What NASA Should Be Doing

by rrusczyk, Jun 17, 2008, 1:27 AM

Thinking about this problem.

space

Comment

8 Comments

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

Michael Griffin wrote:

"We don’t need a near-Earth-objects program."

I think I've just lost some of my respect for NASA's administrator.

I also find it illogical that NASA only "administer ~~the policy set by Congress and the White House." I don't see how politicians can reason well enough to come up with goals that better humanity instead of those for "achieving national preeminence."~~

This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by undefined117, Apr 3, 2009, 4:06 AM

by undefined117, Jun 17, 2008, 8:41 AM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

Have you seen the movie Armageddon?

(Great movie, BTW)

by n0vad3m0n, Jun 17, 2008, 1:04 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

Counting on Bruce Willis to save the world seems like a bad long-term strategy, I think

But it beats our current strategy of "Do nothing and hope we get lucky."

by rrusczyk, Jun 17, 2008, 3:08 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

Well, if I recall correctly, the last catastrophic event like this happened 65 million years ago, so it seems to me that the probability that one will happen in the next thousand years is somewhat low.

by Boy Soprano II, Jun 17, 2008, 7:31 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

It's not so clear when the last catastrophic event happened. Watch the video & read the accompanying article. There was a well-documented catastrophic event in Russia in 1900s. Had that happened over Moscow instead of out in Siberia, there wouldn't be anybody disputing the importance of dealing with asteroids.

by rrusczyk, Jun 17, 2008, 8:10 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

You should also note what Carl Sagan said (reference? Perhaps Cosmos, I don't know) about how the explosion caused by an incoming asteroid could be misinterpreted as the explosion produced by a nuclear weapon, and spark off a nuclear war. The consequences could be larger than you'd think...

by Osud, Jun 18, 2008, 7:12 AM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

I read somewhere a long time ago that the odds of a deadly object from space (hell-bent on the path towards Earth) is extremely unlikely. For one thing, tons of space material enters Earth's atmosphere everyday, but it burns up and falls harmlessly to the ground. And second of all, our scientists can easily spot an incoming missile (if there is indeed one) millions of miles away. (From the object's point of view there - the Earth is an extremely small pinpoint - try adjusting your path for that!). There is enough time to send [a nuke or missle, for example] to counter the immediate threat.

Spending on such a program will be useful, but it won't be likely that it will be used.

by n0vad3m0n, Jun 18, 2008, 12:51 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

I'm not so sure that we can easily spot objects coming our way if we're not looking for them.

As for the spending not likely to be used, that would be the ideal case. It's insurance. The money you spend on health insurance or car insurance or homeowners insurance is not likely to be used, and you hope that it isn't ever used. The question to ask is whether or not the expense is worth it. Imagine you could build a system that eliminated asteroid threats for 10 billion dollars. Recent research suggests that asteroids of the size of, say, the one that hit Russia 100 years ago is a lot more common than we originally thought (and this research is in its infancy). Even if there's only one per century, and such an asteroid is only 3% likely to hit near a major population center, the numbers may well add up to make the insurance worthwhile. And then if we factor in the 1-in-10million chance of something like what befell the dinosaurs, it may be quite obviously worth doing.

by rrusczyk, Jun 19, 2008, 1:03 AM