not to spend the money on a huge project like this, since it could be seen as a waste of money if we never were actually threatened by an asteroid. However, I don't think it would be seen as a waste to invest in the planning out of such a project, in case the need ever actually arose.
re: aaronburr
Slowly killing the planet isnt much better than just letting it die a little early in one swift blow. Unless we seriously change our ways in a seriously short amount of time we probably shouldn't be worrying about the slight chance of an asteroid hitting Earth, we will be more worried about the more imediate dangers.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth and asteroids because asteroids could cause widespread damage and death.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to move them out of Earth's way because the surface gravity is too weak. The surface is rough so it would be hard to land on it. Also, the asteroids rotate so that would make it even harder to land on it because you would be constantly moving.
The Gravitational Tractor works by hovering above the surface of an asteroid and physically towing the asteroid using gravity. This is a good idea because it will prevent damage to the earth and the human race.
in response to some:
I agree with you on that we need to focus upon something that is happening now, like Global Warming. If we are putting all our efforts into something that might not happen for another 100 years, our earth could become destroyed by then. However, an asteroid MIGHT hit the earth in 100 years. There is a chance that it could come before then, and I think it's important to be prepared because if we're not, the human race could be destroyed.
In response to reva-t:
I agree with you. If we are going to put all our time and money and research into protecting the earth from asteroids, we should definately become more developed in our technology so we don't waste anything. I think if we use all the right resources and properly think through the plan to prevent asteroids, it can be very effective and possibly save the earth from destruction.
In response to nerd, I think it is definitely a concern, although a minimal one, that the Earth will be threatened by a really massive asteroid. Even though it is expensive, we can at least work on a prototype that would make me feel a lot better in the future. I mean, we've done worse...Reagan's "Star Wars" program? All I can say is that we've spent our money on bigger wastes. If an asteroid threatens us, I'll feel better knowing that we tried. And other than money, what is there to lose?
Ms. Speights- there's a bit of a difference between this and the War in Iraq. This doesn't cost any lives if we're wrong. We might as well at least look into the possibility of a gravitational tractor, as we'll be glad we did if an asteroid comes. Sure, you can compare them to "weapons of mass destruction," but unlike Saddam's situation, we know space has asteroids in it. If President Bush wants to feed more money into the space program, in order to land on the moon again, why not put some of that money to more practical use?
Scientists are concerned with an asteroid colliding with Earth because it will harm our enviornment and living things of all sorts. The slightest nick by the asteroid could cause a mountain loud of problems.
Sceintists are concered about landing on an asteroid because
-attachment to an asteroid would be hard since they are rough with uneven surfaces
-they rotate and to stop the rotation it would be a waste of resources and time
-they have weak gravitational feilds which makes it hard to hold in place
The Gravitational Tractor (GT) will use gravity to alter the path of an oncoming asteroid. With a large mass the gravitational force of the GT will propell the asteroid to a different place.
It's a smart and well thought out concept, I must admit. But chances of an asteroid hitting us are so small that it seems to be a waste of time and money to build this machine. We should be spending the resources on more urgent and pressing problems like peace and global warming. Things that are happening on our doorsteps.
to some's comment
to themoonisalie
This is deffinetly to advanced for science at the moment. Even thought we can solve a formula for this, it doesn't mean we have the technology to build it. Lets stop planning so far ahead and start thinking about what we can do now. Time is wasting away and there are things from years back that they could succed with now, but couldn't then. So why don't we creat those things and finish one idea at a time.
I agree with Ms. Spaites with respect to her belief that that preparing for asteroids is good. not only is focusing on preventing a cataclysmic disaster that will end all life on earth progressive and in our best interest concerning our longevity but focusing time and spending on a problem like this could potentially also further our nations technology and lead to further advances in our space program. I just don't see a reason why we would not address this issue.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth and astroids because even a small asteroid could be devastating to life on earth. An astroid as small as 200 m across could be destructive on a large scale.
Scientists are concerned about having ot land on astroids in order to get them out of the way because there are many complications that are involved with that procedure. For one, we couldnt use chemical rockets because it wouldnt be strong enough but a nuclear-electric propelled vehical would be able to do the job. Also to land on an astroid the rocket would need to have something to attatch it manually to the astroid because there wouldnt be enough gravity to keep the space craft docked. Also astroids are rough and rotate thus making it even more difficult to make a stable attatchement. Its a complex, unreliable way to get the astroid out of the way.
The gravitational tractor works by having a space craft have a position so that it pulls the astroid using gravitational force while the astroid continues to rotate. By using the engines on opposite sides of the spacecraft they would be able to controll the direction.
I think this is an interesting idea however i think some actual testing should be done to make sure this idea actually works because if the time comes when we need to push an astroid to stop a devastating amount of loss of life on earth, we should know if its going to work. Once we figure out that it works we should leave the idea and focus on other more present day issues. But before just leaving the idea on the drawingtable, we should have an idea if it actually would work.
re: the peoples elbow
That is a very synical view on things but i kind of agree to some extent. I dont think however that this is a waste of money. It is best to be prepared and when it comes to protecting ourselves, people will most likely do everything in their power to do so, even if that includes spending some money. I do agree on the subject of is this scheme going to work though. I think that some more research should be done imediately to understand if it will work. After we understand that we have a way out of a sticky situation we will be able to forget about it for a while until (or if) the time comes that we should need to use it.
re: aaron burr
Im not sure how much time we have before we know an astroid is headed towards us bent on the destruction of our planet but even if we have a decent amount of time, it might not be enough. I think it is better to start figuring out our saftey plan now rather than later because it might be too late by the time we start if we wait. And if were a couple hundred years too early, better safe than sorry!!
1. The scientists are worried about asteroids because they are large rocks that can cause widespread damage. Even a rock of 200m can cause death and possible injury to nearby viewers of this phenomenomenom.
2a. The scientists worry that the impulse needed for deflection of the asteroid is too great to dock a spacecraft and push the asteroid away.
2b. Scientists also worry because if the craft managed to attach they would need an attachment mechanism because surface gravity is too weak to keep asteroid held in place.
2c. The spacecraft if managed to attach to asteroid would also be pushing the asteroid in a constantly changing direction.
3. The grav-tractor would use thrusters to balance the asteroid and gravity to tow it away.
Scientists are concerned with collisions between Earth and asteroids because they could cause "widespread damage and loss of life." Even an impact from a (relatively) small asteroid could have major reprecussions.
Scientists are concerned about landing on the surface of an asteroid because 1. the surface of asteroids are rough and unconcentrated, which would make direct contact very unstable. 2. Because asteroids generally rotate it would cause the docked spacecraft's engines to be pushing in a constantly changing direction, which would defeat the purpose of trying to steer the asteroid and stopping the asteroid's rotation is almost impossible. 3. Asteriods generally have weak internal structure and low surface gravity making it difficult to dock a spacecrafte. Also an especially weak asteriod has the potential of breaking when contact is made causing more asteriods to approach Earth.
