Slamming our moon with everything that's "Apophis"
Brad Guth
go around, though has a little too darn much spare energy to share and
share alike, as to sort of burn whatever you'd like to process into any
number of other primary substances, and/or of merely vaporising such
local substances into becoming atmospheric elements seems doable, as
well as on behalf of easily accommodating a few of those 100 GW laser
cannons that could help manage the likes of diverting and/or vaporising
Apophis/99942.
However, I tend to favor intentionally running that nasty sucker into
our moon, thus providing a once and for all do-everything termination
solution, that's offering more than a win-win for humanity, as well as
for the benefit of terraforming our moon into having a bit more of an
atmosphere.
99942 / Apophis
NEO "Apophis" supposedly offers a minimum worth of 4.6e10 kg of what's
roughly 400 m by whatever volumetric configuration that's somewhat
unknown, and depending on composition of that item being potentially
worth 8.2e10 kg up to 12e10 kg that's due April 2029, as hopefully
passing us by within 30 km on this first nearby trek, and only then
supposedly insured to nail our sorry butts come 2036.
At 400 m = 3.35e7 m3, whereas if that were mostly iron(7.86t/m3) it'll
amount to 26e10 kg (260 megatonnes)
KE=0.5MV2 : if impacting Earth or best that of impacting our nifty
punching-bag of a salty moon at 12.6 km/s = 20.639e18 joules
(20,639,000 megajoules). That event (Earth or Moon) ott to be damn
impressive.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
million terajoules.
Oops, sorry about my previously lousy math again, it's 20+ million
terajoules (not 20 million megajoules) we're talking about.
I guess Usenet silence is extra golden these days, especially if it's
related to allowing another one of my silly mistakes to stand, and of
no matter what the truth isn't ever going to be told over each and
every one of our dead bodies.
What's otherwise the warm and fuzzy point of all this topic avoidance
and/or dead silence form of Usenet banishment?
Within all of this Usenet infomercial and rusemaster land, there seems
not so much as a naysay peep from their usual all-out topic/author
bashings, as from any of their usual all-knowing words of wisdom to
being found, as in not even receiving a traditional topic/author
bashing worth of a typically discouraging flak of nasty words with any
regard to my notion of accommodating a moon+Apophis merger?
With the potential worth of of Apophis contributing 20+ million
terajoules, that which should actually manage to produce a rather great
deal of lunar atmosphere, as well as sharing a few spare tonnes of
fresh moon rocks and perhaps even offering a few secondary shards of
Apophis as eventually headed our way, and yet there's still not so much
as one such actual Usenet expertise to behold.
It seems the once and for all do-everything benefit that's entirely a
win-win on behalf of all of humanity and that of benefiting our
environment, from such a terrific notion of simply artificially
terminating the likes of Apophis for good, by way of having it ever so
slightly redirected so as to smack itself directly into our moon isn't
getting the usual fair share of Usenet flak that it deserves. Where's
all of that positive wag-thy-dog worth of infomercial-science and
conditional laws of physics when we really need it?
QUESTIONS:
At the most influential angle and timing of lunar impact; what can 20
million terajoules accomplish towards affecting the lunar orbit?
Same question, except for considering the least disruptive angle of
impact?
How about offering us a full set of possible what-if Apophis-->moon
mergers?
What's the absolute maximum worth of a head-on impact velocity?
-
Brad Guth
Pascal Bourguignon
> At the most influential angle and timing of lunar impact; what can 20
> million terajoules accomplish towards affecting the lunar orbit?
Nothing.
4.6e10 kg vs. 7.349e22 kg @ 12.5 km/s
If all the cinetic energy of Apophis was transmitted to the Moon (no
heat, no small ejecta, etc), that would translate to an increase of
the speed of the Moon of:
4.6e10 / 7.349e22 * 12.5 = 7.8e-12 km/s or 7.8e-9 m/s
Moon's distance from the Earth is increasing by about 3 centimeters
per year, which probably correspond to a bigger speed variation.
m v² / r = m (v+dv)² / (r+dr)
(r+dr) / r = (v+dv)² / v²
(r+dr) / r = (v+dv)² / v²
1 + dr/r = ( v² + 2vdv ) / v² ; (dv)² will be insignificant
1 + dr/r = 1 + 2dv/v
dv = dr × v/2r
r = 405696e3 m (apogee)
v = 968 m/s (apogee)
dr = 3e-3 m
dv = 3e-3 * 968 / 405696e3 = 7.1e-9 m/s
Ok, so the impact of Apophis would be worth ±one year of tides.
