XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein
from
https://www.cnbctv18.com/science/nasa-dart-mission-spacecraft-to-be-crashed-head-on-with-an-asteroid-dimorphos-didymos-on-september-26-14701801.htm
NASA DART mission: Spacecraft to be crashed head-on with an asteroid on September 26 to redirect it
Read Time
5 Min(s) Read
By PTI
Sep 12, 2022, 11:04 AM IST (Published)
MINI
If the DART mission succeeds, humanity will have demonstrated a
destructive capability vastly exceeding that of nuclear weapons.
Allowing private corporations to map and alter asteroid orbits would
also be extremely dangerous.
The DART mission to redirect an asteroid is billed as potentially planet-saving. But in the wrong hands it has seriously destructive
potential. In September 2022 an event of planetary importance will take
place. With the assistance of a privately funded rocket, NASA's DART
mission will test the feasibility of redirecting an asteroid.
The mission is, in NASA's words, to test and validate a method to
protect Earth in case of an asteroid impact threat. NASA's spacecraft
will crash head-on into a small asteroid called Dimorphos, with the aim
of altering its orbit around a larger asteroid, Didymos.
The excitement about such heroic possibilities is rooted in long-held assumptions about expansion into space. Going higher must mean getting
better.
However, the consequences of the mission are much less positive than
space enthusiasts and many others believe. Given the immense violence
potential of fast-moving space objects, the question of whether asteroid redirection is desirable roughly approximates to the question of whether
space activities increase or decrease the likelihood of war.
In their 1964 book Islands in Space: The Challenge of the Planetoids, astronomers Dandridge Cole and Donald Cox envisioned manoeuvring
asteroids to serve as the ultimate deterrent, a planetoid bomb. At the
time, these plans were advanced as solutions to the threat of nuclear
war, specifically to the vulnerabilities of nuclear weapons based on Earth. Never attempted, these schemes were shockingly extreme, even among the apocalyptic military speculations of the 1950s and 1960s.
Cole and Cox wrote that a captured planetoid of between 2 kilometres and
8 kilometres in diameter would have the impact energy equivalent to
several million megatons, would create a crater 30 to 80 kilometres in diameter, and would destroy whole countries through Earth shock effects.
They hastened to add that such devastation would not be anything near as
bad as a general nuclear war because there would be no nuclear fallout
carried by the winds to all parts of the Earth.
A captured planetoid would be the ideal deterrent system, they said,
because it could not be de-orbited in less than several hours and would
not be feared by a potential enemy as a surprise attack weapon.
Furthermore, an onrushing planetoid could not be intercepted or
deflected even if detected several days before impact.
Such an attack might even be carried out without much danger of
retaliation because it would be difficult to distinguish from a natural catastrophe.
Although this scheme suggests criminal insanity, it fits comfortably
alongside other fortunately abortive and outlawed Cold War
investigations of geophysical weaponisation, such as harnessing
hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis for military purposes.
Interstate military rivalry propelled much of human space activity. So
why do we believe conflicts will not be carried into space? People who
believe in the possibility of overcoming rivalries on the highly
interdependent Earth, where large-scale violence is effectively
suicidal, are deemed utopian.
But these same rival states exploring the manipulation of asteroids
equipped with titanic violence potential is, somehow, no problem. For
this reason, the alteration of the orbits of asteroids by any single
government or corporation should be explicitly outlawed.
However, while international organisations will travel to the asteroid
as observers, the DART mission is solely the preserve of US
organisations. How, when and by whom this technology is developed has first-order implications for the human species and the fate of the Earth.
The technologies to divert an asteroid away from the Earth are
essentially identical to those needed to direct objects towards the Earth.
If the DART mission succeeds, humanity will have demonstrated a
destructive capability vastly exceeding that of nuclear weapons.
Allowing private corporations to map and alter asteroid orbits would
also be extremely dangerous.
Given asteroids' inherent mass-destructive potential, allowing private companies answerable to only a handful of corporate owners to develop
this technology would be like allowing private firms to develop the
hydrogen bomb in the 1950s.
However, completely abandoning the mapping and alteration of asteroidal
orbits is unwise because the collision of such bodies with the Earth is inevitable. This knowledge and technology are vital. Asteroid mapping
and diversion should therefore be undertaken only by a consortium of
leading states on Earth.
A deflection consortium could be assigned the task, given the sole legal authority, and equipped with the resources to develop the capacity to
defend the planet from cosmic bombardment. Such an effort would fall far
short of bringing a world government into existence, reassuring those
who fear control by stealth.
The enduring mutual suspicion of states would impede the asteroid
consortium from becoming the seed of a world state. It could be staffed
and operated not by a distinct body of international civil servants but
rather by members of the militaries of the contributing states.
Like any human venture, a strategy of military cooperation for planetary security would have its own risks and potential paths of breakdown. If
the planetary protection consortium were to disintegrate, the violence
capacity of asteroids would be possessed by several states.
But as long as this agency remained solely focused on its narrow
mission, and no private actors were permitted to engage in these
activities, states would have a strong incentive to sustain the
arrangement. Human beings have long dreamed of exploring the farthest
reaches of space.
Space is particularly prone to dreamy assumptions, beguiling illusions
and stark disorientations. But dream-walking into space is sleepwalking
into space. Space expansion should be recognised as having not only a
plethora of bad proposals but also a frightening potential for evil.
Also Read: NASA defers Artemis I launch to Sept 23-27 — why those dates (Edited by : Sangam Singh)
Check out our in-depth Market Coverage, Business News & get real-time
Stock Market Updates on CNBC-TV18. Also, Watch our channels CNBC-TV18,
CNBC Awaaz and CNBC Bajar Live on-the-go!
Tags
asteroidNASA
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
New study finds evidence for many planets made of water, rock orbiting
small stars
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)