Asteroid 2024 YR4 reaches level 3 on the Torino Scale

[KLiKzg]

If we can observe it in 2028 and get an actual trajectory with high confidence I think we should have the hardware ready to launch with backup or two in place. No reason to see what the real world effects of a possible 100m metallic impact are if a push, dart, detonation, paint, or otherwise would prevent it.

That is why SMPAG was meet up, as we need to have this in place for 2028...& we need to have both 2 windows in 2028 covered & those in 2029, with flyable crafts just sitting in a bay somewhere -ready to go!

Theoretically, I would think an existing Anti-Ballistic Missile would be the best way to deal with it. Stick a GBI in a Starship (I checked, it fits and is within the weight capacity for GTO mission profile) and go full send. That way it would have good enough terminal-phase guidance to actually hit it. Bear in mind that DART had a far larger target with a lot less uncertainty.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any data on extra-atmospheric launch of the entire GBI missile - probably because nobody is dumb enough to ask that in the first place. I would hope it would have the fuel to go the ~4m miles from a GTO orbit, considering its range from surface launch. Nukes are probably a bad idea - more likely to just break it up and ensure that earth will be peppered by assorted meteoroids than anything else.

I don't know if any other ABM would have the performance at those velocities without significant modification. Using publicly available data, GBI appears to be able to handle closure rates of something like 18 Km/s, where SM-3, THAAD, Arrow 3, and 51T6 seem to cap out around 10 Km/s. Considering that 2024 YR4 is already travelling at 13 Km/s it would appear to preclude them. However, considering the angle it would approach from given a 2028 interception, it is possible that closure rate performance may not be so important.

The EKV used in GBI missiles would have to be going 11.5 m/s directly opposite the flight path of the meteor on impact. LEAP, used in SM-3, would need to be going 37.7 m/s. I suspect most of the energy would be burned in getting to interception point, then stopping and turning. Accelerating to 40 m/s in space is trivial.

You are right, nuke will get it breaking in smaller pieces, making more havoc as it goes down....with no certainty of a good outcome...& no knowledge if that nuke blast would knock down satellites, as was the experience with project Fishbowl, mission Starfish Prime!

 

[R0H1T]

with flyable crafts just sitting in a bay somewhere -ready to go

Probably not going to work at that scale, assuming it's that big! Somehow now nukes in space sounds like a better idea although I hear it's a massive jungle out there

When you think about it trying to smash in outer space or just above earth's orbit is a better idea IMO, also side impact?

You are right, nuke will get it breaking in smaller pieces, making more havoc as it goes down....with no certainty of a good outcome...& no knowledge if that nuke blast would knock down satellites, as was the experience with project Fishbowl, mission Starfish Prime!

If a big enough "rock" enters the atmosphere we're pretty much toast, at that time it's just about cutting losses because it'll me mighty hard to blast that super heated piece of galactic crud!

 

[KLiKzg]

Can but doesn't. Trident D5 can carry 4.

It is a rocky asteroid, type S or L. I believe those classes have an upper limit of 30% iron, IIRC.

It would still make a 7,6Mt with that much mass...so that is 7600kt!

Though, making is to much from water, makes a laser or mirror more potent device for heating up more one side & making it move all by itself...no explosion required, only science!

 

[Caring1]

How about we don't nuke it, just in case we end up with masses of chunks of irradiated space debris flying towards us

 

[KLiKzg]

I'd be more worried if it was to hit an ocean and cause a large tsunami depending which ocean it hits could affect how many people will be wiped out considering the vast amount of the world's populace that reside close to coastal areas

& Atlantic ocean is not preferable way, as it would devastate Africa, South & North America, flooded the American Gulf...go on to devastate Europe, including Mediterranean sea!

While a fall in Indian ocean would wipe out all the south Asia, east Africa & many of the islands towards Australia, including Australia.

Even with a 10m tsunami, most of the World would be devastated...World economy collapse & probably new wars started afterwards...

 

[lexluthermiester]

2024 YR4 is roughly the size of a city killer, not a planet killer.

Any object large enough to destroy a city is large enough to cause a planetary climate shift event, which would still negatively impact the entire planet. The object subject of this discussion is at least at or near that size. So it is an object we need to take seriously.

Did not expect You to be a Drama queen, here.

I couldn't resist being a bit of a smart-alec..

& what kind of message do we send out to neighbouring ET, with nuking things in space?

