Any sufficiently precise gravity tractor is a WMD.
5 thoughts on “Diverting Asteroids”
G. Harry Stine said a weapon was any device capable of having a physical, chemical, biological, or psychological effect on people or property.
The difference between a weapon and non-weapon is largely the user’s intent.
That’s what make space weapons bans so problematic. Any device that can rendezvous with an uncooperative target and change its orbit (or other physical properties) is a potential ASAT weapon. A space weapons ban would either be meaningless and ineffective, or so comprehensive as to ban virtually everything that is useful in space.
The difference between a weapon and non-weapon is largely the user’s intent.
My father was a carpenter. In his hands, a hammer could be used to build houses, businesses and other things. In the hands of a thug, a hammer can be a murder weapon. The hammer doesn’t change from one person to another – it’s all in the intent of the user.
Actually, the article only discusses four or five ways to deflect an asteroid (depending on how you count).
The number seven comes from “The 7 Strangest Asteroids in the Solar System.”
And, of course, none of those methods have been tested because political leaders consider it more important to protect a few jobs in Huntsville than the lives of every man, woman, and child on Earth.
What woudl be the better way to implement the smash-em-up option – an orbital vessel (like the Asteroids game), or ground-based weapons (Missile Command)?
The Atari metaphors are whimsical, but it’s a serious question. My instinct is that putting the zapper closer to the target is the better option.
I’ve always favored the mass-driver. I like the idea of a propulsion system which can use the raw material of the asteroid itself for its reaction mass. And any old mass that’s just lying about on the surface.
G. Harry Stine said a weapon was any device capable of having a physical, chemical, biological, or psychological effect on people or property.
The difference between a weapon and non-weapon is largely the user’s intent.
That’s what make space weapons bans so problematic. Any device that can rendezvous with an uncooperative target and change its orbit (or other physical properties) is a potential ASAT weapon. A space weapons ban would either be meaningless and ineffective, or so comprehensive as to ban virtually everything that is useful in space.
The difference between a weapon and non-weapon is largely the user’s intent.
My father was a carpenter. In his hands, a hammer could be used to build houses, businesses and other things. In the hands of a thug, a hammer can be a murder weapon. The hammer doesn’t change from one person to another – it’s all in the intent of the user.
Actually, the article only discusses four or five ways to deflect an asteroid (depending on how you count).
The number seven comes from “The 7 Strangest Asteroids in the Solar System.”
And, of course, none of those methods have been tested because political leaders consider it more important to protect a few jobs in Huntsville than the lives of every man, woman, and child on Earth.
What woudl be the better way to implement the smash-em-up option – an orbital vessel (like the Asteroids game), or ground-based weapons (Missile Command)?
The Atari metaphors are whimsical, but it’s a serious question. My instinct is that putting the zapper closer to the target is the better option.
I’ve always favored the mass-driver. I like the idea of a propulsion system which can use the raw material of the asteroid itself for its reaction mass. And any old mass that’s just lying about on the surface.