BS: Space program goals

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 05:59 PM

Let's see if this goes through this time:

David Carter (UK) I was able to download the full text of the paper you cited above. If you'll send your email via PM I'll send it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 06:50 PM

No confusion this end. Even big tsunamis have very small amplitudes in the open ocean and are generally unnoticed by ships. The wave amplitude and frequency both increase in shallower waters and the effects are far worse still in bays, harbours and in the upper reaches of estuaries where the water piles up. That happened in Lisbon and also in the 1607 Bristol Channel flood. Whether that was a storm surge (the tide was high but the weather was very nice), or, more likely, a tsunami, the effect is just as I described, as you'll see if you look at a map of the areas inundated. Cornwall's north coast (which is where I live) was virtually unaffected, being in the widest part of the Bristol Channel. Upstream, 2000 people drowned. We like to think of ourselves here as being on the ocean's edge, actually. Good surfing but, even miles out, not enough water to submerge Nelson's Column.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 07:38 AM

Mr Shaw,

So you do not consider the continental shelf to be "shallower water" in relation to the rest of the ocean? The wave hitting the shore would be a LOT larger than you think.


An ocean impact ( 75% probabilty) would be more destructive, and have a larger impact, than a land impact. Great analysis back in the 60s-70's (science fact article in Analog).

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 08:53 AM

Larger impact as in greater effect on climate and more widespread damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 09:14 AM

Maybe, Bruce, or maybe not. There is a paper by James Goff et al. on the possible effect of the Eltanin impact on the climate, but its equivocal. As with all of these things, even Chicxulub, there are other factors such as volcanism which need to be taken account of. Its very hard to attribute climate change effects to a single source.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 09:23 AM

Agreed ( but being done at this time by many here) )

You seem to be looking at trying to account for effects of past impacts- I am concerned with the possible effects of a future impact. If the earthquakes that follow said impact kills off the survivors of the impact, that does not mean we should not be looking at ways of preventing the impact itself.

The effects I am discussing are those that WOULD happen in the event of a major impact. The particulate dispersion into the atmosphere, the tsunami effects, the shock wave, the transfer of heat from the c9ollision can all be calculated and modeled- THEY would have a major effect. There would be other effects not now well modeled- volcanoes, crustal motion, etc, but what we KNOW would happen is enough to worry about

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 09:29 AM

Steve there may be an amplification effect in Bays, but a lot depends on the point of origin of the wave and cause. Recent work below suggests Cornwall would be most vulnerable from a Lisbon type event.
My view is that a lot more theorising and modelling needs to be done to quantify risk - but in the real world there are probably higher priorities that need funding for research.


http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/2767/1/Tsunamis_assessing_the_hazards.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 08:54 PM

Well I did a quick shuftie through that lot and found references to one or two-metre waves in western Cornwall. Cor, deadly. Not! Nothing much about our end or further up the Bristol Channel. Mind you, I'm knackered, it's late and I don't feel like wading through the whole of a huge great scientific paper just now and I can't deny I may have missed something. Point me to the relevant bits and we'll get back to it tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 08:10 AM

Steve this will be a bit of a wander unfortunately but I have reduced it as much as I can.
The paper I referred to gave a maximum wave height at the lizard, diminishing as it went towards the Severn Estuary. There would seem to be no records of casualties from the Gwent Levels or Somerset Levels from the Lisbon Tsunami, which would comprise the most vulnerable area especially if surging occurred as you suggested. According to Wiki: " Although there is no record of the overall death toll, the 19th century French writer, Arnold Boscowitz, claimed that "great loss of life and property occurred upon the coasts of Cornwall" I do not see that reported anywhere else. Perhaps the surges occurred during the neap tides. I cannot find a way of reconstructing tide tables that far back, sadly.
There are reports that say the waves were seen as far as Galway and the Thames estuary, as well as damage to the south of Portugal and the other side of the Med.
Conversely the meteorological event of On 30 January 1607, around noon, the coasts of Bristol Channel suffered from unexpectedly high floodings that broke the coastal defences in several places. Low-lying places in Devon, Somerset, Gloucestershire, and South Wales were flooded. The devastation was particularly severe on the Welsh side, extending from Laugharne in Carmarthenshire to above Chepstow in Monmouthshire. Cardiff was the most badly affected town, with the foundations of St Mary's Church destroyed.[1]

Floods resulted in the drowning of an estimated 2,000 or more people, with houses and villages swept away, an estimated 200 square miles (51,800 ha) of farmland inundated and livestock destroyed,] wrecking the local economy along the coasts of the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary.

