A dwarf planet coming within 11 AU of the sun over the next 10 years
groups.io
groups.io
Also, there will be nothing to see out there other than the dwarf planet itself.
Now, something like this can work if you use an irreversible interaction like aerobreaking, but this dwarf planet has negligible atmosphere. You could also use the dwarf planet for a gravitational assist (basically bouncing off it like a billiard ball), but I think gravitational assists from the other planets are almost always more convenient and effective.
Unless you're NASA landing a probe on Mars in 1997.
Like, imagine a collapsible rod about a kilometer long sticking off the end of a space probe, lined up so it hits the surface as close to perpendicular as possible, each segment made of appropriate material for its impact speed. (I think once you go past the speed of sound in a material, you can't transfer any more force)
With the far end of the rod, which impacts first and with the most force probably vaporizing/creating a crater on the surface (useful to align the rest of the rod), and later sections crumpling in on themselves predictably, like a highway crash barrier or car hood. With a certain max amount of Acceleration, Jerk, Snap, etc... that the probe can survive.
I would very much like someone to explain why decelerating a spacecraft like this is infeasible/inefficient so I can stop thinking about it. Failing that, I wish to devote the next few years of my life to jamming a massive spear into the moon.
First off, mass. Mass is everything in spaceflight. A rod like that would weigh thousands of kg at the very minimum, likely much more than the rest of the spacecraft combined. Spending the same mass budget for propellant and a big rocket engine would be much more efficient, never mind being useful for arbitrary velocity changes rather than just deceleration.
Second, shape and volume. How would you even launch a km-long rod to space? Not going to fit onto any launch vehicle ever devised. Besides, even at 1g it would collapse under its own weight. Making it telescoping would just increase total volume besides adding complexity – and mass, did I mention mass? Never mind that a collapsible rod is going to have a vastly lower compressive strength than a solid one, making it nigh useless for the intended purpose.
Third, moment of inertia. A long, massive rod stuck to your spacecraft is going to make orientation changes really difficult. And orientation changes are pretty important in spaceflight due to heat management, course corrections, and, well, being in the exact right orientation for your braking maneuver.
Fourth, the concept of a hypervelocity rod falling from space reminds me of something… yeah, kinetic bombardment, aka "rods from God" [1]. The rod and whatever it's going to hit are not going to behave like solid objects crumpling like a crashing car. Stuff at the point of impact is just going to instantly vaporize and result in an explosion likely in the kiloton range, a fried spacecraft, and a big crater on the surface.
Fifth, even if you first decelerate to more reasonable speeds by other means (which is going to take a lot of fuel because of the extra mass (see, again the m word)), a rod much longer than its diameter is not going to nicely crumple into itself under compression. It will buckle, and then snap, like a piece of spaghetti, failing to decelerate much at all but sending your spacecraft tumbling out of control.
~ ~ ~
All that said, there are instances where crumple zones have had a small role in spaceflight, including the the Apollo Lunar Module which included crushable honeycomb shock absorbers in the landing gear struts.
No, it doesn't, because natural satellites are generally not captured, and for those that are captured, the process involves interactions with other bodies.
"Most satellites of the outer solar system didn’t form with their host planets"
https://astronomy.com/news/2016/12/captured-moons-of-the-gia...
Even Triton, which is the size of a planet and in an almost circular orbit, is thought to be captured, the last I heard.
From what I understand any eccentric orbits would either flatten out or crash into Jupiter.
Is that so?
"The generic definition of a centaur is a small body that orbits the Sun between Jupiter and Neptune and crosses the orbits of one or more of the giant planets"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(small_Solar_System_bo...
There are tens of thousands, so perhaps the definition of a planet is even more abstruse than people let on.
And apparently at least dozens have been identified as probably of interstellar origin, while it is thought that a centaur can become a moon, (e.g. Phoebe) so I wonder if we can really rule out that moons "come hurtling out of the cosmos":
"Being able to tell apart interstellar asteroids from native asteroids born in the Solar System has long eluded astronomers, but the team’s results identified 19 asteroids of interstellar origin. These are currently orbiting as part of the group of asteroids known as Centaurs, which roam the space in between the giant planets of the Solar System."
https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/research-highlights/interst...
