Asteroid 2024 YR4 reaches level 3 on the Torino Scale

[R0H1T]

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.

Anything big enough that's already in the atmosphere is a massive risk for millions. We need to "push" such objects ideally from behind or from the side millions of miles away from earth to avoid any impact.

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

Well not quite, I'm talking a hypothetical weapon which can take care of any matter & yes it's still science fantasy right now. But keeping in mind a 10,000 mile radius asteroid could wipe us out next century, or even within our lifetimes, anti matter probably is our best choice for now. Talking about a really extreme edge case.

There's enough computational power available today to possibly alter its path but IMO not enough firepower, even we combine all our current nukes.

 

[AusWolf]

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!

Read the article again - the estimated impact date (at 2.3% chance) is 2032. We don't have decades or centuries.

 

[R0H1T]

I'm not talking about this, anything which can wipe out humanity.

 

[AusWolf]

I'm not talking about this, anything which can wipe out humanity.

Then the technology is just as much in the air as that hypothetical humanity-wiping asteroid.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm not talking about this, anything which can wipe out humanity.

oh, right. Figured we were still talking about 2024 YR4 after this post:

Let's stick to the topic, folks. Big space rock.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

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.

Because even that is overkill. Per the video that Divide Overflow linked above, if we intercept it in 2028, we only have to slow down 0.02 m/s.

Based on that, why not use an EKV, which is designed to intercept objects head on in outer space? Weighing in at 64 kilos, it would have to be traveling at at 37 m/s to achieve this.

The bigger challenge is control at such extended ranges. The flyby distance in 2028 is something like 21 light-seconds away. That means that terminal interception control would have to be built into the impactor.

The only reason to use a nuke is for last-dictch efforts. You would still have to use an Anti-Ballistic Missile for the terminal control - a regular Ballistic Missile isn't designed for interception. The only recent nuclear-armed ABM that I am aware of is the Russian 51T6 or 53T6, retired in 2017. I suspect they could be reactivated and modified for blast yield instead of enhanced radiation, but who knows?

 

[Chrispy_]

Because even that is overkill. Per the video that Divide Overflow linked above, if we intercept it in 2028, we only have to slow down 0.02 m/s
Based on that, why not use an EKV, which is designed to intercept objects head on in outer space? Weighing in at 64 kilos, it would have to be traveling at at 37 m/s to achieve this.

You keep writing m/s speeds (post #43 had me scratching my head for the same reason). I think you meant to write km/s, right?

37m/s is the speed at which (some) humans throw balls.
37km/s is the speed of space probes and, presumably, EKVs.

 

[Assimilator]

Because even that is overkill.

Overkill is merited when you want to make sure, and I kinda think we do in this case.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

37m/s is the speed at which (some) humans throw balls.
37km/s is the speed of space probes and, presumably, EKVs.

Usually, yes. However, as the orbital path of this thing is so big, a very slight slowdown makes a big change in trajectory. Especially over 4 years. So I believe Scott Manley (video posted in post 30) when he says that .02 m/s speed difference would make it miss.

And based on the mass, 64 kilos at 40 m/s would have the energy to slow it down .02 m/s.

Incidentally, any discrepancy between the numbers in post 43 and 81 are due to using different mass estimates.

Anyways, the EKV would need to go a lot slower than usual regardless, as the object being intercepted is much faster than a typical ICBM (13 km/s vs 6.5 km/s). Theoretically, the closure rate would be the same if the EKV was going up to 5 km/s, but that velocity would probably just break it up instead of redirecting it.

Overkill is merited when you want to make sure, and I kinda think we do in this case.

I would agree, but overkill would be to push it further than needed rather than deal with taking nuclear weapons to space. The Outer Space Treaty, for example would cause complications if not outright ban the use of a nuke:

• States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
• States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

Obviously it wouldn't violate the spirit of the treaty to use a nuke to protect Earth, but there are always people waiting in the wings to raise a scream about any potential violation of a treaty.

The thing is, it is not a great idea anyways. Hitting it with explosives would probably break it up, and a nuke would certainly break it up. Some of the pieces, now probably radioactive, would almost certainly make it to the atmosphere. Would they burn up? Probably. I would not like to count on it though.

 

[KLiKzg]

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.

How do you know that nuke will not interfere with Earth magnetic field with EMP?

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.

DART is OK, as it is proven.