The coast of Devon and the Somerset Levels as far inland as Glastonbury Tor, 14 miles (23 km) from the coast, were also affected. The sea wall at Burnham-on-Sea gave way, and the water flowed over the low lying levels and moors. Thirty villages in Somerset were affected, including Brean which was "swallowed up" and where seven out of the nine houses were destroyed with 26 of the inhabitants dying. For ten days the Church of All Saints at Kingston Seymour, near Weston-super-Mare, was filled with water to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 m). A chiselled mark remains showing that the maximum height of the water was 7.74 metres above sea level.(courtesy Wiki)

To give this additional perspective:The Severn Estuary is dominated by tidal processes. It has the second highest tides in the world, with an average mean tidal range of 6.5m at neaps and 12.3m on springs. . Tidal range increases further up the estuary, and high spring tides reach as far as Tewkesbury when river flows are low . The Estuary's high tidal range is caused by a combination of factors: an uninterrupted tidal setting for North Atlantic tidal wave propagation, amplification of the wave as it is constrained and converges in the Estuary, and a resonance effect due to its distance from the Atlantic amphidrome . The tidal curve is complicated by geomorphological constrictions and the partial impoundment of the ebb spring tide by the flood spring tide.
Severn bore
Large spring tides commonly lead to the formation of a tidal bore The Severn Estuary is particularly vulnerable to surges because of its orientation and due to its topography and coastal configuration. There is debate over where on the Estuary is most exposed to surges. It may be that the surge level builds as it travels up the estuary and thus threatens the upper reaches more, or that the surge amplitude reduces as water spills out onto the floodplain as it travels, thus affecting the lower reaches more. Thanks to the Severn Estuary's massive tidal range, only extremely large surges or those that occur near high tide have the potential to cause flooding. For example, even a 3m surge would not exceed the mean high water level if it occurred at low or mid tide. The largest recorded surge event on the Severn Estuary was a positive surge of 3.54m, recorded in March 1947 at Avonmouth, but fortunately it occurred at low water on a neap tide,so large scale flooding did not occur .. This was a far larger surge than the 1.45m surge of 1981, which occurred closer to high tide and caused extensive flooding along the north Somerset coast.
Storms
.
The Severn Estuary is particularly vulnerable to Atlantic storms because of its topography and coastal configuration, orientation with respect to prevailing winds, and tidal setting, which together enhance surge heights from storms tracking east and north eastward .

If the event of 1607 was a Tsunami rather than a meteorolgical event several things do not make sense.
The effect was very localised. This surely rules out Tsunami. The reported casualty rate was very high but there are no reports of damage elsewhere, or casualties. This strongly suggests a storm surge.
The Lisbon earthquake created damage on a continental scale(at least)
yet the effects were far more subdued than the event of 1607, that was both localised and of far greater severity.
   My conclusion is that as it stands there are too many assumptions and a woeful inadaquacy of hard data. I would say in conclusion that since the Storegga Slide storm surges have presented the UK with a far greater risk than tsunamis.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:42 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/news/science-environment/article/NASA-to-explore-asteroid-made-of-10-000-10860219.php?ipid=articlerecirc&c

"Death Star in NASA image

Enticingly, the mission's lead scientist has put a price tag of $10,000 quadrillion on the asteroid, known as "16 Psyche.""


World GDP is about $74 trillion. This rock represents 135,000 years of GDP

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:33 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/health/space-junk-2017-cassini/index.html


More on the topic of dealing with space debris.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 12:33 PM

Less than 3 weeks ago, while America was getting the kids to school and arriving at work, an asteroid the size of a building slipped past Earth from a distance about halfway to the moon.

Now a similar space rock is about to zoom by our helpless planet.

The new near-Earth object (NEO), dubbed asteroid 2017 BX, was only discovered a few days ago, on Friday, January 20. It's slated to swing by Tuesday night at 11:54 p.m. ET at a distance of about 162,000 miles (261,000 kilometers) — roughly two-thirds the way to the moon.



https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/asteroid-slip-between-earth-moon-194700234.html

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 12:48 PM

Facts courtesy of NASA:
Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons of dust and sand-sized particles.

About once a year, an automobile-sized asteroid hits Earth's atmosphere, creates an impressive fireball, and burns up before reaching the surface.

Every 2,000 years or so, a meteoroid the size of a football field hits Earth and causes significant damage to the area.

Only once every few million years, an object large enough to threaten Earth's civilization comes along. Impact craters on Earth, the moon and other planetary bodies are evidence of these occurrences.

Space rocks smaller than about 25 meters (about 82 feet) will most likely burn up as they enter the Earth's atmosphere and cause little or no damage.

If a rocky meteoroid larger than 25 meters but smaller than one kilometer ( a little more than 1/2 mile) were to hit Earth, it would likely cause local damage to the impact area.

