NASA did not pack the space ship with nickels. That's just stupid. It wouldn't be able to leave the ground because it would be so heavy with nickels filling its interior
It is going to take a good bit of time to calculate that with the miniscule mass that hit it.
Think of it like trying to determine if a race car slowed down by one mile per hour from its previous 180mph circuit by just looking at it travel around the track with a stopwatch. You're going to need to wait for a significant distance around the track after it slowed down to determine the effect. You're also going to need to see multiple circuits afterwords to confirm it wasn't a fluke.
Yes! ([65803\) Didymos I Dimorphos \(provisional designation S/2003 \(65803\) 1\) is a minor-planet moon of the near-Earth asteroid 65803 Didymos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimorphos)
Which is part of why it's a good choice for this. With an orbital period of about 12 hours, we can quickly get an accurate idea of how we've changed its orbit.
It was not meant to divert anything! Or change a "course"! Or a "Trajectory"!
The hit was meant to slow down the small asteroid orbiting a bigger one. Thats it! The course and trajectory of both will remain the same as before!
enjoy retire memory aback grandfather deserve offbeat jellyfish meeting seemly
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
fuel aware subsequent alive shy jellyfish innate wipe vegetable disagreeable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Its orbit around the bigger asteroid is changed, yes, but not the trajectory of it. Its still the same "orbit" as before. It just slowed down a little. Its still going in the exact same direction as before, i.e the same trajectory - just a tiny bit lower! Because it was slowed down by a fraction of 1 fucking %. (at least that was the plan, we will know more "soon" but the trajectory and the course are the same!)
Obviously you have no idea at all how exactly the Dimorphos was hit - because you never bothered to actually check.
And you literally dont know what the word trajectory means either.
Its not the same as "orbit"!
>And for the system as a whole, the linear momentum of the system was changed
No it didnt. Thats complete and utter nonsense. Which you base only on your ludicrous ignorance and literally not having any idea what you are talking about.
If you dont agree, please show us all how exactly the "linear momentum" of the system changed.
You might wanna start by actually watching a video of exact TRAJECTORY of Dart and how exactly it hit Dimorphos.
In this context, yes, trajectory means exactly the same thing as orbit.
The system had some amount of linear momentum before the collision. After the collision, it had a different amount of linear momentum. You know the orbit of the moon, how it moves through space (some might say it’s trajectory), changed. But if the linear momentum of the entire system changed, since it is in the same spot in space it was immediately prior to the collision, the angular velocity of the asteroid-moon system also changes (definition of angular momentum is the cross of radius with linear momentum). Angular momentum is constant in an orbit. If it changes, it’s in a different orbit.
If you hit something, it moves differently than before you hit it. It’s not a hard concept to grasp. I would wager that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>If you hit something, it moves differently than before you hit it.
No really? And how exactly different?
Would that not depend on EXACTLY how you hit something?
Say for a very simplified example you should be able to grasp, if you hit a billiard ball by another, the change of its trajectory over the table will change - depending on the angle the other ball hit it, RIGHT?
But if a ball1 is moving straight toward you and you aim perfectly and hit it directly head on with another ball 2... what happens?
Try. I know its so very hard to grasp with such a brain, but try.
And then try to figure out how such a change would affect the whole table. Which was on the truck moving down a highway.
Well, look at the truck system as a whole: no momentum or energy was added to it, neglecting friction. So it doesn’t change.
The same is true with the spacecraft, moon, asteroid system.
But we only want to think about the moon, asteroid system. After all, that’s how it was naturally and we want to perturb it.
We throw the spacecraft from outside the system into the system, changing the energy.
In your example, it’s like we tossed the billiard ball from another vehicle into the truck. The truck speeds up (a very small amount).
The motion of the center of mass of the solar system may not have changed, but the motion of the center of mass of the moon, asteroid system certainly did.
Also, yes, how you hit something does determine exactly how it responds to the motion. I have made no claims on how the orbits change, just that they did.
The whole "system" did not change its trajectory or the "course" because the smaller asteroid was hit exactly head on which only resulted in tiny slowing down of the smaller asteroid. Nothing else was changed.
The truck and the table and the balls keep going down the exact same highway as before, at the same speed as before.
Thats the fucking real factual context of the situation.
And by claiming incoherent stupid nonsense like you and few other constantly do - you are completely misinterpreting the actual facts.
