The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
NASA's Manned Mission to Asteroid 2000 SG344
dailygalaxy.com — Turn up your favorite Aerosmith CD, because a new report from NASA is looking at sending a two man crew to rendezvous with 2000 SG344, a 40 meter wide asteroid that was given a high chance of striking Earth.
Bukowsky- 450 diggs
- digg it
- JohnDo, on 05/10/2008, -6/+8I wonder if Bruce Willis would be willing to go...
- solid12345, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Actually can we send Ashton Kutcher in his place to leave and never come back instead?
- Happy_Phantom, on 05/10/2008, -1/+9Apophis is coming in 2036. We need to be ready.
- Encablossa, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7At 2.7% probability I'd say: let's not suck each other's ***** quite yet.
- swizzcheez, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Well I don't know about that, but I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good.
- BeefBaron, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Damned Goa'uld.
- epborden, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1haha perfect!
- Encablossa, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7At 2.7% probability I'd say: let's not suck each other's ***** quite yet.
- sc0rpi0n, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Go! NASA Go! Blew that damn thing up!
- incd, on 05/10/2008, -7/+2Dailymail has an article about this too, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/tec ...
- blackjack75, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Oh, so it's tabloid *****?
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/10/2008, -18/+2And this is worth billions of our tax dollars because...
- lolinyerface, on 05/10/2008, -0/+14Maybe you should go back in a hole and hide from the world a bit longer.
- KaiUno, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3It's better spent blasting other folk to kingdom come, isn't it.
- masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3Assuming those folk aren't blasting other folk to kingdom come.
- Sludgehammer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7You know, we don't even know what the internal composition of most asteroids is; if they're solid or if they're a pile of rubble stuck together by gravity. Such a thing would be nice to know if we had to divert a civilization destroying asteroid sometime in the future, because it radically changes how we can divert it. While a mechanical probe can collect such data, a human is infinitely more versatile given the same tools. A human can move quicker, work faster, and apply tools in a much more diverse manner.
- soupdawg30, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Your ignorance amazes me...
- mark101, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6The speed of the Asteroid relative to the Earth makes this ...?
- psevium, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9awesome
- dhusk, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2This makes a lot more sense in the near-term than sending a mission to Mars, which really needs to be put on the backburner until our technology is actualy ready for it. Asteroids, not the Red Planet, is the next logical step up after gong back to the moon. But there are hundreds of near-earth asteroids that could potentially be visited, and most of them offer potentially useful, and een profitable, resources that can be developed with near-term technology. The real readily-available wealth in the solar system lies in asteroids and comets, and they will probably be more important to our future in space than Mars will be. Also, for those of you griping about wasting money on this, etc, you should remember that a lot ofpeople said that about satellites back in the beginning of the space age. Andnow saellites are a $100+ Billion a year industry.
- thcobbs, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4"which really needs to be put on the backburner until our technology is actualy ready for it."
Reaaaaly? If that were true, we wouldn't have gone to the moon. The act of making the attempt will spur technological development at a much faster rate.
- thcobbs, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4"which really needs to be put on the backburner until our technology is actualy ready for it."
- FireStalker, on 05/10/2008, -5/+4somebody tell bush theirs oil on there!
- RJS1987, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Buried for intolerable grammar error
- gquaglia, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Not oil, but a fortune in minerals and metals. I could see a day when corporations harvest these things for their raw materials. The profit would cover the expense of the trip, plus turn a profit.
- masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Just a thought, but, why would they be doing this on one with high probability of striking earth? Is there something they're not telling us?
- Sludgehammer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5In the article, they stated that its chance to hit earth has been downgraded to "unlikely to hit earth". As to why they're landing on this asteroid in particular, it's because the asteroid is coming very close to the earth (it kinda has to for it to be a near miss) so it's a short trip.
- masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3*hits self on forehead*
- masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I guess it wouldn't really disprove it, unless they're boarding it after it goes by earth. But yeah, makes sense.
- Sludgehammer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5In the article, they stated that its chance to hit earth has been downgraded to "unlikely to hit earth". As to why they're landing on this asteroid in particular, it's because the asteroid is coming very close to the earth (it kinda has to for it to be a near miss) so it's a short trip.
- shadowblade989, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1Why? So they can all stand and spin on it and alter it's trajectory?
I love NASA and the work they do, but sometimes I think they have some silly ideas.- soupdawg30, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Too bad you didn't read the article to find out what their idea was.
