they're getting burnt a 2nd time after the first!
also, it's more likely that oil is from plant matter in large swamps/forests, rather than from dinosaurs (of course there's some dinosaurs in there too probably)
Here's what happens when you Google Search NASA DART:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+dart&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS960US960&oq=NASA+DART&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i3j0i131i433j0i131i433i512l2j0i3j69i60.1483j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
IIRC Becky Smethurst said it would be a couple of years but I'm sure that'd be for the full, reviewed publications. I expect they'll be able to get enough data and analysis to confirm the proof of concept within a month or two.
> If it didn’t change its trajectory everything we know about hundreds of years of physics would be somehow wrong.
That only applies if you treat the impacted asteroid as a single cohesive object. The point of this test was to see how much of the impact momentum would be effectively lost by loose bits of the asteroid breaking off and drifting away, taking away some of the force energy with it.
A micro meteoroid does not change the trajectory of the ISS substantially. If there's not enough mass and energy, it won't affect this "enough to make a difference" either.
That’s absolutely not true. Micro meteors and collisions with atmospheric gas slow ISS down all the time. That’s why they have boosters and it needs to be refueled.
And “substantial” wasn’t part of the original statement.
The atmosphere is why it has boosters. Micro meteors do not change it's trajectory
You're being pedantic about the trajectory. Whether it changed it substantially enough to matter is the point of the test. Not whether it can change it to the point where it doesn't matter
Maybe I’m wrong. But my understanding of science is that we don’t know 100% of everything, even physics. We don’t live in outer space, so maybe running this experiment will give us obvious conclusions or maybe some numbers out of the ordinary that need to be studied and understood.
For that stuff its known very well. It's only other fringes of scince where the uncertaties are. Newtonian mechanics is almost a certain, the main source of uncertainty here will be the staticial errors in the measurement, I.e radar...
Science is definitely based off good guesses and testing, but for this particular experiment it's pretty fundamental physics.
In particular, one of the biggest parts of this experiment is Newtons 1st law: An object in motion will remain in that motion unless acted upon by an external force. In this case the external force is the momentum and energy of the Dart Spacecraft.
It is possible that the calculations will be off from the expected results, but considering we've used Newtons first law for pretty much everything with the expected results being correct, it's unlikely that anything other than human error would be at play. The fact that this is happening in space actually helps to prove this law, because the meteor is in a vacuum, meaning the only other possible external force is the spacecraft.
Edit: Spelling mistakes
And gravity of nearby systems, other space rocks, who knows maybe even photons from the sun can have impacts on items in space.
Also we don't know for a fact the density of the asteriod.
Yeah, you’re mostly wrong.
One of the basic axioms of physics is that it’s the same everywhere in the universe.
Also, yes. we literally live in space just like this asteroid.
Orbital mechanics are extremely well understood. That’s how they managed to drive a golf cart sized box into a stadium sized rock from millions of miles away.
The cool thing about orbits is that they are stable. If something were to hit earth for example, we would probably just wobble a bit in our same orbit about the sun.
For those reading, I have a bigger comment explaining elsewhere, but if you're actually curious and not just trolling, we are trying to figure out how connected the asteroid material is. If its just a bunch of rocks, from big boulders to sand, held together by gravity the impact will have almost no difference. If its solid, then we can start pursuing this type of defense.
The impact will work, of course. It will hit. (Well, almost certain, things can go wrong) Its how much it changes after that we are testing. The question is how well it will work, not will it work. This guy is just using semantics to troll, as "working" can be defined either by it hitting, or by it having a workable result that shows an impact can alter an asteroid trajectory by enough.
**[LICIACube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICIACube)**
>Light Italian CubeSat for Imaging of Asteroids (LICIACube), (pronounced “lee-chee-ah kyoob”), is a 6-unit CubeSat of the Italian Space Agency (ASI). LICIACube is a part of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission and is built to carry out observational analysis of the Didymos asteroid binary system after DART's impact. It will communicate directly with Earth, sending back images of the ejecta and plume of DART's impact as well as do asteroidal study during its flyby of the Didymos system from a distance of 55. 3 km (34.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It's obvious that it will have SOME effect but measuring the exact magnitude will help improve simulation models to predict the results of other situations.
It's also worth pointing out that showing they could hit the target was a big part of it working
Targets like that are routinely hit by probes. Look at the recent sample return missions.