The gravitational tractor works by approaching the asteroid and using a gravitational tow line would change the trajectory of the asteroid away from Earth. To maintain a balance the spacecraft would act as a pendulum with the heaviest end pointing towards the asteroid. It would use thrusters to "pull" or "push" the asteriod in order to keep it from detsroying Earth.
The theory behind this spacecraft seems very good and it amazes me how creative the people at NASA are. The problem seems to lie in the fact that it takes a long time to get these asteroids away from Earth. But I trust NASA to be able to detect an asteroid large enough to make an impact on Earth enough time in advance if they are able to come up with ideas like these. Good looks NASA.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids because if a small asteroid of about 200m can cause widespread damage and loss of life, why not prevent it?
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids because:
1)Asteroids usually rotate which would cause engines to be thrusted in constantly changing directions.
2)Asteroids tend to be rough so making a stable attachment would be hard.
3)Lastly the surface gravity would be to weak to hold it in place.
The Gravitational Tractor will work by not using any physical attachment but by using gravity as a towline thus pulling the asteroid away from Earth's surface. In turn hopefully saving peoples lives and any further damage that would have happened to our planet.
I think this is a good idea but if asteroids hitting the Earth are such a slim chance, then shouldn't we be putting these billions of dollars to other more urgent things?
Why don't we just look into our telescopes and see whats up, then we chill underground, burrow if you will, until it hits.
Another solution may lie in a type of giant trampoline. Perhaps even thrusting something at the asteroid to delay its attack, maybe get it to miss, hit venus or something.
I think that this gravitational tractor idea is a very bad one. It would be hard to maneuver into place and it would be a rather large inconvenience construction and cost wise. I would rather use that money for different areas of our government. Considering the fact that just launching a rocket to blow up the asteroid seems a lot easier and like a cheaper alternative. I'm not so sure how feasible that is though.
In response to polka dot and ms speights i don't think that preparing for an asteroid is really a big deal or necessary at all. Since the beginning of time there has always been a chance and occasions in which the earth could get hit by an asteroid, the only reason that people think its such a big deal know is that we are able to detect and calculate the distances of the asteroids from earth.
1)Scientists are concerned about an asteroid hitting earth, because it could be really really bad. It's only a matter of time before an asteroid is set to hit the earth. If a big enough asteroid hit the earth Mad people would die.
2)Scientists are concerned about landing on asteroids, because the surface ravity is too weak, because the surfaces of asteroids are usually rough and not uniform, and asteroids rotate. Basically, it's really hard to do
3)The Gravitational Tractor would work by hovering over an asteroid and using its own gravitational force to steer the asteroid in a different direction. The tractor would also have thrusters to counteract other forces of gravity that act upon the asteroid.
In response to crystal_grovel they actually did know that there was something wrong with the space shuttle, except the engineers gave a horrible presentation so that the upper management thought that everything was fine and dandy,when really it wasn't.
I agree with reva-t, if NASA is actually going to try this out, then they should start small and simple, like only towing a 5 meter asteroid first.
1. Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids due to the impact they will have when they hit our planet. Even a small asteroid with a diameter of 200 m can cause significant damage. Imagine what asteroids that are several miles long can do?
2. There are several problems that result from attempting to land special attachment mechanisms to an asteroid. Their surface gravity is too weak for the attachments to hold in place properly. As well as their surface itself is too jagged and rough for a stable adjustment. Since many asteroids rotate in different directions, it is very difficult to anchor an engine that can mimic the asteroids movements. Whereas, adjusting the asteroids movement according to the engine is too risky and it wastes too much propellant.
3. The new spacecraft dubbed the ‘gravitational tractor' is shaped like a pendulum that would hover above the surface of the asteroid. There would be a gravitational towline that would act to change its route. With the ever-changing trajectory, the asteroid would not hit the Earth. Since the spacecraft would not touch the actual surface, the heavier end of the pendulum would be right above the asteroid and the lighter side would be would be at the engines. Therefore, the forces of gravity will equal each other out.
I agree with reva-t in the fact that we need to further enhance our space programs. Though NASA already does so much, we need to prioritize on what seems to be our danger in the future. We need to continue researching and calculate the paths of future asteroids. We need to have enough data, that if an asteroid is set out to hit our planet, we will be able to calculate where it hits instead of getting crazy media frenzy about the sky falling. Research needs to be done ahead of time, because of their every-changing paths, in order to find the accurate measurements.
I agree with the ideas of Ms. Speights, because on the topic of preparing for a disaster…better to be safe then sorry. Though, with so many problems on our plate already we need to prioritize before we start to panic. The probability of one getting hit by an asteroid is very small comparing to the probability of one getting in a car accident. With all the other crazy things going on in our world today, many people don’t even consider asteroids as a threat. People need to be educated and then together as an international union, we need to figure out what we can do to save ourselves from the events in the future. Money will need to be set aside carefully and willingly by authorities to further continue our projects.
I agree with bk. i mean the chances of an asteroid hitting earth is very small and it would be a waste of millions and millions of dollars to pay for the "gravitational tractor." Ok lets say we do get it and we send it out into space to stop an asteroid, what happens when it doesn't work? what if it can't push or in this case pull the asteroid away? Basically we're screwed either way whether we get it or not.
Again, I agree with some. It will be a huge waste of money and once again, what if it doesn't work or do its job?!?! we really shouldn't be worrying about an asteroid hitting us because the chance of one hitting us and making through our atmosphere is very slim. we really should be worrying about global warming and the ice caps mealting.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between the Earth and Asteroids becuase they are capable of causing a lot of damage and loss of life.
Landing on an asteroid to move it away from impacting the earth is rather difficult. First off asteroids are usually disfigured and have rough surfaces which would make it almost impossible to land on. Second, the asteroid rotates which means if you were using thrusters to help steer the asteroid away it would change directions in which way you were pushing. Ultimately leading the asteroid to stop rotating. And finally the gravity of an asteroid is too weak to keep a large object attached to it.
The Gravitational tractor works by hovering over the asteroid. The thrusters of the tractor are located on the outside so not to disrupt any movement of the asteroid. The craft would be designed like a pendulum with the heaviest components pointing towards the asteroid. The gravitaional pull from the tractor would slowly cause the asteroid to move towards it and away from an earh impacting path.
I think this is an interesting idea although I do not believe it is necessary. The Earth is such a tiny object in the universe and what are the chances that an asteroid big enough to cause a large disturbance is going to hit us. I liked how they did it in the movie armegedon. Altough this seems like a much safer and efficient way. It is a great idea for something that may or may not need to be used in our lifetime.