- TheFoo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8Isn't that where Samus went in Metroid 2?
- Narty, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9Sorry to be a douchebag, but this irked me:
"Some of the complications they will face are the fact that asteroids do not have any gravity of their own. ... In addition, astronauts would not necessarily be able to walk around on its surface without being kicked in to orbit around the asteroid, or simply out in to space."
So you can orbit something with "no gravity"?- gquaglia, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Any object with mass has gravity. To what degree depends on how massive the object is.
- AgmLauncher, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Poor wording on their part. It should have been "small asteroids like this do not have sufficient gravity to safely keep a lander on their surface"
- alittleroy101, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Ah, me too! I checked the comments as soon as I got to that paragraph in the article. I've got that part in my clipboard right now. Who writes that?
Edit: It looks like someone caught it on their comment page too. The first response mentions it.
- crowbarred, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1But are you sure, this is the shortest straw? theres still one left
- 1randomguyO8, on 05/10/2008, -6/+1Wouldn't it be travelling at 304194,410044,06044 kms/hr? How would you land something on that?
- markthegoth, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2relative speed.
Like walking on a train, you don't need to keep up with the train then add another 5mph to walk forward.
- markthegoth, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2relative speed.
- jjb123, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1It would be a problem considering that number you provided is faster than the speed of light.
Edit: stupid reply system is stupid. - mayanks098, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Another one that resembles a movie plot.
- horaz, on 05/10/2008, -1/+0don t kill him , please...http://sharrmuta.blogspot.com/
- SEANWOOKIE, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Great! All we need now is Aerosmith.
- Goodanswer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1 FROM NASA'S OWN WEB SITE ABOUT IT>
"Impact Probability
The probability that the tabulated impact will occur. The probability computation is complex and depends on a number of assumptions that are difficult to verify. For these reasons the stated probability can easily be inaccurate by a factor of a few, and occasionally by a factor of ten or more."
In other words.."we really have NO IDEA what might happen so well just scare you to keep your attention." Thanks- NASA- - Schmich, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3*Turns up the volume*
*Presses play to hear Aerosmith*
"We're no strangers to love..."
Grrr, damn you! - kelmaster1, on 05/10/2008, -1/+340 meter wide asteroid? Won't that just burn up in the atmosphere?
- godseyeview, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1dont think so. Recently they had to shoot down a satellite with a missile because it was gonna cause damage on impact. That was a shody metallic satellite a few meters wide; this is a 40 meter wide dense iron nickel rock. and the faster it goes the less time it has in the atmosphere.
- alittleroy101, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1No way. It would be a disaster for anyone near the impact area.
- joeanon, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a good idea and good test mission for the new landers
- epborden, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I'm going to call my friend Tyrannosaurus Rex to see what to do about this, he has experience.
- elucubra, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Go! Just go! There, to Mars, To the Moon, anywhere out! The future is out there.
We have spent many times the money needed for such missions in frigging oil and power wars... - novenator, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1the daily galaxy. awesome
- wastelander, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1If we must insist on manned space "stunts" lets do this INSTEAD of going back to the moon..
This project at least has some genuine scientific merit.. and it would be cool to see astronauts floating up next to a giant rock.
Of course a robot would still be far cheaper and safer.. - Rwned, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1let's do it.
- solid12345, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Is this another one of these ***** hype up trailers about the end of the world yet the asteroid never does hit and they save the day AGAIN
- WTFppl, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1*****, a lunar moon base should have happened 15+ years ago, but we keep waisting money on stupid crusading!
Moon base > asteroid landing: Just think, we could start making 0-gravity motors and exceed calculations that were not possible in a gravity that of earth. The moon would be the best testing area for plasma rockets and engines! Currently, to date, there are 61 engine designs that can be used as a source of propulsion. NASA uses two least inefficient design, "liquid fuel rockets/engines. The other 59 designs are solid state fuels, plasma drive makes up 18 of those designs. Plasma design has been tested and prototyped. In 1967 a plasma rocket left Los Alamos testing grounds @ 2800fps and landed at Groom Lake 640 miles N/NW of Los Alamos in just over 12 minutes. Since that time, several companies took up the design for research and development. Once we get that engine to the moon and perfect it, we'll get to Mars very quick! - CrushThemTorg, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Don't wanna close my eyes, don't wanna fall asleep (Guitar rockout)
Jesus. What an awful song. - Konwashere, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Holy crap, that asteroid might be full of Clefaries!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is