Who cares? Seriously, any ET civilization advanced enough to detect that we've used a nuke at all will be smart enough to determine that it was used to alter an asteroid/meteor orbit and will be smart enough to figure out why we did so. It's a non-issue not worthy of any further consideration.

Can ya'll take a moment to Google the phrase "project dart" and watch what happens.

That was an non-nuclear trajectory alteration test and while successful in making a deviation, it showed very conclusively that the forces involved in a strictly kinetic impact would be insufficient to move an object with any mass that would be a danger to population on the ground. A more energetic application is required. We don't have any practical means to launch an impactor with enough mass to answer such a task.

Therefore, the only option we have is a nuclear detonation assisted impact, preferably a hydrogen fusion device. Depending on the size of the object we would likely need to launch several in secession, impacting in a specific periodic schedule.

How about we don't nuke it, just in case we end up with masses of chunks of irradiated space debris flying towards us

The radiation we get from the Sun on a daily basis far out weighs anything we would get from irradiated debris left over from the process involved. It would be a non-issue.

 

[AusWolf]

The radiation we get from the Sun on a daily basis far out weighs anything we would get from irradiated debris left over from the process involved. It would be a non-issue.

It depends on the distance from Earth. I still recommend watching this video:

 

[eidairaman1]

How about we don't nuke it, just in case we end up with masses of chunks of irradiated space debris flying towards us

Icbm but conventional warheads

 

[lexluthermiester]

It depends on the distance from Earth. I still recommend watching this video:

Someone You posted that previously. I've seen it. The info contained therein does not apply to this situation as the detonations will not take place at a location near the atmosphere of earth, and very likely outside the magnetosphere. The radiation output of the potential blast will be of no consequence.

 

[AusWolf]

Someone You posted that previously. I've seen it. The info contained therein does not apply to this situation as the detonations will not take place at a location near the atmosphere of earth, and very likely outside the magnetosphere. The radiation output of the potential blast will be of no consequence.

Sure, but the further away we're planning to intercept the asteroid, the more precise calculations and course corrections are needed, which raises the chance of failure. A good middle point is needed.

 

[Assimilator]

Icbm but conventional warheads

Conventional explosive isn't going to do jack.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Sure, but the further away we're planning to intercept the asteroid, the more precise calculations and course corrections are needed, which raises the chance of failure.

I think your understanding of just how precise we can be is bit out of touch. If we can send probes to every major planetary body, including Pluto, and a considerable number of much smaller ones, including the asteroid subject of Project DART, with exacting precision, we can hit an object coming within proximity of Earth with a nuke with the same level of exactness.

Conventional explosive isn't going to do jack.

Not true. Any explosive force will have an effect, just not as large of one.

 

[AusWolf]

I think your understanding of just how precise we can be is bit out of touch. If we can send probes to every major planetary body, including Pluto, and a considerable number of much smaller ones, including the asteroid subject of Project DART, with exacting precision, we can hit an object coming within proximity of Earth with a nuke with the same level of exactness.

True. Although, Pluto's radius is ~1200 km, but it's 30-50 AUs away. The question is, can we hit a 10x smaller object let's say, 10 AUs away? When do we have to run our calculations and plan the launch to hit it then? How far is the asteroid going to be away at that time? How precise our observations of it are gonna be then? I'm sure greater minds than mine are working on this, I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The question is, can we hit a 10x smaller object let's say, .10 AUs away?

Short answer, yes. It is a comparatively trivial task. Still needs very precise calculations, but hitting such a target will not difficult. BTW, that distance would be more like .10 or .05 AU, not 10 AU.

I'm sure greater minds than mine are working on this, I'm just thinking out loud.

More experienced, not greater. Most of the people who visit this site have the mental acumen to make such a calculation if they had the education and training. You are no exception. It's just a matter of personal direction in life.

 

[R0H1T]

Well I asked copilot if we had any antimatter bombs good enough to alter the course of a pacific ocean vaporizing asteroid & it said we're not there yet, lame AI

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well I asked copilot if we had any antimatter bombs good enough to alter the course of a pacific ocean vaporizing asteroid & it said we're not there yet, lame AI

Well for starters, no one has made an antimatter bomb because making antimatter in any quantity that would be useful is pure science fiction, currently.

 

[R0H1T]

Yes but per gm it probably has the most destructive power of any substance we know.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yes but per gm it probably has the most destructive power of any substance we know.