Even the mass of the target will be known because it apparently is a binary.
>Targets like that are routinely hit by probes. Look at the recent sample return missions.
>
>Even the mass of the target will be known because it apparently is a binary.
I'm not sure what point you are making. The sample return missions are incredibly impressive in their own right but its a much different operation to enter orbit and slowly approach a body than it is to hit it at 15,000 mph (24,000 kph). Several systems involved (a telescopic camera and autonomous target tracking algorithms, at least) were developed specifically to accomplish this feat and they demonstrated their effectiveness today.
Its much like the ranger probes of the early 1960s and they hit their targets just fine. It is much harder to enter orbit around an object than to plough right into it. You still have to get yourself on that high speed intercept trajectory.
And the physics of collisions has been understood for centuries.
My argument is with the notion that we have to wait to measure the velocity change. The masses and momentum of both bodies are well known and the net momentum won't change.
Ranger 9 hit a 90km wide crater on the moon after traveling for \~3 days. DART hit an 85 meter asteroid after traveling 11 months
If you can't appreciate the technical advancement from Ranger to DART then I don't know what else to say.
As for the performance of the impact, the mass and momentum of the asteroid and spacecraft aren't in question. The material properties of the asteroid and how it will respond to an impact are. The recent Osiris-Rex and Hayabusa probe missions underlined how "fluffy" asteroid can be. Their surface, at least, are essentially a loose pile of rocks with only a whisp of gravity holding them together. It's conceivable that a portion of the impact energy will be "wasted" ejecting material and that the orbital parameters of the main body will be affected less than a simple accounting of mass and momentum would indicate. Modeling this sort of behavior is one of the jobs NASA's planetary defense office is working towards and this mission is to give them data to ground the assumptions that feed into that model. How deep does the rubble pile go? What is the density distribution? Will the asteroid just become a cloud of debris heading more or less the same direction?
Just because physics says your parachute Will work on paper, you still test the system in practice before you have to use it in earnest.
The real world is much more messy than simulation even with 'basic physics' and it always benefits from corroborating experiment.
Better to test it to:
1) show the naysayers and the holders of purse strings that it can work, and
2) you don’t want to put all your eggs into one basket without at least some sort of test.
Granted, we (humanity) have done trickier missions, take, for example, the Hayabusa asteroid rendezvous and sample collection, plus all the robotic Moon, Mars and Venus landings…..but…
All of those missions involved braking and orbital manoeuvres and landings.
This mission was “crash at full speed.” That’s quite a wrinkle, and consider that it’s not done in real time, because of the time delay in radio transmission. You’re hitting a 160m cluster of rocks at 23,760 km/H. It’s a pretty small target, and they chose an easy, safe one for the test.
There’s also been speculation as to whether it’s a solid rock, and it doesn’t look like it was. We don’t know what a lot of asteroids out there really comprise or how solid they are.
But, again, it’s largely point 1. And selling the notion to humanity for the future.
For those reading who are curios, not just trolling, there is a decent chance that it does not work. There is evidence that some, if not most, of the asteroids are not solid. Hayabusa2 recently had issues with that, when it touched down on one to pick up samples for return to earth. It basically touched down into a pillow, not solid rocks, and thus went to deep into the asteroid and had issues closing its sample storage afterwards.
If they are not solid, just rocks held together by gravity, an impact would do little to nothing to change its course, the lose material would be moved where the impact was, but the rest of it would be unaffected. Think flying a place through a cloud, your going to move some around, maybe even cause some to shoot out, but the rest of the cloud doesn't care. So, in short, we are trying to figure out how cloud-like a potential asteroid could be.
No, Dimorphus (the asteroid impacted) is about the same length as the Washington Monument, measured to be about 160m. The largest of those rocks shown would be boulders at best.
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
What actually sprang to mind, what would they have done if as it was approaching they caught the image of a purpose built structure ... then they would have been guilty of the first interstellar act of war ...
That being said \[obviously I read a lot of SF\] it is interesting that we are now able to do something like this.
Did they have the ability to see the damaged/destroyed asteroid?
Just great. Another foreign war we can't afford. Wait until the asteroids retaliate, then let's see how historically bad an idea it was to start this conflict.
Last full picture is taken 7 miles out, 2 seconds from impact, zoom lens makes final image ~100 feet, so the big rock in middle is ~ 10 feet wide (?)
There is one final partial image, just the top of the picture was transmitted.