> Same question, except for considering the least disruptive angle of
> impact?
Once again, the answer is Nothing.
The least disruptive angle of implact would transfer all the cinetic
energy of Apophis to the Moon as rotation, which given the moment of
inertia, would not amount to much either, and given the locking of the
Moon rotation with respect to its Earth orbit, what we could see is a
little more libration for some years.
> How about offering us a full set of possible what-if Apophis-->moon
> mergers?
>
> What's the absolute maximum worth of a head-on impact velocity?
Actually, the worst that could happen, is the ejection of small rocks
that could later intersect Earth orbit: we'd have some nice flying
stars nights.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
Brad Guth
Thanks for all of the nifty NEO Apophis/moon impact, or rather NMO(Near
Moon Object) information.
: At the most influential angle and timing of lunar impact; what can
20
: million terajoules accomplish towards affecting the lunar orbit?
>Nothing.
>4.6e10 kg vs. 7.349e22 kg @ 12.5 km/s
>If all the cinetic energy of Apophis was transmitted to the Moon (no
>heat, no small ejecta, etc), that would translate to an increase of
>the speed of the Moon of:
>4.6e10 / 7.349e22 * 12.5 = 7.8e-12 km/s or 7.8e-9 m/s
Isn't the velocity factor of 12.5 supposed to be 12.5e3/s, and of that
amount supposedly squared?
>Ok, so the impact of Apophis would be worth ±one year of tides.
>The least disruptive angle of implact would transfer all the cinetic
>energy of Apophis to the Moon as rotation, which given the moment of
>inertia, would not amount to much either, and given the locking of the
>Moon rotation with respect to its Earth orbit, what we could see is a
>little more libration for some years.
In other words, our tidal lock on our moon is so much greater that
there's no possible tidal anti-lock of this rotation?
The potential of seeing just 7.8e-9 extra m/s and subsequent libration
seems a wee bit on the conservative side, though still quite
interesting by way of suggesting that we'd have damn little if anything
to fear by way using our moon as a punching bag on behalf of
terminating the otherwise potentially leathal threat of what Apophis
could amount to, especially upon delivering a serious impact upon our
one and only prime target or ground zero, out of all the possible
places seems that it'll usually be the likes of NYC.
Even though it has been more recently estimated for being as small as
320 meters and worth 2.68 g/cm3, however if we're talking about a 400
meter item it seems that we're down using the wussy density of 1.4
g/cm3 as representing the total mass of merely 4.6e10 kg, and only 12.5
km/s as the combined impact velocity. What if it's actually more iron
like and having a final NEO/NMO closing SOA that's greater?
Apparently you haven't further resolved as to what the worse case of
terminal velocity might become if it were being artificially realigned
or otherwise thrusted/retro-thrusted along it's path, thereby timed as
for accomplishing a head-on lunar impact. If the terminal velocity
were somehow limited as based upon a lunar rear-ender of -968 m/s
that's offering the 12.5 km/s, therefore the direct side impact becomes
worse off at 13.468 km/s, and that of a head-on impact should amount to
12.5 + 1.936 = 14.436 km/s.
What's the +/- range of estimates as to the mass of Apophis?
As based upon a 320 m at 2.68 g/cm3 or of the 400 m asteroid at 1.4
g/cm3, what if instead we're actually dealing with more iron or even
that of a somewhat greater than iron worth of metallic density?
With a mean orbital speed of nearly 31 km/s, What's keeping a lid on
that closing velocity of merely 12.5 km/s as asteroid 99942 Apophis
gets pulled towards our combined three-body of gravity influence of
Earth + moon + sol by April 13, 2029 (AKA friday the 13th)?
We're supposedly going along at roughly 30 km/s around our sun, however
the lunar nearly side impact is somewhat's taking the bulk of that
factor out of the formula.
What's your best swag as to the combined velocity and final direction
or angular approach of Apophis by the time it's about to give us the
kiss of death?
