For comets or other objects whose perihelion is less than 1 au; does the chance of collision with Earth increase if the orbit is within the elliptical plane vs outside it?
This object is thankfully not coming anywhere close to Earth, but an impact of an object this size with Earth would still not sterilize the biosphere, or even evaporate the oceans.
It'd certainly sterilize the vertebrate part of the biosphere: a significant part of its chemical composition (per the paper) should theoretically be CO and HCN. "Hypervolatiles" is the term the paper uses—primordial evils that can only exist in the coldest outer reaches of the Oort cloud, far away from the star that evaporates them.
I don't know the exact numbers, but for water ice the "frost line" is at about 3 au (between Mars and Jupiter)[0]—the line inside which icy comets and ice moons, like Europa, can't form. Presumably there's analogous zones for the increasingly volatile cryogenic ices, going out into the most distant regions—a solid carbon dioxide line, a carbon monoxide line, a cyanide line... The surface of Pluto, for example, is mostly solid nitrogen, with parts of solid methane and solid carbon monoxide [1].
The KT impactor has been estimated to have been about 10 km in diameter and moving at 20 km/s.
A long-period comet, like an Oort cloud object, might impact at 50 km/s, instead of the 10-20 km/s of a near-Earth asteroid.
The physics might say that the energy might not be enough to literally vaporize the oceans or "sterilize" the biosphere, but the global ecosystem is fragile. This thing dropping on the planet would absolutely cause a mass extinction.
Oh, I didn't say the results wouldn't be utterly catastrophic. It's more a comment on just how surprisingly large an impact would be needed for sterilization.
I don't think anymore absolutely 100% sterilization of all life on Earth is possible, we always end up talking about 99.999999% or similar. With exception of maybe super/hypernova of our Sun which ain't possible, or black hole passing directly through/very close to Earth, tearing apart every single atom making up this planet including all of us on quark level.
Even then there's a chance a few tardigrades hibernate on some material that shoots up and then comes back a few years later once the earth has cooled a bit.
Tardigrades were placed in the "extremophile" class with good reason. If anything could survive a truly catastrophic impact event, I'd say the smart money goes on the lowly "water bear" to win. :)
Imply that the kinetic energy released upon the impact of such an object, show a group sheltering at the ISS (orbit at an altitude of between 370–460 km (200–250 nmi)) or the Tiangong (orbit between 340 and 450 km (210 and 280 mi) ) would not be likely to survive the impact from ejecta thrown into their orbital altitude...
11AU is outside Saturn's orbit. With the high inclination of the orbit (95 degrees) it's coming in on a more-or-less polar orbit of the sun. You might need a Jupiter flyby along the lines of what Ulysses did to fling it out of the ecliptic plane, but Jupiter might not be in the right place in its orbit to make that work..
And you'd need a very light spacecraft (not much mass budget for instruments) launched very fast, and it's far enough away from the sun that you'd want RTG power rather than solar panels.
I can't make a fair comparison between the object in TFA and Oumuamua, the presumed interstellar object that passed through our Solar System not long ago. For the latter, a "Project Lyra" study [1] posits a combination of Earth and Jupiter gravitational assists to catchup with Oumuamua. Could a similar approach work for this comet?
The observed distribution of inclinations of long-period comets are why it's called the Oort cloud and not the Oort belt..
Short period comets are relatively close to the ecliptic, while very-long-period comets have evenly distributed inclinations suggesting that the objects in the Oort are more or less spherically distributed.
what would it take to build and accelerate an object to 295000 kms/s? Like seriously, would it take nuclear propulsion or is it antimatter engine or solar sail?
The government would save billions (tens of billions over the long haul), increase cadence, increase mission scope, and cut flight times, by cutting NASA’s build-&-burn rocket manned program in favor of SpaceX’s reusable manned craft and space refueling services.
SpaceX Starship could also reduce the cost and increase cadence of scientific missions, in two ways:
1) By reducing launch costs via greater system reuse.
2) And by increasing available launch volume, eliminate a lot of the design & manufacturing time, cost, complexity and risk created by today’s need to fit craft into toad’s more limited volumes.
Less need for craft miniaturization means (a) fewer risky/complex unfolding maneuvers in flight, (b) much easier radiation mitigation via more shielding, larger more resilient circuits, redundancy, etc. And (c) fewer craft, with more capabilities and higher longevity.
And as with the manned program, increase mission scope, while reducing transfer to target times, via in orbit refueling.
If only we could find someone with the incentives, plan, means and mandate, to cut government space spending while somehow also expanding its manned & scientific space exploration capabilities and scope.
The hardest part is to find such a uniquely capable person, who also has enough slack time to take this on. A rare trait combination, indeed. What are the chances of finding a genius reefer doom scrolling bloviating slacker? Who could put all that disposable time to better use?
1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.
2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.
I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.
I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.
I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.
At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.
Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.
SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.
If we actually funded public services to the required levels NASA and so forth would be fine to do things in house. We're just allergic to anything that makes actual sense when we have an oligarchy to support. That's it.