We believe anything larger than one to two kilometers (one kilometer is a little more than one-half mile) could have worldwide effects. At 5.4 kilometers in diameter, the largest known potentially hazardous asteroid is Toutatis.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 02:16 PM

Would it matter if it were as flat and thin as a football field?

These may be facts after a fashion but they are really no more than statistical probabilities. It's just as much a fact to state that a football field could hit us today and another football field could hit us tomorrow. Return period-style facts are not very illuminating, frankly. I live in hope that no football field will strike before the end of Liverpool's game at Anfield tonight. Well, at least as it doesn't hit Anfield. I wouldn't object if it struck Old Trafford as long as the stadium was empty at the time. Even I'm not that nasty to the poor unfortunates who call themselves "United fans."

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 02:25 PM

I see the resident Mudcat pedant strikes again. Must be bored with the other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 02:33 PM

Since when has pointing out what "facts" means to a chap struggling with popular science been pedantry? You seem to have joined the Teribus school of kneejerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 02:44 PM

Mr Shaw
I suggest you take the argument up with NASA, it is their wording I copied.


https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/overview/fastfacts.html

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 05:24 PM

I'm not quibbling with NASA's presentation. I'm quibbling with your misinterpretation. "Facts courtesy of NASA." Remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 03:21 AM

No Mr Shaw you are trying to provoke argument. Your constant nitpicking adds nothing to the debate, go troll elsewhere. Many of us can see through your pathetic tactics. If you wish to argue semantics go take it up with those who wrote the article I linked to. This I suggested earlier but you fixation on scoring some sort of points blinds you to this suggestion. You Sir, are an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 05:29 AM

Al this talk of aiming for asteroids and Mars is academic right now. The two powers most likely to spearhead any assault on a airless desert have bigger targets of their own. Putin and world domination, Trump and all that he thinks is worthy of calling the world and its domination.

Basically if there ain't no monetary payback from anything in their lifetime (30 years at best (worst)) then they can't see it.

If space pays, it gets the nod. Blue skies projects won't. For at least the next 4 years. And that will put any endeavour back more than 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 05:59 AM

My first response to your NASA post, at 2.16 yesterday, was civil. Not only that, it addressed your post quite closely. Since then I've received a tirade of insults and defensiveness from you. You have a track record of demonstrating insecurity and defensiveness when you are pressed on some of the statements you make. You have my view, stated clearly, on the limited usefulness of return-period statistics. You attacked me because I challenged your appeal to NASA authority. Too bad. Show some spine, man, and take on the argument if you have enough conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 09:16 AM

"Basically if there ain't no monetary payback from anything in their lifetime (30 years at best (worst)) then they can't see it."

Please see my post of : 17 Jan 17 - 04:42 PM

Enough payback??? ONE asteroid, and not a large one.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 09:38 AM

That incredibly fanciful number may come from converting the mass of the asteroid (which is a large one) into cash at current scrap metal prices. You can't do that, there is no demand for that much scrap metal. It would be saturating the market many (quadrillion?) times over.

There are various video games you can play which involve mining asteroids for resources, and loads of science fiction films, books and TV series going back to the 1940s. But its not going to happen in 30 years, probably not even 300 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 10:08 AM

Actually, there are groups working on it now, for use in 15-20 years. To build structures in space, it is much more cost effective to use resources that do not need to be lifted out of a gravity well.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 03:58 PM

Enough payback??? ONE asteroid, and not a large one.

the total cost of getting to it, and bringing back the goods, in a 30 year timeframe. Negative PAL. Big negative.

Near Earth misses are a more pressing problem. But maybe in 30 years we will have a plan, and won't need it. After that we will have forgotten Chelyabinsk, it didn't happen near here! And Tunguska - well that was so long ago and probably hurt no-one - they think.

Methinks them thar asteeeeroids is gonna come to us, lets wait a while. And maybe, just maybe, the dust clouds will sort global warming for a year or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jan 17 - 05:29 PM

It is much easier to wait for the asteroids to impact and mine the resulting debris.
As an example the link below was a large bolide impact that created a 100-kilometre diameter crater approximately 35 million years ago during the late Eocene epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popigai_crater

It is also postulated that the Sudbury nickel complex is an impact structure, produced by the impact of a bolide . The impact could have caused fracturing in the crust and generated magma in the deep crust which then filled the impact-crater producing the rocks of the igneous complex.Recent research suggests a comet may have been the cause not an asteroid.
As can be seen by the size of the impact sites, the collateral damage would be worldwide and cause catastrophic extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Jan 17 - 02:08 PM

Mr Red: near earth misses are not a pressing problem. Would would be a problem would be earth hits. And to work out whether they would be a problem you need to know where the asteroids are. Beardedbruce seems to think nobody is doing anything about this, but this is wrong. Take for example the largest asteroid threat, from the list given by Iains. This is called Toutatis. We know where this is. We know where it is going to be. And for the next 600 years, the probability that its orbit will intersect earth is zero.