But so is the laser on asteroid, as it has ~30% Fe core...so ~70% water is quite volatile when heated!
So is the painting of the asteroid, as it would be heated differently by the most energetic nuclear reactor in solar system (Sun).
Problem: we currently do no know size, let alone the rotation of the asteroid!

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!

No, wrong...as anti-matter production, let alone weapons is heavily theoretical.

While nuclear fusion reactors do work up to 2min now days...before they are shut down, as we can't maintain the heat or the forces for long lasting fusion.

So comparing a theoretical ideas with practical experiments which work is simply wrong! One is pure science fiction, while other is scientific research at present.

 

[AusWolf]

Let's say we alter the asteroid's course just enough to miss earth in 2032. What's the guarantee that it won't hit us on a different orbit around the sun sometime later?

 

[KLiKzg]

The thing is, it is not a great idea anyways. Hitting it with explosives would probably break it up, and a nuke would certainly break it up. Some of the pieces, now probably radioactive, would almost certainly make it to the atmosphere. Would they burn up? Probably. I would not like to count on it though.

Even burnt radioactive waste is radioactive...so would you want that in atmosphere & make equatorial region completely radioactive?
I wouldn't!

Problem with painting or laser drilling of water hole of the asteroid, in order for it to move is YORP effect...so far we do not know what is the YORP effect or spin rate of the asteroid, in order to see if we can simply intercept asteroid & paint it with big paint ball, making the heat change on one part of the surface...& with that, we can change the speed & the course of the asteroid...no explosion, no need for radiation, no need for heavy equipment...just a regular charcoal dust or ash would do the trick!

Let's say we alter the asteroid's course just enough to miss earth in 2032. What's the guarantee that it won't hit us on a different orbit around the sun sometime later?

If we intercept it with a probe, keep the probe there or even land on it...we can track it's movement more accurately & devise the next planned mission, for which we would have more time, more funding & more calculation time for different scenarios.

 

[R0H1T]

Then the technology is just as much in the air as that hypothetical humanity-wiping asteroid.

Meh, if we need to survive for the next 1000-100,000 years we need to be prepared much more quickly with "exotic" solutions.

No, wrong...as anti-matter production, let alone weapons is heavily theoretical.

Anti matter production isn't theoretical, commercial or mass production is ~ so practically the same as fusion.

Making antimatter | Angels & Demons - The science behind the story

angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch

 

[Assimilator]

Let's say we alter the asteroid's course just enough to miss earth in 2032. What's the guarantee that it won't hit us on a different orbit around the sun sometime later?

Which is why I'm in favour of nuking it so it blows up into bits that are then vapourised by the atmosphere.

 

[KLiKzg]

Anti matter production isn't theoretical, commercial or mass production is ~ so practically the same as fusion.

Making antimatter | Angels & Demons - The science behind the story

angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch

Oh my God! Are you really quoting a blog here, which talks about fantasy book / movie?

Lets talk serious here & about topic: Asteroid 2024 YR4!

Which is why I'm in favour of nuking it so it blows up into bits that are then vapourised by the atmosphere.

1st of all, you can't nuke it into bits...it is too big for nuking into bits!
2nd, those radioactive elements & sub-particles would then poison the Earth atmosphere while burning...it would be effectively same if you detonated a pollution bomb into upper atmosphere.
3rd, that pollution would not only kill people & animals...but also make our satellites non-fuctioning...so congratulation getting us back into 20th century!


Is there anyone here who understands a little bit more about nuclear decay & astrophysics to talk with?

 

[Chrispy_]

Let's say we alter the asteroid's course just enough to miss earth in 2032. What's the guarantee that it won't hit us on a different orbit around the sun sometime later?

If it *just* misses earth, it will slingshot around earth's gravitational field and fly off in a new and very-difficult-to-predict orbit. Even though its new orbit will pass very close to earth's orbit, the chances of both earth and 2024-YR4 being at the exact same orbital intersection at the same time before the sun swallows everything is very nearly zero.

After a near-miss, if both earth's and 2024-YR4's orbits around the sun were perfect repetitions with no other influence from other solar bodies (which isn't the case) you'd still have the situation where the earth passed that intersection for mere seconds a year, and 2024-YR4 passed that intersection who-the-heck-knows-when in its new orbit. Napkin math says that if 2024-YR4 kept it's same 4-year orbital period, the chances of us meeting again are 1-in-4 million, but even that is a stupidly unlikely scenario based on a vastly oversimplified model of the solar system where the only things in the solar system are the sun, the earth (no moon) and 2024-YR4.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Let's say we alter the asteroid's course just enough to miss earth in 2032. What's the guarantee that it won't hit us on a different orbit around the sun sometime later?

