NASA Can't Afford Hunt for Killer Asteroids ?????

[holmec]

Article:<br />http://www.space.com/news/ap_070306_nasa_asteroidhunt.html<br /><br />What is this? Congress is going to kill us with an asteroid?<br /><br />Well maybe its time to get international and military support to deal with the asteroids...er....somehow. But that seems a miracle in and of itself.<br /><br />Maybe its time to lobby Congress on NASA's behalf. Anyone got a petition going? Where do I sign.<br /><br />Seriously, this is outrageous. Asteroids should be made a priority by Congress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I'd sure put it at a higher priority than VSE. And who knows, with all that searching for asteroids we might find something we didn't expect. (see Rendezvous with Rama by A. C. Clarke)

 

[cyclonebuster]

Reminds me of the intersection with a 4 way stop sign in it! Someone has to die before they put up a traffic light! Perhaps, one has to hit before we see the light, if we survive the collision!

 

[holmec]

Yeah! The first just might be our last. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[solarspot]

Why not just cancel a couple Mars missions anyways? I mean if the Moon is getting more attention than it really needs this early... why are we bothering with (century or two away from real exploration & colonization) Mars??<br /><br />That'd free up the extra billion for a deticated space-based infared telescope... Even delaying a couple of those Mars fanatics could get some asteroid-searching effort up and running beyond what we have today.

 

[vulture2]

We need to let Congress know we consider it a high priority to ensure that the Earth is not struck by asteroid. Possibly a change in priorities is in order.

 

[cyclonebuster]

Perhaps, they could find one with an orbit that comes close to Earth and Mars every year of so! That way we can just hitch a ride!

 

[docm]

Maybe a decent size event needs to happen in the middle of nowhere, maybe Antarctica. Just big enough to scare the bejesus out of Congress and other governing bodies but not kill anyone. Has to be on land so the crater can get plastered on every rag & website from NYC to Timbuktu. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

There are no mars missions to cancel, unless your referring to the unmanned ones. There is no extra billion to free up from any mars colonization effort because we haven't got an official human mars exploration program in place.<br /><br />The real problem IMO, is getting the public to realize the money being spent on NASA is not a waste, as many believe.<br /><br />Once someone in a position to communicate that message does so, there would be some improvement in the funding picture beyond bandaid funds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Seriously, this is outrageous. Asteroids should be made a priority by Congress."<br /><br />The types of asteroids that 'NASA can't affort to hunt' are the city smashers, not the dinosaur killers. The billion dollar space telescope is needed for finding those smaller asteroid threats.<br /><br />The greatest risk from a city-smasher, in my opinion, is not the direct damage such an asteroid would inflict but the possibility a nuclear armed nation would mistake the asteroid strike for a nuclear attack and unleash a nuclear counter-attack. In that consideration perhaps the Department of Defense should fund the asteroid finding telescope.

 

[saurc]

Uh well, if the event occured in water it would raise huge tsunami waves that would kill a lot of people too.

 

[saurc]

I agree with gunsandrockets about that. Just imagine if an asteroid had hit, say New York City at the height of the Cuban missile crisis in 1963? Or considering the volatile nature of the Indian subcontinent, suppose an asteriod hit a major Indian/Pakistani city , would it not be taken as a nuclear attack?<br /><br />Although these are mere conjectures, and unlikely as cities take up less than 1% of the total area of earth...

 

[bpfeifer]

" agree with gunsandrockets about that. Just imagine if an asteroid had hit, say New York City at the height of the Cuban missile crisis in 1963? Or considering the volatile nature of the Indian subcontinent, suppose an asteriod hit a major Indian/Pakistani city , would it not be taken as a nuclear attack? "<br /><br />While I can't answer about the Cuban Missile crisis, an asteroid strike in Inda or Pakistan would not be mistaken for a nuclear attack. Between the radiation and interpretation of seismometers, it would quickly be obvious that it's not nuclear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

In "Rendezvous with Rama" (Hugo award in 1974) it was exactly a city-killer asteroid that triggered the creation of the deep-space search network that eventually discovered the alian ship.<br /><br />In the novel, the asteroid hit northern Italy, destroying Padua, Verona, and Venice. Date of the impact was <b>September 11, 2077</b> (spooky, huh?)

 

[holmec]

Well, we will see what this new report infront of congress does.<br /><br />http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Just out of curiosity, which programs would you cut to provide funding to expand the hunt for Asteroids?<br /><br />Or maybe you think the budget should be restored and increased instead? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />If anyone feels like writing your Congressperson on this, the contact info is available on my site. Grand opening is Monday AM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[solarspot]

"There are no mars missions to cancel, unless your referring to the unmanned ones."<br /><br />I would cancell every mars mission planned to launch after Pheonix... Including what's it's name? Mars Science Labritory? I know it is supposed to launch in either 2009 or 2011... and that mission is budgeted for over a billion if I recall.<br /><br />"There is no extra billion to free up from any mars colonization effort because we haven't got an official human mars exploration program in place. "<br /><br />True, but all those planned landers, orbiters and everything else we have for Mars starts to add up to a fair bit.<br /><br />"The real problem IMO, is getting the public to realize the money being spent on NASA is not a waste, as many believe. "<br /><br />Money wasted, is the money spen (sorry to say) on purely science missions like Cassini / New Horizons / Dawn / Mars Science Labritory / Europa Orbiter... That stuff does nothing to better humanity beyond answering the questions of a couple scientists. Finding and researching deflection methods for PHA's (potentially-hazardous-asteroids) is not money wasted, but would be the best thing possible for NASA to work at.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents anyways.