In response to kinglsey
I don't think it is realistict to look into a teloscope and when we see an asteroid coming burrow underground. What happens after the asteroid hits? They have the capabilities of causing huge environmental issues. If big enough it could cause a new ice age. A different solution may need to be looked at.
re: Tom Halsall
I agree that this invention is good for the time being if needed. But i doubt that the same technology will be used in future generations. With the technological advances and space studies today it is almost inevitable that an even better way to solve these problems will emerge.
In response to what The People's Elbow said I agree. NASA has made many mistakes, and though they were made in the name of science or discovery or whatever it is it does not seem to be worth it. Too much money is speant on space programs that serve a minimal purpose compared to the other problems that the world faces. I do not know how probable a major asteroid impact is but it seems that there are other, more terrestrial, problems that could use the money that would otherwise be speant on a twenty-ton celestial tow truck.
In response to Reva T, I agree. Though seemingly theoretically possible I find it very hard to believe that such things are possible. I also find it hard to believe that a 20 ton spaceship has enough of a gravitational force to counter the gravitational force of a body as massive as Earth. Is it possible for them to use this technology to fix stuff on Earth? Probably not.
1. it could destroy alot of earth and kill many.
2. the asteroid rotates and if they tried to push it off in a certain direction it wouldnt go in a straight line because the ship would rotate along with the asteroid. asteroids have a low surface gravity which would make it hard for the ship to stay on the asteroid. asteroids have a rough and unconsolidated surface which makes it hard for the ship to stay on the asteroid.
3.the tractor works by pulling the asteroid with its own gravitational pull. after then gravitational pull is established between the tractor and the asteroid the tractor uses thrusters to pull the asteroid away from earth.
respond to some.
i think you are right about it being a huge waste of money because we don't even have actual trials where an asteroid was pulled by the tractor so how do we know if it is gonna work. although im not sure about the 100,000 year thing anything could happen so we should be prepared but not with the tractor idea. another idea would be to destroy the asteroid with a laser. :P
1. scientists are concerned about asteroids hitting the earth because they could be potentially hazardous to our precious planet and harmful to human lives and creations.
2. landing on asteroids to move them will be hard because:
a) the surface gravity is too weak to hold the craft docked to the asteroid
b)"asteroids are likely to be rough and unconsolidated, making stable attachment difficult." is quoting allowed? i hope so.
c) most asteroids rotate, so the craft would need to be able to some how stop the rotation in order to push the asteroid in one direction, or only provide thrust when it is facing the proper direction.
3. The Gravitational Tractor would work by providing a strong gravitational force on the asteroid which would "tow" the asteroid and alter its trajectory just enough so it would avoid contact with earth.
reva-t
im with you on the technology limitations as well.
but by the time we even get the tractor down to a science, hehe science, we could use some other kind of technology that would work better to get rid of the asteroid. the tractor has so many problems just waiting to come out such as it is too big to get into space, it could fail to get a pull on the asteroid. Personally i think a laser or a missle could get rid of it easier. like in armageddon
they blew it up.
Scientists are concened about collisions between astroids and earth because an astroid hit can cause a lot of harm to the world. It also might have possibly caused extinction to a species (dinosaurs) which leaves people asking if we might be next.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to “move them out of Earth’s way” because
1)the rough surface of an asteroid is not a suitable landing surface.
2)low surface gravity makes it really hard to move the asteroid.
3)since the asteroid is spinning while it moves it would be hard to land on it.
The proposed “Gravitational Tractor” will be made so that the heavy end is pointing to the asteroid and being towed away by the gravity being exerted by the gravitational tractor
i think that it is a good idea if it is needed to be used but if the asteriod doesnt show any signs of coming towards earth we might as well not waste our money.
In responce to PL3144:
i agree with what they are saying because even though it seems like a really interesting idea idont know how much we need it. If an asteroid shows any signs of coming near earth then we should stop it but frankly, to do it with out any signs of it coming towards earth, might not be worth the money.
Scientists are concerned about asteroids hitting earth because even small asteroids can have a huge impact and wipe out a large area where they hit.
It is difficult to move the asteroid correctly by landing on it. The surface gravity is too weak to hold it in place. Also an asteroid is rough so it is hard to land on. Asteroids are constantly rotating so the engine thrusting would be doing so in a different direction every time.
The gravitational tractor works by having the spacecraft hover above the asteroid and using gravity to tow it away from earth.
This sounds like a good prevention plan but it also sounds really expensive. Its a good plan to have because asteroids have hit earth before and can be extremely dangerous. Seriously like, the dinosaurs didn't just vanish? This is one of those things that we have to just really hope doesn't happen but still prepare for, maybe not right away though.
in responce to some:
i agree with this person also because we should be putting our money towards an issue that is needed to be dealt with now that might cause greater problems in the future. We really dont need to be doing this right now because of the extremely slim chance.
re: physicskicks mass
I agree that figuring out a safetly plan is a lot more reasonable at the moment when compared to the gravitational tractor. Because of the time needed so the gravitational tractors plan can work, it doesnt seem logical of people putting it into action if it actually needed to be used. A smarter plan would be to figure out what to do on the very small chance that an asteroid does hit the Earth, a plan that would limit the destruction of the asteroid.
in response to grannysmithapple
I agree that we should to be prepared if this were to happen. Careful observation of the paths these asteroids take in space is very vital to what should be done. Even if there is such a small chance of an asteroid hitting us, we should be prepared. So at least if
an asteroid is about to hit we are ready to stop it or at least try and stop it. This will also be a great advance in our technology which is always great.
in response to pl3144:
i think it is perfectly alright to look in a telescope and run and hide when we see asteroids instead of spending billions of dollars which we don't have on the creation on something that might work anyway. even if it does work, im sure nature will find a new way to get back at us.
also is a new ice age the worst thing? it'd be better than all of the ice melting, i think, because at least this way it would allow for new life in the future, perhaps more intelligent life that will find our fossils and learn from our mistakes.
in response to greggles:
i kind of agree with you.
i agree that the gravitational tractor is a bad one, and that it would be a waste of money when there are so many more important things going on RIGHT NOW which need attention that we as a country have completely neglected. i think it is more important we focus on earthly problems before we go off to fight the extra terrestrial ones. OR if we stopped creating problems, that would be alright too.
HOWEVER, i would think the gravitational tractor would be a good idea if it 100% resembled a real tractor, as in the type used for farming, and even had a plow that it pulled, so it could churn up the metaphorical soil of space. that'd be sweet.
