Berbasbullet
Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 20,432
Wonder if there is a immediate reason they're practicing this.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
There isn't, but it is statistically certain that such a reason will be detected at some point in the future.Wonder if there is a immediate reason they're practicing this.
Lots of theories have been disproven in space, or more accurately turned out to be based on wrong assumptions. Happened all the time at Redstone and in the early days of NASA.The people on the astronomy podcast I listen to (Walkabout the Galaxy) have been a bit perplexed at what exactly they're going to figure out with DART. To hear them tell it, the physics are pretty much already determined, so if you know what kind of surface you're hitting (solid or not) you can perfectly predict the result. Maybe this is just a case of putting theories to the test, just to be absolutely sure.
Sure, but aren't we talking pretty basic physics here? You hit something of a known mass going a known speed at a known distance to the Earth (or rather a distance from where the Earth is going to be), with something of a known mass at a known speed. It will impart a known amount of energy, which is going to affect the trajectory in a predictable way... seemingly. That's the argument they've been making, anyway, though they've still been following it with interest.Lots of theories have been disproven in space, or more accurately turned out to be based on wrong assumptions. Happened all the time at Redstone and in the early days of NASA.
That's exactly what I've been thinking as well. It's collisions from classical mechanics.Sure, but aren't we talking pretty basic physics here? You hit something of a known mass going a known speed at a known distance to the Earth (or rather a distance from where the Earth is going to be), with something of a known mass at a known speed. It will impart a known amount of energy, which is going to affect the trajectory in a predictable way... seemingly. That's the argument they've been making, anyway, though they've still been following it with interest.
Yeah but actually being able to hit it is not so easy. A lot of the demonstration was focused on the target acquisition system and how to hit an object travelling at enormous speeds. We still struggle to reliably hit ballistic missiles, let alone something many magnitudes faster and further away.Sure, but aren't we talking pretty basic physics here? You hit something of a known mass going a known speed at a known distance to the Earth (or rather a distance from where the Earth is going to be), with something of a known mass at a known speed. It will impart a known amount of energy, which is going to affect the trajectory in a predictable way... seemingly. That's the argument they've been making, anyway, though they've still been following it with interest.
Probably the one we crashed into, after knocking it onto a course for us.There isn't, but it is statistically certain that such a reason will be detected at some point in the future.
That and presumably when you hit it you eject stuff into space. How that fractures, what it is and all that jazz presumably affects your classical mechanics - it's not just 2 snooker balls bouncing off each other.Yeah but actually being able to hit it is not so easy. A lot of the demonstration was focused on the target acquisition system and how to hit an object travelling at enormous speeds. We still struggle to reliably hit ballistic missiles, let alone something many magnitudes faster and further away.
You also have to hit the right bit. We might know the mass of an asteroid but we don't know the internal structure of it, some parts may have low density or some other property that makes it a bad place to strike.
I did get the feeling it was a relatively cheap mission with some scientific value, not a lot that could go wrong and a lot of expected publicity value for NASA. For example...The people on the astronomy podcast I listen to (Walkabout the Galaxy) have been a bit perplexed at what exactly they're going to figure out with DART. To hear them tell it, the physics are pretty much already determined, so if you know what kind of surface you're hitting (solid or not) you can perfectly predict the result. Maybe this is just a case of putting theories to the test, just to be absolutely sure.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Very cool. The proto planet was called Theia and was on a similar orbit until it collided with earth.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If one day they announced there was a giant meteor heading for earth. And they said don't worry were sending a craft to collide with it charging its trajectory and saving life on earth. But that they'd never tried it before..Sure, but aren't we talking pretty basic physics here? You hit something of a known mass going a known speed at a known distance to the Earth (or rather a distance from where the Earth is going to be), with something of a known mass at a known speed. It will impart a known amount of energy, which is going to affect the trajectory in a predictable way... seemingly. That's the argument they've been making, anyway, though they've still been following it with interest.
If I'm going to be nitpicky (and I am; it's in my contract), this didn't tell us anything at all about changing the trajectory of a giant meteor since it was an asteroid. But I'm sticking to my general point, that this wasn't anything groundbreaking. It's neat, sure, and it's very cool that we managed to actually hit it, but I really doubt we learned a lot from it.If one day they announced there was a giant meteor heading for earth. And they said don't worry were sending a craft to collide with it charging its trajectory and saving life on earth. But that they'd never tried it before..
Wonder if this is the only Moon in the Solar System which formed in this way.Very cool. The proto planet was called Theia and was on a similar orbit until it collided with earth.