According to one trajectory map of April 13, 2029 (Wikipedia Image
2004mn4d4_s) suggesting the near miss of mother Earth is putting
Apophis on a route that's obviously advancing itself towards the sun,
that's also having to trek nearly directly through LL-1 and thus into a
potentially direct face-side or glancing impact with our moon. Whereas
the further Apophis gets naturally or artificially diverted away from
Earth the more likely the lunar impact. A month prior to friday April
13, 2029 is when Apophis will have had the added benefit of the Jupiter
and Mars alignments as retro focus. It's looking as though the names
of Earth and moon are in fact written all over that nasty little
sucker.
I'm assuming there's better trajectory mapping becoming available
(especially soon after the years of 2013 and better yet after 2021)
that'll get the timing down to the hour if not the minute, or is that
refinement a bit too much need-to-know or otherwise remaining
nondisclosure at this time?
-
Brad Guth
Ian Stirling
> Pascal Bourguignon,
> Thanks for all of the nifty NEO Apophis/moon impact, or rather NMO(Near
> Moon Object) information.
>
> : At the most influential angle and timing of lunar impact; what can
> 20
> : million terajoules accomplish towards affecting the lunar orbit?
>>Nothing.
>>4.6e10 kg vs. 7.349e22 kg @ 12.5 km/s
>>If all the cinetic energy of Apophis was transmitted to the Moon (no
>>heat, no small ejecta, etc), that would translate to an increase of
>>the speed of the Moon of:
>>4.6e10 / 7.349e22 * 12.5 = 7.8e-12 km/s or 7.8e-9 m/s
> Isn't the velocity factor of 12.5 supposed to be 12.5e3/s, and of that
> amount supposedly squared?
My God...
Before you start designing grand schemes, perhaps you should read the
first chapter of almost any physics text book.
And look at the right hand side.
the units are km/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kinetic%20energy
Brad Guth
>Before you start designing grand schemes, perhaps you should read the
>first chapter of almost any physics text book.
expertise, and supposedly your all-knowing expertise that's even
better. Why do I have to know all there is to know?
>And look at the right hand side.
>the units are km/s.
Thanks for the chat, but why are you speaking on behalf of "Pascal
Bourguignon"?
Is what "Pascal Bourguignon" contributed being sufficiently correct or
not?
Is there a basic an error (as I'd indicated) in his math, or not?
What's your best swag?
Besides, what so terribly "designing grand schemes"?
It seems that a slight amount of properly timed reaction thrusting,
perhaps of ion thrusting throughout a year or so is what should
accomplish the necessary trajectory alteration, thus insuring a
grand-slam of stuffing asteroid Apophis/99942 once and for all into
targeting itself into our nifty moon (which may via natural
happenstance transpire anyway), that which our moon could use a new
crater a whole lot better off than NYC, as well as for the lunar
environment benefitting from the rather substantial amount of
atmosphere generated in the process.
I'm thinking that giving our moon a 4.6e10 kg facial enema via Apophis
at nearly 13.5 km/s isn't such a bad idea after all.
According to "Pascal Bourguignon"; supposedly the major lunar gravity
mascon that's facing Earth, plus that of our tidal lock that has got
such a firm grip upon our moon, being of so much greater potential than
what any wussy 4.6e10 kg asteroid impacting from the rear or even from
whatever's a glancing blow at merely 12.5 km/s can introduce, of that
impact being so much so insignificant there's little if any possible
tidal anti-lock of lunar rotation.
On the other hand, if you have some better physics and the more correct
math to go along, please share.
According to this same expertise, there's but only a slight amount of
added orbital velocity to being had, such as if our moon was poked
directly in the butt, of such contributing an extra 7.8e-9 m/s as based
upon the 4.6e10 kg making 100% contact at 12.5 km/s. However, a more
than likely 'Friday the 13th' side/facial impact is going to represent
a touch more impact velocity of nearly an extra km/s, that should
become worth nearly 13.5 km/s, and if the same math were applied as for
converting this energy into creating a bit more velocity of recession,
say 8.44e-9 m/s might suggest something worthy of our consideration.
Given 31.536e6 seconds/yr, therefore 31.536e6 * 8.44e-9 m/s = 266e-3
m/yr of added libration to the existing 34 mm/yr = 300 mm (I can
certainly live with that), which is actually a good thing on behalf of
counteracting what the 256e6t worth of the CM/ISS plus tether dipole
tonnage and of it's reasonably massive termination platform that's
reaching to within 4r, as representing just the exact opposite of
libration, whereas the full blown LSE-CM/ISS being essentially capable
of pulling the moon towards Earth by enough measure to moderate a bit
of the ongoing 35 mm/year rate of recession.
