BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)

Subject: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:32 AM

NASA can't afford asteroid hunt

By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding nearly all the asteroids that might pose a devastating hit to Earth, but there isn't enough money to pay for the task so it won't get done.
The cost to find at least 90% of the 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a report NASA will release later this week. The report was previewed Monday at a Planetary Defense Conference in Washington.

Congress in 2005 asked NASA to come up with a plan to track most killer asteroids and propose how to deflect the potentially catastrophic ones.

"We know what to do, we just don't have the money," said Simon "Pete" Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center.

These are asteroids that are bigger than 460 feet in diameter — slightly smaller than the Superdome in New Orleans. They are a threat even if they don't hit Earth because if they explode while close enough — an event caused by heating in both the rock and the atmosphere — the devastation from the shockwaves is still immense. The explosion alone could have with the power of 100 million tons of dynamite, enough to devastate an entire state, such as Maryland, they said.

The agency is already tracking bigger objects, at least 3,300 feet in diameter, that could wipe out most life on Earth, much like what is theorized to have happened to dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But even that search, which has spotted 769 asteroids and comets — none of which is on course to hit Earth — is behind schedule. It's supposed to be complete by the end of next year.

NASA needs to do more to locate other smaller, but still potentially dangerous space bodies. While an Italian observatory is doing some work, the United States is the only government with an asteroid-tracking program, NASA said.

One solution would be to build a new ground telescope solely for the asteroid hunt, and piggyback that use with other agencies' telescopes for a total of $800 million. Another would be to launch a space infrared telescope that could do the job faster for $1.1 billion. But NASA program scientist Lindley Johnson said NASA and the White House called both those choices too costly.

A cheaper option would be to simply piggyback on other agencies' telescopes, a cost of about $300 million, also rejected, Johnson said.

"The decision of the agency is we just can't do anything about it right now," he added.

Earth got a scare in 2004, when initial readings suggested an 885-foot asteroid called 99942 Apophis seemed to have a chance of hitting Earth in 2029. But more observations showed that wouldn't happen. Scientists say there is a 1-in-45,000 chance that it could hit in 2036.

They think it would mostly likely strike the Pacific Ocean, which would cause a tsunami on the U.S. West Coast the size of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean wave.

John Logsdon, space policy director at George Washington University, said a stepped-up search for such asteroids is needed.

"You can't deflect them if you can't find them," Logsdon said. "And we can't find things that can cause massive damage."

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:20 AM

Gee- mebbe we should not have spent that trillion changing regimes in Iraq, huh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:26 AM

Check the NASA budget BEFORE the Iraq war- it has actually grown...


But it does seem that the threat of total extinction is being shortchanged...

SOME of us have been pointing out the need for a "SPACEGUARD" search for objects that might collide with the Earth for a number of years- to administrations of BOTH parties, with no result.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

It's like global warming...we (the bureaucracy) worry when we feel water over our toes.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Bert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:33 AM

What is it worth? (the earth, that is)

About fourpence ha'p'ny.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:34 AM

With the size and speed of the expected tidal wave,

1. By the time you feel it you will be dead.
2. Way over the toes.

There have been several studies about the impact of a moderately sized body onto the earth. Don't expect to survive impact for very long.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

Oh, I don't expect to survive long IF it happens. Of course, I don't expect to still be here when it happens. I'm not sure ANY of us will still be here. We may have some wet toes from rising sea levels, but asteroids may hit tomorrow or 10,000 years from now.
It's too bad we cannot take the long view of things and use what we have to see if this can be prevented....but you know, the Universe in general will not really care one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:54 AM

Too true... But we should care.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:02 PM

It is a rational decision (though from a science point of view I would have wished for another decision). Would you want to pay a very high premium to prevent (perhaps) a disaster with an extremely low probability?

We know a lot about the frequency of these events, may they be Tunguska size events or 90% killing of lifeforms events. Those with more than a local disaster potential are extremely rare.

In 50 years, there might be another more advanced technology to deal with such threats. To pay an enormous sum of money just to reduce that risk for the short time before we can deal even better with it is not very rational.

But that argumentation (prevent disaster) is exactly what I would try to sell politicians who can grant money (or not) if I was a scientist interested in astronomy. I wouldn't believe it myself but I would hope the politicians would.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:08 PM

It might be quite worthwhile to do the tracking and, the math necessary to contemplate other measures, but as Wolfgang indicates it would be pretty expensive to try to build 'asteroid defenses' at the moment.....sort of like erecting a huge wall in front of your house to prevent busses from crashing into it.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: skipy
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:13 PM

Good job I've gat a long cable on my keyboard, I'm hiding under my desk & I'm not coming out!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:15 PM

No wall needed. The "Star Wars" multi-Terajoule lasers is one approach. With enough advance warning we could even adapt old ICBMS to smack them in the right place and send them careening into deep ampty space, theoretically, I suppose.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:15 PM

SPACEGUARD was a system proposed to identify and track bodies that might cross the orbit of the earth.


Present efforts

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:16 PM

"What is it worth? (the earth, that is)"

Everything, or nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:18 PM

What we need are space-based radar systems, to find the objects that are NOT visible to earth-based observers. THAT is what NASA does not have funds for.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:19 PM

All we need to do is reduce the target area

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:27 PM

Tsk, tsk.

You should be well aware that the surface area of a ringworld as you have pictured would be greater than the surface of the Earth.

Check the surface area of a sphere the size of the earth ( including the atmosphere- if something hits that, it will still cause problems) vs the surface area of a cylinder the diameter of the earth's orbit. Pick some reasonable value for the width- your picture is probably not to scale.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:18 PM

" the surface area of a ringworld as you have pictured would be greater than the surface of the Earth."

Total AREA is one thing...configuration is quite another. Edgewise, for example, it would be hard to hit. And as I remember the specs, damage would be WAY more localized IF hit.

Subject: RE: BS: What is it worth? (the earth, that is)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:37 AM

Yep. The rental for space on those huge advertising screens should be able to pay for any 'defences' needed.