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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239I dissagree with ms. speights, devoting the incredible amounts of time and money needed to develop a gravitational tractor is a waste of resources. Undertaking a project like this is extremely wasteful considering the fact that it is untested technology and it will probably never see any use. The money spent on this project could be put to much better use here on earth.
I agree with ukiboy812. Instead of wasting time and money on the gravitational tractor, we should be focusing on fixing the problems that we face today. Working to stop real problems like global warming, among other things, is what we should really be focusing on.
in response to dogman
the money wouldn't be wasted, it would be used for something that could be of great use. Though an asteroid is unlikely that doesn't mean it won't happen and we should be prepared so the money wont be wasted.
In response to aaronburr
There wouldn't be enough time to build something like this when we find out there is an asteroid coming towards earth. There would be nothing we could do especially if the asteroid is coming at us fast. Also if we did have enough time, all our money, all at once, would be going towards building the gravitational tractor. After we fixed this problem we would be faced with an economic disaster.
Commenting on others-
"Some" said that he thinks its a bad idea, because of its overwhelming cost, but I think that that is stuborn. Thats because, although there is a low chance that one potential threat will hit erth, 100 potential threats over the years greatly increases the risk of it actually happening. Also the saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is definatly true, because that amount of money one day could save the world.
Commenting on reva-t:
Even though space technology has alot to improve on, its still worth starting on, so when we need to use it, we don't have to invent it from scratch, and actually have something to use. One similar example are missles that can intercept and destroy ICbM's. They both have stuff to work on, but must be started and used to avoid mass devistation.
There are many reasons that scientists would not want the gravitational tractor to land on the asteroids.
1. The surface gravity would be too weak and the revolving asteroid would fling the landed satellite off of the asteroid, potentially causing a lot of saftey hazards.
2. This has never been tryed before. If i was goign to spend billions of dollars, i wouldn't want to waste it on a failed trial. the scientists would think twice with the possibility of making a scandal by some "unknown procedure error" that blows up a billion dollar donation. On the other hand, when a apocalyptic satellite is heading towards my house, NASA will have a full-time petitioner to send the Tractor up there.
3. with the rotating asteroid, tons of precise procedures would have to take place either with multiple rocket-engines or somehow stopping the rotation and still have enough fuel to propel this bad boy out of my backyard
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).
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.
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.
1. Asteroids can cause major damage to earth- large or small (because small asteriods aren't really that small). And so, for the sake of the human race, scienstists are worried.
2. The asteroids have weak internal structures , which means the gravitational pull is very weak and they woudld be hard to stay in place. Asteroids rotate, making it difficult to connect with stability. And also, the surface of an asteroid is rough and would also make linking with the asteroid difficult.
3. The Gravitational tractor is called a tractor because it would act like a tractor, towing the asteroid away by using gravity created by thrusters.
I feel like this would be a good idea if it worked, obviously. If they practiced and were almost guaranteed success, then why not. but I guess you cannot predict the actions of an asteroid, and so gurantees aren't exactly guranteed. In any case, it definitely is a good idea to study this and work on it because that's what science is all about.
in response to some:
I do agree that this could be a huge waste of money, and that also we shouldn't put all our focus on this when other issues are more urgent. but I also think that this could be a more urgent issue in the future, and it's nice to do some work now for the people of the future.
in response to physicskicksmass:
I completely agree with you- if we know it can work and its been tested and tested and tested and an asteroid comes our way we can try it and if it doesn't work we'll get hit anyway, right? Unless it causes more damage, like if it was heading for Anarctica and then with the gravitational tractor, we send it spinning towards like china, or something. Ouch.
THe gravitational would work in a very precise and complicated manner. To go at full potential, the sattelite would hover some meters away from the asteroid target, using its own gravitatiional pull to nudge the target off of its trajectory course. the rockets would be situated away from the asteroid in order to avoid dust particles and other such interferences. The thrusters would equal out the Fg on the asteroid, while safely avoiding damage and problems in the process.