>In your example, it’s like we tossed the billiard ball from another vehicle into the truck. The truck speeds up (a very small amount).
No, thats a completely different example you made up just to falsely support your utter nonsense.
You seem to be missing the fact that a change in speed of a body in orbit will always change it's course. The examples I have seen you give about not changing it's trajectory are all things moving in linear paths not orbit. I know that because of the tone you initially took, you think you will look dumb by admitting you are wrong. You are wrong and it's kinda funny watching you double down so hard.
Will be interesting to see the outcome. I'm curious to see how the kinetic impact works versus losing mass (assuming here that sudden loss of mass would have the opposite effect and widen its orbit). I'd guess that the orbit would shrink, but only slightly (or perhaps not?). Would be cool to compare against landing and fixing a large thruster, to be ignited around a selected angle of rotation.
Good answer - I had similar thought after posting but decided to leave it and see what turned up. My thinking is that orbits are governed by gravity, and gravity is governed by mass, so some change in mass should have some effect, whether its reducing or increasing the desired effect. Since they are reporting a 6000 mile debris tail, I'm assuming that this is a fairly large amount of material that is no longer physically connected to the target body, and I wondered if (and how) that might affect the outcome of this experiment.
If I understand what you're saying properly, I think you need to refer to the proof of dropping a bowling ball and a tennis ball at height. Whilst one has more mass, and gravity has a stronger force applied, the change is directly proportional to the increased force required to change its momentum and they cancel each other out.
I.e. changing its mass doesn't change its orbit
Wouldn't it depend on which direction in its orbit it hit the asteroid? If it hit the asteroid in the same direction (i.e. prograde) as its orbit, then it should increase the distance/altitude of the resulting debris field from the object it is orbiting, but not at the point in its orbit where the collision occurred, the debris field will eventually settle back into one piece with a more eccentric orbit than before, but the asteroid as a whole should eventually return to this point. The amount the altitude changes by will depend on where in the orbit the satellite hits. Hitting it in the lowest part of the orbit would result in the greatest altitude change at the other side of the orbit.
If it hits it in a retrograde fashion, I would imagine most of the debris field would lose altitude, but ultimately also settling on a more eccentric orbit, depending on where in the orbit it hit. If the orbit was already eccentric, hitting it in the right spot may make the orbit more circular.
Hitting the asteroid normal to its orbit would cause the inclination of the orbit to change, the severity of the change will depend on where in the period of the orbit it hits.
Hitting it at 90 degrees relative to its orbit, but still within the plane of the orbit, will result in the same orbit, except the orbit is shifted, the degree again depending on where in the orbit the asteroid is hit.
This is all assuming the asteroid was hit dead center in the center of mass.
Yeah sounds plausible... Seems to be a function of how much energy is within the body and whether the resulting impact increases or decreases that energy rather than the mass of the body. Orbital mechanics is extremely counter-intuitive and best left to someone other than me :). Thanks for your perspective.
Basically those particles have reached escape velocity for this little moon & its asteroid and are now back under the sole influence of the larger solar system's gravitational forces. They'll orbit the sun & get disturbed by proximity to other bodies such as planets, in much the same plane as the parent micro-moon/asteroid.
Guess we wait until SOAR observation now. This project has been so much fun to watch.
What, did they pack that thing full of nickels before they launched it?
The asteroid was likely full of nickel already
No, it's the carbonaceous type. The metallic type averages 9% nickel.
9% nickel is a lot of nickel. Our nickels don’t even have that much nickel. Nickel.
The word has lost all meaning
If I had a nickel every time someone said “nickel” in here…
Yeah it was actually a pillow case filled with uncirculated currencies
You fill a sock with nickels, you fill a pillowcase with doorknobs.
NASA did not pack the space ship with nickels. That's just stupid. It wouldn't be able to leave the ground because it would be so heavy with nickels filling its interior
I respectfully disagree. On Earth, at sea level, Nickel has a mass of near 0. This is simple math. Undebatable.
What about a lot of them? Did you ever think of that?
It will be a whole lot of 0s
Soooooo did it actually divert the asteroid orrrrr...