Yes, it is. The definition of "clearing an orbit" isn't precisely defined, but it doesn't have to be since there appears to be a large natural gap in how much orbit clearing an planet does vs. a dward planet.
> A large body that meets the other criteria for a planet but has not cleared its neighbourhood is classified as a dwarf planet. That includes Pluto, whose orbit intersects with Neptune's orbit and shares its orbital neighbourhood with many Kuiper belt objects. The IAU's definition does not attach specific numbers or equations to this term, but all IAU-recognised planets have cleared their neighbourhoods to a much greater extent (by orders of magnitude) than any dwarf planet or candidate for dwarf planet.[0]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
Oberth effect from fast flyby of a body with low gravity would be negligible.
Pretty sure the problem would be, rather, that a flyby of a body with low gravity would be negligibly fast (relative to your speed when not flying by). Oberth effect is because of high speed (a given increase in momentum gives more kinetic energy at higher speed than at lower speed) - it's just that dipping deep into a gravity well is the obvious way to get that speed.
Note to the audience: these mechanisms don’t violate the conservation of energy because you aren’t tapping the object’s gravitational energy per se but instead its orbital energy around the sun. Put another way, you can’t do a gravity assist or capture burn in any direction.
(Usually textbooks use a baseball bouncing off a semi truck to illustrate.)
Technically, this isn't completely true. There are gravity assist techniques that will allow you to dump speed by essentially adding your momentum to the object you are trying to orbit. The is basically an anti-slingshot manuever.
In practice, I believe the range of scenarios when this is possible with a dwarf planet is so small as to be practically useless.
You can lose speed or alter course relative to another body in a single encounter, and those changes can reduce speed in future encounters, but if you’re on an escape trajectory heading in you stay in one (without forces beside two-body gravity, which is a pretty safe assumption 11 AU out of Saturn doesn’t come close).
Two-body systems do not exist in reality.
Energy is also conserved in 3 body problems. When you utilize the slingshot effect, some of the energy of the orbit of the body you are swinging around orbiting is transfered to you. The transfer of this energy does not depend on the closeness of the sun, but rather on how deeply you descend into the gravity well of the object you are slingshotting around.
> which is a pretty safe assumption 11 AU out of Saturn doesn’t come close
No, it really isn't. The "safeness" of the assumption entirely depends on your margin for error. The existence of the naturally captured saturnian satellites clearly indicates that you are simply wrong about the relevant margins for error.
I don't have a strong background in physics, and perhaps this is splitting hairs, but is this true if we consider gravitational radiation? Over a very long time a body's orbital energy will be lost to gravitational waves.
For practical purposes, that'll never happen, but for practical purposes gravitation radiation doesn't matter anyway.
I've been thinking that attaching a sabatier reactor to a probe and sending it to land on an extra solar body such as Oumuamua that contains the ingredients that the sabatier needs to produce fuel would be a great way to get a probe that sends signals back to Earth well after a nuclear battery has died.
Although it does seem like interesting idea.
However, we have sent probes much further than this object (aka the voyager missions).
So it would mainly be useful for studying this object. So a telescope would be less than ideal since we could always in theory deploy a telescope much deeper into space if we wanted.
Soft-landing the telescope on an airless body would be harder (in delta-V terms) than just launching it into an equivalent solar orbit. And the body would block about half your view of the sky at any one time.
But the energy required to do that is almost the same as what it would be if the dwarf planet wasn't there. You could get onto exactly the same orbit for roughly the same amount of energy, and if you relax the requirement that there be a dwarf planet nearby, you can choose superior orbits.
The point of a gravity boost is to come in pretty hot (relative to the body you're boosting off of) and then go out pretty hot in a different direction. So you take your relative velocity vector at the point of the encounter and twist it around. By doing that you change your orbital energy around your central body (the sun) by a lot, and the other object will lose a similar amount to keep the bookkeeping equal.
If you have zero relative velocity compared to the thing you want a gravity assist off of you can't get an assist. It isn't like drafting a semi.
Solar wind / radiation pressure is probably the next best free ride since that adds up over time continuously and is everywhere.
This object has all of the delta V that you could want, but for an object of that mass, the hyperbolic orbit would require going through the planetoid which you can't do. And if it was dense enough that you could (for example a miniature black hole), the tidal forces during the turn would be insane.