I think that it is rediculous to try to move an asteroid. We are not advanced scientifically enough at all to land on an asteroid and steer it. We can barely get in to space, just to go up there, let alone steer one. Even if we improved our technology it would take so long just to figure out how to do it and then even longer to acctually do it successfully. If an asteroid is heading for Earth, it is going to hit earth and to trying to change that will not work or potentially do something even more harmful
i agree with miley and some:
we need to be focusing on more pressing issues that pose a deffinate threat to us now. spending time and money that we don't have and may not need is useless. we have serious priority problems, creating a potentially unnecessary public scare and getting people even more sidetracked on important tasks at hand, like global warming etc.
1. scientists are concerned about asteroids because they pose the largest threat in potentially harming earth in an extreme way. because the planets are in orbit, it is unlikely that they will disrupt earth, however ateroids are large, freelyt moving masses that could be a problematic threat to earths future and orbit.
2.the surface gravity of the asteroids is too weak to be held in place. Also, because asteroids rotate, they are even harder to land on, making it even harder for the the gravitational tractor to land. Asteroids have a very rough serface, landing on an asteroid, even if it didn't rotate, would be extremely difficult to acctually land on and stay on
3. the garvitational tractor would work by "steering" the asteroid. asteroids move in a different direction every time the tractor forced it in a different way, hopefully moving it out of the way of potentially colliding with earth.
1. They are concerned because these collisions could be extremely destructive to the human race. Medium asteroids would cause widespread damage, and a large one could put civilazation in general in danger.
2. Becuase an ateroid is a very hard to land on object. The reason for this is that they have a low gravitational force (its hard ot stick on), it rotates (it would be hard to push in a particular direction because of this), and they are also "likely to be rough and unconsolidated", meanign that they arnt put together well, not an easy to land on surface.
3. The gravitational tractor will work by hovering jsut off of hte asteroid and pullign it wiht gravity. its thrusters will angle away so it doesnt push the asteroid wiht them by accident.
in response to chellllllo?,
I agree that it is a decent idea for avoiding the problem traditionaly encountered when trying to deal with asteroids. I also think that its an interesting point about how long in advance you need to recognize the threat. If this is the path we choose to take, we better be prepared to amp up our skywatching.
Also in response to chellllllo?
I disagree with the fact that this money could be better spent in solving world hunger. The reason for this is twofold. One, this has happened before and it will happen again, and humans must have some plan. And two, the US is one of only a few countries advanced enought to deal wiht this issue, there are other rich countries wihtout space programs that could put similar amountds of moeny towards that goal.
1) Scientists are so concerned with asteroids hitting Earth because it's kind of a big deal. An asteroid isn't just some rock. If a small asteroid is 200 meters in length, and would be able to cause severe damage to our planet and cause casualties, then imagine what a large asteroid would be capable of.
2)Asteroids aren't the ideal place to land a spacecraft. If we had to land on an asteroid in order to push it out of Earth's path, it would require a great amount of force, because since there is a low gravitational force on asteroids, the craft would have to work that much harder to move it. Also, the asteroid would be spinning while plummeting towards Earth, which would make the job of the spacecraft landing on it exponentially harder.
3)The gravitational tractor would function by using its gravitational force to act as a "tow line" reeling in the asteroid away from Earth instead of pushing it away from the opposite direction.
In theory, this method sounds more efficient than landing on the asteroid and pushing it away, but I've never heard of an asteroid hitting earth, at least not in my lifetime. This would be spending wads of government money on something we MIGHT need in the future. Though it seems that it would be needless, because the chances of an asteroid hitting Earth are so small. Also, by the time we find an asteroid headed for Earth, it might be too late to construct something this complex, because the process of deterring the asteroid takes so long.
Tom Halsall- though it's a clever solution to a problem we don't even have, as unlikely a direct hit by an asteroid might be, justifying this spacecraft's construction with Star Wars logic is a bit childish. Though it would make me feel safe if an asteroid were ever to put me in danger, the fact that it seems like a cool idea reminiscent of some outdated science fiction movie won't help me sleep any better of there were an asteroid barreling towards us.
some- I completely agree with you. It is always good to be prepared, but it seems like an awful lot of time and money will be wasted in the process, especially when we could be worrying about solutions to more immediate problems that the world is having. Once NASA ends world hunger and corrects global warming, then we can talk about asteroid protection.
