Russian meteor shower causes blast; hundreds injured

[hh5]

earth isn't taking the issue seriously ... we don't have a network of satellites (in or near the asteroid belt) ... tracking them ... 

we expect the few ground stations and some orbital satellites to aid in our defense

 

can we expect these rocks to come down on us a bit more frequently?

we not even expecting some long range object coming from outside our solar system .... to come in and knock many of rocks at us

 

... we did put up like ten or twenty satellites in or around the asteroid belt ... wouldn't we use something else other than sight .. like radar or some other tracking of objects?

perhaps the big issue to put out like twenty satellites ... is that its very costly to even begin to have a planetary defense system

 

if we did have a big rock make a big hold in our planet ... would we really seriously start up a defense system or just continually deny needing it?

[Zombie]

Divers working at a Russian lake have recovered a half-tonne chunk of the space rock that exploded over Chelyabinsk earlier this year. The object plunged into Lake Chebarkul in central Russia on 15 February, leaving a 6m-wide hole in the ice. Scientists say that it is the largest fragment of the meteorite yet found. More than 1,000 people were injured when a 17m, 10,000-tonne space rock burned up over Central Russia, breaking windows and rocking buildings.

Identifying meteorites

• During the fiery plunge through the atmosphere, a thin layer of rock on the surface melts. This black layer is known as the "fusion crust"
• The surface of a meteorite is generally smooth and featureless, but will often have shallow depressions called regmaglypts that resemble thumb-prints
• Dr Caroline Smith says these form during the fireball stage, "as vortices of hot gases scour away (ablate is the correct term) the surface of the meteoroid".
• They generally have a high density compared with Earth rocks and often contain some iron-nickel metal, which may make them magnetic
• Meteorites are almost never round - they are irregular in shape and come in a variety of sizes

Live footage showed a team pull out a 1.5-metre-long (five-foot-long) rock from the lake after first wrapping it in a special covering and placing it on a metal sheet while it was still underwater. The fragment was then pulled ashore and placed on top of a scale for weighing, an operation that quickly went wrong.

The rock broke up into at least three large pieces as it was lifted from the ground with the help of levers and ropes. Then the scale itself broke, the moment it hit the 570kg (1,255lb) mark.

 

Dr Caroline Smith, curator of meteorites at London's Natural History Museum, confirmed that the object was a meteorite from characteristic features known as fusion crust and regmaglypts, which are obvious in images. She told BBC News: "Fusion crust forms as the meteoroid is travelling through the atmosphere as a fireball. The outer surface gets so hot it melts the rock to form a dark, glassy surface crust which we term a fusion crust. Regmaglypts are the indentations, that look a bit like thumbprints, also seen on the surface of the meteorite."

 

The fragment left a 6m-wide hole in the frozen lake back in February

 

Sergey Zamozdra, an associate professor at Chelyabinsk State University, told the Interfax news agency: "The preliminary examination... shows that this is really a fraction of the Chelyabinsk meteorite."This chunk is most probably one of the top 10 biggest meteorite fragments ever found."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24550941

[joann414]

I saw this.  Kinda freaky, but reality startles me at times

[Kitt]

And then if it doesn't work you are already buried.

 

 Honestly, let's think past the available technology for a minute. Suppose all these ideas about detection and tracking are fast tracked and put into implementation. Suppose further a defense system is also devised.  The impact of these pieces of "space junk" as someone called it has been reported in terms of equivalent to nuclear explosions. An intentional detonation would be exponentially greater would it not? Just who in this totally screwed up world do we trust with their finger on the trigger? 

 

And then there is the question of what happens after all this energy is released in space. Does anyone have a clue?  One said "no risk of nuclear fall out".  Well - that crap has to go somewhere. Does any scientific agency have a clue where it would radiate to or what the impact would be?

[Zombie]

 Honestly, let's think past the available technology for a minute. Suppose all these ideas about detection and tracking are fast tracked and put into implementation. Suppose further a defense system is also devised.  The impact of these pieces of "space junk" as someone called it has been reported in terms of equivalent to nuclear explosions. An intentional detonation would be exponentially greater would it not? Just who in this totally screwed up world do we trust with their finger on the trigger? 

 

And then there is the question of what happens after all this energy is released in space. Does anyone have a clue?  One said "no risk of nuclear fall out".  Well - that crap has to go somewhere. Does any scientific agency have a clue where it would radiate to or what the impact would be?