There is this big issue over how an asteroid might hit earth and cause wide spread disaster. Scientists have thought of different ways to prevent this from happeneing like actually landing on the asteroid and steering it away. There are many problems to this though, the fact the asteroid is spinning means the craft would have to wait for each revolution to move it or find a way to completely stop the asteroid from spinning. The effort and money it would take to do both of these things is unreasonable. So scientists have come up with another plan, a gravitational tractor. A ship that will not touch down on the asteroid but use gravity as a tow rope. The ship would use thrusters that shoot around the asteroid to pull it away from earth. I think this to is pointless. The amount of money and the unlikelyness of an asteroid actually crashing into the earth makes the project pointless.
Roger2 has a pretty valid point over this. Right now it might be a bad idea to spend all this money and build it because of the small chance an asteroid will actually hit us. But it is always good to keep a plan in the back of your head just in case an asteroid does head for earth.
"some" you do have a point of how we should worry about current issues like global warming instead of wasting money and time on a gravitational tractor. Though what if that 100,00 years runs out sometime soon it's better to be safe and have a plan than just throw an idea like this aside.
1. Scientists are concerned about a collision between Earth and an asteroid because there are several ways that an asteroid could kill people and cause damage. Just like the leading theory of how dinosaurs became extinct- a large enough asteroid could do just that. The human race could be wiped out.
2. Scientists don't think landing on the asteroids is the best method of dealing with them because they have hard surfaces, they spin, and they don't have enough surface gravity to hold a spacecraft. The spinning is a factor because even if the spacecraft was able to anchor onto the meteor, it would propel it in a constantly changing direction.
3. The proposed tractor will simply get close to the meteor and with thrusters pointed at an obtuse angle, they would propel in a direction away from the meteor. The meteor's path would be altered due to the gravity of the "tractor".
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because a collision with the earth would cause great distruction and would possibly kill many people.
asteroids have a weak internal structure and they also have a low surface gravity so landing on them could be dangerous. The rough surface of the astroids would also make it very difficult.
I think this Gravitational Tractor is a good idea but the chances of being struck by an asteroid is very small and the money that would be used for this "tractor" could be wasted if we never really need it.
I disagree with iamlegend, This gravity tractor is new technology. When was the last time a new technology came out and didn't have and bugs/ problems. This technology has never been tried before. When the time comes to pull an astroid away from earths pull, and it doesn't work, we will be both out of time and ideas.
I agree with max power, spending money is a bad thing, spending money wisely can be a great thing. Eventually we are going to need this technology, and when the time comes to use it, it's gotta work. Yes it is expensive, but so is everything in recent years. People say that millions of dollers is alot of money, however they don't realise that the governmenthas billions and billions of dollars. Spending a little money to secure our future is a good idea.
people need to realize that asteroids coming at the earth are big deals and that they could be a terrible end to civilization. Even if it wouldn't destroy the entire race, it would hurt a major place, but hopefully not a major city.
Spending too much money unwisly would be a big deal, because today we are in debt and we tend to spend lots of money on stupid things. But this will take a lot of money, and it is an important investment for our future. Maybe there would be a better less expensive way, but until that is solved, we should start with this.
in response to iamlegend
i disagree with "The amount of money and the unlikelyness of an asteroid actually crashing into the earth makes the project pointless." because it's not at all. It's a smart idea and if we could make it work, that would be great! If we put all this money into it its not just saving us from an asteroid its furthering our intelligence and our technology which would be a good thing, continuing to move our world forward.
In response to Ukiboy812, I don't think just waiting and doing nothing is the solution, either. It's not like there's one problem everyone has to focus on. As an entire race, tasks can be divided. Some could be working on this, while others try and find other solutions. I'm assuming that's how it works, anyway. It just seems silly to assume that "ok, we're working on the gravitational tractor. guess we can't do anything else" is what is happening.
1.Scientists are extremely worried about collisions between the Earth and asteroids, because were one to occur, it would cause huge amounts of damage to Earth and those of us living on it.
2. Landing on an asteroid in order to change its path is by far not the most efficient way to go about it. This is becasue being able to stably attatch to its surface would be very difficult. Also, most asteroids rotate, so if an engine were to be attached to the surface, the direction that the asteroid would be moved in would change constantly. Being able to overcome this by stopping the rotation or only using the engine when the asteroid is facing a certain direction takes too much time and propellant. Also, a chemical rocket would be too small to land on the asteroid and change its path, so a much larger nuclear-electric propelled spacecraft would have to be used.
3. The "Gravitational Tractor" is more efficient, because it does not involve landing directly on the asteroid, therefore avoiding the problems that that poses. The "gravitational tractor" would work by hovering a distance away from it, and using its gravity to change the path of the asteroid.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth and asteroids because even the smallest asteroid can do damage
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids because the surface gravity is not strong enough. Also because asteroids have a tough terrain and it would make it harder to land. Another thing is that asteroids rotate which would make it harder for a land mechanism.
The "Gravitational Tractor" would use its own pull to attract the asteroid and move it in the right direction
I think the idea of helping our space program is a good idea. I think its good to help improve our technology. The only thing is that we have not been to the moon recently, and im hoping that improving our space equipment will help us land there sooner.
1) Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because they can cause damage and loss of life. Even the smallest asteroid can cause damage so the scientists are concerned with even larger ones hitting the Earth.
2) Landing on an asteroid in order to move it away would be hard because the surface gravity is weak. Also attachment would be hard and the asteroid is rotating so this makes it harder to attach.
3) The Gravitational Tractor works by hovering over the asteroid and by using gravitational forces to tow it. It will just hover so it helps because it won’t have to land on the asteroid.
in response to pl3144
I agree that earth is a very tiny object in the universe and that an asteroid large enough to cause a major disturbance is slim, I still feel that it is a good idea to improve our space technology so that we can be prepared for such things like an asteroid.
In response to BK:
I agree that this is a good idea but it would cost a lot of money and it would be very difficult to make. This process of making the Gravitational Tractor would also probably take a really long time to crate.
Yes, the chances of a huge asteroid coming into direct contact with the Earth are relatively small, however it never hurts to be prepared. I agree with some in that building this contraption right away is a waste of money. However, I do think this kind of research and experimentation is very useful, but that something this large and probably expensive should not be built yet, because it is likely that they will be able to come up with something even more efficient in the long run.
In response to themoonisalie:
I agree that this plan is a good idea, but I also agree that this idea is a little to advanced for our time period. I also think that this should be done because it is something that can protect us from death. This is something that is very advanced and will take a lot of time to create but can potentially help the world out in the years to come. t I dont think this is a waste of money if it can save lives.