So no, this object cannot give a decent slingshot.
11 AU though seems like quite the stretch right now but maybe if there were a fleet of Spacex Starships in operation…
While this object will eventually orbit pretty far away in a solar system context, I suspect that additional distance may not be vast enough to make a meaningful improvement in observations of targets at interstellar distances.
I'd love to learn if I'm incorrect but I've always assumed for interstellar observation, larger sensors and more sensors has better ROI than a more distant sensor, at least short of some substantial fraction of a light year. If we're going to dedicate a 100 ton Starship payload to interstellar observing I imagine going much farther out than the Moon's shadow may not be a good trade (eg fuel mass vs payload mass).
I assume its orbital period is long enough that it won't be back near the central solar system for a very long time. But similar objects could have interesting uses.
One thought experiment is to consider what it would take to be able to live on such an object, perhaps even a rogue planet just floating between the stars.
It would be very cold. Presumably you'd be reliant on nuclear fission or fusion for power, so you'd need a significant fuel supply that could effectively last indefinitely. And you'd want to have a ready supply of all the basic elements you need. Which seems more realistic the bigger the object is. Like, an Earth or Mars-sized rogue planet might be ideal.
Using the plant as a Coronagraph if orbiting far out is another interesting idea, but using a near earth astroid would be a better idea as the telescope could be powered by solar panels they.
> For the sake of simplicity, Saturn is 1.2 billion km, roughly 7 AU, from the Earth when the two are at their closest approach to one another. They are 1.67 billion km, around 11 AU, from each other when they are at their most distant. Saturn and Earth are the closest to each other when they are on the same side of the Sun and at similar points in their orbits. The are the most distant when on opposite sides of the Sun.
That's a unit conversion error. 1.2 billion / 150 million is 8, not 7.
Saturn's perihelion (closest distance to the Sun) is 1.35B km (9.0 AU), its aphelion (furthest distance) is 1.51B km (10.1 AU), and its mean distance is 1.43B km (9.6 AU).
Thus, at closest approach Saturn is 8 AU from Earth (since Earth orbits at an almost-constant 1 AU from the Sun).
Edit: for clarity.
Measuring the AU is fraught with errors of all sorts. For centuries it mostly consisted of exploiting tiny parallaxes on the Earth's surface between planetary bodies- for instance, Cassini and Richtie measured the parallax of Mars between Paris and French Guiana. But a small error propagates to a much, much larger error in the final result than relative distances between planetary bodies in AU distances. If your measurement of the parallax of Mars is off by one arcminute, your measurement is totally useless, but if your measurement of the angle to Mars is off by one arcminute, your distance to Mars in AUs is off by a few percent.
It wasn't until the 1960s when the JPL measured distances to Venus and Mars using radar that we were confident we had a good grasp on how long an AU was. But by that point, we had already measured the relative distances between the bodies in the solar system using the AU ruler relatively accurately for centuries.
Even as an adult that still always makes me chuckle. I can't help it.
Good to know, I guess...
Uranium and Urine
edit: sorry, just realised I probably misread you (as saying we should say where we're from and use IPA), in which case this comment is redundant.
And, that's why this place is great.
[1] https://www.dollarshaveclub.com/content/story/anus-urine-us-...
This just sounds like "urine us". Potato, potato?
Growing up in Australia, the British 'you-ray-nəs' (i.e. not quite 'your anus', but only because of the first vowel sound) is the pronunciation I was familiar with. Lately I've heard 'you-rə-nəs' fairly often, but not exclusively.
I doubt that Οὐρανός is pronounced anywhere close to "your-ah-noose", unless you're pronouncing "your-ah-noose" in a very strange way.
I imagine with this (relatively) short notice this is cutting it a bit close to orchestrate a proper orbital insertion by a designed, manufactured and tested program?
Hmmm, can we make 11au?? I think so.
Voyager 1 has been flying for over 43 years [0]. In that time it went over 150 AU. This averages about 3.5 AU/year. It took, from start of project to launch, about 5 years (1972 - 1977 [1]).
If this body is going to be 11 AU away in 10 years away we'd need to move at an average 2.2 AU/year and hit the right launch windows.