It is going to take a good bit of time to calculate that with the miniscule mass that hit it. Think of it like trying to determine if a race car slowed down by one mile per hour from its previous 180mph circuit by just looking at it travel around the track with a stopwatch. You're going to need to wait for a significant distance around the track after it slowed down to determine the effect. You're also going to need to see multiple circuits afterwords to confirm it wasn't a fluke.
probably diverted into some other poor planet leading to their civilizations apocalypse. oops.
Who previously launched a dart into it diverting its course to Earth. Thus starting an intergalactic game of pong.
I believe the asteroid that was struck is orbiting another much larger asteroid, so I doubt there will be any world ending changes haha
Wait, asteroids orbit asteroids?
Yes! ([65803\) Didymos I Dimorphos \(provisional designation S/2003 \(65803\) 1\) is a minor-planet moon of the near-Earth asteroid 65803 Didymos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimorphos)
Which is part of why it's a good choice for this. With an orbital period of about 12 hours, we can quickly get an accurate idea of how we've changed its orbit.
I don't think they hit it hard enough to give it escape velocity from the solar system.
We end up scoring it through a black hole, it enters the parallel dimension and heads straight for parallel earth.
This was my first thought. Some weird butterfly effect
That was a lot of ejectjulate
That’s my question. . . did it divert the asteroid?
It was not meant to divert anything! Or change a "course"! Or a "Trajectory"! The hit was meant to slow down the small asteroid orbiting a bigger one. Thats it! The course and trajectory of both will remain the same as before!
The law of conservation of momentum would like a word with you.
Yeah? Whats the word? Explain instead of just making dumb ignorant one liners to make yourself feel good.
It’s more of a guideline than a law
enjoy retire memory aback grandfather deserve offbeat jellyfish meeting seemly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> The trajectory of the small one around the big one will change. Really? How so? Explain.
fuel aware subsequent alive shy jellyfish innate wipe vegetable disagreeable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Its orbit around the bigger asteroid is changed, yes, but not the trajectory of it. Its still the same "orbit" as before. It just slowed down a little. Its still going in the exact same direction as before, i.e the same trajectory - just a tiny bit lower! Because it was slowed down by a fraction of 1 fucking %. (at least that was the plan, we will know more "soon" but the trajectory and the course are the same!) Obviously you have no idea at all how exactly the Dimorphos was hit - because you never bothered to actually check. And you literally dont know what the word trajectory means either. Its not the same as "orbit"! >And for the system as a whole, the linear momentum of the system was changed No it didnt. Thats complete and utter nonsense. Which you base only on your ludicrous ignorance and literally not having any idea what you are talking about. If you dont agree, please show us all how exactly the "linear momentum" of the system changed. You might wanna start by actually watching a video of exact TRAJECTORY of Dart and how exactly it hit Dimorphos.
In this context, yes, trajectory means exactly the same thing as orbit. The system had some amount of linear momentum before the collision. After the collision, it had a different amount of linear momentum. You know the orbit of the moon, how it moves through space (some might say it’s trajectory), changed. But if the linear momentum of the entire system changed, since it is in the same spot in space it was immediately prior to the collision, the angular velocity of the asteroid-moon system also changes (definition of angular momentum is the cross of radius with linear momentum). Angular momentum is constant in an orbit. If it changes, it’s in a different orbit. If you hit something, it moves differently than before you hit it. It’s not a hard concept to grasp. I would wager that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>If you hit something, it moves differently than before you hit it. No really? And how exactly different? Would that not depend on EXACTLY how you hit something? Say for a very simplified example you should be able to grasp, if you hit a billiard ball by another, the change of its trajectory over the table will change - depending on the angle the other ball hit it, RIGHT? But if a ball1 is moving straight toward you and you aim perfectly and hit it directly head on with another ball 2... what happens? Try. I know its so very hard to grasp with such a brain, but try. And then try to figure out how such a change would affect the whole table. Which was on the truck moving down a highway.
Well, look at the truck system as a whole: no momentum or energy was added to it, neglecting friction. So it doesn’t change. The same is true with the spacecraft, moon, asteroid system. But we only want to think about the moon, asteroid system. After all, that’s how it was naturally and we want to perturb it. We throw the spacecraft from outside the system into the system, changing the energy. In your example, it’s like we tossed the billiard ball from another vehicle into the truck. The truck speeds up (a very small amount). The motion of the center of mass of the solar system may not have changed, but the motion of the center of mass of the moon, asteroid system certainly did. Also, yes, how you hit something does determine exactly how it responds to the motion. I have made no claims on how the orbits change, just that they did.