The People's elbow is right that NASA has not always succeeded in past, howver that is no reason for them to stop trying. It would be impossible for them to try the new and incredibly innovative things that they are able to try if they only put out projects that they were positive would be successful. If that was the case, they would not gain knowledge nearly as quickly, and would have a lot less research out there. I'm not necesarily saying that they should go forth with this project immediately, but they shouldn't discontinue the idea of it just because it may not succeed.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and asteroids because if an asteriod ever collided with the Earth there would be extreme damage and people would die.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids because asteriods have a low surface gravity. They also have a hard and rough terrain so it would make landing hard. Also the asteroids rotate which would move anything that landed on it in a diffrent direction.
The gravitational tractor works by using it's own force and pushing the asteroid out of Earths way.
in response to: iamlegend
I agree with you. Yes, they have come up with a great idea to keep asteroids from crashing into the Earth but it would cost unreasonable amounts of money. There is a very slim chance that an asteroid would actually crash into Earth so the getting the kind of money for this project would be pointless.
In response to: physicskicksmass
I agree with you. There should be some testing done before going on with the project. If the time comes when we actually do need to stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth then we will be prepared. But before we know that it even works, why waste all that money on it when it can be going to something else.
Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth and asteroid because they cause a lot of damage and can destroy and large amount of the earth. Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them out of earths way" because the surface is very rocky and tough, asteroids rotate so it would be difficult to land, and theres not a lot of surface gravity. i think that the gravitational tractor wont work right now because we aren't really as educated as we need to be about asteroids and how it works and everything. We need to build up our technology until it is 100% safe to do it.
yeah i agree with pepe instead of just sitting around and not doing it we could be learning more and more about it and who knows, it may lead to an incredible find! we cant just sit around hoping that an asteroid wont hit us, thats just stupid.
xyz makes a good point that no one really pays attention to things like this. If people knew that an asteroid was coming to earth, they would want someone to do something about it. It's worth it to spend the money we do have to help make us more safe.
I agree with 123456789.
Indeed, just not giving NASA a chance because they have failed in the past is a horrible, horrible idea. I may not be so knowledgeable in this subject, but I can't think of any other organizations that are capable of handling something of this calibur, or at the very least trying! I think that failing in the past can be a bittersweet thing -- of course any kind of loss that costs lives and a phenomenal amount of money is unfortunate at best, but it allows for them to try and learn from their mistakes, and to make sure everything is running smoothly.
I still say doing nothing at all is a bad idea. I am not looking forward to being squished by a giant rock.
Scientists are concerned about asteroids colliding with the Earth because if one ever did hit, there would be lots of damage and people would be in danger.
Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to "move them out of Earth's way" because the terrain on asteroids is really rough and it would be difficult to land. Also an asteroid has very weak surface gravity. The asteroid also rotates so anytime it moved the gravitational tractor would move in a different direction.
The gravitational tractor works by using its own gravitational force to push back on the asteroid making sure it does not get in Earths way.
In response to xyz
I agree with you. We are in debt and this project would cost billions of dollars to follow through with. If there was a better, less expensive way to go through with NASA's project then it would be a great idea.
In response to iamlegend
I agree with you. This will take a lot of money to actually do. And the likelihood of an asteroid crashing into the Earth is very small. If they can find a cheaper way to stop an asteroid from hitting us then that would be great.
In response to Some-
It’s not pushing the asteroid, it’s pulling it away. But, aside from that minor detail, I agree with your reasoning. It is always good to plan ahead of time, but when there SO many issues to worry about and concentrate on that are urgent and that will devastate Earth as extensively as an asteroid, it is not reasonable to invest so much money and manpower into a problem so improbable. Also, it is very likely that by the time we actually have to start worrying, we will have more efficient technology to help us deal.
i agree with aaronburr, in that we should not be so quick to build up defence against an asteroid that is very unlikely to hit the earth in the many years to come.
1. Scientists are so concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids because the collision of even a small asteroid of about 200m with the Earth could very well cause extensive
destruction and take the lives of many individuals.
2. Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids in order to move them out of Earth’s way because:
-the surface gravity of the asteroids is too weak to be held in place
-attachment/land mechanics would be practically unfeasible due to the asteroids’ tough
- Asteroids rotate, and so to land on them they would have to be at rest, and to stop them from rotating is a difficult and impractical process that wastes resources unnecessarily.
3. In asteroid deflection, a gravitational tractor is a way to use the gravitational attraction between a spaceship and an asteroid to alter its path to prevent it from colliding with the Earth. In the plan, the spaceship will hover above the asteroid's surface using thrusters, and gravitational attraction will deflect the asteroid. The thrusters cannot point directly at the asteroid, or else the effect would be cancelled by momentum transfer between exhaust gas and the asteroid's suface.
I think that this is an innovative concept, though I’m not convinced that it is absolutely necessary. When one evaluates the chance of an asteroid disturbing earth compared with the amount of money and manpower that this project involves, one sees that the benefits are not substantial enough, because the risk is not substantial enough(according to the article, the probability of Apophis hitting earth is 10^-4). There are many more weighty issues that NASA needs to invest time and money into that will most likely affect earth in the near future.
In response to LucyintheSky who responded to Some-
Why not avoid a potentially dire problem for the future? Because wayyyy too much money, time, and opportunity cost goes into this project, and I’m sure we will be better able to deal it in the future when we have more advanced technology. Before we can start planning for the future/avoiding POTENTIALLY dire problems, we need to resolve the problems that are inevitably going to immediately affect our generation.
In response to thepeopleselbow-
I agree with you. The ones actually benefiting are the scientists that will get larger pay checks. Also, there have been many NASA projects that have ended in disaster, ie Challenger and Columbia. I say, fix those problems first, and maybe finish the international space shuttle, and don’t risk any more disaster with the "tractor" (it is not terribly safe as the heat absorbing tiles fall off during take off and crack , so when they renter it overheats and boom and not terribly necessary either).
Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids mainly because they could kill tons of people, even if they’re really small they can cause a huge amount of damage, so that’s something to worry about, I would think, to scientists and just living things in general.
1. The gravity on the surface of the asteroids is too weak keep under control and be attached.
2. The surface of asteroids are all rough and unconsolidated, so it would be pretty hard to attach
3. It’s a really difficult process to contain the rotating movement of the asteroids, which would have to be done in order to land on them, and frankly it’s just a pain. Personally, I would hate to have to deal with that. Plus, it is a waste of resources, not to mention time.
The Gravitational Tractor would work using a gravitational tow-line to attach to the spacecraft. This would tow the asteroid in a different direction. The Tractor uses thrusters so the forces of gravity that are on the asteroid are balanced out.
in respose to 1234567891011, I don't know if I really agree. I think it's not something we should overlook completely, but honestly, I think there are more pressing problems in the world and If I had to spend my money on someting tha relies so entirly on chance, I mean, I'm not a gambler, but I wouldn't do it. I would rather invest in something more immediate.
lez,
I completely agree with you. There is a very very slim chance that an asteroid would actually crash into Earth and it such a huge ammount of money that it would be pointless. I would rather send my time improving human nature or something, I mean... I'm not sitting at home worrying about this. What are the statistics really on "death by asteroid?" seriously?
in response to xyz
I agree with you. It is an important thing for our future but it will cost a lot of money to creat this. We can use this money for more important things right now. And the chance of an asteroid actually hitting us is very slim. It is a good idea and will be in the distant future but costs way too much money.