I think that it falls into the "yes, it's possible" but not into the "of course it's possible, how could you even ask" category.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1
[1] - https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/timeline/#event-voyager...
All our normal expectations for probe arrival times and such are based on one-shot launches, straight out of Earth's gravity well into escape velocity in one shot. It's not like launching with fuel suddenly makes it a two-day trip or anything, but it can do quite a bit of shortening and allow for quite a lot more maneuvering.
This is one of the next touchstones in space progress I've been looking for. A lot of previously impractical things become practical if we can routinely do multilaunches.
So a bit less dramatic but still really cool.
It's basically just an exceptionally large comet. It's not Melancholia.
The Hubble photos we have from Saturn are a 7-8 AU range, right?
Even more stupid question:
Pointing the Hubble there is worth the effort? how many pixels wide would be a 200km diameter object at 11 AU?
Depends on zoom and resolution of the camera.
--> https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Don't get too excited about looking at this one; that's a bit brighter than Pluto, so you'd need a pretty decent telescope to spot it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)#Examples
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Cometary_ma...
Here's the documentation for the fields in OP's data table:
"H Absolute visual magnitude. A table converting H to a diameter is available."
https://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/OrbElsExplanation...
Am I right to interpret this as meaning that the body has an extreme inclination, almost in polar orbit of the Sun? That would be pretty interesting; it would mean an orbit completely out of line with the rest of the Solar System.
But it's not that interesting or unusual. The Oort cloud doesn't really obey the plane of the solar system the way the planets or Kuiper belt do. That's why it's called a 'cloud' and not a 'belt'.
It has an orbital period of 3 million years, so it will be its first site of humanity.
It's also pretty small, about 1/20th the size of the moon. Huge for a comet, but smaller than Ceres.
Highly impractical, and would take centuries to slow it down enough.
For a setting where we were getting it right until we got it wrong, see Niven's "A World out of Time".
What this means is that if do you have a way to move it into a circular orbit around the sun, you could gain energy from the process, rather than having it cost energy. Maybe the best way to gather that energy, and possibly to move it as well, would be through gravitational assists, since they are lossless kinematic interactions. The energy gathered could then be used to build more of whatever is doing the interaction, exponentially speeding up the process.
Calculating the exact path of an orbiting body under thrust is difficult. But the object will be within 1% of the desired orbital radius for roughly a 22-degree arc of its orbit centered on the periapsis, during which time its path will be closely approximated by a circular arc 648 million km long.
Let's say that over the course of this arc, we want to slow it from its initial speed of 12.7 km/s to the required circular orbital speed of 9.0 km/s. That means we need a continuous deceleration of roughly 0.00006 m/s^2 over a period of 2 years.
Assume that we'll produce this thrust by launching material from the object into space using mass drivers. By the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, the smaller the fraction of the object that we want to use as reaction mass, the larger our "exhaust" velocity has to be. If we want to only lose 10% of the total starting mass, we need our exhaust velocity to be about 10x the total desired delta-V -- that is, 37 km/s, or roughly 0.01% the speed of light. This is a tall order, but let's say we can somehow solve the engineering problems and build a linear accelerator that can get rocks moving that fast.
Assume the object is 160 km in diameter and made entirely of ice, giving it a total mass of about 2.0e18 kg. The total required momentum change is therefore about 7.5e21 kg m/s, and the required energy input is 1.4e26 J. If we assume constant thrust for two years, this means we would have to launch about 3.2 million tons of material per second, averaging out to 2.2 exawatts of power required.
To put this number in perspective, it's several million times higher than the average electricity generation of the entire planet Earth. To generate this much power using 100%-efficient solar panels, at a distance of 11 AU from the sun, you would need a solar array approximately half the diameter of the sun itself.
So a direct propulsion approach, at least, doesn't really seem like it's within the realm of feasibility.
It would be a hell of a world to go from "desert" to "so we've got all these new oceans to name and also you can't breathe it but ground level pressure is one atmosphere".
But sure if it’s gonna happen, let’s get the neighbors a pool! Just let me uh… change my shorts.