As you say not ground breaking. But nonetheless it was a worthwhile experiment, mainly as a proof of concept.If I'm going to be nitpicky (and I am; it's in my contract), this didn't tell us anything at all about changing the trajectory of a giant meteor since it was an asteroid. But I'm sticking to my general point, that this wasn't anything groundbreaking. It's neat, sure, and it's very cool that we managed to actually hit it, but I really doubt we learned a lot from it.
Yeah, definitely worth doing.As you say not ground breaking. But nonetheless it was a worthwhile experiment, mainly as a proof of concept.
We don't know for sure. But there are suggestions that satellites like Phobos, Deimos, Charon et cetera were formed through similar-ish impactor processes. Interestingly, Phobos is also expected to collide with Mars in roughly 50 million years (or get fragmented into a ring system once it reaches the Roche limit).Wonder if this is the only Moon in the Solar System which formed in this way.
New Mars Model Details the Violent Birth of Phobos and DeimosSouthwest Research Institute scientists modeled a Ceres-sized object crashing into Mars at an oblique angle. This 3-D simulation show that the impact initially produces a disk of orbiting debris primarily derived from Mars. The outer portions of the disk later accumulate into Mars’ small moons, Phobos and Deimos. The inner portions of the disk accumulate into larger moons that eventually spiral inward and are assimilated into Mars.
It perhads wasn't meant to be a scientific learning excersize from the outset. But more of a practise excersize in the event the killer asteroid comes our way..If I'm going to be nitpicky (and I am; it's in my contract), this didn't tell us anything at all about changing the trajectory of a giant meteor since it was an asteroid. But I'm sticking to my general point, that this wasn't anything groundbreaking. It's neat, sure, and it's very cool that we managed to actually hit it, but I really doubt we learned a lot from it.
Edit: I see it more as a proof of concept. NASA sort of going "look what we're capable of".
Gosh. As recently as 50m years ago. Didn't realise that.We don't know for sure. But there are suggestions that satellites like Phobos, Deimos, Charon et cetera were formed through similar-ish impactor processes. Interestingly, Phobos is also expected to collide with Mars in roughly 50 million years (or get fragmented into a ring system once it reaches the Roche limit).
New Mars Model Details the Violent Birth of Phobos and Deimos
Brilliant question that Mars vid looks a must watchWonder if this is the only Moon in the Solar System which formed in this way.
50m from nowGosh. As recently as 50m years ago. Didn't realise that.
Ok. Thanks for that.50m from now
Nimic breaking the page again.In 4K
A real life, calibration test maybe? Books are perfects, engineering is not.Sure, but aren't we talking pretty basic physics here? You hit something of a known mass going a known speed at a known distance to the Earth (or rather a distance from where the Earth is going to be), with something of a known mass at a known speed. It will impart a known amount of energy, which is going to affect the trajectory in a predictable way... seemingly. That's the argument they've been making, anyway, though they've still been following it with interest.
Pretty much this. DART was pretty useless as a scientific mission, but one should essentially see it as a first test firing of our planetary defense.A real life, calibration test maybe? Books are perfects, engineering is not.
What if it wasn't a practice?Wonder if there is a immediate reason they're practicing this.
It was. The orbit of the target was well known and it was and still is harmless.What if it wasn't a practice?
If it wasn't, we really messed up the targeting. It's really interesting, actually. They knew that it would be a lot more difficult to change the orbit of a large asteroid, not to mention more difficult to spot the change, so they hit the "moon" of an asteroid instead and then measured the change in its orbit around the main asteroid. It was still 160-170 meters in diameter, so not tiny.What if it wasn't a practice?
Cool! One of the most interesting things about galaxies is that most of their gravity isn't from matter, but from a dark matter halo which is probably responsible for bringing the galaxy together in the first place. And it even extends beyond the galaxy.Two massive halos of dark matter merging together...?
https://www.esa.int/Science_Explora...overs_dense_cosmic_knot_in_the_early_Universe
" The three confirmed galaxies are orbiting each other at incredibly high speeds, an indication that a great deal of mass is present. When combined with how closely they are packed into the region around this quasar, the team believes this marks one of the densest known areas of galaxy formation in the early Universe. “Even a dense knot of dark matter isn’t sufficient to explain it,” Wylezalek says. “We think we could be seeing a region where two massive halos of dark matter are merging together.” "
It boggles my mind how we are conscious of our existence and capable of querying the Universe, only to find out how unfathomably complex it is. If we don't understand the largest scale (dark matter), the smallest scale (quantum) or the individual scale (our brain/mind), what do we actually understand?Cool! One of the most interesting things about galaxies is that most of their gravity isn't from matter, but from a dark matter halo which is probably responsible for bringing the galaxy together in the first place. And it even extends beyond the galaxy.
The Universe is wild.