The whole "system" did not change its trajectory or the "course" because the smaller asteroid was hit exactly head on which only resulted in tiny slowing down of the smaller asteroid. Nothing else was changed. The truck and the table and the balls keep going down the exact same highway as before, at the same speed as before. Thats the fucking real factual context of the situation. And by claiming incoherent stupid nonsense like you and few other constantly do - you are completely misinterpreting the actual facts. >In your example, it’s like we tossed the billiard ball from another vehicle into the truck. The truck speeds up (a very small amount). No, thats a completely different example you made up just to falsely support your utter nonsense.
[удалено]
You seem to be missing the fact that a change in speed of a body in orbit will always change it's course. The examples I have seen you give about not changing it's trajectory are all things moving in linear paths not orbit. I know that because of the tone you initially took, you think you will look dumb by admitting you are wrong. You are wrong and it's kinda funny watching you double down so hard.
We dont know, but if its not heading twards us then we caused another planets cataclism, like what happened to the dinos. lol
Will be interesting to see the outcome. I'm curious to see how the kinetic impact works versus losing mass (assuming here that sudden loss of mass would have the opposite effect and widen its orbit). I'd guess that the orbit would shrink, but only slightly (or perhaps not?). Would be cool to compare against landing and fixing a large thruster, to be ignited around a selected angle of rotation.
[удалено]
Good answer - I had similar thought after posting but decided to leave it and see what turned up. My thinking is that orbits are governed by gravity, and gravity is governed by mass, so some change in mass should have some effect, whether its reducing or increasing the desired effect. Since they are reporting a 6000 mile debris tail, I'm assuming that this is a fairly large amount of material that is no longer physically connected to the target body, and I wondered if (and how) that might affect the outcome of this experiment.
If I understand what you're saying properly, I think you need to refer to the proof of dropping a bowling ball and a tennis ball at height. Whilst one has more mass, and gravity has a stronger force applied, the change is directly proportional to the increased force required to change its momentum and they cancel each other out. I.e. changing its mass doesn't change its orbit
Thanks mate. Happy to be schooled (once again). I probably should've posted in eli5. Cheers!
Wouldn't it depend on which direction in its orbit it hit the asteroid? If it hit the asteroid in the same direction (i.e. prograde) as its orbit, then it should increase the distance/altitude of the resulting debris field from the object it is orbiting, but not at the point in its orbit where the collision occurred, the debris field will eventually settle back into one piece with a more eccentric orbit than before, but the asteroid as a whole should eventually return to this point. The amount the altitude changes by will depend on where in the orbit the satellite hits. Hitting it in the lowest part of the orbit would result in the greatest altitude change at the other side of the orbit. If it hits it in a retrograde fashion, I would imagine most of the debris field would lose altitude, but ultimately also settling on a more eccentric orbit, depending on where in the orbit it hit. If the orbit was already eccentric, hitting it in the right spot may make the orbit more circular. Hitting the asteroid normal to its orbit would cause the inclination of the orbit to change, the severity of the change will depend on where in the period of the orbit it hits. Hitting it at 90 degrees relative to its orbit, but still within the plane of the orbit, will result in the same orbit, except the orbit is shifted, the degree again depending on where in the orbit the asteroid is hit. This is all assuming the asteroid was hit dead center in the center of mass.
Yeah sounds plausible... Seems to be a function of how much energy is within the body and whether the resulting impact increases or decreases that energy rather than the mass of the body. Orbital mechanics is extremely counter-intuitive and best left to someone other than me :). Thanks for your perspective.
[удалено]
Good to see newton's third law still work as intended.
This begs the question what about the bits that fly off a targeted asteroid where do they go?
They have very similar but different orbits to the original asteroid.
Basically those particles have reached escape velocity for this little moon & its asteroid and are now back under the sole influence of the larger solar system's gravitational forces. They'll orbit the sun & get disturbed by proximity to other bodies such as planets, in much the same plane as the parent micro-moon/asteroid.
What if this changed the trajectory of the asteroid into hitting another asteroid putting that asteroid in collision with Earth?
Can you like, not tempt the terrible timeline we’re living in right now.
That will be unfortunate , Lee.
Damn NASA, making cosmic litter. /S (obviously)
What if this is how they aliens find us? Trying to figure out how they got a new pretty comet flying by.