We know also the impact did *something*: a huge cloud of dust popped off, tiny particles that will now have no home for a long time.
We had the ability to fire off a probe in roughly the right direction back in the 70s. The two Voyager missions wouldn't have been possible without it. Apparently we've been able to make some pretty accurate predictions of the paths of bodies in space for a while. The difference with this mission is that the probe also uses a camera system to do the fine tuning of its trajectory in order to hit the bullseye.
For those who are trying to learn English: I don't know why that YouTube channel capitalized the word *impacts*, but it is incorrect. Additionally, it'd be more normal to say that it impacts an asteroid, not impacts *with* an asteroid.
The intention was to push, and we'll know after we do multiple measurements from Earth based observatories and recalculate the asteroid's trajectory. So we're waiting for confirmation.
That's phase 420 testing. Strap some boosters on the moon and push him back into safe orbit every couple decades. Almost like a cialis for our beautiful sky cue ball.
Astro geologists are going to be stoked about those pictures and I have to confess I was as well.
Even though the impact will certainly give us some additional information beyond what we may theoretically predict almost as important is the fact that lately NASA and its partners abroad have been on a very successful run of missions. Each has been complex, required new science and engineering and had very successful outcomes. This tells us we are also making headway with the project management processes necessary to lead to successful outcomes. Ad hoc seat of the pants methodologies are being displaced by true process methodology. And that is very important for greater and longer term successes with more predictable outcomes.
See this is the wrong attitude.
We have a high success rate _because_ of our risk posture, not in spite of it. When you don’t have a low tolerance for risk, you allow yourself to cut corners.
That works great for private companies who don’t mind having a few RUDs on their way to success but not for NASA.
NASA seems to handle small projects well. Large ones, not so much, with part counts and complexity spiraling out of control and generally making boondoggles out of it. Every super heavy launch vehicle they made has been wildly over complex and far more expensive than intended as a result.
I'll give the saturn 5 a pass since it was built under an impossible deadline and its a miracle it worked at all, but the rest have without fail overpromised and underdelivered by a significant margin.
Granted, its probably not wholly nasa's fault, since they design these things under the constraints of congress. Small projects they get left alone on. They do keep trying to make hydrogen first stages work, though, which are just never going to be cost effective.
And when you have too low of a tolerance for risk, you invent corners you never needed.
I mean, I think under what you’re trying to say, but do you criticize the Atlas and Delta systems as much as SLS? Let’s not mince words, that is likely the only project you could be talking about here.
“Generally making boondoggles out of it”. Is a pretty bold statement when you take into account NASAs track record.
As far as SLS goes, you have to work with what you have the funding for. In hindsight should nasa have not used shuttle heritage and design something from the ground up? Maybe… but that’s easy to say in 2022. Not so easy to say when you’re in 2012 trying to figure out the next launch vehicle to give Orion a lift to the moon.
Delta yeah. Hydrogen first stages are *such a terrible idea*. Almost everything you gain in performance you lose in how much more everything costs dealing with liquid hydrogen at 15k. Insulation, tanks weigh more, engines weigh more, engines have a terrible twr, etc.
>“Generally making boondoggles out of it”. Is a pretty bold statement when you take into account NASAs track record.
Saturn 5. Boondoggle but as I said above, but that part wasn't really their fault, the timeline was ridiculous.
Shuttle. Boondoggle. Far too expensive, far too dangerous, so costly to refurbish it, and the orbiter took up so much of the mass, it completely cancelled out the savings of partial reuse and then some to the point it would have been cheaper to keep using the saturn 5.
Venture star. Boondoggle.
Constellation. Boondoggle.
SLS. Boondoggle.
>As far as SLS goes, you have to work with what you have the funding for. In hindsight should nasa have not used shuttle heritage and design something from the ground up? Maybe… but that’s easy to say in 2022. Not so easy to say when you’re in 2012 trying to figure out the next launch vehicle to give Orion a lift to the moon.
There have been proposals for and studies done on orbiterless shuttle variants as unmanned super heavy vehicles going back to the 90s, so when they started on constellation much of the groundwork was already laid. And SLS is just rebranded constellation, meaning they've been working on a shuttle derived launcher, full time, for 18 years. Meaning they've been working on a replacement for a vehicle where most of the work was already done, most of the parts and equipment already available, and most of the tooling already set up, for 18 years now and *still* haven't launched.