That is also science fiction. An antimatter reaction would be very powerful but not nearly as powerful a a fusion bomb explosion.

 

[R0H1T]

It's as much science fiction as fusion reactors ~

Spoiler

The paramount advantage of such a theoretical weapon is that antimatter and matter collisions result in the entire sum of their mass energy equivalent being released as energy, which is at least two orders of magnitude greater than the energy release of the most efficient fusion weapons (100% vs 0.4–1%).

Antimatter weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still a few decades if not centuries away but if current understanding holds, over a longer term they're probably out best bet against mass extinction events!

 

[Chrispy_]

To be clear a MM3 can carry 3 W88 475KT devices 1.425MT . There is no reason a larger single fusion or fusion boosted device couldn't be loaded. Total weight if pure iron at 100m approximately 16.5 million tons. So it would deflect it at the least, probably cause fracturing again if its pure iron, if its nickel iron which is common its lighter by a few million tons. but possibly harder and more prone to fracture.

Dumb questions for the astrophysicists here - is the angle of incidence on the atmosphere important? My basic understanding suggests yes - so the "lethality" of a large, 2024 YR4 would be greatly reduced if it came in at a shallow angle and had 300km of atmosphere to burn through before impacting, vs a perpendicular hit to the earth where it only has 80-100km of atmosphere to slow and heat it.

If that's a correct assumption, surely even a tiny deflection is enough to change it from a direct, cataclysmic hit of a remaining 80m-wide asteroid at >15m/s to an area peppered by some 40m-wide asteroid fragments at maybe 5m/s? (guesswork numbers, no math undertaken)

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's as much science fiction as fusion reactors ~

Except that one of the first nuclear bombs ever detonated was a hydrogen fusion bomb.

Still a few decades if not centuries away but if current understanding holds, over a longer term they're probably out best bet against mass extinction events!

Are you trolling or being serious?

 

[R0H1T]

I am serious, if our current understanding of antimatter is sound then longer term they're probably the best weapons against massive/dangerous asteroids! The one thing that will work against any kind of matter, even diamonds is ~ well you guessed it.

Now don't tell me you never thought composition of asteroids don't matter?

 

[lexluthermiester]

I am serious, if our current understand of antimatter is sound then longer term they're probably the best weapons against massive/dangerous asteroids!

Antimatter, in any amount we are currently able to produce, can not be made into a viable weapon for use in the situation being discussed here. As such, it's not worth debating.

 

[the54thvoid]

Dumb questions for the astrophysicists here - is the angle of incidence on the atmosphere important? My basic understanding suggests yes - so the "lethality" of a large, 2024 YR4 would be greatly reduced if it came in at a shallow angle and had 300km of atmosphere to burn through before impacting, vs a perpendicular hit to the earth where it only has 80-100km of atmosphere to slow and heat it.

If that's a correct assumption, surely even a tiny deflection is enough to change it from a direct, cataclysmic hit of a remaining 80m-wide asteroid at >15m/s to an area peppered by some 40m-wide asteroid fragments at maybe 5m/s? (guesswork numbers, no math undertaken)

Of extreme relevance. I've not googled the effect of atmosphere on incidence though. Shallow angles can be deflected. Steeper angles create a lot of friction (help to burn up objects). Straight on would be like a cosmic punch.

 

[Chrispy_]

Except that one of the first nuclear bombs ever detonated was a hydrogen fusion bomb.

Are you trolling or being serious?

I think you two are arguing over semantics, on the same side of agreement.

Most nuclear weapons these days are hybrid fission-fusion staged bombs. There is no such thing as a pure fusion bomb yet, but we've had bombs with a small (yet significant) percentage of their yield undegoing fusion rather than fission for >70 years.

Of extreme relevance. I've not googled the effect of atmosphere on incidence though. Shallow angles can be deflected. Steeper angles create a lot of friction (help to burn up objects). Straight on would be like a cosmic punch.

So we only need to deflect it enough to alter its vector by a tiny tiny millionth or billionth of a degree, or slow it down by an equally miniscule amount to change the impact from "cosmic punch" to atmospheric scrape? What to stop us from just head-on DART projecting it with the most mass and nuclear yield we can fit into a 40km/s projectile? Slowing it down slightly is presumably in the same league as deflecting it to the side when we're simply trying to prevent a perpendicular impact. A mere 7500km difference changes the angle of incidence from 90 degrees to 20 degrees.