1. scientists are worried about having asteroids hit earth because they can cause major amounts of damage and casualties
2. Scientists are worried about landing or asteroids because they are rotating constantly and it will be hard to stop the asteroids rotation and thrust it in one direction; it would also need an attachment mechanism because gravity on the asteroid would not be great enough to hold the ship on the surface.
3. The space craft will tow it using gravity it must be massive in order to do this and the jets propelling the craft must be angled outwards so that it doesn't work against the pull of gravity
1. scientists are worried about having asteroids hit earth because they can cause major amounts of damage and casualties
2. Scientists are worried about landing or asteroids because they are rotating constantly and it will be hard to stop the asteroids rotation and thrust it in one direction; it would also need an attachment mechanism because gravity on the asteroid would not be great enough to hold the ship on the surface.
3. The space craft will tow it using gravity it must be massive in order to do this and the jets propelling the craft must be angled outwards so that it doesn't work against the pull of gravity
re: some
I completely agree with you some, their are much more reasonable things to "prepare" for like: global warming, and eventually over-population, or food shortages around the world; or maybe creating breeder reactors that minimize nuclear waste to all most nothing and create much much more usable energy. These things all will become glaring problems in the next 50-100 years. Thats what people should be focusing on not things like an asteroid hitting the earth, that probably wont even happen in the next 1000 years.
I believe that this is not at all a weird idea and i do not agree that it would be a waste of money. If you look at the odds there might be a slim chance of an asteroid hitting earth but at the same time the results that the asteroid would cause on earth would be disaterous. I think that it is neccesary to take precaution against any possible threat to our nature and if that means pouring money into a project like this than so be it. It is the same to me as pouring money into research about global warming except that as we know it global warming wouldnt wipe out a significant part of our population.
1) Scientists are concerned about collisions between Earth and Asteroids, and for good reason. If an asteroid were to hit earth, mass destruction could eventually happen. If it landed in a body of water, massive floods and tsunamis would occur. If it landed on land, many people would obviously die, and planet Earth would enter an economic crisis.
2) First of all it would be very hard to land on an asteroid. They rotate very fast, and it would be hard to have a stable grip on the object. Their interiors are weak and they contain a low surface gravity which would make it hard for us to have a successful land. Besides all of this, asteroids are moving very fast and do not have a good surface to land on which is a big problem for aircrafts.
3) The "gravitational tractor" is a great idea. We as a human race have learned to rely on gravity more and take advantage of the force it naturally brings. This machine would work by using gravitational push as a sort of blockade against very fast and heavy asteroids. By pointing they exhaust pipes out of the way, the natural force created by the sheer weight and size of the machine would prevent the asteroids from moving any further. The enormous devise would overall work very well.
re: reva-t
i think that NASA refuses to think big because they are extremely afraid of failure, i there is a problem with a space mission everyone in the world will no about it and be pissed. No wonder our space shuttle technology hasn't improve in 30 years because after all our crash landings and apollo problems, the finally found a shuttle that worked nicely and they are to afraid to change anything because they don;t want bad publicity, but with out sacrifice there is no gain, so how are we ever going to make progress. In short NASA needs to stop being babies and start making something that will actually benefit the earth like a ship that traps energy from solar winds or something
I think that conceptually, the tractor is great. i think that it is the most efficient way to deter any major apocalyptic asteroid-earth fusion. I also agree that it would be a waste of money especially for a program like NASA to take it on. Everyone is very familiar with NASA's less than stellar record with time management. Even if we di get this thing built, we would have to launch it 20 years before we considered there to be a real threat. I doubt NASA's ability to do this efficiently. I think the whole thing would just be one giant security blanket if taken on by NASA alone. Security blankets don't help much against actual threat, only percieved threat.
The U.S has this thing where we take on pretty much everything unilaterally. Asteroids aren't only a threat to the U.S. The only reason the US would go it alone on this project would be if their true plan was to redirect asteroids into places like france and north korea. Perhaps the whole project would be a little more feasible if we had some help on it. perhaps.