We can boop it now, we can certainly boop it again if and when that happens.

Even burnt radioactive waste is radioactive...so would you want that in atmosphere & make equatorial region completely radioactive?
I wouldn't!

That was kind of my point...

 

[Chrispy_]

2nd, those radioactive elements & sub-particles would then poison the Earth atmosphere while burning...it would be effectively same if you detonated a pollution bomb into upper atmosphere.

Of the ~2000 nuclear weapons tests conducted since 1945, around 500 of them have been atmospheric tests. It's a non-issue because it's already happened so many times.

Even if atmospheric contamination from nuclear fallout is undesirable, it's cleary not a big deal and It's definitely less harmful than 2024-YR4 direct-impacting a city to kill an 8-digit population.

 

[R-T-B]

DART mission came in handy, now...

I was part of the educational arm of the DART project if people remember...

Sadly all it taught us is that technique needs a lot more mass to be effective. The "shoot it!" idea is pretty bad too if not done very far out, the best way to do it tbh would be to grapple a bunch of fueltanks with engines to it, maybe ion engines for twr benefits, and then nudge its trajectory over time.

Which is why I'm in favour of nuking it so it blows up into bits that are then vapourised by the atmosphere.

Nuking it so radioactive particles vaporize and then live in the upper atmosphere is not really a good idea. Conventional explosives please. Its not like you are limited to one hit and it has to be "max hollywood."

Of the ~2000 nuclear weapons tests conducted since 1945, around 500 of them have been atmospheric tests. It's a non-issue because it's already happened so many times.

It's not a nonissue. Its just amazing its not more of an issue tbh. We still can't make gieger counters from anything but pre-WWII shipwrecks. Thank atmospheric detonations.

 

[AusWolf]

Of the ~2000 nuclear weapons tests conducted since 1945, around 500 of them have been atmospheric tests. It's a non-issue because it's already happened so many times.

Even if atmospheric contamination from nuclear fallout is undesirable, it's cleary not a big deal and It's definitely less harmful than 2024-YR4 direct-impacting a city to kill an 8-digit population.

I'm wondering if that could have any connection to so many people around the world having cancer. Hm... Nah, totally not.

 

[R-T-B]

Conventional explosive isn't going to do jack.

Yes, it could. Not everything has to happen hollywood style. The "blast to weight" ratio of C4 is likely plenty sufficient.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Russian government has been allegedly building a city under Mount Yamantau. Some, even claim it is a miniature Moscow. I'm sure other countries are also building some secret facilities. Of course that kind of shelters are not enough to protect the whole population.

I just hope it doesn't end up like it did on Metro Exodus

Personally, I'm fascinated by fully self-sustaining, "life support" facilities, bunkers, prepping, MREs and the whole thing - at a point, I used to spend hours designing these as a pastime, and believe it or not, Minecraft is an excellent tool to build your sketches in a certain way.

I'm just relatively unsure if something like Cheyenne or Yamantau could actually survive an extinction level event. All-out nuclear war is still relatively more survivable, although it's the closest thing that we could ever fathom compared to an impact event. I know the talk has already moved onto how to deal with the problem, but I do wonder about what could happen depending on the location of the impact. In any scenario, extreme damage to the planet and biosphere would occur.

 

[Caring1]

Would it be possible to mount a railgun on a space station, and would that be effective?

 

[R-T-B]

Would it be possible to mount a railgun on a space station, and would that be effective?

Not really no. Besides, the railgun (if you could even get the power level required) would push the station as much as it pushed the asteroid. Kind of an issue outside of scifi...

 

[Chrispy_]

It's not a nonissue. Its just amazing its not more of an issue tbh. We still can't make gieger counters from anything but pre-WWII shipwrecks. Thank atmospheric detonations.

Yeah, I remember watching a YouTube on Geiger counters from pre-nuke shipwrecks, was fascinating.

As for radioactivity, there's more natural background radioactivity in day to day things like bananas, and your dose of radiation from a hike across some moorland with igneous rock like granite containing uranium, thorium, and potassium is waaaay higher.

Cancer's still poorly understood but the cancers that account for a majority of deaths are attributable to known carcinogens or behaviours. ie sunburn/smoking/red meat/food additives etc. Atmospheric radiation probably accounts for some, but it's hard to prove either way and statistically insignificant.