Given the speed of the rock, it's difficult to conceive of how this theoretical action would even marginally change the course of an asteroid large enough to be worried about. It'd be like blowing on a hypersonic missile that is larger than a building.
I'd strongly suggest playing some KSP to get intuition about orbital mechanics. A warning though: you'll never be able to enjoy space movies and shows, since they almost never present orbital mechanics correctly.
But in any case, the comparison with a hypersonic missile here can't be made:
1. hypersonic missiles have a guidance system, while asteroids do not. If an asteroid is moving in a certain direction, it will continue to do so until acted upon by an external force.
2. hypersonic missiles operate in the atmosphere, while asteroids do not. The speed of sound is entirely irrelevant to asteroids.
3. because of these two things, it is not hard to intercept an asteroid.
Given the difference in velocity (and F=mv^2), it may even be possible to deflect an asteroid by impacting it with an inert lump. This was actually tested in the DART mission[1], where a 610kg object impacted an asteroid at 6km/s and significantly changed its orbit.
Yeah the expanse gets plenty of the newtonian orbital mechanics physics right but totally gloss over other important parts of space travel such as: how do you deal with the thermal buildup-space is a nearly perfect insulator. Wheres the radiators? They are regularly moving at speeds that would have a small but additive relativistic effect. Wheres the belters/other spacers who live several hundreds of earth years but not nearly as many from their perspective. Not to mention the pure impossibility of the Epstein drive. The Epstein drive is probably the most glaring example of human clarketech in the whole story.
Anyways I love the Expanse but the books were better anyway
In the same way that when you point a laserpen at the night sky, and then twist your wrist ever so slightly to the right, it's now pointing at another point 1000s of lightyears from the first. As long as you attempt the procedure early enough you have a chance.
I get space. What I'm saying is that, assuming we can even hit it, any such rock is moving with too much momentum to be able to change its course. Given any tech that we have. It's easy to underestimate the energy represented by a large asteroid.
How can you be so confidently wrong? Clearly researchers at Lawrence Livermore think it’s a viable approach, or they wouldn’t bother with developing detailed simulations. Why do you think you know more than those researchers?
Stating that I'm "confidently wrong" is rank nonsense, when predicated on an appeal to authority of government-funded low level employees.
"Clearly" their "bother" to develop simulations and conclusions is 100% downstream from government funding to make interesting noise. That doesn't mean that they are wrong. What it does mean is that its nonsense to couch a counter-argument to criticsim in an appeal to authority.
Ok Mr. Expert, what relevant expertise do you have? And what kind of research have you done in the field?
Because surely you have some kind of knowledge to draw on other than a gut feeling if you are going to say professional researches working in the field are wrong, no?