NASA and most of the unmanned space exploration programs will probably be fine.
It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.
And in case I need to make myself clear: There is no value in manned space exploration at this point, at least no value that can't be obtained with unmanned programs. I say that as someone who was and will always be fascinated by Apollo, Space Shuttle, et al.
> It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.
The main thing on the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work. It's unlikely Musk would suggest chopping the programs themselves as those are very lucrative contracts SpaceX would be bidding for.
> no value in manned space exploration at this point
Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.
>the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work.
Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it:
* The main stage (aka core stage), essentially a repurposed Space Shuttle external fuel tank with engines bolted on, is contracted out to Boeing, with so far one launch and two completed production units in at least ten years of production.
* The main engines, which are refurbished SSMEs used as throwaways, are contracted out to Aerojet Rocketdyne.
* The SRBs are contracted out to Northrop Grumman, and the first eight launches will all be reusing the old Space Shuttle SRBs.
* The second stage, a repurposed Delta IV second stage, is contracted out to United Launch Alliance which is basically Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
* Finally, the Orion is contracted out to Lockheed Martin and Airbus. Incidentally, this is the only "new" component of the program.
>Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.
Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs.
There was value in manned programs before, we needed to figure out WTF human bodies will do in space. We figured that out at least 20 years ago. Now we need to keep contriving excuses to keep ISS flying and there's barely enough commercial interest in manned space utilization.
No, cut it all. Until we reach the next paradigm shift where we have to send men out into the black again to gain answers, robots can do everything a man could for cheaper, safer, longer, and faster.
For comets or other objects whose perihelion is less than 1 au; does the chance of collision with Earth increase if the orbit is within the elliptical plane vs outside it?
About 137km diameter, so really big, but albedo (surface brightness, basically) still similar to other comets.
This object is thankfully not coming anywhere close to Earth, but an impact of an object this size with Earth would still not sterilize the biosphere, or even evaporate the oceans.
It'd certainly sterilize the vertebrate part of the biosphere: a significant part of its chemical composition (per the paper) should theoretically be CO and HCN. "Hypervolatiles" is the term the paper uses—primordial evils that can only exist in the coldest outer reaches of the Oort cloud, far away from the star that evaporates them.
I don't know the exact numbers, but for water ice the "frost line" is at about 3 au (between Mars and Jupiter)[0]—the line inside which icy comets and ice moons, like Europa, can't form. Presumably there's analogous zones for the increasingly volatile cryogenic ices, going out into the most distant regions—a solid carbon dioxide line, a carbon monoxide line, a cyanide line... The surface of Pluto, for example, is mostly solid nitrogen, with parts of solid methane and solid carbon monoxide [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line_(astrophysics)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Geology
Nary a username more apt.
The KT impactor has been estimated to have been about 10 km in diameter and moving at 20 km/s.
A long-period comet, like an Oort cloud object, might impact at 50 km/s, instead of the 10-20 km/s of a near-Earth asteroid.
The physics might say that the energy might not be enough to literally vaporize the oceans or "sterilize" the biosphere, but the global ecosystem is fragile. This thing dropping on the planet would absolutely cause a mass extinction.
Oh, I didn't say the results wouldn't be utterly catastrophic. It's more a comment on just how surprisingly large an impact would be needed for sterilization.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/psj/ac66e8
(extrapolated > 700 km impactor needed for sterilization)
I don't think anymore absolutely 100% sterilization of all life on Earth is possible, we always end up talking about 99.999999% or similar. With exception of maybe super/hypernova of our Sun which ain't possible, or black hole passing directly through/very close to Earth, tearing apart every single atom making up this planet including all of us on quark level.
Colision with a planet or moon would do it, anything that turns the surface to lava really.
Even then there's a chance a few tardigrades hibernate on some material that shoots up and then comes back a few years later once the earth has cooled a bit.
I think they could be cooked by thermal radiation as the ejecta expands.
Tardigrades were placed in the "extremophile" class with good reason. If anything could survive a truly catastrophic impact event, I'd say the smart money goes on the lowly "water bear" to win. :)
Probably most would be, but there are a lot of microorganisms and only a few need to get lucky.
Deep-earth chemoautotrophs might survive that. But ultimately, if the deep subsurface exceeds 150C, it would be hard to survive.
My quick back of envelope calculations...
Imply that the kinetic energy released upon the impact of such an object, show a group sheltering at the ISS (orbit at an altitude of between 370–460 km (200–250 nmi)) or the Tiangong (orbit between 340 and 450 km (210 and 280 mi) ) would not be likely to survive the impact from ejecta thrown into their orbital altitude...
If it’s made of the same stuff as comets, there would be some value to blowing it up, since more parts would then evaporate before impact. Right?
"Puny rock couldn't even cook every last bacterium on our planets surface. Pathetic." - You
I wonder if we can get a flyby mission by 2031 from NASA or ESA.
Would be very challenging to get there in time.
