3
   

Detecting and Deflecting Meteors

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 10:40 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

...Can you substantiate (surveys, studies, links, etc) your claim that we could be hit any second soon by a celestial object large enough to cause wide world harm?...

I guess the idea is that the probability of being hit by something 100 or more meters wide in, say, the next 50 years is not negligible, based on the number of near misses (and that's just the ones we noticed). There have been serious meteor impacts on the Earth within recorded history, e.g. the impact in Tunguska, Russia in 1908. If something hit us the size of the object which just struck Jupiter (believed to have been several American football fields in width), it would cause devastating damage.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 11:12 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Once more a good sky watch and playing with future plans to develop the technology to change the orbits of large objects is cheap.

That's fine. That's what we're currently doing, and as I said in my post, I support it.
BillRM wrote:
No one I know here is talking about a Manhattan type of project to get the capability to move large objects in place in the next few years!

Maybe, but I don't know what other people on this thread are thinking, so that's why I offered the opinion that we keep proceeding as we are.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 12:20 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I guess the idea is that the probability of being hit by something 100 or more meters wide in, say, the next 50 years is not negligible,


How could I possibly deny that?

We know that it's possible and even probable.

But can I ask you too, if you think we can be hit by such an object say, in the next hour?

My gripe is about people who go overboard in order to justify a position that, initially, could be a reasonable one, if fallacious arguments were not used in the process...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 03:30 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

I'm much more worried about yellowstones caldera than any meteor.

that volcano blowing is, in geological terms, imminent.

I once asked a geologist (during a facinating conversation on a long plane flight) why we couldn't
drill vents to dissapate the pressure,
but that's not feasible.


Great minds think alike, Chai!
I was considering that too (with no expertise).





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 03:33 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

I don't play silly games...
I gotta give u credit, Francis.
U bring new meaning to the definition of "silly".
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 03:51 pm
The topic of this thread addresses survival of our species,
or its abrupt demise. That s important.

Since the age of 11, I have believed that u shoud
not risk more than u r willing to lose
.

So far as I remember,
we have had at least 2 bulletburns (figuratively speaking)
of passing meteors within a few 1000 miles. I judge that risk to be unacceptable.

Qua defenses against gamma ray bursts,
it occurs to me that we shoud be thinking of subterrainean reserves
of humans and necessary resources. Its better than nothing.
Such underground facilities shoud include Martian colonies,
that possibly, with luck might be shielded by the sun from such bursts,
depending on the time of year.


I wonder whether politicians woud be eager
to take advantage of such natural disasters
to find excuses to screw us out of our personal liberty.
For instance, in NYC, we still have the sales tax
and rent control because of the emergency
circumstances of World War II. I guess that
when der Fuhrer eventually gives up, then
thay will be cancelled and our freedom therefrom will be restored.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 04:52 am
@Francis,
And who here is going overboard on this thread?

Who had said that a planet killer is more then even odds at best for the whole remaining likely life time of the human race?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:06 am
@Francis,
And can you prove that we can not get hit without warning!!!???

We are not covering the whole sky in any detail and fairly large objects if not planet/life killers size objects had indeed pass us before we had known about them in the last few years.

And this is in areas of the sky where we do have eyes looking in some number not objects in out of plane objects in the south hemosphere
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:09 am
@rosborne979,
That's fine. That's what we're currently doing, and as I said in my post, I support it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We could spend at least double on the sky watch and try to fill in the areas where we are not currently monitoring,

It still would be a very small sum of money.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:21 am
@Francis,
My gripe is about people who go overboard in order to justify a position that, initially, could be a reasonable one, if fallacious arguments were not used in the process...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You do not care emotionally for the idea that we could get hit by a life killer size object currently with zero warning even if the odds are in the range of a super ball lottery win it would seem.

And yes I do not care emotionally either to have such an event happen without warning and the solution is roughly doubling the very small budget of our current sky watch program.

But to claim we now have complete coverage of all the possible approaches of a life killer object is complete nonsense.

Of course a super volcano could go off also with almost zero warning and there is not so simple a solution to get an advance warning in that case.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:43 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
We could spend at least double on the sky watch and try to fill in the areas where we are not currently monitoring

There's a lot of space out there. I'm sure we could spend an endless amount of money to cover "the areas where we are not currently monitoring".
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:53 am
@BillRM,
Your inferences are just that, inferences.

Whatever your own convictions are based on, you seem to be unable to substantiate them.

