Interesting Read

[Mimir[IS]]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/06/asteroid-2011-ag5-a-football-stadium-sized-rock-to-watch-carefully/

The letter below was taken from a link in the above blog. Interesting read if you are interested in this sort of thing.

RUSSELL L. SCHWEICKART
760 Fifth Street East
Sonoma, CA 95476
3 March 2012
Mr. Charles Bolden
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
300 E St. SW
Washington, DC 20546
Dear Charlie:
Thank you for your letter of February 2, 2012 responding to the concerns I expressed to you with
regard to the potential deflection challenge presented by near-Earth asteroid 2011 AG5 (AG5). I
appreciate NASA having seriously considered the issues I raised in my letter and analysis of the AG5
deflection challenge.
In ordinary circumstances I would not presume to take more of your time. However in this instance,
where we are dealing with a public safety matter, I am not convinced by the assurances in your
response of February 2 that no further action is required at this time. I therefore feel obligated to
explicitly respond to you in this open letter with specific engineering questions it does not appear
were considered in your earlier letter.
With respect, let us acknowledge what we all agree on; the more tracking we can get before we have
to make a decision, the better. The most probable result of more tracking is that the 2040 impact
probability for AG5 will drop to zero. But the reason we track these objects is to be prepared to
deflect that rare asteroid where the probability does not drop to zero. If there is in fact an impending
impact in 2040, what actions must we take and by when to prevent it? If, based on engineering
examination, we can wait until after the 2013 or 2015 tracking opportunities, as your last letter states,
that’s great! But we believe there are some subtleties that must be considered before asserting this.
For a series of very specific reasons I believe that the Deep Impact analogy (in which you suggest no
action re AG5 is necessary now given NASA’s success in intercepting Comet Tempel 1 in 2005) is
weak and may lead us to a false sense of security. If deflecting asteroid AG5 turns out to be
significantly more difficult, then we may find that by waiting until after the 2013 apparition, it will be
too late to prevent AG5 from passing through the 2023 keyhole. In other words we will have waited
too long to act which would have potentially deadly consequences. For these reasons I believe a more
thorough engineering analysis of a deflection campaign for AG5 is warranted now.
The key factors which I believe make the case of AG5 different than Tempel I are:
1. Two missions vs. one mission. Deep impact required only a single mission, i.e. a single
launch. A NEO deflection requiring a kinetic impactor (KI) must also have in place prior to
the time of arrival of that KI, an observer spacecraft (Observer) for a variety of purposes, but
most especially to monitor and confirm the success of the KI impact. This dual mission
design is well established in the literature and has become generally referred to as a
“deflection campaign” and not a deflection mission.
Having to plan and execute a dual mission campaign will generally require two launch
window analyses, two mission transit times, etc. The overall timeline for this dual mission is
likely to require more time than was required for the relatively simple Deep Impact scenario. Only specific engineering analysis for the AG5 orbit (also more challenging than the Comet
Tempel 1 orbit) will allow a realistic mission timeline to be determined. Uncertainties in the
size and mass of AG5 must be taken into account.
2. Terminal guidance and control (G&C). Terminal phase G&C would be a far more daunting
challenge for an AG5 deflection than it was for Deep Impact. Tempel I was a comparatively
easy target because its cross sectional area is about 2000 times greater than it is for AG5!
Furthermore the approach velocity is significantly higher (13.7 km/s, based on NEOShield
Deimos analysis (attached) vs. 10.3 km/s for DI). Additionally the mass of the impactor
required for an AG5 deflection may be higher than the 350 kg used for DI. The lighting of
AG5 will also be less favorable due to the approach angle required. How certain are we
(without detailed analysis) of our capability to perform terminal guidance should we have to
deflect AG5?
Charlie, neither you nor I would have risked our lives without solid engineering having gone into our
respective missions. In this instance again, there are potentially lives at stake, and I know you take
that responsibility seriously, as do I. I therefore respectfully request that NASA not lightly rely on a
weak analogy but rather on solid engineering analysis to determine whether or not we can simply wait
until after the next tracking opportunity in 2013, let alone the one after that in 2015 before beginning
the initial preparations to prevent AG5 from ending up on a direct impact trajectory with Earth.
To be clear, what I am asking for is specific engineering and mission planning analysis to be
performed now in order to insure that we fully understand the timeline requirements, in the unlikely
event that AG5 should be headed for the 2023 keyhole. I am not requesting, in any way, a
transponder mission as you seemed to indicate in your response to my prior message.
We all realize it is highly likely that AG5 is not headed for an impact. But we must also hedge
against the possibility that this will not be the case by being prepared to act, and not find ourselves
awkwardly beyond the point where deflection remains an option.
Sincerely,
Rusty Schweickart
Apollo 9 Astronaut
Cc: John Grunsfeld, Lindley Johnson
Encl: Preliminary Analysis of 2011 AG5 deflection options, NEOShield Deimos team.

