Asteroid 2024 YR4 reaches level 3 on the Torino Scale

[Assimilator]

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...

Way too many people assume a railgun would have no recoil because it doesn't use gunpowder. But conservation of momentum still applies so you'd still have recoil - although constant over the length of the rails, versus instantaneous with gunpowder.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So we only need to deflect it enough to alter its vector by a tiny tiny millionth or billionth of a degree

Yes and no. More no than yes.

Where we hit the object will determine to what degree we will need to alter it's course. The mass of the object will determine how much force we need to alter it's orbital trajectory.

If we wait until it's on approach, we would need at least 2.1 or 2.2 degree deflection to prevent an impact event. If we hit it further out, less force is needed, but the course deviation would still need to be at least 1 degree aprox, otherwise we risk a glancing off the atmosphere and a return orbit with future impact potential.

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

Only if we hit the object several times in succession. And we'd have to build a space station first. The ISS is ramping down it's time and will be decommissioned in 2030, 2 years before the event in question. Of course, the physics would be a problem...

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...

...thus. And we'd have to get one up there.

Way too many people assume a railgun would have no recoil because it doesn't use gunpowder. But conservation of momentum still applies so you'd still have recoil - although constant over the length of the rails, versus instantaneous with gunpowder.

Exactly! The recoil would still be equal to the mass of the projectile(s) being accelerated. Thus any station that serves as a launch platform would need a thruster system that could react swiftly to maintain the stations position.

An interception missile solution makes greatly more sense.

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.

That depends greatly on the mass of the object. The greater the mass, the less chance we have of deflection at such an early stage of the orbital intersection. Such an effort would be a "hope-and-pray" approach, not at all appropriate for taking actions that have far reaching global consequences.

 

[AusWolf]

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.

My mom never smoked, didn't like red meat too much, was very sensitive to sun so she minimised her exposure, but died of cancer at 58. Sure, isolated example, but only non-smokers blame everything on smoking. Kind of shitty way to hide from reality in my opinion. No offense.

 

[lexluthermiester]

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

Knowledge based on past experiments. You might not understand just how resilient and strong Earth's magnetic field is. No nuke, or series of nukes, set off in proximity of Earth's magnetic field will have any effect that even comes close to what the Sun throws at us on a regular basis. We could throw every nuke we have at Earth's magnetic field, it would just smile and keep right on going. Chances are we'd make it stronger depending on were the nukes would detonate.

Damage to Earth's magnetic field is a non-issue.

 

[Assimilator]

but only non-smokers blame everything on smoking

The evidence shows that the majority of diagnosed cancers are indeed correlated with certain lifestyle choices, but ultimately cancer is a malfunction at the cellular level that can arise for a multitude of reasons that we still don't fully, and probably never will, understand. Pointing out those lifestyle choices as being generally more significant than background radiation exposure, is not blaming anything on anyone.

 

[AusWolf]

The evidence shows that the majority of diagnosed cancers are indeed correlated with certain lifestyle choices, but ultimately cancer is a malfunction at the cellular level that can arise for a multitude of reasons that we still don't fully, and probably never will, understand. Pointing out those lifestyle choices as being generally more significant than background radiation exposure, is not blaming anything on anyone.

I don't disagree. I just don't like brushing off cancer as "muh, lifestyle choice" which it is not. I also know / have known many hard smokers who are still rocking hard in the latter stages of their lives.

 

[R-T-B]

Knowledge based on past experiments. You might not understand just how resilient and strong Earth's magnetic field is. No nuke, or series of nukes, set off in proximity of Earth's magnetic field will have any effect that even comes close to what the Sun throws at us on a regular basis. We could throw every nuke we have at Earth's magnetic field, it would just smile and keep right on going. Chances are we'd make it stronger depending on were the nukes would detonate.

Damage to Earth's magnetic field is a non-issue.

I'd worry more about damage to electronics on the ground but really, this is far far away if we want it to be effective. A nonissue besides radioactive particulate if done badly.

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't disagree. I just don't like brushing off cancer as "muh, lifestyle choice" which it is not. I also know / have known many hard smokers who are still rocking hard in the latter stages of their lives.

I'm not brushing it off as a lifestyle choice. We know, provably, that certain lifestyle choices are heavily correlated with cancers, but that's a small part of the cancer venn diagram. I'd wager that in 100 years from now, or whenever humanity finally understands cancer, it'll be because of the processed garbage we eat, and that is very difficult and expensive to fully avoid. We simply don't know what the all factors are right now, and whilst lifestyle choices eliminate the known causes, there are plenty of unknown causes. Maybe it's fluorinated tap water, Maybe it's a pesticide, maybe it's a pollutant from internal combustion. Neither science nor medicine can tell us how to live, or whether it's even possible to live in a way that guarantees zero risk of cancer.

But we're getting off topic again! Atmospheric contamination from a nuked 2024-YR4 may or may not be harmful, but it'll certainly be an insignificant, negligible consideration given the existing state of our already-irradiated atmosphere. Until we have an ironclad, actually-adhered to international ban nuclear testing it's a moot point.

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).