As so, and given that your set of beliefs surpasses your ability to back your claims, I consider that no debate is even possible..
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 06:24 am
@Francis,
Hmm you are the one who posted the very very flat claim that we could never be hit by a large planet life killing object without advance warning and I had not seen one little bit of postings following by you or anyone else of any information that would back up that silly claim.

It would seem that flat claims with zero backing are fine as long as you are the one doing it.

So by some form of magic we are going to see an object approaching in a path where we had few if any eyes looking and yet I need to prove that we will not see an object in places we are not looking for them!

Amazing especially in the light of fairly large objects passing by before we had detected them in the last few years at moon orbit range in the plane of the solar system where we do have many eyes monitoring.

You debate style is lacking in logic or commonsense but it was a good try.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 06:32 am
@rosborne979,
There's a lot of space out there. I'm sure we could spend an endless amount of money to cover "the areas where we are not currently monitoring".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with the above statement is no one is pushing for spending endless amount of funds and that we could cover our blind spots for a fairly small added sum.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 04:30 pm
By Betsy Mason


(WIRED) -- Without more funding, NASA will not meet its goal of tracking 90 percent of all deadly asteroids by 2020, according to a report released today by the National Academy of Sciences.


This NASA artist's rendering shows a massive asteroid belt orbiting the Earth.

The agency is on track to soon be able to spot 90 percent of the potentially dangerous objects that are at least a kilometer (.6 miles) wide, a goal previously mandated by Congress.

Asteroids of this size are estimated to strike Earth once every 500,000 years on average and could be capable of causing a global catastrophe if they hit Earth. In 2008, NASA's Near Earth Object Program spotted a total of 11,323 objects of all sizes.

But without more money in the budget, NASA won't be able to keep up with a 2005 directive to track 90 percent of objects bigger than 460 feet across. An impact from an asteroid of this size could cause significant damage and be very deadly, particularly if it were to strike near a populated area.

Meeting that goal "may require the building of one or more additional observatories, possibly including a space-based observatory," according to the report.

Don't Miss
Wired.com: The kitschiest, craziest novelty phones
Wired.com: How do I future-proof my digital media?
Wired.com: Great geek debates: iPhone vs. Blackberry
The committee that investigated the issue noted that the United States is getting little help from the rest of the world on this front, and isn't likely to any time soon.

Another report is planned for release by the end of the year that will review what NASA plans to do if we spot a life-threatening asteroid headed our direction.

A summary of the report's findings:

• Congress has mandated that NASA discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. The administration has not requested and Congress has not appropriated new funds to meet this objective. Only limited facilities are currently involved in this survey/discovery effort, funded by NASA's existing budget.

• The current near-Earth object surveys cannot meet the goals of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act directing NASA to discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020.

• The orbit-fitting capabilities of the Minor Planet Center are more than capable of handling the observations of the congressionally mandated survey as long as staffing needs are met.

• The Arecibo Observatory telescope continues to play a unique role in characterization of NEOs, providing unmatched precision and accuracy in orbit determination and insight into size, shape, surface structure, multiplicity, and other physical properties for objects within its declination coverage and detection range.

• The United States is the only country that currently has an operating survey/detection program for discovering near-Earth objects; Canada and Germany are both building spacecraft that may contribute to the discovery of near-Earth objects. However, neither mission will detect fainter or smaller objects than ground-based telescopes.
E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx
Facebook

Twitter

Digg

del.icio.us

reddit

MySpace

StumbleUpon
| Mixx it | Share
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:20 pm

Well, for MY part,
I 'm gonna complain to my Congressman & Senators hint, hint everyone
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 10:16 pm
People in Congress are generally not the type to engage in long term thinking.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 10:19 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

People in Congress are generally not the type to engage in long term thinking.
I will not deny that.

Thay r not doing anything about the situation
in Yellowstone National Park either.





`
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2015 08:46 am
@Brandon9000,
The Showmaker-Levy 9 impacters were too big for us to have done anything about it.

The Cherbylynsk (sp) impacter more recently could have been dealt with if we took 400 kiloton airbursts more seriously and spent some money on a railgun system if only around key population centers.

Lasers burn holes in things, and unfortunately even the most powerful currently in a lab would take too much time to break up an incoming impacter. A railgun projectile on the other hand could easily destroy most impacters. Just a matter of detecting, targetting, tracking, and firing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 05:57:36