An entire fragmented comet impacted Jupiter in 1994
> Over the next six days, 21 distinct impacts were observed, with the largest coming on July 18 at 07:33 UTC when fragment G struck Jupiter. This impact created a giant dark spot over 12,000 km (7,500 mi) across, and was estimated to have released an energy equivalent to 6,000,000 megatons of TNT (600 times the world's nuclear arsenal).[24] Two impacts 12 hours apart on July 19 created impact marks of similar size to that caused by fragment G, and impacts continued until July 22, when fragment W struck the planet.[25]
> Although the impacts took place on the side of Jupiter hidden from Earth, Galileo, then at a distance of 1.6 AU (240 million km; 150 million mi) from the planet, was able to see the impacts as they occurred.
We’re getting better at this stuff!
> At about one-quarter the diameter of Earth (comparable to the width of Australia), it [the Moon] is the largest natural satellite in the Solar System relative to the size of its planet, the fifth largest satellite in the Solar System overall, and is larger than any dwarf planet.
(It's not possible in any reasonable time)
I suppose it'll get named soon.
Rosetta took 10 years to match pace with and orbit a comet (which had a closest approach to the Sun less than 1 AU) using a number of gravity assists.
https://raminskibba.net/2014/08/17/rosetta-and-the-comet/amp...
https://raminskibba.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/f4-large.jpg...
EDIT: s/perigee/perihelion. I could say periapse and be neutral, but perihelion sounds cool.
Aside: if you are looking to learn more, I cannot recommend Kerbal Space Program enough.
Maybe I’ll be vindicated when it turns out the planetoid is made out of grey goo.
I still find that inexplicable. To me, it sounds like saying "our calculator only does basic arithmetic on four core machines, square roots are too slow".
The mechanics are simplified, yes, but patched conics is quite a good approximation for many cases, and great for developing an intuition for the basics.
There is a mod that includes n-body calculations called Principia if you’re interested in that.
Upping the realism lowers the playability: games and simulators are subtly different things. Otherwise we'd all be playing STK/Astrogator instead of Kerbal, and AutoCAD instead of Minecraft, and sitting in city hall basements debugging spreadsheets in place of Cities: Skylines. The type of limitations that distinguish games from serious simulators are not accidents and not laziness, but deliberate design choices.
I concede this makes certain interesting topics like Lagrange points / halo orbits, masscons, and orbital precession inaccessible. That's part of the tradeoff.
https://spacenews.com/ulas-delta-4-heavy-down-to-final-five-...
With Starship this would definitely be doable, and I’m really optimistic about it; I just wanted to be cautious in my predictions.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if Delta IV’s life gets extended. Vulcan is facing plenty of development delays, and Blue Origin are yet to produce anything useful.
You could get a free ride by having it crash into you, but that's going to be like catching a bus by letting it hit you, at ten thousand miles an hour.
It looks like it currently orbits the sun.
The sun moves too a little bit, due to the pull of the planets. Maybe it's enough to make a difference?
But for interstellar objects, the answer is always "no". Unless it passes very close to some object that there's an orbital slingshot (or a collision, the odds of both are basically zero), interstellar objects always move away.
There are exceptions, of course. An asteroid passing through an atmosphere may be slowed down by friction (aerobraking), and be captured in orbit. Passing near another orbiting body, the interloper can be sped up or slowed down (gravity assist). But both of those require getting pretty close to a planet, and space is really big (citation needed), so it's unlikely that it would be captured.
Edit: Looks like I had the same misinterpretation, that it was a rogue planet rather than an Oort/Kuiper belt object.
Maybe "fat asteroid" is a better term than "dwarf planet" ?
In that vein, "differently sized" should also be ok.
Not a dwarf planet.
But big enough to be spherical. Or to eliminate multicellular life on Earth, if it hit us.
The probability of a starship being within 5 lightyears of earth is likely zero. If there is one, it's probably because it's already on its way here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_e...
There is also a possibility that there are advanced civilizations that jailbreaked the Universe/Reality and can be anywhere in seconds. Whether they give a shit about primitive civilizations like us who invented decent computers only like fifty years back is a different question altogether.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvR1fRTW8g
(Though that video mostly talks about small objects like rockets. Maybe it's a different story for dwarf planets?)
That said... Keep in mind that this is about a dwarf planet orbiting the Sun. It's 11 AU out, so twice as far from the Sun as Jupiter is.