Once again, it will cost a lot of money. All derived from tax payers and perhaps a little private donation. I'm not looking to be taxed by the federal government over the next NASA folly. Like the Challenger and many other failed projects of the past, it doesn't seem a great investment of ONLY U.S money. It cost around 2 billion dollars to blow up one teacher. I can think of much more cost efficient ways.
Scientists are concerned about asteroids colliding with Earth because they can cause a lot of severe damage. Small asteroids, those of about 200 M, could cause loss of life on Earth.
Scientists are concerned about landing on the asteroids as a technique to move them away because it is hard to land spacecraft on the asteroids. The gravity is too weak to hold it in place and the surface of the asteroids are rough and the spacecraft could easily break away. Since the asteroid is in a constant rotation the spacecraft would have to compensate and know when to turn on and off. Or try and stop the rotation. This would be diffucult, costly, and a waste. Also, the size of the spacecraft needed for this job is too large for any chemical rockets.
The Gravitational Tractor would hover above the asteroid and use gravity to pull it into a different path and not collide with the Earth. Since there isn't much known about asteroids it would not have to attach itself to it and that rules out many potential problems.
im responding to the people's elbows first comment.
I agree and the article even said that the surface properties, internal structures, and rotation states of asteroids were poorly understood. If these are all poorly understood I dont know how they can be positive this will work and be willing to spend millions of dollars on a project like this. I think it is unlikely this will ever be put to use but it is a good idea if they can pull it off.
I agree with one last shot...I think this idea should somehow be tested before we can rely on it to move an asteroid's path. If NASA is already spending millions of dollars on this project, they can put a a little money into making sure that it will work. Yes, it is rare that as asteroid will hit the Earth but if we are waiting for the perfect timing to use this spacecraft we are risking a lot. This idea has potential but it would calm everyones nerves if it could somehow (I dont know how) be simulated.
They are concerned because large asteroids can hit the earth at high speeds and are a great threat to wherever they land.
Because we they do not enough about the surface of the asteroids and if its safe to land on them. Also landing on a moving asteroid is extremely dangerous and dificult to calculate the necesary steps. Also the asteroids have a weak surface gravity so for a landing on it it would hard to control/ stabalize once landed upon. There are two ways of action to do this. One is hovering near the surface of the asteroid and without contact, let out thrusts which would push the asteroid out of earths direction. The second way is to create a gravitational tractor that could pull the asteroid away from earth and elminate the danger.
in response to roger2
it is not too late to save our world, there is no evidence that our world needs any saving. as far as global warming, people like to be scared and there have been weather patterns that have been exactly like the one we are in now. and as far as asteroids if there is proof that an asteroids, its not too late because we have the technology to avoid them from hitting earth. pesimism isnt the way to go
in response to some
you got the right idea, were at war and our countrys have disease and povery, space travel and exploration can wait. it is too dangerous to have our money be lost and have no gain, it is better to research and know exactly what we are doing so it will benefit rather then blow upin our faces.
In Response to Roger2's comment,
Scientists have reason to believe that it was many meteors which hit the Earth and led to the extinction of the dinosaur population. This article speaks of single meteors which are very large on their own. If there were to be a meteor shower consisting of many different meteors that's a different story. To come up with the money to produce enough stations to protect against tons of meteors would be almost impossible; plus covering a surface area which could protect our entire planet would be incredibly hard. Although I do think that having one or two of these stations would be wise, to cover our outer surface with them would be unwise.
In response to Chello?,
I completely agree with you. To fund and finally begin working on these projects would take so much time. These are obviously very large and expensive pieces of equipment, not to mention the fact that it would be very difficult to transport these materials off of Earth and into orbit.
well i dunno, i mean an asteroid has to hit the earth eventually, it's realistic to prepare some sort of defense against asteroids i guess. But I do understand what your saying. Lots of times when i hear about things like the simulated gravity space station that would have a 3 mile radius i think we should be spending more money to fix problems on earth.
I agree with roger2, before we worry about asteroids and terrorism we should probably worry about things that will actually kill us in the not so far future such as global warming. Money would be much better spent on finding solutions to global warming.
Post a Comment