There was a Kerbal perched on the side of the craft

[removed]

Didn’t work for me, but nasa dart did

It did work fine, it got more than 600 pictures of the impact during it's flyby and they were downloaded. Only a handful were released by ASI, the Italian Space Agency, though. Here you can find the pictures that were released: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/first-images-from-italian-space-agency-s-liciacube-satellite/ https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/10/LICIACube_image_of_asteroid_ejecta Two animations were also shown in a NASA press conference, but I can't find it

Maybe it’s an asteroids game sort of approach, so you hit a smaller asteroid adjusting it’s orbit, bits of that then slam into the threatening asteroid with more effect than just using the original impact object...👍

I think Andromeda is getting closer to us. So if you live for a few hundred million years, you would have a pretty fantastic night view.

Which, as a casual observer, doesn’t seem unreasonable if the fate of civilization is on the line. (This comment is aware of the the impending doom of man-made climate change. Only thinking about the ability of the global community's ability to potentially mobilize around a less-abstract threat to our existence)

Dumb question, but what does it mean that the orbit was altered by 33 min? Also is that a lot?

[removed]

[removed]

Thank you this question! You’ve given rise to many other questions in my mind.

I didn’t realize these facts about the andromeda galaxy, thank you. I also didn’t realize this fact about the satellite galaxies. Thank you for this answer, that clears up some questions of mine lol.

Sure. You can do the math, but moving a rock that weighs 1000s of pounds to actually change course is crazy hard. And would take a lot of energy.

Go look up the term "delta V" and read up a bit on it. 99.99% of the math to get that prob to hit the asteroid was done before it launched. If it was off by even a degree when it launched, they wouldn't have been able to correct its course enough to hit the target.

someone else probably will do the maths better but I’d bet because if the squishiness it transferred more of its kinetic energy into the target instead of converting it into more heat which would be the result of a more solid hit. Don’t trust me tho, just my thought on how it works

When we see Andromeda with the naked eye we're just seeing it's bright nucleus. That's why it looks like a a star. If it were fully visible it would look like this. We could see it and it would be big and cool. But, unfortunately, things in space are actually very dim and if we were in a more densely packed corner of the universe we'd have the same problem most of the time. Even the Milky Way, which is huge and we live inside of, is only visible in dark areas away from cities.

In the Southern Hemisphere you can see with the unaided eye the Milky Way's satellite galaxies, the Small & Large Megellanic Clouds.

In this case Dimorphos orbits another asteriod, and has an orbital period of a few hours.

The Andromeda galaxy is faint because of it's distance but it takes up more space in the sky than the moon, it doesn't just look like a star.

Because we are within our own galaxy we see it edge wise, basically a thick line of faint stars (due to distance).

Almost all the stars visible to the naked eye are within 1000 light years of earth. Our own galaxy is 100,000 light years across and Andromeda is bigger but it's ~2.5 million light years away.

>>We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions.

>So what.

You really don't understand the significance here.

>>The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it.

>Doubt it. Humans will be the cause of human extinction. At that rate it's not an extinction it's darwinism. Spending money on diverting astroids is proof of what I'm saying.

We're the apex predator on this planet. If the ecosystem collapses, it'll take us with it. And yes, humans are the main cause of the current mass extinction event.

And no, spending money on research to deflect asteroids does not prove what you're saying.

>Perhaps you've heard of every kind of government funding into research ever is for weaponizing the stated goal.

Yeah, like how the smallpox vaccine program was really about weaponization. /s

>We wouldn't have nuclear bombs if it wasn't for the benevolent purpose of finding clean energy.

You are completely wrong. Nuclear programs came out of advancements in physics. Quantum mechanics showed that there was enormous energy potential locked away in atoms. Splitting these atoms in a controlled reaction would release energy. It was WW2 and the possibility of other belligerent nations building the atomic bomb that spurred American research. It had nothing to do with finding clean energy.

>This goes for any significant government funding into research. Its true purpose is war, under the lie of something more benign.

Sure, a lot space technologies can have military applications. So what? The ability to image the surface of a planet can have military applications, should we have never invested into that even though the same technology is used to find tumors in a living person?

I'm not really seeing the point of your position.

[removed]

What is a space program other than a far future military research division? This research will eventually filter back to military applications and maintains the US hemomgeny.

Wait you think we developed nuclear bombs for the purpose of finding clean energy? WHEEZE

It represents the change in how long the asteroid will take to complete an orbit around the sun. It might not sound like much in the context of years-long orbits, but if this change in orbit can be enacted early enough and in the right direction, it can be the difference between the asteroid eventually striking Earth directly or missing it.

Think about a car driving down a road at 60mph. Let's say that 60 miles down the road, someone will walk across the road, let's call them Earth, and they won't be paying attention to traffic, idk maybe they're on their phone and have earphones in. In 1hr, the car will cross paths with Earth and run them over assuming it doesn't slow down. If you try and slow it down right as it's gonna hit Earth, you'll have to really slam on the breaks, and even then it might be too late. But if you intervene 1hr in advance and slow the car down ever so slightly such that the car arrives at where Earth crosses the road just a few seconds later, the crisis is averted with very little energy spent.

That's the exact same principle behind asteroid redirection efforts like this. Hope it helps.

[removed]

>We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions.

So what.

>The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it.

Doubt it. Humans will be the cause of human extinction. At that rate it's not an extinction it's darwinism. Spending money on diverting astroids is proof of what I'm saying.

>spinoff technology

I've heard of this. Perhaps you've heard of every kind of government funding into research ever is for weaponizing the stated goal. We wouldn't have nuclear bombs if it wasn't for the benevolent purpose of finding clean energy.

This goes for any significant government funding into research. Its true purpose is war, under the lie of something more benign.

If we can get a vehicle to an asteroid using math, I'm pretty sure there's an equally simple formula to get on to earth at the appropriate time and space.

To speculate otherwise shows how dangerous you think the technology is at its current situation.