Searching \ for '[EE]:: Planetary Defence <- from SpaceRef Newslett' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=planetary+defence
Search entire site for: ': Planetary Defence <- from SpaceRef Newslett'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Planetary Defence <- from SpaceRef Newslett'
2007\03\14@100552 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Reports from the second trienniel Planetary Defence Conference.
Sounds good ! :-).
In this case the baddies are large "Near Earth Objects" over 140m in
diameter that pass within 1.3 earth-sun distances from the sun.

I like

       "One of the complications is just getting to the asteroid,
        which is much harder when it chooses us, as opposed to us
        choosing it. "


           Russell


_______________

Some interesting material.
Outline material only but no doubt enough information for Gargoyle to
use:

Various methods of interception and deflection are discussed.
       " ...On the question of how to protect against an identified
threat, the opinions seemed to fall toward using the gravity tractor
or the ballistic impact in preference to nuclear explosives. ..."

       " All three of these deflection technologies need to be
developed, however, since they have very different capabilities, and
we are dealing here with a huge range of NEA sizes and orbits. One of
the complications is just getting to the asteroid, which is much
harder when it chooses us, as opposed to us choosing it. The gravity
tractor must match orbits (rendezvous) with the target. In contrast,
the kinetic impactor does not need to slow down near the asteroid, but
it does have to hit a small target at high speed. Nuclear charges
would normally be used from a rendezvous spacecraft, but in extreme
cases might be deployed like kinetic impact, with a high-speed
intercept. There is no "one size fits all" solution. "



   " Mark Boslough (Sandia) discussed interesting simulations of
atmospheric explosions such as Tunguska. Noting that the fireball from
a meteor explosion has considerably downward momentum (unlike the
classic mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion), he concludes that
the Tunguska impactor exploded higher and was smaller (energy of order
5 megatons) than usually inferred."

___________________

From: <spam_OUTspaceref-dailyTakeThisOuTspammail.aterra.com>

{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...