1)Scientists are concerned because the collisions would cause a lot of damage and kill a lot of people
2) the asteroid terrain is rough making it difficult to land on,
it has low surface gravity
and the asteroid spins
so anytime something would land on it it would be pushed in a different direction
3)the gravitation tractor works by using its own force to push back on the asteroid, keeping it out of earths way
In response to some on november 16th
I 100% agree that this is a huge waste of money, especially for our generation. The chances of our planet getting hit by an asteroid are very very small making the need for some gravitational tractor completely irrelevant. If we truly are ever in danger of being obliterated by an asteroid, then god bless us. I doubt that having an gravitational john deer is going to do anything for us at that point.
In response to the people's elbow:
I agree that the gravitational tractor is indeed a revolutionary invention that could help in generations to come. However, i do believe that currently it isnt relevant. Now even though we would have to throw mass amonts of money into creating it (and in contradiction to my last comment), we realistically wouldnt even notice that the money would be used. ANd in the rare case that we are in danger of a collision with an asteroid, we would be prepared.
1) Scientists are concerned about asteroids hitting the earth because they would cause an immense amount of damage and potentially wipe out the population.
2)Scientists are concerned about landing on asteroids because it is very difficult. Asteroids have a very low surface gravity as well as a very weak internal structure. In addition they are constantly rotating which would make it very hard to effectively push the asteroid in the desired direction.
3)the gravitational tractor would work by using its own gravitational force to tow the asteroid in a different direction. the tractor would use thrusters to balance out the forces of gravity acted upon the asteroid.
1) Scientists are worried about asteroids colliding with Earth is because they can cause an incredible amount of destruction and death. An asteroid of a decent size could easily destroy all life on Earth, just like the one that is supposed to have killed off the dinosaurs. It would disrupt the ecosystems of the world with dust storms and massive amounts of flooding. A particularly large asteroid could even potentially destroy Earth entirely.
2) Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids to move them out of the path of Earth for several reasons. One of these is because of the amount of force required to push an asteroid an extremely large spaceship would be necessary. This leads directly into the second reason, being that they have very weak surfaces and interiors due to the large number of holes meaning not only would it be hard to land and connect it would also have the risk of falling through unstable ground if the spacecraft were to land. The third reason is because asteroids change direction, the ship would have to be constantly moving. The forth and most important reason is obvious to anyone who has seen the movie Armageddon: they really don't want to piss off Bruce Willis.
3) The proposed "Gravitational Tractor" would work by using a gravitational force to push or pull the asteroid in the desired direction. It would exert a gravitational pull/push on the asteroid (pulling is more plausible because it is how gravity functions) and it would either 'tow' or 'shove' the asteroid where they wanted it to go.
I think the idea of a gravitational tractor is just hard to grasp. I just can't really see it actually working anytime soon. I cant see how a machine would actually generate enough gravity to change the course of a large asteroid.
I think it's a very clever idea, and is certainly better than whatever that silly "star war" plan that was conceived in the 70's or 80's where the idea was we would shoot them down with a laser or a rocket. That idea was obviously REALLY well thought out. This one actually could work and be useful, and who knows? One day it might save our ass.
I agree with chuck norris partly because i am afraid that if i dont he will roundhosue kick me in the face but also because he makes a few interesting points. There will be alot of money and time wasted with all the prototypes. Also, I wonder how they would be able to test the prototypes.
1)Scientists are worried about collisions between Earth and asteroids because asteroids are really quite hazardous to life on Earth (and frankly who wants to end up like this guy: http://images.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/justforfun/images/qwantzomatic_20070608175106.jpg).
2) Scientists are concerned about having to land on asteroids for afew reasons
a)It would be difficult to attach a ship to an asteroid since their surfaces are "rough and unconsolidated"
b)Because of the fact that asteroids rotate the operation of any engine that was trying to redirect the asteroid would be costly and overly complex.
c)The size of the spacecraft needed would be immense.
3)The "gravitational tractor" would work by having a spacecraft hover over the offending asteroid and allowing gravity to act as a towline. By having the thrusters of the spacecraft angled so that they would not interfere with the movement of the asteroid the spacecraft could, using gravity, drag the asteroid away from Earth.
I agree with lez in that alot of the funding for this project is pointless because the chance of us actually gettign hit by an asteroid in the time our planet is still inhabitable are slim to none. If we do happen to face an asteroid in teh near future and our gravitational tractor is not ready or doesnt work then im sure we could find enough nuclear weapons int he world to blow the asteroid up with.
In response to 1234567891011 :
I think people pay so little attention to things like this for one reason in particular.I think people view the chances of an asteroid hitting earth as astronomically small, regardless of whether or not they actually are. I agree with you in your assertion that if people thought that an asteroid was on its way they would want something done but I think that people view such an event as nearly impossible and thus fail to take anyone saying as much seriously.
1) The concern is that an asteroid striking earth can cause damage beyond beleif. It is theorized that it was an asteroid striking earth that caused the exinction of the dinosaurs and other species. Meaning we could be at risk ourselves of extinction, not just one particular country or continent being destroyed.
2)(a)Creating a gravitational tractor would take many years and the funding for it would be huge.
(b)Scientists are also concerned that the spacecraft could crask on the asteroid, only making problems worse rather than better.
(c)The rotation and structure of an asteroid make it extremely difficult for attachment in order to "move the asteroid".
3) The gravitational tractor works by not using any actual physical attachment, but by towing with a gravitaional force, having the engines controlling the vertical axis of the asteroid in place, and the horizontal axis to be controlled by engines on opposite sides and differrential throttling of the engines. This spacecraft would stay balanced by being built like a pendulum, the engines at the top, and the heavier parts at the bottom.
I also beleive that these methods are probable but highly unlikely. We should consider the chemical components of an asteroid along with the physical components in order to find out how to avoid contact with them.
I agree mostly with the post somehas made.
I differ only in that it is a concern, maybe not immediately, but in the future it could be, but there are more concerning issues at hand. Also in a case such as protecting the survival of not only our species possibly, but our home, I feel that money shouldn't be an issue, even though it always is. Countries from around the world should be able to contribute to protecting our home that we call earth and there shouldn't be any questions of moneys, only questions of how much we care for the survival of ourselves and others.