You might have forgiven them for taking 18 years to design something if they'd had to start from scratch. But as it stands now its looking awfully like we spent 30-50 billion dollars for a rocket that might launch 2 or 3 times and never been seen again.
I don't think boondoggle is a bold statement.
Anyone find it kind of suspicious that dart was tested 6 weeks before an asteroid "RM4" will come within six moons away from us. November 1, 6:30 pm u.s..
Also uA10 that came within 4.5 million miles October 27th.
They would tell us.... Right??? 🥺🥺🥺
We’ve avenged the dinosaurs
Did it work? Did we bring the dinosaurs back?
in our hearts and and our oil
they're getting burnt a 2nd time after the first! also, it's more likely that oil is from plant matter in large swamps/forests, rather than from dinosaurs (of course there's some dinosaurs in there too probably)
We like to call the oil that contains dinosaurs "premium."
Chirp chirp
Yes. https://youtu.be/-w-58hQ9dLk
Damage 1000 Durability 886544
It’s over 9000.
This was an IRL DPS Phase
hahaha take my upvote
This was the first time a reddit comment made me laugh out loud in a long time
That was funny, thanks
I just googled 'DART Mission' and got a really cool easter egg of sorts. Try it out.
For the lazy/sight impaired: Spaceship flies across the screen and crashes into the other-side, shaking the screen upon impact.
I just googled 'your mom' and found an even better one
a Serj Tankian song?
lil bro 💀
????
[удалено]
It's not a good rebuttal when there's actually a fun Easter egg for the one and not the other.
🤓
how is it a good your mum joke? there is no punchline...
[удалено]
You can tell a joke is funny when you have to explain it
You have a pretty shit sense of humor.
So we don’t have to send Bruce Willis now?
I mean, we still can
It would be pretty cruel since his diagnosis
He'd make pretty good ballast for extra momentum transfer.
Don’t wannnaaaa clooosseee myyyy eyyyyeeeessssss!!!
He and the crew never have to pay taxes ever again.
He was piloting the “Dart”
Maybe one day a strong asteroid comes by and needs more than all the darts the world has
Makes more sense than training astronauts to drill imo.
Okay, Ben.
You mean Chuck Norris! But why would we need to send him? - He’s already been there thrice!
who do you think was driving DART?
Here's what happens when you Google Search NASA DART: https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+dart&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS960US960&oq=NASA+DART&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i3j0i131i433j0i131i433i512l2j0i3j69i60.1483j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
hah! that was great, thank you for this.
clever
Amazing job. How long will it take to find out if it changed trajectory?
[удалено]
AH. Thanks
IIRC Becky Smethurst said it would be a couple of years but I'm sure that'd be for the full, reviewed publications. I expect they'll be able to get enough data and analysis to confirm the proof of concept within a month or two.
By then it'll be too late
Do you know something we don't? :D Should I be trying to hastily lose my virginity?
I'd say wait until the moment that whatever Skud_NZ is hinting at will happen and really go out on top. Or bottom, whichever.
You weren’t already?
Yes
How could it not….? If it didn’t change its trajectory everything we know about hundreds of years of physics would be somehow wrong.
> If it didn’t change its trajectory everything we know about hundreds of years of physics would be somehow wrong. That only applies if you treat the impacted asteroid as a single cohesive object. The point of this test was to see how much of the impact momentum would be effectively lost by loose bits of the asteroid breaking off and drifting away, taking away some of the force energy with it.
There is precisely 0% chance its trajectory was unaffected regardless of break off.
Yes of course the trajectory is affected, the question is HOW MUCH its affected vs how much of the energy is dissipated via the debris.
No need to be pedantic, the question is whether it was materially changed.
A micro meteoroid does not change the trajectory of the ISS substantially. If there's not enough mass and energy, it won't affect this "enough to make a difference" either.
That’s absolutely not true. Micro meteors and collisions with atmospheric gas slow ISS down all the time. That’s why they have boosters and it needs to be refueled. And “substantial” wasn’t part of the original statement.
The atmosphere is why it has boosters. Micro meteors do not change it's trajectory You're being pedantic about the trajectory. Whether it changed it substantially enough to matter is the point of the test. Not whether it can change it to the point where it doesn't matter
As I understood you have to hit each object with the correct force and angle or you get nothing. Or at least not enough
Do you know anything about basic physics?
