zlacker

Doesn’t even need to be a planet killer, even a small object like the Tunguska event hitting a large city (Like NYC) would cost trillions in damage and millions of lives, the equivalent of a nuclear bomb going off. The cost to build some surveillance and technology to mitigate it would be far less.

And prevention wouldn’t require Bruce Willis to blow it up with nukes, like the DART mission all you’d need is to hit the space rock with a fast moving, small probe and alter its course by a millionth of a degree far enough out, could be the difference between hitting a city, landing in the ocean, or not hitting earth at all.

>>oceanp+(OP)
I read somewhere about the idea of sending white paint to coat one side this would cause one side to get hotter and cause the asteroid to spin sending it off course.

I'm quite sure it wouldn't work but was an interesting idea.

>>vortic+S9
The problem is that they rotate. Maybe an electronically controlled jet that triggers only when aligned in the right direction.

>>oceanp+(OP)
Challenge accepted!

>>oceanp+(OP)
A Tunguska event exploding over Moscow could even trigger the 'Perimeter' system without human intervention. And likely most of the missiles are pre-programmed with US targets...

>>readyp+fd
Presumably it would be more efficient to use jet to stabilise it, so that the painted deflector can take effect

>>oceanp+(OP)
The probability of that is really low though, theres not a lot of area with dense population when looking at the whole earth. And for your redirection to work, you would need really precise trajectory predictions while still very far away so a small impulse is enough.

>>trucul+4F
If you can detect it early enough an absolutely miniscule amount of force can multiply over time to an enormous difference in position later on. Much less force than would be required to stop it from spinning or sending material to act as a deflector.

>>zamada+xL
You would want to design and test a vectoring nuclear thermal rocket built to absorb neutrons and reduce thrust on one side, and burn 100% on the other side, with the ability to gimbal the thrust vector depending on the asteroid's orientation. This gives you a much bigger margin of error versus "white paint" or conventional rockets imo.

You probably wouldn't want to nuke it, because you risk buck shotting the earth with a cloud of asteroids. Having a vectored nuclear rocket also allows you to change your trajectory if your initial calculations are off.

>>echoan+eJ
A couple of nukes missile will be more than enough to fragment it and split the trajectory to less denser population. But just like Leonardo movie look up, nothing will be done as everyone will just quarrel for attention and inaction.

>>willma+5T2
The other problem is propellent. I think using the material of the asteroid itself as propellent makes the most sense.