It seems to me that two of the lines of thought that most people are following are either a)a project like this is too costly or b)this would be a good way to bolster the space program. I think that perhaps a better way to look at it is as an international matter (after all, if an asteroid hits the Earth it isn't as if the U.S. is the only nation which will suffer the consequences). While it may seem farfetched perhaps it would be possible to enlist other nations in aiding with the funding, research, etc. on the project. While this may not bolster our space program it shall at least preserve it if an asteroid does come along.
In response to "some"
It is worth it to protect the Earth- after all, it's all we've got. If you do the math for any single meteor hitting Earth it's a small chance just like say- getting a ticket for speeding tomorrow. However, if you ask the question- will I ever get a speeding ticket, the odds increase dramatically. So why waste time waiting for one to be close to hitting us before we invest time and money into our protection.
Scientists are so concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids because an asteroid 200 meters in width could cause great devestation and distruction throughout the world. Scientists are reluctant to landing on an asteroid because an asteroid is spinning so the propulsion of the rockets will push it in multiple directions. Also, the surface of the asteroid is not necessarily stable, causing a possible break-up or inability to clasp onto the surface. Thirdly, the gravitational pull of the asteroid is not strong enough to keep the thrust rockets on the surface without the use of clasps, which causes a problem because clasping something to the surface of an asteroid from such a far distance is no easy task. The gravity tractor will work by weighting one end and putting rockets on the other end. The end with the heavier weight will hang over the asteroid, pulling it along with a strong-enough gravitational pull. As long as the spacecraft weighs 20 tons, the asteroid is 200 m, the angle between the spacecraft and the asteroid is 20 degrees, and the thrusters on the spacecraft maintain a speed of 1 newton, the tractor will be successful in moving the asteroid away from earth.
"some" said that it is very unlikely that an asteroid will hit the earth. Well, although this may be true, there have been predictions that asteroids will hit the earth as soon as 2012. The mayans correctly predicted the solar eclipse of 1999 hundreds of years before it happened, so predictions can come true. Coming from a more logical point of view, though, it is always good to be prepared for any and every eventuality, even one as unlikely as an asteroid hitting the earth.
chucknorris also said that if an asteroid comes close to earth, we would do something about it. This, i'm unforunately not too sure about. i would like to believe that we would be prepared for it and take action, but often times thing such as this are overlooked as a minor problem and should be dealt with after other domestic problems. also, at the current moment we are not prepared to deal with a large scale asteroid. this makes this gravitational tractor sound much more impressive because it prepares us for the eventuality of an asteroid coming towards earth.
In response to Ges
We aren't discussing moving bodies as massive as Earth. Something more like that of a 200 m wide meteor could actually be moved.
Has anybody besides me heard some plan about simply painting a meteor white its path would be deflected by the way it reflects heat?
In response to the people's elbow, not everything should come down to money and funding or not, but unfortunately it does. Also it should not be just NASA working on this project for this is a matter of global protection. Countries from around the world, such as Russia, Italy, France, and many others should all be working in unison in order to create this spacecraft, in order to one day possibly save millions if not billions of lives.
I disagree with the people who say that this would be a waste of money. I mean, sure the chances of being hit by an asteroid are slim. But when that asteroid is barreling down on Earth your going to want to know that we can actually do something about it instead of just watching it fall.
1. Scientists are worried that an asteroid even as small as 200 meters in radius will crash into earth and cause disaterous results. This could be very serious because seeing as the Earth is more massive than the asteroids, asteroids can get pulled into earth by its much larger gravitational pull.
2. Scientists believe that landing on an asteroid and attempting to move it by changing its rotation could potentially be very bad, because asteroids have a very weak internal structure. If something were to land on them, than the asteroid could disintegrate or could lead to unbalances in the core of the asteroid.
3. The idea that the scientists now have is to create a giant spaceship that could use its gravitational pull to "spin" these asteroids away from earth. These "tractors" would be able to drag the asteroid far enough away from the earth that it would no longer be in danger to crash into the earth.
I think that this idea is very interesting yet very weird, because it is an idea that is sound in reasoning but yet i feel that the amount of money that would have to be put into it would be a lot and if it didnt work the way scientists figured, than it would be a giant waste of money. The amount of fuel needed in order to power this tractor would be great and thus even with everything going right there would have to be a way to power the tractor for many years and possibly for many asteroids.
I agree completely that the public has become too isolated to things such as an asteroid crashing into earth. This is a serious matter but as is possible to be viewed by this article not too many people actually care about these asteroids. This is a serious matter regarding the safety of earth and yet the general public doesnt care? That is a serious problem, we spend more time worrying about what is happening here on earth than to what is going on outside of earth that could potentially be harmful. I believe that space for all intense and purposes is still the "great unknown" and people have yet to figure out that what goes on in space can still effect us.
The reason scientist are concerned about collisions with asteroids is thatasteroids can cause the planet serious damage. For example the bing bang theory is that an asteroid collided with earth and wiped out the dinosaurs.
It would definately be problematic to land on an asteroid and attempt to steer it away. Firstly a ship would have to land on the asteroid because the gravitational field of the asteroid is too weak. Second, it would be hard to land on a flat spot because the asteroid will be rotating. Also if the asteroid is rotating, it will be hard to make any difference by just pushing it becaus eit will be being pushed in all different directions.
The way the gravitational tractor will work is rather simple. The tractor will "park" along side of but not attached to the asteroid. It will direct the asteroid away from earth by using it's own gravitational pull little by little until the asteroid is off its collision course with earth.
I totaly agree with what roger2 said. I do think its a problem that we should adress and i think it wold be really clever to build something like this. Even though we might destroy the planet ourselves before an asteroid gets the chance.
in response to Grannysmithapple.
I agree with what you say. I feel we need to improve the technology of the space program but that we should continue to research whats going on with asteroids. Research needs to be done so that we can be prepared of what is happening and not be too concerned about something small if it is not a big deal.
I share chucknorris's fear. The flaw in this design is it's sheer size. I'm not sure we have the power to get something that massive into space and i would really prefer not to have a project of this caliber, and price, wind up in a giant failure as it blows up on the launch pad.
This is undoubtly important and requires action sooner rather than later as it is an immediate life threatining event as the dinosaurs can attest to. This plan does have some flaws though. For starters if more than on astroid came at the earth within a 20 year time span , this device would be ineffective at deflecting multiple meteorites. The article also failed to say how much this device would cost, and since we may need more than one, the cost would probably be too great. This would also be a huge political issue because it would requie the assistance of many nations as well as their support. This is a good idea and it will become more needed as time continues and it becomes more affordable and sophisticated.
In response to the People's Elbow
Although Nasa has failed before this is not to say that this project will be worked on by Nasa solely. Also this is a world crisis so we need to have something in preparedness for a possible meteor strike. Their original failures were also expected since it was the first time anyone tried entering space, we wouldn't be where we are if not for their original failures.