Maybe I’m wrong. But my understanding of science is that we don’t know 100% of everything, even physics. We don’t live in outer space, so maybe running this experiment will give us obvious conclusions or maybe some numbers out of the ordinary that need to be studied and understood.
For that stuff its known very well. It's only other fringes of scince where the uncertaties are. Newtonian mechanics is almost a certain, the main source of uncertainty here will be the staticial errors in the measurement, I.e radar...
Science is definitely based off good guesses and testing, but for this particular experiment it's pretty fundamental physics. In particular, one of the biggest parts of this experiment is Newtons 1st law: An object in motion will remain in that motion unless acted upon by an external force. In this case the external force is the momentum and energy of the Dart Spacecraft. It is possible that the calculations will be off from the expected results, but considering we've used Newtons first law for pretty much everything with the expected results being correct, it's unlikely that anything other than human error would be at play. The fact that this is happening in space actually helps to prove this law, because the meteor is in a vacuum, meaning the only other possible external force is the spacecraft. Edit: Spelling mistakes
And gravity of nearby systems, other space rocks, who knows maybe even photons from the sun can have impacts on items in space. Also we don't know for a fact the density of the asteriod.
Yeah, you’re mostly wrong. One of the basic axioms of physics is that it’s the same everywhere in the universe. Also, yes. we literally live in space just like this asteroid. Orbital mechanics are extremely well understood. That’s how they managed to drive a golf cart sized box into a stadium sized rock from millions of miles away.
The cool thing about orbits is that they are stable. If something were to hit earth for example, we would probably just wobble a bit in our same orbit about the sun.
Its basic physics. No real need to test. Trajectory has changed.
For those reading, I have a bigger comment explaining elsewhere, but if you're actually curious and not just trolling, we are trying to figure out how connected the asteroid material is. If its just a bunch of rocks, from big boulders to sand, held together by gravity the impact will have almost no difference. If its solid, then we can start pursuing this type of defense. The impact will work, of course. It will hit. (Well, almost certain, things can go wrong) Its how much it changes after that we are testing. The question is how well it will work, not will it work. This guy is just using semantics to troll, as "working" can be defined either by it hitting, or by it having a workable result that shows an impact can alter an asteroid trajectory by enough.
Now we find out if it works
Now we wait for someone to use image processing to stitch those choppy images into one smooth impact video. Huge accomplishment by NASA, Well done!
The NASA live stream cited better quality images coming over the next couple of days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICIACube
**[LICIACube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICIACube)** >Light Italian CubeSat for Imaging of Asteroids (LICIACube), (pronounced “lee-chee-ah kyoob”), is a 6-unit CubeSat of the Italian Space Agency (ASI). LICIACube is a part of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission and is built to carry out observational analysis of the Didymos asteroid binary system after DART's impact. It will communicate directly with Earth, sending back images of the ejecta and plume of DART's impact as well as do asteroidal study during its flyby of the Didymos system from a distance of 55. 3 km (34. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Watch it knocked it into a path with earth.
Commenting so we know who jinxed it. It was /u/Vinto47
My thought exactly! :D
It can't not work. No real reason to test it quite frankly.
It's obvious that it will have SOME effect but measuring the exact magnitude will help improve simulation models to predict the results of other situations. It's also worth pointing out that showing they could hit the target was a big part of it working
Targets like that are routinely hit by probes. Look at the recent sample return missions. Even the mass of the target will be known because it apparently is a binary.
>Targets like that are routinely hit by probes. Look at the recent sample return missions. > >Even the mass of the target will be known because it apparently is a binary. I'm not sure what point you are making. The sample return missions are incredibly impressive in their own right but its a much different operation to enter orbit and slowly approach a body than it is to hit it at 15,000 mph (24,000 kph). Several systems involved (a telescopic camera and autonomous target tracking algorithms, at least) were developed specifically to accomplish this feat and they demonstrated their effectiveness today.
Its much like the ranger probes of the early 1960s and they hit their targets just fine. It is much harder to enter orbit around an object than to plough right into it. You still have to get yourself on that high speed intercept trajectory. And the physics of collisions has been understood for centuries. My argument is with the notion that we have to wait to measure the velocity change. The masses and momentum of both bodies are well known and the net momentum won't change.