11AU is outside Saturn's orbit. With the high inclination of the orbit (95 degrees) it's coming in on a more-or-less polar orbit of the sun. You might need a Jupiter flyby along the lines of what Ulysses did to fling it out of the ecliptic plane, but Jupiter might not be in the right place in its orbit to make that work..
And you'd need a very light spacecraft (not much mass budget for instruments) launched very fast, and it's far enough away from the sun that you'd want RTG power rather than solar panels.
I can't make a fair comparison between the object in TFA and Oumuamua, the presumed interstellar object that passed through our Solar System not long ago. For the latter, a "Project Lyra" study [1] posits a combination of Earth and Jupiter gravitational assists to catchup with Oumuamua. Could a similar approach work for this comet?
[1]. https://i4is.org/project-lyra-a-solar-oberth-at-10-solar-rad...
> With the high inclination of the orbit (95 degrees) ...
How can such a high inclination be explained?
The observed distribution of inclinations of long-period comets are why it's called the Oort cloud and not the Oort belt..
Short period comets are relatively close to the ecliptic, while very-long-period comets have evenly distributed inclinations suggesting that the objects in the Oort are more or less spherically distributed.
Discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud#Development_of_theo...
what would it take to build and accelerate an object to 295000 kms/s? Like seriously, would it take nuclear propulsion or is it antimatter engine or solar sail?
I'm far enough away from the sun that I want an RTG rather than solar.
I wonder if NASA will still existing in 2028.
NasaX, or maybe NAXA or something.
Department of Gaia Escape
Department of Galactic Exploration
Department of Glorious Evolution
Well XASA obviously!
The government would save billions (tens of billions over the long haul), increase cadence, increase mission scope, and cut flight times, by cutting NASA’s build-&-burn rocket manned program in favor of SpaceX’s reusable manned craft and space refueling services.
SpaceX Starship could also reduce the cost and increase cadence of scientific missions, in two ways:
1) By reducing launch costs via greater system reuse.
2) And by increasing available launch volume, eliminate a lot of the design & manufacturing time, cost, complexity and risk created by today’s need to fit craft into toad’s more limited volumes.
Less need for craft miniaturization means (a) fewer risky/complex unfolding maneuvers in flight, (b) much easier radiation mitigation via more shielding, larger more resilient circuits, redundancy, etc. And (c) fewer craft, with more capabilities and higher longevity.
And as with the manned program, increase mission scope, while reducing transfer to target times, via in orbit refueling.
If only we could find someone with the incentives, plan, means and mandate, to cut government space spending while somehow also expanding its manned & scientific space exploration capabilities and scope.
The hardest part is to find such a uniquely capable person, who also has enough slack time to take this on. A rare trait combination, indeed. What are the chances of finding a genius reefer doom scrolling bloviating slacker? Who could put all that disposable time to better use?
In case that all seemed too pro-SpaceX:
1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.
2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.
I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.
I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.
I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.
At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.
Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.
SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.
If we actually funded public services to the required levels NASA and so forth would be fine to do things in house. We're just allergic to anything that makes actual sense when we have an oligarchy to support. That's it.
NASA and most of the unmanned space exploration programs will probably be fine.
It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.
And in case I need to make myself clear: There is no value in manned space exploration at this point, at least no value that can't be obtained with unmanned programs. I say that as someone who was and will always be fascinated by Apollo, Space Shuttle, et al.
> It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.
The main thing on the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work. It's unlikely Musk would suggest chopping the programs themselves as those are very lucrative contracts SpaceX would be bidding for.
> no value in manned space exploration at this point
Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.
>the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work.
Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it:
* The main stage (aka core stage), essentially a repurposed Space Shuttle external fuel tank with engines bolted on, is contracted out to Boeing, with so far one launch and two completed production units in at least ten years of production.
* The main engines, which are refurbished SSMEs used as throwaways, are contracted out to Aerojet Rocketdyne.
* The SRBs are contracted out to Northrop Grumman, and the first eight launches will all be reusing the old Space Shuttle SRBs.
* The second stage, a repurposed Delta IV second stage, is contracted out to United Launch Alliance which is basically Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
* Finally, the Orion is contracted out to Lockheed Martin and Airbus. Incidentally, this is the only "new" component of the program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
>Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.
Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs.
There was value in manned programs before, we needed to figure out WTF human bodies will do in space. We figured that out at least 20 years ago. Now we need to keep contriving excuses to keep ISS flying and there's barely enough commercial interest in manned space utilization.
No, cut it all. Until we reach the next paradigm shift where we have to send men out into the black again to gain answers, robots can do everything a man could for cheaper, safer, longer, and faster.
11AU is close enough thank you very much
Hey, I want another Hale-Bopp, which was at 0.9 AU.
Is this the '9th planet' that Batygin and Brown, inferred the existence of based off the orbital tracks of smaller objects in the Oort cloud?
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/caltech-researchers-find-...
No; it's about 30 million times too small. :)
No, this is way too small and close for that.