Therefore, apparently there's nothing within the regular laws of
physics against giving our moon this serious facial enema, with only
mother Earth and all of her humanity that'll be damn glad it's creating
that massive crater and subsequently loads of atmosphere on behalf of
our dark and nasty moon, rather than leaving any chance of asteroid
99942/Apophis doing a WMD like number upon the environment and
infrastructure of our Earth.
The following question that I have amounts to our realizing upon what
other NEO/NMO sorts of items can be robotically diverted into our moon?
Another somewhat related question; how much applied energy would it
take for diverting the likes of an icy Sedna into glancing off Venus,
so as off-loading a few teratonnes of salty ice and subsequently
becoming a proto-moon that temporarily ends up at near Venus L2, or
otherwise eventually becoming similar in moon like function as to
orbiting Venus at perhaps r32 (193,664 km)?
-
Brad Guth
Ian Stirling
>>Before you start designing grand schemes, perhaps you should read the
>>first chapter of almost any physics text book.
> But that's exactly why we have "Pascal Bourguignon" for such wizardly
> expertise, and supposedly your all-knowing expertise that's even
> better. Why do I have to know all there is to know?
Because getting calculating momentum confused with kinetic energy is a
pretty idiotic mistake to make, if you're pontificating on matters
orbital.
Pascal Bourguignon
> Besides, what so terribly "designing grand schemes"?
> It seems that a slight amount of properly timed reaction thrusting,
> perhaps of ion thrusting throughout a year or so is what should
> accomplish the necessary trajectory alteration, thus insuring a
> grand-slam of stuffing asteroid Apophis/99942 once and for all into
> targeting itself into our nifty moon (which may via natural
> happenstance transpire anyway), that which our moon could use a new
> crater a whole lot better off than NYC,
What the Moon did to you for you to hate it so much? ;-)
If the purpose is to deviate an asteroid from a collision on the
Earth, you only need to deviate its trajectory of 6500 km at most
(from the center of the Earth). Why would you spend more energy, to
deviate this trajectory 385000 km to hit the Moon? Well, even if you
wanted a 10x security margin, that'd be only 65000 km, still far from
the Moon!
> as well as for the lunar
> environment benefitting from the rather substantial amount of
> atmosphere generated in the process.
There is enough atmosphere around the Moon. The only problem is that
the Moon gravity is not strong enough to keep it!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'.
Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
assurance people in it's wake.
Brad Guth
>pretty idiotic mistake to make, if you're pontificating on matters
>orbital.
Since you're so all knowing, perhaps contributing your best swag as to
what the impact reaction Dv is?
How much of such impact energy (reaction mass) typically gets converted
into Dv.
-
Brad Guth
OM
wrote:
>Before you start designing grand schemes, perhaps you should read the
>first chapter of almost any physics text book.
...Instead of the story bible for "Space: 1999", natch.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
OM
<use...@informatimago.com> wrote:
>What the Moon did to you for you to hate it so much? ;-)
...Mox nix. He's just taking out his frustration at being a willing
participant - actually begging for more, in fact - in his own child
molestation at ages 6 thru 14 by his father, uncle and grandfather.
All at the same time on his 10th birthday, according to police
records.
...Do us all a favor, tho, and killfile the demented troll. The sooner
you do so, the quicker he'll be put out of our misery once again.
Brad Guth
Gee whiz and silly me, whereas I'd thought a nifty new crater on the
moon would be a somewhat better alternative than a terrestrial crater
involving New York City if not the entire state of New York.
>If the purpose is to deviate an asteroid from a collision on the
>Earth, you only need to deviate its trajectory of 6500 km at most
>(from the center of the Earth). Why would you spend more energy, to
>deviate this trajectory 385000 km to hit the Moon?
Where the freaking hell did any of this come from? The purpose as I'd
originally imposed by this topic was to intentionally impact the moon.
I'd actually like to see this within a computer simulator that'll
visually depict what's possible. Don't suppose you know anything about
creating and/or of locating such software?
The moon is not going to be of any 385000 km off course come April 13,
2029. The moon might even be sufficiently dead-on or merely off by
only a few +/- hundred km via the bent trajectory once Apophis/99942
comes so close to impacting mother Earth. Didn't those MIB allow
yourself to having a solar simulator that includes our moon?
>Well, even if you wanted a 10x security margin, that'd be only 65000
>km, still far from the Moon!