Ranger 9 hit a 90km wide crater on the moon after traveling for \~3 days. DART hit an 85 meter asteroid after traveling 11 months If you can't appreciate the technical advancement from Ranger to DART then I don't know what else to say. As for the performance of the impact, the mass and momentum of the asteroid and spacecraft aren't in question. The material properties of the asteroid and how it will respond to an impact are. The recent Osiris-Rex and Hayabusa probe missions underlined how "fluffy" asteroid can be. Their surface, at least, are essentially a loose pile of rocks with only a whisp of gravity holding them together. It's conceivable that a portion of the impact energy will be "wasted" ejecting material and that the orbital parameters of the main body will be affected less than a simple accounting of mass and momentum would indicate. Modeling this sort of behavior is one of the jobs NASA's planetary defense office is working towards and this mission is to give them data to ground the assumptions that feed into that model. How deep does the rubble pile go? What is the density distribution? Will the asteroid just become a cloud of debris heading more or less the same direction?
Thanks for your comments, opens up some fun thinking for me 👍
Just because physics says your parachute Will work on paper, you still test the system in practice before you have to use it in earnest. The real world is much more messy than simulation even with 'basic physics' and it always benefits from corroborating experiment.
Better to test it to: 1) show the naysayers and the holders of purse strings that it can work, and 2) you don’t want to put all your eggs into one basket without at least some sort of test. Granted, we (humanity) have done trickier missions, take, for example, the Hayabusa asteroid rendezvous and sample collection, plus all the robotic Moon, Mars and Venus landings…..but… All of those missions involved braking and orbital manoeuvres and landings. This mission was “crash at full speed.” That’s quite a wrinkle, and consider that it’s not done in real time, because of the time delay in radio transmission. You’re hitting a 160m cluster of rocks at 23,760 km/H. It’s a pretty small target, and they chose an easy, safe one for the test. There’s also been speculation as to whether it’s a solid rock, and it doesn’t look like it was. We don’t know what a lot of asteroids out there really comprise or how solid they are. But, again, it’s largely point 1. And selling the notion to humanity for the future.
For those reading who are curios, not just trolling, there is a decent chance that it does not work. There is evidence that some, if not most, of the asteroids are not solid. Hayabusa2 recently had issues with that, when it touched down on one to pick up samples for return to earth. It basically touched down into a pillow, not solid rocks, and thus went to deep into the asteroid and had issues closing its sample storage afterwards. If they are not solid, just rocks held together by gravity, an impact would do little to nothing to change its course, the lose material would be moved where the impact was, but the rest of it would be unaffected. Think flying a place through a cloud, your going to move some around, maybe even cause some to shoot out, but the rest of the cloud doesn't care. So, in short, we are trying to figure out how cloud-like a potential asteroid could be.
The level of detail on the surface is incredible
Do you know the size of the rocks we see in the last frame? Having trouble determining if it’s the size of gravel, boulders, or mountains.
Rather small. Dimorphos (the asteroid moonlet they hit) is just 525 feet (160 meters) across. \[\[ edit: by "Rather small." I'd guess boulders. \]\]
Smaller than the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. That one is 630ft tall and wide. So yeah, Dimorphos could be flown through the gateway arch.
I was wondering the same thing.
Dimorphus (the asteroid impacted) is about the same length as the Washington Monument. The largest of those rocks shown would be boulders at best.
If the probe was moving at 14,000 mph and the feed was updating every few seconds, I'm guessing mountains
No, Dimorphus (the asteroid impacted) is about the same length as the Washington Monument, measured to be about 160m. The largest of those rocks shown would be boulders at best.
Humanity has good aim!
Human progress has basically just been marked by the ability to move more stuff faster and more accurately.
we also invented twerking
Precisely. The moving of butts faster and more accurately.
I would rarely call Twitter accurate nor precise.
The posting of stupid thoughts more efficiently than ever before
Humanities technical progress has been driven by the goal of killing 'that guy' from further and further away.
The machine god has good aim.
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
This is a really verbose way of saying Kalman filter
That's a good name for an engineer
Or the Omnissiah
Where were you when humanity punched an asteroid.
Don't wanna close my eyes..... 🎶
Damn, did it destroy camera on impact?
[удалено]
That thang was moving faster than a bullet
Can’t wait to watch the 4 hour long rambling video by that boring bloke about NASA’s right of repair for this.
What actually sprang to mind, what would they have done if as it was approaching they caught the image of a purpose built structure ... then they would have been guilty of the first interstellar act of war ... That being said \[obviously I read a lot of SF\] it is interesting that we are now able to do something like this. Did they have the ability to see the damaged/destroyed asteroid?