Ah okay, I think I get it. If we calculate relative to earth, The EKV could effectively be stationary because the asteroid is going to hit it at tens of km/s.

I need to watch the Scott Manley video. Given the massive disparity in values, and vague accuracy of size and mass for 2024-YR4, I'm curious where 37.7m/s came from. Whether the EKV is going at 40m/s, 0m/s, or even -40m/s is irrelevant when the asteroid is approching at 18,000m/s. It's a rounding error to multiple decimal places!

 

[Steevo]

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

Cause we have detonated nukes in space before woth no cataclysm.

 

[Chrispy_]

Cause we have detonated nukes in space before woth no cataclysm.

Also, the sun is a never-ending nuke 'detonation' that has been bombarding the earth with far more particle and electromagnetic radiation than any man-made detonation for, oh, the last 4.5 billion years already

 

[Assimilator]

Cause we have detonated nukes in space before woth no cataclysm.

Starfish Prime killed satellites though, and there are a lot more satellites now.

 

[Nathaaab]

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

Just popping in to point out that it's by the CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research .

Aside than that, interesting thread to read.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Starfish Prime killed satellites though, and there are a lot more satellites now.

Yes, but that was a sub-orbital detonation. The application we're discussion would take place a few million miles out, beyond the orbit of the moon. It's just not going to be of any consequence.

 

[Chrispy_]

Yes, but that was a sub-orbital detonation. The application we're discussion would take place a few million miles out, beyond the orbit of the moon. It's just not going to be of any consequence.

As I understand it we lost a dozen or so early, unshielded satellites from that nuke test, and we've lost several more early satellites to solar flares for the same reason.

Newer satellites are hardened against EMP to survive solar flares (mostly) but also nuke tests, WW3, and possibly a bunch of irradiated asteroid fragments coming in hot.

 

[KLiKzg]

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.

You think that low-Earth atmospheric nuclear test is the same as high-altitude Earth nuclear contamination with residue?
Not so true...as many satellites would/could die of with either Solar flare or nuclear residue from asteroid 2024 YR3, after it was nuclear blasted.
(BTW, did you tell that to John Wayne?)


But there are other ways...painting & letting the heat from the Sun do its job.
Or even laser melt it & change its mass, with vapor gasser to move the asteroid...a laser, which can be powered by Sun in an orbit around the asteroid.
Or over power up the DART mission to do the change of the course of 2024 YR3.

Not to mention that blasting it would include a lot of smaller asteroids, which would not damage the population. But might heat up the atmosphere & knock down many of the satellites, not to mention possible cascade effect of residue from satellite knock down!

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

I need to watch the Scott Manley video. Given the massive disparity in values, and vague accuracy of size and mass for 2024-YR4, I'm curious where 37.7m/s came from. Whether the EKV is going at 40m/s, 0m/s, or even -40m/s is irrelevant when the asteroid is approching at 18,000m/s. It's a rounding error to multiple decimal places!

That number was based on the energy required to adjust its orbit divided by the mass of the EKV. The energy required was based on the estimated mass and velocity. Of course, it could vary considerably based on the actual velocity and mass, I was just wanting to point out how little energy would be required to make it miss. All this talk of nukes is straight up pointless.

 

[KLiKzg]

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.

Can you tell that to Chernobyl survivors? What about 3-mile Island habitants? What about survivors of the Fukushima? Shall I go on...
What about John Wayne? Or don't you know the story...

It reminds me of a movie from a region:

 

[R0H1T]

Cause we have detonated nukes in space before woth no cataclysm.

Was it "outer space" or upper atmosphere?

Can you tell that to Chernobyl survivors? What about 3-mile Island habitants? What about survivors of the Fukushima? Shall I go on..

You're being overdramatic, in a century or half from now people will have all sorts of diseases due to ~ micro plastics/genetically modified food/24x7 screen time & what not

 

[Chrispy_]

Can you tell that to Chernobyl survivors? What about 3-mile Island habitants? What about survivors of the Fukushima? Shall I go on...
What about John Wayne? Or don't you know the story...

It reminds me of a movie from a region:

You appear to lack a basic understanding of concentration.

Chernobyl/Three-mile/Fujushima victims were in close proximity (a few km) to an exceptionally concentrated point-source nuclear accident at the moment of the accident. They directly inhaled radioactive particulates, drank radioactive water, or ate radioactive material.

The radioactivity of an asteroid nuked days/weeks/months before spreading out in the upper atmosphere and being dispersed across several millions of square kilometers makes this discussion irrelevant.

Trust me bro, a banana will give you a much higher radiation dose, and you'll make yourself ill with a potassium overdose before any ill-effects of the radiation.
Go and ask some nuclear physicists if you don't believe me, but we are are talking several orders of magnitude difference here.

 

[KLiKzg]

Knowledge based on past experiments. You might not understand just how resilient and strong Earth's magnetic field is. No nuke, or series of nukes, set off in proximity of Earth's magnetic field will have any effect that even comes close to what the Sun throws at us on a regular basis. We could throw every nuke we have at Earth's magnetic field, it would just smile and keep right on going. Chances are we'd make it stronger depending on were the nukes would detonate.