Where the hell did any of this come from? Why are you suddenly into
avoiding the original topic? Did those MIB show up? The notion is
obviously to miss Earth by a good margin of safety, but then accomplish
a real number upon nailing our moon that's essentially in the
neighborhood.
The asteroid Apophis/99942 is already going to come damn close if not
by way of the existing orbital happenstance capable of impacting our
moon as is. With better math and the intent of insuring the
termination of that bad sucker into our moon would obviously eliminate
all future concerns on behalf of Earth, of eliminating any chance of
coming back around in 2036 for doing a real number upon Earth.
Possibly, if we were only smart enough, we could even try this for the
2021 cycle.
Perhaps I need to sak; why do you want Apophis/99942 to impact Earth?
Obviously a +/- 6500 km divation of such an asteroid that's years away
should not be all that much of a problem, that is if we actually had a
sufficiently AI/robotic lander that could get a thruster onto the
surface and/or simply a few small nuclear detonations timed in order to
cause the necessary trajectory shift that would put that asteroid on
target of impacting our moon.
I you're afraid of what the lunar impact is good for, then I'd suppose
that a solar impact would have to do, unless we'd care to try for
something of impacting Mars, Venus or Mercury, from which most all of
those alternatives would give us terrific science results for pennies
on the dollar, or rather for pennies on the billions upon billions of
dollars as long as we manage to avoid impacting mother Earth.
>There is enough atmosphere around the Moon. The only problem is that
>the Moon gravity is not strong enough to keep it!
Good grief almighty on a stick; There is NOT a sufficient density of
atmosphere around our moon for even accommodating the task of getting
low density worth of micro-robotics safely onto that dark and nasty
deck. Perhaps at best a 10 kg payload as having a 100 m2 chute might
accomplish a semi-hard/survivable landing. There is however sufficient
gravity to hold onto most atmospheric elements that offer greater
atomic mass than sodium. However, even sodium itself remains for a
while (as far reaching as 8+r) as it's boiled and/or micro impacted out
of the moon and then continually excavated by the solar winds into
forming a vast 900,000+ km comet like tail of those hot sodium atoms.
Obviously Ar, O2, Rn and a good many other clear elements heavier than
Na are there to behold. I believe there is a greater surface
atmospheric density than 2e5/cm3, of the daytime Na alone being nearly
worth that much.
Question: How much of impact energy (reaction mass) gets converted
into Dv.
Due to the fact that a meteor or asteroid impact is usually deforming
our moon by at least a 10:1 ratio is in of itself suggesting that at
least 90% of such impact energy is not going to become Dv.
Due to the cratering(deep surface deformation), as well as for the
displaced primary and secondary shards plus fairly massive amount of
thermal related energy that's essentially vaporising a great deal of
most everything into becoming atmospheric elements is why so most of
the asteroid impact energy shouldn't contribute to Dv. Therefore the
impact reaction energy is perhaps seldom going to exceed 10% of the
full potential, even if having been directed as a 0.0° hit. Perhaps a
mostly nickel-iron asteroid that's worth 7.8t/m3 could manage a bit
better, whereas Apophis/99942 is supposedly a third of that density as
based upon the current swag of available infomercial-science, and as
such there shouldn't be hardly any physical remains of that wussy
substance.
This is my current swag as to Dv of reaction potential, as based upon
the angle of impact.
0.0° = 10% Dv
22.5° = 5% Dv
45° = 2.5% Dv
67.5° = .625% Dv
90° = .156% Dv (glancing blow that's mostly going into rotational
torque)
The supposed ballpark density of Apophis/99942 is merely 2.681t/m3
The density of a mostly nickel-iron meteor or asteroid is 7.856t/m3
Pure nickel alloy can reach 8.9t/m3
Pure cobalt alloy can reach 8.8t/m3
Magnetic shield alloy density is 8.25~8.75t/m3
Common nickel-iron alloys can easily exceed 8.1t/m3
My suggested maximum impact Dv = Mb/Ma * V2 * % /2
Ma = primary mass of 7.35e22 kg
Mb = secondary mass of 4.6e10 kg
V2 = (12.5e3)2 = 156.25e6
% = 10% if at 0.0° (direct hit)
As the density and/or volume of Apophis/99942 increases, as well as if
the final impact velocity gets boosted along by the three-body
alignment, it only stands to good reason that whatever's of extra
tonnage plus extra velocity is going to impose greater reaction Dv on
behalf of moving our moon that's supposedly already receeding by some
odd 34 mm/year.