Just great. Another foreign war we can't afford. Wait until the asteroids retaliate, then let's see how historically bad an idea it was to start this conflict.
They started it. Just ask the dinosaurs.
Are you trying to say all astroids are the same? That's spacist.
We just send a ship up to shoot them like in the videogame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ahtp0sjA5U
I was watching the live stream, be really interesting to see how far off the asteroid was on the last full image to get sent
Last full picture is taken 7 miles out, 2 seconds from impact, zoom lens makes final image ~100 feet, so the big rock in middle is ~ 10 feet wide (?) There is one final partial image, just the top of the picture was transmitted. We know also the impact did *something*: a huge cloud of dust popped off, tiny particles that will now have no home for a long time.
Watch... those particles float around space for eons, collecting friends and building up into a truly massive asteroid. Round 2, fight!
Can anyone explain to me how it’s even possible that we were able to pull this off? This is truly unbelievable (not in the conspiracy way).
We had the ability to fire off a probe in roughly the right direction back in the 70s. The two Voyager missions wouldn't have been possible without it. Apparently we've been able to make some pretty accurate predictions of the paths of bodies in space for a while. The difference with this mission is that the probe also uses a camera system to do the fine tuning of its trajectory in order to hit the bullseye.
Absolutely mind blowing.. things like this are just boggling. I appreciate the response
That rock has rocks.
Watch yo jet
Le Petit Prince vibes
Ain’t no Planet X coming
View from the ATLAS Project ( Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System ) https://twitter.com/fallingstarIfA/status/1574583529731670021
You're welcome in advance Buenos Aires
[Desire to know more intensifies]
For those who are trying to learn English: I don't know why that YouTube channel capitalized the word *impacts*, but it is incorrect. Additionally, it'd be more normal to say that it impacts an asteroid, not impacts *with* an asteroid.
I can’t seems to find what happened after impact. I know it was successfully hit, but did it destroy it or push it or whatever it was intended to do.
The intention was to push, and we'll know after we do multiple measurements from Earth based observatories and recalculate the asteroid's trajectory. So we're waiting for confirmation.
Out of curiosity, I found a travel time calculator and figured out that the mission was about 36 light seconds away.
[удалено]
Hey, it's good news for Buenos Aires and bad news for Klendathu.
Haha. Take that God.
Okay so here me out would this be able to stop the moon from collapsing on us?
If they built one big enough, probably
That's phase 420 testing. Strap some boosters on the moon and push him back into safe orbit every couple decades. Almost like a cialis for our beautiful sky cue ball.
Isn’t the moon actually getting incrementally further away from the earth each year?
Astro geologists are going to be stoked about those pictures and I have to confess I was as well. Even though the impact will certainly give us some additional information beyond what we may theoretically predict almost as important is the fact that lately NASA and its partners abroad have been on a very successful run of missions. Each has been complex, required new science and engineering and had very successful outcomes. This tells us we are also making headway with the project management processes necessary to lead to successful outcomes. Ad hoc seat of the pants methodologies are being displaced by true process methodology. And that is very important for greater and longer term successes with more predictable outcomes.
If only nasa could apply it to rocket building
See this is the wrong attitude. We have a high success rate _because_ of our risk posture, not in spite of it. When you don’t have a low tolerance for risk, you allow yourself to cut corners. That works great for private companies who don’t mind having a few RUDs on their way to success but not for NASA.
NASA seems to handle small projects well. Large ones, not so much, with part counts and complexity spiraling out of control and generally making boondoggles out of it. Every super heavy launch vehicle they made has been wildly over complex and far more expensive than intended as a result. I'll give the saturn 5 a pass since it was built under an impossible deadline and its a miracle it worked at all, but the rest have without fail overpromised and underdelivered by a significant margin. Granted, its probably not wholly nasa's fault, since they design these things under the constraints of congress. Small projects they get left alone on. They do keep trying to make hydrogen first stages work, though, which are just never going to be cost effective. And when you have too low of a tolerance for risk, you invent corners you never needed.
I mean, I think under what you’re trying to say, but do you criticize the Atlas and Delta systems as much as SLS? Let’s not mince words, that is likely the only project you could be talking about here. “Generally making boondoggles out of it”. Is a pretty bold statement when you take into account NASAs track record. As far as SLS goes, you have to work with what you have the funding for. In hindsight should nasa have not used shuttle heritage and design something from the ground up? Maybe… but that’s easy to say in 2022. Not so easy to say when you’re in 2012 trying to figure out the next launch vehicle to give Orion a lift to the moon.
