Starship Asterisk*

TEB wrote: Only the solid ones are really dangerous.

emc wrote:

Beyond wrote:That is so Newtonian of you

it’s all thanks to a cranial lump and my shabby attire smeared with greasy fingers from reading about gravitational tractors and neufer’s long standing influence… it’s beyond reasoning

Beyond wrote:That is so Newtonian of you

emc wrote:

Beyond wrote:

emc wrote:I appreciate that there's a potential solution to oblivion.

Oh... i don't know... oblivion has it's advantages.

i imagine if most of us faced oblivion we would be olivion in the john

Beyond wrote:

emc wrote:I appreciate that there's a potential solution to oblivion.

Oh... i don't know... oblivion has it's advantages.

Chris Peterson wrote:Getting it there would be easy- no more difficult than any number of flyby probes we've operated in the past. And the control system would be pretty simple, as well- not what anybody would call AI, just a simple servo system. All the tug does is orient itself on one side and maintain a fixed distance by modulating its thrust. That's one thing that makes this system attractive- its extreme simplicity (which also translates to reliability).

metamorphmuses wrote:Hmm, yes, you're right it could not be manned. But surely its trajectory would need to be very precise, and its alignment to the asteroid would have to be precise as well. So, it would need to be adaptive and "intelligent" in its navigation, or it would have to be monitored and remotely piloted by a crew? I admit my ignorance here. I ask myself, what would be the feedback response time necessary to make course adjustments? Because if it were not an artificially "intelligent" craft, and the course adjustments were needed on a minute-by-minute basis, then a remote crew on Earth is not feasible, due to the fact that the asteroid would probably be several light-minutes away from Earth. I'm thinking out loud here.

ecebe wrote:Why don't we start collecting all the space junk and hold it as a gravitational mass, in a net or something similar, that we could push where we might need it. If we wait for a threat, we won't have enough time to act.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Last summer's drought in the US midwest was not slow. Superstorm Sandy was not slow.

Until there is a confident prediction of a large asteroid impact some years or decades in the future we won't know how humanity would respond to such a prediction. You may be right that everybody will quickly and efficiently give the engineers the necessary resources to figure out how to avert the impact, and that the engineers will agree on and implement a workable plan. I'm not so sure.

Chris Peterson wrote:The whole point is that it isn't manned, and isn't serviceable- both of which make for a prohibitively difficult and expensive mission. Manned would be absurd, since we're talking about a mission likely to be in deep space for a decade or more. Serviceable with robots might be considered, depending on the orbit, but probably isn't necessary. If the HST has taught us anything, it is that making serviceable probes is probably a waste of money.

ecebe wrote:Why don't we start collecting all the space junk and hold it as a gravitational mass, in a net or something similar, that we could push where we might need it. If we wait for a threat, we won't have enough time to act.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Umm, accelerating global warming? Acidification of the oceans? Melting polar sea ice and glaciers? Massive species loss comparable to when the dinosaurs died off? These things are already happening due to our daily human activity right here on Earth.

Yes, but those things are slow. People are quite adept at ignoring uncertain futures, like frogs being slowly stewed. An asteroid comes with a bona fide expiration date for the biosphere. I do think that most people view the idea that a billion people will die on March 19, 2028 a little differently than they view the idea that coastal flooding could impact hundreds of millions of people in 50 years.

neufer wrote:

alamid419@yahoo.com wrote:
I think that the military will use this "Gravitational Tractor" first before it could be launched in the outer space. These GT is an effective equipment of the military for defensive purposes like: diverting the missile fired as well as the aircraft of hostile forces.

Well...lotsa luck to them with THAT

alamid419@yahoo.com wrote:I think that the military will use this "Gravitational Tractor" first before it could be launched in the outer space. These GT is an effective equipment of the military for defensive purposes like: diverting the missile fired as well as the aircraft of hostile forces.

alamid419@yahoo.com wrote:
I think that the military will use this "Gravitational Tractor" first before it could be launched in the outer space. These GT is an effective equipment of the military for defensive purposes like: diverting the missile fired as well as the aircraft of hostile forces.

emc wrote:I appreciate that there's a potential solution to oblivion.

neufer wrote:

FloridaMike wrote:
How would you feel about this or similar technology being used to insert a non-threatening object into lunar orbit for commercial purposes?

Too big of a risk or no-brainer?

What sort of non-threatening object did you have in mind

Chris Peterson wrote:

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Umm, accelerating global warming? Acidification of the oceans? Melting polar sea ice and glaciers? Massive species loss comparable to when the dinosaurs died off? These things are already happening due to our daily human activity right here on Earth.

Yes, but those things are slow. People are quite adept at ignoring uncertain futures, like frogs being slowly stewed. An asteroid comes with a bona fide expiration date for the biosphere. I do think that most people view the idea that a billion people will die on March 19, 2028 a little differently than they view the idea that coastal flooding could impact hundreds of millions of people in 50 years.

NASA wrote:NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.

FloridaMike wrote:
How would you feel about this or similar technology being used to insert a non-threatening object into lunar orbit for commercial purposes?

Too big of a risk or no-brainer?

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Umm, accelerating global warming? Acidification of the oceans? Melting polar sea ice and glaciers? Massive species loss comparable to when the dinosaurs died off? These things are already happening due to our daily human activity right here on Earth.