Landing on the astroid would be difficult becuase the surface of astroids is very weak and could crumble. The astroid spins and this could cause the spacecraft to be damage and they couldn't move it in this way because there is no way to move it in a time effective manor away from the Earth. Sonce astroids are not perfectly spherical or flat it would also be difficult to dock a spaceship on an astroid.
3. The ship will put the heavier part of itself near the astroid, this will create a gravitational pull on the astroid that will overtime divert it away from earth.
In response to some:
The reason we should focus on this is because unlike global warming, we know what a meteor strike happening to the earth would do. Also think of it like wearing your seatbelt, the odds of getting into a car crash is very low, but every second someone gets into an accident. This is the same thing as meteor strikes, one hits a planet somewhere every second.
1. Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth oand asteroids because an asteroid colliding with earth would put society in danger. Also, an asteroid could severely damage physical factors of the earth.
2. The rotation of an asteroid would make it very difficult to land on. Also, with speed; it could throw off the spacecraft with tangential force. Third, the shape of most asteroids make it very difficult to attach to.
3. The gravitational tractor uses the gravitational force from the 'tractor' to pull asteroids towards the tractor, as well as an engine thrust to balance the gravitational force of the asteroid and the tractor, to put it into somewhat of equilibrium.
I think that the idea pf a gravitational tracto is very logical, and sounds much safer than having a spacecraft land on the asteroid, because this is likely to cause damage to the spacecraft, and also has a greater chance of protecting the earth.
I was very interested in what 'some' had to say; though I don't know where to find the data that supports some's statement. If it is true though, i feel that this gravitational tractor may be unecessary, unless an asteroid is bound to collide with the earth.
I agree with 'lilaley'. Worrying about asteroids and comets at this point in time may not be the best thing to do, considering all the other scary threats going on in the world. However, I do think this space tractor would be the type of thing NASA should check out, because ot would keep us safe from asteroids, just in case.
1. Scientists are concerned about collisions between earth and asteroids because any asteroid could cause death and other problems, and if the asteroid is really big it could cause total loss of life on earth.
2. Landing on asteroids is complicated and could cause problems because the structure of asteroids make it difficult. Also landing on an asteroid could cause it to spin out of control and this makes it complicated to dock on it. It is also hard to attach onto the asteroid surface because there is not a big enough gravitational pull.
3. The tractor works by towing the asteroid away by using a gravitational pull and balancing out forces with it's thrusters.
I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it will really come in handy any time soon. It seems like this could work but the chances of an asteroid hitting earth are low. I think it's always good to have plans for the future though.
I agree with Some that it could be a big waste of money and time because the chances of an asteroid hitting earth are low. But it is good to be prepared. We should also be spending money on other more important things
I agree with Reva-T in that are space technology could be a little under advanced for this kind of technology. I think we need more time and research before all our money goes into something that might not work.
If an asteroid did infact collide with earth, the damage that could occur is unthinkable as i sit here and read the article- even a very small asteroid would have a large impact if it were to hit the earth- and so it is very nice to know that scientists are working to find ways for protect the earth from these asteroids.
Using the gravitational tractor as opposed to landing on the asteroid itself to steer it out of the way is more efficient in numerous ways that the article mentioned. firstly, the asteroid would be spinning and rotating and so as the craft attempted to land (which it would have a hard time doing with the low surface gravity), the craft would begin to direct the asteroid away, but with the rotations, the direction of away is constantly changing, making steering virtually impossible- (from my perspective. im sure a computer could do it, but this would brainboggle me.)
The gravitational tractor would work by refraining from landing on the asteroid itself, and instead by thrusting the asteroid into a different direction. This could be a pull or push motion, but ideally, the article says it would be a pushing motion- this motion would steer the asteroid away from earth...hopefully.
my issue with this idea is, if we're pushing the asteroid away from earth, where are we pushing it to? Money issues and earthly issues aside, i fear that messing with the asteroid will cause bigger problems for the earth- and as i read from some said, if this person is correct in saying that an asteroid will only hit once in every 100,000 years, by golly, i bet you that there will be nothing left to save. we will have destroyed ourselves by then. assuming this is the case, by all means let the asteroid hit the earth- maybe we will have two moons- or something even greater.
i also think its arrogant of humans, even with all the thrusting technology, to believe that we can alter the path of an asteroid without having major repercussions...an asteroid is pretty big after all.
to mclovin- this is true. the fact that an asteroid is already on the way and scheduled to hit within our lifetime is bit concerning, so you can forget my previous comment on worrying where the asteroid goes if it doesnt hit earth. i guess we could cross that bridge when we get to it. the problem is the life here and now. and i agree- money really isnt an issue. if the asteroid hits, what good is money anyway...
even though im still nervous about the aftereffects. i doubt we can just alter the path of an ateroid flawlessly- or with no repercussions for that matter...
to lilaley- agreed that asteroids arent at the top of the priority list, but then, what is? arguments are saying that we should worry about global warming which is present now, but if we press on the global warming issue without focusing on the asteroid issue, we'll have cooled the planet down just in time to be smushed to smitherines by an asteroid. priority is definetly an issue here. i think a bigger issue is time management on part of the world- there are definetly enough people and resources to deal with each of these problems simultaneously, and the federal government just needs to up their game in terms of getting their priorities, and funding priorities in line.
to lilaley- agreed that asteroids arent at the top of the priority list, but then, what is? arguments are saying that we should worry about global warming which is present now, but if we press on the global warming issue without focusing on the asteroid issue, we'll have cooled the planet down just in time to be smushed to smitherines by an asteroid. priority is definetly an issue here. i think a bigger issue is time management on part of the world- there are definetly enough people and resources to deal with each of these problems simultaneously, and the federal government just needs to up their game in terms of getting their priorities, and funding priorities in line.
1)Scientists are concerned about collisions between The Earth and asteroids, because an asteroid makes a really big crater, much bigger than the asteroid itself. It could cause the human race to become extinct. Even if the asteroid wasn't very big, if it landed on a city, the death toll would be in the 100 thousands or even millions.
2)Scientists are concerned of landing on an asteroid to move it for a couple of reasons…The terrain isn’t flat so attaching to it would be tough. Also, the asteroid would throw it off because of its lack of substantial gravity, and its speed would throw off the spacecraft with tangential force. Thirdly, asteroids rotate, which makes it less efficient, and the rotation would have to be stopped.
3)The tractor would work by hovering over the asteroid, and using its gravitational force to move the asteroid. It would use engines as throttle, which is powered off nuclear power.
I like this idea, and think that if they fixed it potential problems would be very effective at removing asteroids heading towards earth. Unfortunately, this project would cost a lot.
Post a Comment