Chelyabinsk, we might forget that but it will happen again. Big flash in the sky, some windows get broken.

Tunguska, well if something like that happened over a city, big problem for that city. But most of the world isn't cities.

The only problem that we cannot predict or prepare for is long period comets. One thing about these is that their orbits tend not to lie in the ecliptic, as opposed to the orbits of asteroids and periodic comets, which do). Which vastly reduces the probability that these orbits will intersect earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jan 17 - 03:16 PM

The voice of sanity, David! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jan 17 - 09:21 PM

WOO HOO a new metal is made on Earth

Metallic Hydrogen https://phys.org/news/2017-01-metallic-hydrogen-theory-reality.html

I want a light weight sports car made of hydrogen

But as material science goes this is the holy grail

no electricity loss, magnetic applications, MORE

But like carbon fullerenes - it comes in small quantitie

for now

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Jan 17 - 06:02 AM

Hold on just a while Donuel, the Dias and Silvera result has been disputed by others, and they have not yet been able to replicate it themselves. Lets see what the next few months brings on this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 12:35 PM

More on the topic of space goals:


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-space-war-234829


"The Trump administration is considering a bold and controversial vision for the U.S. space program that calls for a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon by 2020, the construction of privately operated space stations and the redirection of NASA's mission to "the large-scale economic development of space," according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO.

The proposed strategy, whose potential for igniting a new industry appeals to Trump's business background and job-creation pledges, is influencing the White House's search for leaders to run the space agency. And it is setting off a struggle for supremacy between traditional aerospace contractors and the tech billionaires who have put big money into private space ventures.

"It is a big fight," said former Republican Rep. Robert Walker of Pennsylvania, who drafted the Trump campaign's space policy and remains involved in the deliberations. "There are billions of dollars at stake. It has come to a head now when it has become clear to the space community that the real innovative work is being done outside of NASA."

The early indications are that private rocket firms like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and their supporters have a clear upper hand in what Trump's transition advisers portrayed as a race between "Old Space" and "New Space," according to emails among key players inside the administration. Trump has met with Bezos and Musk, while tech investor Peter Thiel, a close confidant, has lobbied the president to look at using NASA to help grow the private space industry.

Charles Miller, a former NASA official who served on Trump's NASA transition team after running a commercial space cargo firm, is pushing for the White House to nominate a deputy administrator who foremost "shares the same goal/overall vision of transforming NASA by leveraging commercial space partnerships," according to a Jan. 23 communication. That deputy would run the space program's day-to-day operations.

Trump has yet to name a NASA director, but the documents confirm that Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma and former Navy pilot who ran the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, is a top contender. "

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:08 PM

So the Hump administration is corporatize, privatize and anything for a buck.

What a shock!

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:25 PM

Grew up reading such stuff as The Man Who Sold the Moon by Heinlein and other stories that would have me believing that by the time I was all grown up (NOW) we'd be well on our way to other planets. We have failed to live up to these aspirations and I maintain that if we'd spent a lot more time and money on space travel and habitation, we'd have spent a lot less of it on foolishness like wars and the ennoblement of the glitterati. More engineers and less rappers.

Maybe fewer folkers, but more filkers, so it'd balance out.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:31 PM

I think space programs are invaluable. Without a program, you can't tell one heavenly body from another.

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:02 PM

There is much to do and we should be doing it ASAP: There are Four Primary Breakdowns:

EARTH - MOON
Aurora
Van Allen Belt
Earth Magnetic Field
Predict and avoid large meteorites and solar flares (EMPs)

SOLAR SYSTEM
Understand Solar System History
Understand Asteroid Belt
Explore planetary moons
Orbital and robotic data collection from each planet
Explain dichotomy between gas giants and medium 'boulder' planets

SUN - SOLAR PHENOMENA
Sun Cycle of 11 years w sunspots
Solar Flares

DEEP SPACE - INTERSTELLAR
Black Holes
Quasars
Radiogalaxies
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
SETI

Capture and debrief "Teasers"
As Fox Mulder could tell you: "The Truth Is Out There"

Subject: RE: BS: Space program goals
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:06 PM

Jaysus, we can't be wasting time on thet scientific crap - point is to make ginormous piles of MONEY!!

Pres. Hump'll explain it ta yer....