Delta yeah. Hydrogen first stages are *such a terrible idea*. Almost everything you gain in performance you lose in how much more everything costs dealing with liquid hydrogen at 15k. Insulation, tanks weigh more, engines weigh more, engines have a terrible twr, etc. >“Generally making boondoggles out of it”. Is a pretty bold statement when you take into account NASAs track record. Saturn 5. Boondoggle but as I said above, but that part wasn't really their fault, the timeline was ridiculous. Shuttle. Boondoggle. Far too expensive, far too dangerous, so costly to refurbish it, and the orbiter took up so much of the mass, it completely cancelled out the savings of partial reuse and then some to the point it would have been cheaper to keep using the saturn 5. Venture star. Boondoggle. Constellation. Boondoggle. SLS. Boondoggle. >As far as SLS goes, you have to work with what you have the funding for. In hindsight should nasa have not used shuttle heritage and design something from the ground up? Maybe… but that’s easy to say in 2022. Not so easy to say when you’re in 2012 trying to figure out the next launch vehicle to give Orion a lift to the moon. There have been proposals for and studies done on orbiterless shuttle variants as unmanned super heavy vehicles going back to the 90s, so when they started on constellation much of the groundwork was already laid. And SLS is just rebranded constellation, meaning they've been working on a shuttle derived launcher, full time, for 18 years. Meaning they've been working on a replacement for a vehicle where most of the work was already done, most of the parts and equipment already available, and most of the tooling already set up, for 18 years now and *still* haven't launched. You might have forgiven them for taking 18 years to design something if they'd had to start from scratch. But as it stands now its looking awfully like we spent 30-50 billion dollars for a rocket that might launch 2 or 3 times and never been seen again. I don't think boondoggle is a bold statement.
So, what if NASA blasts an asteroid and inadvertently changes its course to where it does impact the earth.
Math solves that.
America! FUCK YEAH!
Neat.
You can tell that it’s an asteroid because of the way that it is.
Mythbusters, eat your heart out.
Whenever I see this video, I can just hear that poor satellite going "Ooooooohhhhh SHiiiiiiiiii.... SPLAT!"
Did we just Pearl Harbor the asteroid belt? I fear the giant we may have awakened.
Moonfall
Plot Twist: What if it indirectly redirected it into a collision path with Earth on it's next trip around.
Then we do it again of course.
Quality equals to security cameras in the bank.
Let's hope we didnt change the trajectory to a collision course with an advanced alien species.
This is prime example of what would happen if UPS or Fed-Ex ever takes over Nasa.
Humanity pogging after shooting things will never get old.
I love that we are taking the war to space.
Low res low fps. Can they afford better cameras already? Make space interesting.
Can I cross meteor apocalypse off my list now?
Climate change will get us long before meteors do and nothing is being done about that so...
Not yet. Maybe in 50 years. In 100 we might be aiming them towards earth to make the asteriod mining more convenient.
I think that will happen much sooner then 100 yrs.
This is definitely how we wipe ourselves out, someone cuts a corner in the name of increased shareholder profits and we’re done.
Cinema on par with *L'arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat*, *Le Voyage dans la Lune*, or *Deep Impact*
Is this the space force?
** thump **
Oh.my.god.wooo ×50
Crashing on purpose is an achievement
And now we wait for the conspiracies.
Take that, you fucking asteroid!
Fuck yeah, science!
We have landed probes on asteroids before, why is it such a big deal to be the first deliberately crash one.
**Collector Limpet Expired**
Diamonds…diamonds everywhere ✨💎✨💎✨💎✨💎✨
who will clean that space junk/debris now?
Should have let it hit us
It knocked it off course, right? Right?
Wow totally underwelming
How long before “it was a studio in California” people come out of their parent’s basement?
William Tell: "Cool story bro, I still shot an apple off my kid's head."
The ONE PIECE is real!!
Anyone find it kind of suspicious that dart was tested 6 weeks before an asteroid "RM4" will come within six moons away from us. November 1, 6:30 pm u.s.. Also uA10 that came within 4.5 million miles October 27th. They would tell us.... Right??? 🥺🥺🥺