[adriand]

> The engineering confidence this gives for actual planetary defense is massive.

Is it? Isn’t it the case that we can’t even detect the vast majority of objects on a potentially problematic intersection path with earth? I feel like the most likely scenario is that by the time we realize we’re about to get slammed by an asteroid, it’s way too late.

[alex43578]

Two different problems: detection, deflection.

Before this, even if we spotted one, we didn’t know if we could prevent impact.

Detection honestly feels like an easier problem, especially as networked sensors and space-lift capacity has improved.

[idatum]

Is there really better confidence we could now detect a similar 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor event?

[alex43578]

Yes? Rubin is supposed to contribute, and more broadly we have more and better "eyes" on the night's sky than ever before. There's always the opportunity for more tracking, but tracking without being able to do anything about it would've been pointless.

[gatreddi]

Detection is still the weak link, that part is true. But the equation is shifting. Surveys like NASA’s NEOWISE mission and the upcoming NEO Surveyor mission are specifically aimed at finding those missing near-Earth objects earlier.

The point of DART mission wasn’t that we can deflect every asteroid tomorrow. It was to prove that physics and guidance actually work in space. Now the playbook is clearer: detect earlier, then nudge early.

If you get even a few years of warning, a tiny velocity change compounds into a huge miss distance. That’s the real takeaway.