[Mattsacre]

Why would a Administrator of a bureacracy such as NASA, put off capital outlay in a project such as is in NASA's mission statement, (tracking asteroids and deflecting them if they are threat to earth) on a time line like 2013 and 2015?

Question:What else happens in and around FISCAL yr. 2013? A Bureacracy that receives funding from, and is answerable to both the executive and legislative branch of our government?

Hint: One party of the two party system of this country is currently in the process of selecting a candidate to challenge the current occupant of the executive branch.

That same occupant of the executive is the one that has resently drasticly cut funding for NASA, reassigned it's mission statement, restructured many of managment personnel (i.e. hired and fired), and killed the space shuttle program. If you were either one of the political appointees that just got hired, or one of the ones left that is in fear of their career, would you want to piss off "the boss" by speaking out about needing a whole new capital outlay (money) for a project when is "downsizing" things? If you know how bureacracies work you know the answer already...no.

[Mimir[IS]]

All in All this is very scary, my chances of hitting the Mega Lotto is 1 in a kabillion but I still play. My chances of hitting the top prize on a scratch off was 1:6316 (and I hit that). So I ask those who think a 1:625 is a non win situation to think again. If the odds were that low for the lotto I would be spending every cent I have each week. I'm not sure if there is anything the public can do as I have not seen a petition or a consolidated web action to force action. But if I do I will pass this information on.

Where did I put my tin foil hat?

[Terrell [BT]]

[quote name='Mattsacre' timestamp='1331158238' post='55126']
Why would a Administrator of a bureacracy such as NASA, put off capital outlay in a project such as is in NASA's mission statement, (tracking asteroids and deflecting them if they are threat to earth) on a time line like 2013 and 2015?

Question:What else happens in and around FISCAL yr. 2013? A Bureacracy that receives funding from, and is answerable to both the executive and legislative branch of our government?

Hint: One party of the two party system of this country is currently in the process of selecting a candidate to challenge the current occupant of the executive branch.

That same occupant of the executive is the one that has resently drasticly cut funding for NASA, reassigned it's mission statement, restructured many of managment personnel (i.e. hired and fired), and killed the space shuttle program. If you were either one of the political appointees that just got hired, or one of the ones left that is in fear of their career, would you want to piss off "the boss" by speaking out about needing a whole new capital outlay (money) for a project when is "downsizing" things? If you know how bureacracies work you know the answer already...no.
[/quote]

Should this really be a partisan issue on a gaming board?

The power of the purse, btw, isn't a Presidential power, it's a power of Congress. [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html"]Article 1, Section 8[/url] of the U.S. Constitution states the powers of Congress, [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html"]Article 2, Section 2[/url] states the powers of the President.

If you want more NASA funding, you must question your representatives in the House & Senate, because they actually have to apropriate the funds to do so. The President can sign or veto, but the Congress can override said veto with 2/3 vote in both houses.

[Mimir[IS]]

Sadly it is a world issue, not just a USA problem. Perhaps a save the world fund should be set up?

[Mimir[IS]]

On a lighter note:

When the dude stops running, place your cursor above his head...you may have to move it around a bit.

[url="http://www.selfcontrolfreak.com/pakken.html"]http://www.selfcontrolfreak.com/pakken.html[/url]

[Blacklung[IS]]

lol, nice

[Mattsacre]

[quote name='Terrell' timestamp='1331162030' post='55133']
Should this really be a partisan issue on a gaming board?

The power of the purse, btw, isn't a Presidential power, it's a power of Congress. [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html"]Article 1, Section 8[/url] of the U.S. Constitution states the powers of Congress, [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html"]Article 2, Section 2[/url] states the powers of the President.

If you want more NASA funding, you must question your representatives in the House & Senate, because they actually have to apropriate the funds to do so. The President can sign or veto, but the Congress can override said veto with 2/3 vote in both houses.
[/quote]
Actually that was my point...why is NASA a political football game? And yes I know that congress has the power of the purse, another point of mine, why is the executive making decisions on the makeup of NASA and "adjusting" their mission statement? NASA (National Aeronautics & Space Administration) Ntional..thats in the USA not outside, Aeronautics & Space...thats science and arts to be Administered by appointees from congress. When the white house...THE WHITE HOUSE is having a press conference to talk about the "implications" involved from the president having "adjusted" NASA's mission statement, or that "the president has made the decision to curtail the space shuttle program indefinately". Who stepped over their powers and who didn't?

Just as the keyline pipeline controversy....why is the Executive making the decision (without consulting congress's at a MINIMUM advise and Consent pwr)as to the dispossision of a pipeline within the borders of the U.S.A.? The executive has the power to negotiate international treaties/agreements with congresses ratification of final document required to be in effect. So he has the power to tell Canada yes or no at the border, but he isn't discussing that and refusing on those grounds, he is claiming we need more study about the ROUTE of the pipeline and it's impact on enviroment (EPA) and states (interstate commerce) both congressional areas of authority.