If you were to make a velocity change to this object in its aphelion to make it hit the Sun, it would be vastly easier (at least per unit of weight) than do the same with a probe launched from Earth.
But keep in mind, it says "within 11 AU of the Sun", which is still beyond Saturn; Saturn's 9.5 AU away from the Sun, and Uranus is about 19 AU away from the Sun. So it's still pretty far away.
It's remarkable that this dwarf planet's orbit reaches it. Its aphelion is 54,600 AU, or 0.86 light years!
That body is on a cometary orbit, and need not be stable long term. If it's chaotically pushed around by the major outer planets it might get sent into an orbit that gets into the inner solar system. And if something that size hit Earth, it would be game over for life here -- the impact would vaporize much or all of the oceans.
Even an impact by something the size of comet Hale-Bopp would destroy all higher life on the planet.
The chance of impacts like this may have been underestimated because of anthropic selection -- if any had occurred in the past (say) 1 billion years then we would not be here.
If it doesn't kill us this time, rest assured by the time it comes back we'll have done the job properly already.
Threats from supercomets are not a new concern: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/448/1/27/990672
"A 100 km comet striking the Earth would carry ∼1000 times the energy involved in the creation of the 150 km Chicxulub crater and would presumably remove the surface biosphere"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-day-the-di... (note: popscience and old! let me know if any here got disproved or there is more up to date material)
Within two minutes of slamming into Earth, the asteroid, which was at least six miles wide, had gouged a crater about eighteen miles deep and lofted twenty-five trillion metric tons of debris into the atmosphere. Picture the splash of a pebble falling into pond water, but on a planetary scale. When Earth’s crust rebounded, a peak higher than Mt. Everest briefly rose up. The energy released was more than that of a billion Hiroshima bombs, but the blast looked nothing like a nuclear explosion, with its signature mushroom cloud. Instead, the initial blowout formed a “rooster tail,” a gigantic jet of molten material, which exited the atmosphere, some of it fanning out over North America. Much of the material was several times hotter than the surface of the sun, and it set fire to everything within a thousand miles. In addition, an inverted cone of liquefied, superheated rock rose, spread outward as countless red-hot blobs of glass, called tektites, and blanketed the Western Hemisphere.
Some of the ejecta escaped Earth’s gravitational pull and went into irregular orbits around the sun. Over millions of years, bits of it found their way to other planets and moons in the solar system. Mars was eventually strewn with the debris—just as pieces of Mars, knocked aloft by ancient asteroid impacts, have been found on Earth. A 2013 study in the journal Astrobiology estimated that tens of thousands of pounds of impact rubble may have landed on Titan, a moon of Saturn, and on Europa and Callisto, which orbit Jupiter—three satellites that scientists believe may have promising habitats for life. Mathematical models indicate that at least some of this vagabond debris still harbored living microbes. The asteroid may have sown life throughout the solar system, even as it ravaged life on Earth.
The asteroid was vaporized on impact. Its substance, mingling with vaporized Earth rock, formed a fiery plume, which reached halfway to the moon before collapsing in a pillar of incandescent dust. Computer models suggest that the atmosphere within fifteen hundred miles of ground zero became red hot from the debris storm, triggering gigantic forest fires. As the Earth rotated, the airborne material converged at the opposite side of the planet, where it fell and set fire to the entire Indian subcontinent. Measurements of the layer of ash and soot that eventually coated the Earth indicate that fires consumed about seventy per cent of the world’s forests. Meanwhile, giant tsunamis resulting from the impact churned across the Gulf of Mexico, tearing up coastlines, sometimes peeling up hundreds of feet of rock, pushing debris inland and then sucking it back out into deep water, leaving jumbled deposits that oilmen sometimes encounter in the course of deep-sea drilling.
The damage had only begun. Scientists still debate many of the details, which are derived from the computer models, and from field studies of the debris layer, knowledge of extinction rates, fossils and microfossils, and many other clues. But the over-all view is consistently grim. The dust and soot from the impact and the conflagrations prevented all sunlight from reaching the planet’s surface for months. Photosynthesis all but stopped, killing most of the plant life, extinguishing the phytoplankton in the oceans, and causing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to plummet. After the fires died down, Earth plunged into a period of cold, perhaps even a deep freeze. Earth’s two essential food chains, in the sea and on land, collapsed. About seventy-five per cent of all species went extinct. More than 99.9999 per cent of all living organisms on Earth died, and the carbon cycle came to a halt.