The upper estimate of Apophis/99942 being of 400 m and worth 26e7t
gives the 13.5 km/s KE as being in the ballpark of nearly 24e18 joules
Of course, with the all-knowing Usenet fuckology of incest cloned
minions, such as the brown-nosed species of bigot "OM", as intent upon
offering us his usual topic/author stalking and disinformation of his
mainstream naysay status quo as butt-loads of further proof-positive
that I'm obviously a whole lot more right than not, is actually what's
driving my bio-fuel operated bus as accommodated by way of such a
green/renewable resource of "OM" flatulence.
-
Brad Guth
Scott Hedrick
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
news:hv8i32pf3pd2tl8c5...@4ax.com...
> On 08 Apr 2006 21:14:31 GMT, Ian Stirling <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Before you start designing grand schemes, perhaps you should read the
>>first chapter of almost any physics text book.
>
> ...Instead of the story bible for "Space: 1999", natch.
Brad hasn't noticed how flat the tides have been, and how dark the skies
have been, for the last 6.6 years or so.
Brad Guth
of directing Apophis/99942(2004 MN4) into impacting our moon instead of
NYC.
If the redirection of this asteroid can be moderated so as to avoid
Earth by a greater margin of safety, as well as therefore having
maintained a greater proportion of it's incoming velocity would
certainly keep things interesting as to the amount of delivered impact
energy upon our moon, even if being of merely of 4.6e10 kg should be
absolutely impressive.
My question of the day: How much of the impact energy gets converted
into Dv reaction energy.
Due to the fact that a meteor or asteroid impact of such velocity has
usually become extensively vaporised and otherwise having deformed our
moon by at least a good 10:1 ratio, is in of itself suggesting that at
least 90% of such impact energy is not going to become reactive lunar
Dv.
Due to the expected cratering(deep surface deformation), as well as for
the displaced primary and secondary tonnage of shards, plus fairly
massive amount of thermal energy that's essentially vaporising a great
deal of most everything into becoming atmospheric elements, is why much
of the asteroid impact energy shouldn't contribute to lunar Dv.
Therefore, I'm thinking the impact reaction energy is perhaps seldom
going to exceed 10% of the full kinetic potential, even if having been
directed as a direct hit. A mostly nickel-iron asteroid that's worth
7.8t/m3 could obviously manage quite nicely at delivering a greater
percentage, whereas Apophis/99942 is supposedly a third of that density
as based upon the current swag of available infomercial-science, and as
such there shouldn't be hardly any physical remains of that wussy
substance once having merged with the 3.1+g/cm3 of lunar basalt.
The supposed ballpark density of Apophis/99942 is merely 2.681t/m3
The density of a mostly nickel-iron meteor or asteroid is 7.856t/m3
Pure nickel alloy can reach 8.9t/m3
Pure cobalt alloy can reach 8.8t/m3
Magnetic shield alloy density is 8.25~8.75t/m3
Common nickel-iron alloys can easily exceed 8.1t/m3
Of pure iron and nickel crystals become 7.775 and 8.953t/m3
This is my current swag as to Dv of reaction potential, as based upon
the angle of impactor.
0.0° = 10% Dv (dead on center impact, +/-1°)
22.5° = 5% Dv
45° = 2.5% Dv
67.5° = .625% Dv
90° = .156% Dv (glancing blow that's mostly going into rotational
torque)
My suggested maximum impact Dv = Mb/Ma * V2 * % /2
Dv = lunar velocity shift in m/sec (in this case a likely increase in
velocity)
Ma = primary mass of 7.35e22 kg
Mb = secondary mass of 4.6e10 kg
V2 = (12.5e3)2 = 156.25e6
% = 10% if at 0.0° (direct hit within +/- 1°)
The reactive Dv could however represent a reduction in lunar velocity
if given a head-on or even that of an external (backside) impact, which
I believe technically can be arranged. With some practice, we could
put this sucker into whichever front, back or side-pocket we'd care to
arrange, or we could manage to minimize the impact energy by way of
targeting a lunar rear-ender that should extract nearly a km/s from the
velocity tally.