" We need more study (2 yrs and counting), and I figure we will have studied it enough, and have the info we need right after Nov. 2013." And, "this is not a political decision." Really? and if you're sucker enough to believe that, please contact me..I got some worthless lands and bridges to sell you.

The political football is: that the Executive thinks it's in their sphere of duties and has the hutspa to do it, and the Congress,that rather than do what it's job is,cheers from the sidelines as they are steamrolled over.

As to the partisan on a gaming board: it's the general discussion thread, sort of like OOC, and I don't care which party is which (in fact I'm disgusted with both), I want whatever party does it's actual job (within the boundries of the constitution) as efficiently and non-invasively as possible. Remember that Bill of Rights thing? The power rests in the hands of the people, and the states and the State have only the power EXPRESSLY outlined in the constitution to use. When they curtail mine and your rights they have gone beyond the framers intent.

[Terrell [BT]]

Most of that sounds like partisan talking points, at least to someone who follows politics. That's why I asked that rhetorical question. I'm hearing things I hear one side of the aisle say on political talk shows, but I'm not hearing anything that the other side says on such shows. It walks, looks, and quacks like a duck.

I'm thinking that flammable issues, could be trouble for the board, since it's really more about EnB than politics. We don't want potential donators, being turned off, or leaving due to partisan politics.

[Tienbau]

I bet Kuchinik (sorry don't know the spelling!) would fund that!

He seems like an interesting character in US politics. We had a guy a bit like that - but more extreme, and not supposed to be taken seriously - in the 80's, called 'Screaming Lord Such' of the 'Monster Raving Loonie' Party.

So, is this guy for real? Is he actually serious about running the country or is there for comic relief? Is he the political equivalent of David Ike, who seems to take himself and his ruling green blooded lizard-men illuminati seriously, but people other than his fans find him an endearing loony. Or that Von Daniken guy with the 'Chariots of the Gods'.

[Mimir[IS]]

Politics aside, IMHO the information is valid and everyone should be made aware of it. I also am pretty sure that if this gets put on a front burner the US will end up footing the bill (again) as usual... And I am pretty sure it is not only a US issue.

[Terrell [BT]]

If it turns out that the worst case scenario is true, can NASA actually deflect the asteroid with current technology? Can any of the world's other space agencies? If they work together? The asteroid in question, is it a solid piece of rock or metal, or is it a pile of rubble held together by gravity? I'd imagine that it would be a rather difficult task to target the 'roid, and put enough energy into it to change it's course enough to make it miss, if it would otherwise hit. I do understand that the sooner it's deflected the less the course has to change to avert an impact.

I agree with you Mimir, it's most likely to fall on NASA and probably ESA.

[Mattsacre]

It is totally doable with current tech, its a matter of:
A. timing, with more forwarning you have much more time to react and more options.
B. money. in actuallity in this case, a small investment now of detection is much less than later when a crash program will require large outlay, sort of the old proverb "a stitch in time saves nine"
C. will. as always there will be those that pull the," you do it...no you do it...no I insist, I can't I got a tummy ache" mentality, it takes someone to roll up a shirt sleeve and say let's go.

A asteroid if it was going to hit earth, would only take a fraction of 1 degree deflection to totally miss us, but as it gets closer you have to exert more and more force to get that same degree of deflection.

Picture a gun, your target is 1 ft. from you, just face the gun forward,,your going to hit it, you can't miss. Now put that same target 100 ft. away, you have to take a little effort to line up the gun so you hit the target, now put the target 1,000 ft. away, even with some practice and a scope, you have a good chance not to hit if you don't take great care to aim and take all the other factors like windage etc in.

So you know the asteroid is 11 yrs. away from a must obliterate it to survive stage (keyhole), all you have to do now is nudge it a hair, a mere shaving of the asteroids mass on one surface would achieve a change in that fraction of degree. If you wait for 3 yrs its now 7 yrs away, you will have to take a big chunk out to change the angle, or you can wait until 2023 and have to blow it to smithereens and risk the remains entering earth atmosphere.

NASA had a proposal yrs. ago of a deep space probe/vehicle with a low yield laser on board, it would fly out to a asteroid, land on surface, version 1 would have a small reactor, version 2 a small solar array, either would power the small yield laser to slowly melt one side of the surface of the asteroid, the material vaporized would act as a propellant like a small rocket, moving the asteroid, with enough forewarning this would absolutely work for a relatively small pricetag, this would be run with telemetrics like the mars rover.

The other proposals involved more and more firepower/thrust with eventual requirements of manned missions, if the probe idea had not been nixxed we would have that to send out NOW and if it failed for some reason other options could be tried, not having the probe, if we started building it now we still would have time to deploy it and allow for a margin of error.