 

[thereiwas]

Show me the allocations within NASA's current budget and I'll tell you what I would cut.

 

[spacester]

Let me start by saying that Asteroids, specifically NEOs, are my 'first love' in human space exploration. You would be hard pressed to find someone more excited at the prospect of moving their exploration up the priority list.<br /><br />So if you want to find the money to fund NEO exploration, I'm with ya, man.<br /><br />BUT let me ask this first: why does it have to come out of NASA's existing budget? Why not pay for it with additional money?<br /><br />So you want me to show you the budget so that in your superior wisdom you can make a decision with all of 5 minutes of contemplation involved. And then you will perhaps ask me to believe that you are smarter then Dr. Griffin, he's an idiot and a conman, etc etc blahblahblah.<br /><br />I'll show you the budget, it'll be on my site within the week. But it's not gonna be there so that uninformed people can make knee-jerk dogma driven policy statements without challenge. It will be there to help us work through a very complicated issue with an eye towards reaching a consensus.<br /><br />I look forward to your input and hope to not classify you in the former group. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

"Just out of curiosity, which programs would you cut to provide funding to expand the hunt for Asteroids?<br />"<br />The Democratic party retirement accounts.<br />The funding for global warming, mainly because it snowed in Tuscan AZ this winter.<br />Al Gore's Oscar.<br />.....etc<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

"BUT let me ask this first: why does it have to come out of NASA's existing budget? Why not pay for it with additional money? "<br /><br />I'm with you. We should get Congress to cough up the money and then do the mish and bill the UN for saving the planet for them. <br /><br />Absolutely NASA should be allocated more money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

holmec:<br />"Just out of curiosity, which programs would you cut to provide funding to expand the hunt for Asteroids?<br /><br />Me:<br />To add a few more, how bout returning to surplus spending. In the late 1990s, we had surplusses 3 or more times the size of NASAs budget but the Clinton Administration held NASA to the usual 1% GDP spending level.<br /><br />Then theres the wasted money on Iraq. 5 to 6 times NASAs budget. Maybe the DOD should be charged with defense against asteroids, sounds a little closer to their kind of mission. And with a budget well over 20 X NASAs, they can afford it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

There is a theory that at a certain point, giving an entrenched bureaucracy more funding can actually produce a negative change in productivity. Clinton may have believed in the late 90's that with STS and ISS, NASA had already reached that point.

 

[vulture2]

Each government program must justify the taxes that fund it. I would certainly be willing to pay a few dollars more in taxes to avoid the Earth being destroyed, and I think most Americans would agree if we present the case well. <br /><br />However, we should not suggest the money will appear painlessly by cancelling wasteful programs. While we should demand that wasteful programs be canceled, there is no reason to believe the money saved would go toward for this particular effort rather than towards the deficit or tax cuts. Rather we should suggest that this is a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, since they won't be able to enjoy their retirements if civilization is destroyed.<br /><br />As to the DOD, while it would no doubt be happy to accept the mission, if asked to do so it would also, with some justification, claim an even larger share of America's space budget. If NASA lets this critical mission slip away it will be even more difficult to justify its existence, and it will have only itself to blame. Many NASA programs have had difficulty in showing their benefit to the average person. Protecting the Earth from asteroid impact is an exception. It will be poor judgment indeed if NASA fails to give this mission its highest priority.

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<br />There is a theory that at a certain point, giving an entrenched bureaucracy more funding can actually produce a negative change in productivity. Clinton may have believed in the late 90's that with STS and ISS, NASA had already reached that point.<br /><br />Me:<br />Then again, maybe the Clinton Administration was simply not that interested in expanding into space. Consider the options offered for rescoping ISS in 1993. Clinton Admin chose the least problematic path of resistence which was to continue with the status quo station design but bring in the Russians. The Russian aspect was a positive thing because at least it made ISS more of an international program and invited the only other country to send humans into space at that time.<br /><br />Even I was in favor of a different approach to ISS in 1993. I favored a proposal to put ISS up with heavy lift launchers, particularly one in advanced development at the time, shuttle "C". The use of this vehicle would have cut the assembly flights drastically. Shuttle "C" was canned due to being considered too expensive.<br /><br />However, I think the real reason NASA cannot afford to hunt for killer asteroids is that such a mission has not really been mandated or championed by anyone in the federal government with enough visibility to make a major difference.<br /><br />The asteroid threat simply hasn't been taken that seriously because of the statistical odds against a major asteroid or other body striking earth anytime soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>