As the estimates of density and/or volume of Apophis/99942 increases,
as well as if the final impact velocity gets boosted along by having
the three-body (Earth+moon+sun) alignment plus whatever's contributed
via artificial means, it only stands to good reason that whatever's of
extra tonnage plus extra velocity is going to impose greater reaction
Dv on behalf of motivating our moon a bit further away per year, that's
supposedly already receeding by some odd 34 mm/year.
However, a glancing blow might displace nearly as much debris into
leaving the the lunar grasp, that'll pretty much have to end up in
someone's back yard (like all the other mega, giga or tera tonnes worth
of moon rock that's already here).
Because this is just for argument sake; The upper most estimate of
Apophis/99942 being of 400 m and worth 26e7t if mostly of iron gives us
the 13.5 km/s KE as being in the ballpark of nearly 24e18 joules.
In order to offer details about ever so slightly redirecting it to hit
the moon, for that I'll need a good supercomputer along with all the
bells and whistles of orbital do-everything software that we've already
bought and paid for at least ten fold and counting. It would also be a
little nice if I could get something for my efforts.
>John Griffin; Personally, I think that's damn near impossible,
>or at least it would take one hell of a lot more energy than
>throwing the sucker out of the solar system or at least outside
>Earth's orbit, but hey, you're the expert. Do the non-infomercial
>science and get back to us.
It's actually not quite so horrific, especially since there's lots of
time and nifty variables to work with. A series of small nuclear
events that we could get the all-knowing likes of wizard "Willian Mook"
to orchestrate, as per such delivered and timed as to modify the
trajectory and/or velocity of that asteroid seems perfectly doable and
well within the global expertise that's at hand. Targeting that sucker
into our moon should demand the least amount of artificially applied
energy, and it would also become a lunar terraforming beneficial sort
of thing to be doing.
>Maybe you can adjust the parameters to simulate a moon impact.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
Thanks for the suggestion and the "impacteffects" link. I have no
doubts that such an asteroid could be just as easily diverted into our
moon as per a little extra nuclear effort and timing for otherwise
diverting such into our sun, perhaps via using the timing of a near
pass of Venus (clearly a much better usage of our WMD than upon
humanity). April 2029 seems as though a perfectly good opportunity as
to target our moon. Why not? What do we have to lose?
>John Griffin; Probably negligible. However, the actual kinetic
>energy of Apophis (~31 km/s, 4.6x10^10 kg) might make an measureable
>change. You're the expert. Figure it out.
I'm far from being "the expert", though I would not exactly call it
"probably negligible" if the velocity and/or recession of our moon is
measurably affected. My initial formula for the suggested impact
reaction Dv is perhaps a bit overkill, but then I haven't thus far
located another source or interactive calculator that'll indicate
otherwise. Therefore, if you don't appreciate what I've suggested,
divide it by another factor of 10:1, or have a go at offering your best
swag as to the % of Dv as derived from a given asteroid impact, whereas
perhaps the dead center impact is at best good for merely 1% of the
total available energy as being reactive (RDv).
Since you're all so gosh darn all-knowing and I'm not, whereas this is
why I'm asking for your math and supposed expertise that'll share a few
of those better ideas. In the past that's been too much to ask for,
but since this opportunity is yet another win-win for the old gipper
that could actually make our NASA look as though it's worth keeping, as
such I'd thought having the benefit of your expertise as valuable
constructive input would contribute a good deal of what's most likely
to transpire, as well as for what's important to humanity, plus that of
defending whatever's left of our global warming environment as a bonus.
There's still the ongoing problem, of my having nicely informed folks
that our moon is actually perfectly good for something (meaning that
it's worth a whole lot more than it'll cost us), or sharing as to what
the nearby LL-1 and of the LSE-CM/ISS opportunity is all about, and of
otherwise my having shared in the observation as to the discovery of a
likely existence of other nearby intelligent life as having coexisted
upon Venus, or even that of my weird notion having suggested that
everything is in orbit about someting, such as my argument or swag
being that our solar system has been in a 105,000 +/- some odd year
orbit with the nearby and somewhat massive Sirius solar/star system,
whereas such these perfectly fine topics and a few dozen others haven't
exactly been working all that well nor hardly accepted unless converted
into LeapFrog or some other encrypted format as having been better off
delivered via lose cannon, that's reacting on behalf of my returning
the topic/author bashing favor with all the love and affection that I
can muster.
If I've come off as being somewhat lose canno postal, as well as being
my usual anti status quo, and otherwise naysay GW Bush, at least you
don't have to kid yourself.
-
Brad Guth