Skip to main content

Loose potato?

It seems that Japan’s Hayabusa probe hit a snag during a practice landing recently, abending the landing when the probe saw “an anomalous signal”. Hayabusa now orbits at 3km; there’s a good collection of images of the asteroid in question, Itokawa, at SpaceRef.

Asteroid Itokawa

So what was the “anomalous signal”?

My random guess is that Itokawa’s material is a lot looser than expected (as in, heavier material but more loosely packed) — a great big bent-potato-shaped pile of gravel and bulldust — and that even the light thrusters used by Hayabusa were enough in the asteroid’s microgravity to kick up a little dust from a few km away — especially if the thruster exhaust is electrically charged — and change the probe’s view slightly.

This would be consistent with the “gentle impacts” explanation for the odd cratering seen on other small bodies, and with the observations of Deep Impact.

If Itokawa is indeed so loosely packed, deflecting an Itokawa-like asteroid from a collision course with Earth would present a unique problem.

Traditional proposals have relied upon either blasting an incoming asteroid with a nuke, or mounting thruster units on it and more gently steering it aside.

A pile of gravel and dust hit by a nuke would not respond as a unit; much more of the force of a blast would be consumed in heating up and rearranging the gravel than would be the case for the chunk of stone usually modelled, and a likely outcome would be to simply disrupt the asteroid so now Earth would be hit in pretty much the same place by the same mass as a large variable-density cloud of gravel rather than by a single lump. An asteroid so disrupted would be completely unmanageable (no second tries).

Similarly, mounting thrusters on a rocky “slush pile” would result in the thrusters pushing themselves under the surface and/or rapidly becoming misaligned unless they were very low thrust and had a correspondingly long lead time in which to nudge the asteroid onto a more Earth-friendly course.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...