What to do in case of NEO approach...we have the technology?

You're forgetting some crucial facts.

Railgun range in space.... Infinite (or until it hits something). There is no friction to slow it down, no gravity of sorts to bring it back down (until it meets something)

The extreme coldness of space is also the perfect solution to using it in space, and should help with "The heat generated in use makes a rail gun beyond our capacity to be used more than a few times between rebuilds."

If the source posted by the op, claiming that Satellites are powerful enough to knock a object off course, then i'm sure the kinetic force of a Railgun is just as good, if not better.

And in case you're not the most observant of members, i did put "Shame that's pretty much Sci-Fi at the moment." in my initial post.

(And... we where both wrong about the velocity speed of the projectile, it's currently 5,637mph, but, ahh well)

I do not know much about railguns...From what I have read, they are operational and have been successfully test fired...But I would believe the issues of range, cooling, and inertia, are best solved by utilizing this technology in space for this purpose...it would be accurate as anything we have and capable of destroying an asteroid completely, especially if used in a battery approach (i.e., multiple positions in geosynchronous orbit)...

This also brings up the possibility of a laser (granted a megawatt) device utilized to eliminate these threats...

reply to post by Vinterskogen


I edited my original post, possibly before you made this one, or finished making this one. How do you fire a projectile in space? That is the important factor you overlooked twice.

Here's where I got the velocity, and I know about the Navy rail gun, do you see how big it is? Understand the power it takes to fire it?

If the source posted by the op, claiming that Satellites are powerful enough to knock a object off course, then i'm sure the kinetic force of a Railgun is just as good, if not better.

Misinterpretation, and I believe they are in error. They said the added gravity of the spacecraft could alter it's trajectory which is hogwash. It doesn't matter how much of the mass of an asteroid is changed it will follow it's trajectory as dust if it was reduced to that, and the same if it's mass was doubled. Feather and hammer experiment on the moon by Apollo 15. A feather on the asteroid would stay at the same orbit if it was moved off of it.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Vinterskogen

 

I edited my original post, possibly before you made this one, or finished making this one. How do you fire a projectile in space? That is the important factor you overlooked twice.

Here's where I got the velocity, and I know about the Navy rail gun, do you see how big it is? Understand the power it takes to fire it?

If the source posted by the op, claiming that Satellites are powerful enough to knock a object off course, then i'm sure the kinetic force of a Railgun is just as good, if not better.

Misinterpretation, and I believe they are in error. They said the added gravity of the spacecraft could alter it's trajectory which is hogwash. It doesn't matter how much of the mass of an asteroid is changed it will follow it's trajectory as dust if it was reduced to that, and the same if it's mass was doubled. Feather and hammer experiment on the moon by Apollo 15. A feather on the asteroid would stay at the same orbit if it was moved off of it.

edit on 7-11-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

Also, all these ideas have already been tested fully in Star Trek and found wanting "The Paradise Syndrome" (episode #58).

"Back in space, Spock orders the Enterprise to intercept the asteroid at a dangerous warp speed. Arriving at the asteroid, he attempts to push the huge rock to a benign course using tractor beams in conjunction with the warp drive but to no effect. He then orchestrates a series of phaser blasts, but the beams only manage to blast chunks of rock loose. In an act of final desperation, Spock orders a full bombardment with all phasers but the resulting energy demand damages the warp drive and the asteroid remains on its lethal course."

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by cloudyday


You really can't use Star Trek as an argument. Seriously.

What next, that we shouldn't blow up the Asteroids, just in case Han Solo and Chewbakka are hiding in it?

reply to post by Illustronic


Sorry, i didn't overlook it. "How do you fire a projectile in space" = Magnets, mate. Push/Pull. Doesn't need gravity, or an atmosphere like a firearm.

Your source is wrong, you might want to check these:

www.wired.com...
mashable.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

The issues of range disappear in space, do they not? Once the object is set in motion it will continue to travel (at the same speed) until acted upon by another force, correct? Power could be supplied by solar panels charging up up multiple capacitors...This seems really doable in my opinion...would not surprise me if it was already in place...

This is from Popular Mechanics in 2009...

www.popularmechanics.com...

...The lab version doesn't look particularly menacing--more like a long, belt-fed airport screening device than like a futuristic cannon--but the system will fire rounds at up to Mach 8, drawing on tremendous amounts of electricity to generate the current for each test shot. That, of course, is the problem with rail guns: Like lasers, they're out of step with modern-day generators and capacitors. Eight and 9-megajoule rail guns have been fired before, but providing 3 million amps of power per shot has been a limitation. At 32 megajoules, this new system appears to be the most powerful rail gun ever built, and the Office of Naval Research is installing additional capacitors at the Dahlgren facility to support it. The planned 64-megajoule weapon, if it's ever built, could require even more power--a staggering 6 million amps.

Read more: World's Most Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to Navy - Popular Mechanics