Comments on: NASA designs nuclear asteroid deflector https://russian.lifeboat.com/blog/2007/08/nasa-designs-nuclear-asteroid-deflector Safeguarding Humanity Sun, 04 Jun 2017 19:14:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: Jeff Wright https://russian.lifeboat.com/blog/2007/08/nasa-designs-nuclear-asteroid-deflector#comment-67790 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:01:09 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=87#comment-67790 Rusty fails to acknowledge that a gravity tractor cannot be a flyby impactor mission, as MSFC suggests. More, you need a lengthy Rosetta type mission. Rosetta will have been in space 10 years before reaching its target–and had that been a gravity tractor, still more time would be required for the tractor to even work–assuming it does.

The Marshall plan is faster, hits the object sooner, and allows time for deviation to build–without time wasted in Rosetta style catch-up missions

]]> By: Rusty Schweickart https://russian.lifeboat.com/blog/2007/08/nasa-designs-nuclear-asteroid-deflector#comment-9631 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:33:08 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=87#comment-9631 Dear Lifeboat Foundation:

Your readers deserve to know that the NASA report to Congress on NEOs is seriously flawed report with many technical and conceptual errors. They should see the evidence and weigh it for themselves. This can be done by reading both the NASA report itself (both the short version to Congress and the full technical report which NASA refused to release until a Congressional staffer filed a FOIA request) and the B612 Foundation independent report and analysis of the NASA report itself. These can be found at
http://www.b612foundation.org/press/press.html (see #s 15 & 16)

The report out of MSFC re the use of nuclear explosives was reported at the Planetary Defense Conference back in Mar 07; it is not new. Nor are nuclear weapons needed for 99% of the realistic threat over the next 100 years.

]]>