Earth itself became toxic. When the asteroid struck, it vaporized layers of limestone, releasing into the atmosphere a trillion tons of carbon dioxide, ten billion tons of methane, and a billion tons of carbon monoxide; all three are powerful greenhouse gases. The impact also vaporized anhydrite rock, which blasted ten trillion tons of sulfur compounds aloft. The sulfur combined with water to form sulfuric acid, which then fell as an acid rain that may have been potent enough to strip the leaves from any surviving plants and to leach the nutrients from the soil.
Today, the layer of debris, ash, and soot deposited by the asteroid strike is preserved in the Earth’s sediment as a stripe of black about the thickness of a notebook. This is called the KT boundary, because it marks the dividing line between the Cretaceous period and the Tertiary period. (The Tertiary has been redefined as the Paleogene, but the term “KT” persists.) Mysteries abound above and below the KT layer. In the late Cretaceous, widespread volcanoes spewed vast quantities of gas and dust into the atmosphere, and the air contained far higher levels of carbon dioxide than the air that we breathe now. The climate was tropical, and the planet was perhaps entirely free of ice. Yet scientists know very little about the animals and plants that were living at the time, and as a result they have been searching for fossil deposits as close to the KT boundary as possible.
The biggest fusion bomb detonated on Earth was Tsar Bomba at 50 megatons, though the full yield is thought to have been more like 100 if the Russians hadn't deliberately nerfed it over radiation concerns.
Is there a theoretical upper limit to the yield of fusion bombs? I assume no one is building them bigger simply because there's no realistic military use for such things that wouldn't be better served by smaller accurately targeted nuclear bombs. Tsar Bomba was detonated in 1961, and no one has seen fit to repeat the experiment, though I suppose one or more of the major nuclear powers may have a modern warhead with equivalent yield that they just haven't tested or announced to the world.
Wikipedia is saying that there's thought to be a practical limit of around 6 megatons of yield per metric ton of bomb mass [1], and actual nuclear devices have achieved a little over 5, so I guess after some point there's not much reason to make a bigger bomb when you can just make two smaller ones.
This scenario is starting to sound a bit like a long-running Factorio game where the goal is to launch a rocket once a minute. With, say, a one year lead time could the economies of Earth launch a starship-style rocket with a half-dozen or so Tsar Bomba sized warhead once per day indefinitely? I think so. Would it be enough to destroy a dwarf planet? Probably not, but maybe it could knock loose enough chunks to nudge it into a slightly different orbit.
I just mean, worrying about that or being scared is not really worth it. If it happens it happens. There's better things to dedicate that energy towards. Save the worrying about things like that for the people being paid to come up with solutions in the extremely rare chance this happens within any of ours, our children's or our grand children's lifetimes, after that I dunno, I'll probably be dead by then.
Jupiter's orbit is roughly five AUs, and Saturn's orbit is at roughly ten, and in those regions, they have enormous influence on where stuff gets to go in the solar system.
Practically "outer solar system objects" and "interstellar objects" are overlapping categories since there is transport between the two.
The current distance from Sun is shown in the bottom center and you can change units in the menu attached to it. "Astronomical units" or "light minutes" might be the most useful, kilometers or miles if you just want to be blown away by the order of magnitude.
https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem....
I also submitted it for discussion here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27573172
Edit: fixed the scale, it's 1px:diameter of Moon, not 1px:distance Earth-Moon as I initially wrote.
Why would this do anything to spike solar flares? It’s a lump of rock and ice 130km across, further out than Saturn. What possible mechanism do you think there is that would cause that to occur?
That's it? I was hoping for something at least the size of Texas...
Also, Carrington class events are very rare. You should worry more about space junk crashing into important things and even then it’s not much of a worry.
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/likelihood...
That seems extremely imminent, like in my lifetime. How many of these events would shut down tech for months or years? Are those odds worth risking civilization over?
Sever might not be so dangerous
Big storms happen all the time. They’ll knock out a few power stations or shake up GPS and communications.
The Carrington level events are far more rare. We had a near miss in 2012. That would’ve been very exciting.