Damage to Earth's magnetic field is a non-issue.

I'll let you this official video report disprove your statement:

Operation Starfish Prime, Google it.

Cause we have detonated nukes in space before woth no cataclysm.

Again, NOT TRUE!

But back to topic...irradiated material would poisson the upper atmosphere & might trigger the Kessler syndrome!
So if you don't want the 1st one, you certainly do not want the 2nd one!

You appear to lack a basic understanding of concentration.

Chernobyl/Three-mile/Fujushima victims were in close proximity (a few km) to an exceptionally concentrated point-source nuclear accident at the moment of the accident. They directly inhaled radioactive particulates, drank radioactive water, or ate radioactive material.

The radioactivity of an asteroid nuked days/weeks/months before spreading out in the upper atmosphere and being dispersed across several millions of square kilometers makes this discussion irrelevant.

Trust me bro, a banana will give you a much higher radiation dose, and you'll make yourself ill with a potassium overdose before any ill-effects of the radiation.
Go and ask some nuclear physicists if you don't believe me, but we are are talking several orders of magnitude difference here.

This colloquial explanation might be true, but we simply do not know the exact composition of the asteroid 2024 YR3.

Give the unknown, so we simply can't know what is the decay of irradiated elements on the asteroid 2024 YR3!

So, just nuke it, is not a smart idea...not smart at all!

 

[R0H1T]

But back to topic...irradiated material would poisson the upper atmosphere & might trigger the Kessler syndrome!
So if you don't want the 1st one, you certainly do not want the 2nd one!

Why does it matter if you die in a day from radiation or be vaporized in an instant, or die a slow death from all sorts of poisons you literally ingest every day

When it comes to saving a large portion of humanity any & all sorts of methods will be tried, there's no one/right or perfect approach here!

 

[Steevo]

Can you tell that to Chernobyl survivors? What about 3-mile Island habitants? What about survivors of the Fukushima? Shall I go on...
What about John Wayne? Or don't you know the story...

It reminds me of a movie from a region:

Guarapari - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cancer mortality in Guarapari, Espiríto Santo State, Brazil, with areas of high natural radioactivity - PubMed

Guarapari, a municipality of the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil, reported higher mortality rates for the most common cancers from 1996 to 2000. This municipality has beaches with high natural radioactivity. To verify whether this excessive cancer mortality rate still exist in Guarapari...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cancer is NOT the mutation of our DNA specifically, if that were the case we are all always positive for cancer as some of the trillions of our cells have a generoc defect from one of a million reasons. It's only when the mutation results in abnormal cell growth and its inability to die that it becomes what we call cancer.


Also on a side note the other Chernobyl reactors continued to operate after the accident. Your comment about Fukushima, who exactly has died of radiation? (The answer is zero) And John Wayne? https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/06/downwinders-nuclear-fallout-hollywood-john-wayne You mean the nuclear fallout from hundreds if not thousands of nuclear tests in the 40s and 50s? People got sick from living downwind of something that wasn't understood at the time and.the government had its own motives to keep creating more and more deadly weapons "in the name of peace" and there is nothing we can do about it now.


All of this doesn't change the fact that if the option is a 100m asteroid hits earth and causes unknown damage to a large population (maybe it hits a nuclear power plant or causes the next Fukushima with a tsunami) and sending a nuclear warhead to space to break it up and its "fallout" causes a 1% increase in cancer in a particular area..... which would you rather?

 

[Chrispy_]

This colloquial explanation might be true, but we simply do not know the exact composition of the asteroid 2024 YR3.

Give the unknown, so we simply can't know what is the decay of irradiated elements on the asteroid 2024 YR3!

So, just nuke it, is not a smart idea...not smart at all!

Uh, you appear to not understand radioactivity either. That's okay, it's not a simple concept but there's loads of resources out there that are interesting reads. Wikipedia's not the worst place to start for high-level overviews.

The only radioactive elements that we're adding by nuking 2024 YR4 would be the fission metals in the warhead, uranium and plutonium. the deuterium and tritium would be fused so there's neutron radiation that's gone shortly after the fusion reaction ends.

"irradiated" is an umbrella term for land, food, water, whatever that has been either contaminated by radioactive particulates, or something that has been sterilised by ionising radiation. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the ones we're concerned about if we nuke an asteroid, and one nuke's worth of material are going to be dispersed in the atmosphere if the nuke is unsuceessful in diverting 2024 YR4.

For the record, "the atmosphere" is ~500 million square kilometres of earth's surface to a height of ~100 km or so as defined by most scientists. That's a grand total of 50 billion cubic kilometers of air to disperse/dilute one nuke's worth of radioactive fallout. Whatever the outcome, it's far less concerning than the 500 far more localised, low-level atmospheric nuclear tests that have already happened, so can we please stop worrying about it?

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'll let you this official video report disprove your statement:

Operation Starfish Prime, Google it.

Follow along carefully: Does. Not. Apply.

 

[Steevo]

Follow along carefully: Does. Not. Apply.

God I love and hate the name Starfish, for one the old chocolate starfish... quite a thing, for two I dumped a very hot chick cause she was a starfish in bed....