 

Trust me, Kitt, if we detonated ALL the planet's nuclear arsenal in space - and we're talking beyond the orbit of the Moon - it would have no more impact than throwing a lighted match into a furnace. The Sun is continuously pouring out deadly radiation at far higher levels. The reason we don't fry is we're protected by the Earth's atmosphere, ozone layer, magnetic field and radiation belts.

 

No, the real issue is detecting all these critters.

 

Then if we can do that - and the Russian meteorite shows we can't at the moment - and spot them early enough, say a year or more, we could send a small probe to just nudge them gently onto a different course.

[JamesSavik]

We really don't want to tossing around nukes in space unless there is no other way.

 

In the case of an asteroid, we would turn a large, dangerous falling object into many radioactive falling objects.

 

That's better, but not by much.

[Zombie]

Ah yes, see what you mean about radioactive asteroid bits raining down - yes, not a good idea.

[hh5]

so how much other institutions going pay per kg to buy a slice of this rock?

they mentioned on the news they wonder what caused it to blow up? Hot Gases be a good guess

 

detecting the critters why not put up six satellites in our solar system to detect any size object

btw how much do big satellites costs?

[JamesSavik]

 

they mentioned on the news they wonder what caused it to blow up? Hot Gases be a good guess

 

When one of these things reaches a certain temperature, all of the gas locked in as ice sublimates. That means it goes from solid to gas instantly- very energetically.  *BOOM*

 

 

detecting the critters why not put up six satellites in our solar system to detect any size object

btw how much do big satellites costs?

 

The #1 big cost is the launch vehicle. Depending on the size and weight of the bird, this can  be very expensive. There is currently quite a lot of international competition to sell launch vehicles like the European Ariane 5, the Chinese Long March, and American Titan and Delta rockets. CTO (Cost to Orbit) is something that all the great powers are working on because the winner in that race will be able to write their own ticket. For a relatively big satellite (500kg), you are going to spend 40-120million. The more you spend, the greater the reliability.

 

The cost of the satellite itself depends on how they are fitted out. Simple communications sats can be as cheap as 10s of millions of dollars. The bigger, more complex and the higher the orbit increases the cost. The most expensive of satellites are the special ones like the Hubble and the Spitzer. They cost more because each one is a custom job. You don't bang them out by the dozen. Some of the most expensive science birds can range up into hundreds of millions.  

 

The last cost associated with satellites is ground support. This varies with the type and mission of the satellites but they can be considerable. If you have one that takes 24/7 attention of engineers, scientists and analyst. NASA and the NSA have quite a lot of experience with mission profiles of this type. 

[Henry_Henry2012]

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.  ~  Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Unfortunately, this is something that can definitely kill us. :-(

[hh5]

The japanese proved that you can computerized the launch checks. They proved you can launch a satellite on a solid rocket booster.

They proved they can create a business that can be profitable. I've not check if they are commercial or gov't

 

vehicle 6 x 80= 480mil

satellite 6 x 100= 600mil

ground support (make it min crew on min wage n interns ... )  120mil for 50 years

crew of project managers to make sure project does not go over budget by the greedy contractor management

 

1.2 billion sounds feasible no frills expense ... hey if it costed 2-3 billion ... the world could contribute to the project

 

the universities can work on all the data collected ... more interns ... their business gets paid for dedicated equipment

perhaps if ingenuity is done ... there is a lot to learn on how to make things better

I think nasa n contractors has too many fat cats digging into the money bowl

 

When one of these things reaches a certain temperature, all of the gas locked in as ice sublimates. That means it goes from solid to gas instantly- very energetically.  *BOOM*

 

The #1 big cost is the launch vehicle. Depending on the size and weight of the bird, this can  be very expensive. There is currently quite a lot of international competition to sell launch vehicles like the European Ariane 5, the Chinese Long March, and American Titan and Delta rockets. CTO (Cost to Orbit) is something that all the great powers are working on because the winner in that race will be able to write their own ticket. For a relatively big satellite (500kg), you are going to spend 40-120million. The more you spend, the greater the reliability.

 

The cost of the satellite itself depends on how they are fitted out. Simple communications sats can be as cheap as 10s of millions of dollars. The bigger, more complex and the higher the orbit increases the cost. The most expensive of satellites are the special ones like the Hubble and the Spitzer. They cost more because each one is a custom job. You don't bang them out by the dozen. Some of the most expensive science birds can range up into hundreds of millions.  

 

The last cost associated with satellites is ground support. This varies with the type and mission of the satellites but they can be considerable. If you have one that takes 24/7 attention of engineers, scientists and analyst. NASA and the NSA have quite a lot of experience with mission profiles of this type. 

Edited October 20, 2013 by hh5

[hh5]