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

[vulture2]

>>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.<br /><br />Although large impacts are rare, given the large number of people that could be killed, the likelihood of any of us actually dying from an asteroid impact is at least comparable to the hazards from lightning, sharks, and other things we worry about. The Tunguska impact, just a century ago, was as destructive as a nuclear bomb, and much more of the earth is densely populated today. If such an object is detected too late, you can guess who will be blamed.<br />

 

[j05h]

<i>> What is this? Congress is going to kill us with an asteroid?<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. </i><br /><br />There are two reasonable strategies that can be pursued for NEO mapping. The first is already being done, in the form of Spaceguard (international, academic/amateur spotting network, not sure it's still active) and (IIRC) a US Air Force testbed telescope dedicated to NEO search. The Planetary Society has also developed a spotting network of some kind. Amatuer astronomers spread around the world make for an effective all-sky telescope. The question is cooridination, support and dissemination of results. Are you looking for an inspirational way to inspire young people toward space? Make them part of this tracking network.<br /><br />The second approach is more NASA/AF. It is to place 2 telescopes in solar orbit with both wide and narrow view cameras. This allows them to look back at Earth and view the light-side of Aten and Amor-class NEOs. This is the expensive route, but is the best way to create a comprehensive database of the solar neighborhood. Combined with a sun-observing or astronomy package, this could be an incredible opportunity. It is very expensive but the most effective space-based approach, a public-mil-private consortia. Also, since Congress mandated a detection policy, they really should be funding it somehow. <br /><br />http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~marsden/SGF/<br /><br />I'm not that worried about asteroid impacts, I'm much more concerned about the La Palma volcano and the coming Atlantic tsunami. <br /><br />http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/08/29/tidal.wave/index.html<br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami.sh</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[silylene old]

"Just out of curiosity, which programs would you cut to provide funding to expand the hunt for Asteroids? "<br /><br />Well I am sure my response may upset some.<br /><br />Personally, I don't see that much value in the NASA missions which launch satellites to verify (again) the Theory of Relativity, or frame dragging, or the such. I think, for the money invested in these missions, the return is rather paltry, as compared to some other missions. By the time we had launched LAGEOS ($250M cost), we had already confirmed frame dragging 5 years earlier from observing existing satellites.Then we launched GRAVITY PROBE B ($700M cost) in 2004...to re-confirm what we already knew in the late 90's from close study of existing satellites, to re-re-confirm what LAGEOS 1 and LAGEOS 2 confirmed.... And not that we had any doubt that General Relativity was untrue anyways. <br /><br />On a further note, I also think we also spend too much money studying cosmology and the microwave background, as compared to planetary studies, or studies of stars and galaxies. I know cosmology is interesting, but I am not sure what useful purpose this brings us, and I still think the entire field reeks of speculation. I would prefer that a significant amount of the funding going to studying cosmology went to studying our solar system or orbital observatories instead.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

If I remember right the reason earth had the resources in RWR to intercept the object was an earlier devastating asteroid strike somewhere in Europe.<br /><br />It would be poetic justice that if the USA gets hit in the near future by a rock that Congress be ground zero. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I agree with silylene's priorities regarding reaffirming things we already know. Are these projects some sort of keep-the-scientists-involved pork just like VSE is keep-Lockheed-engineers-employed pork, intended to win support by some legislators for approving the NASA budget?<br /><br />Something Josh said earlier about the USAF solar-orbit telescopes makes we wonder if it would be easier to detect asteroids if the telescope was in an orbit inclined considerably to the ecliptic. The constantly changing view angle may make them stand out better against the background. I don't know - I just wondered.

 

[spacester]

For those interested in more on this subject:<br />An old post of mine, itself recycled<br />http://www.ll.mit.edu/LINEAR/<br />http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/<br />http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/swc_eaa.html<br />http://www.minorplanetobserver.com/<br />http://ps1sc.org/index.htm<br />http://cygo.com/index.html<br />http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/asteroids/composition.shtml<br /><br />But here's the deal that space-geeks really ought to understand:<br /><br />The ones that pose the most danger are the ones we have the most difficulty seeing. <br /><br />To spot an asteroid from the surface of the Earth, AFAIK it needs to appear in the night sky. But the Aten class of asteroids, by definition, are only very briefly further from the sun than our planet, at aphelion. If aphelion does not happen to occur near opposition with Earth, it has no chance of being spotted - it will go around another orbit before our next chance.<br /><br />Even when we are lucky enough for it to be near aphelion at the same time as opposition, it just barely makes its way above the horizon at dawn and/or dusk. In fact many of them have been discovered due to the bending of light by our atmosphere - they are actually 'below the horizon' but we get a glimpse anyway.<br /><</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sounds like a good plan to search for Atens.<br />There's no other way but to go into a closer sun orbit.<br />It would probably be the most ROI of a McDonald's staff or so <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[comga]

spacester said "We had a thread here a long while ago which did a fair job of analyzing this problem and proposing a solution. Our main problem was determining a wavelength that would work within reasonable power requirements. It appears that the answer is to detect in the infrared."<br /><br />So I don't get the $1B number. Back in the "bad old days" in the early part of this decade, NASA had Discovery missions that went into deep space for $300M - $400M. The Deep Impact mission had a 300mm diameter telescope with a passively cooled cryogenic infrared detector (1.5 - 4.8 microns). (It also had a lot of other stuff like a separate impactor spacecraft, a imaging spectrometer, a smaller imager, visible light cameras, and filter wheels, etc..) <br /><br />Why should it cost $1B to build a super version. What more would this asteroid detection mission need? Granted that modern "process improvements" would increase the cost of a Deep Impact type mission, but there was a Discovery proposal (DeepR) to build another Deep Impact that must have come in under the new Discovery cost cap, which is less than half a billion dollars. Where does the other half get spent?

 

[comga]

As for what programs to cut to pay for this to things: <br /><br />Science missions are prioritized by Decadal Surveys, which get the consensus of a lot of smart people. Our opinions don't carry much weight against theirs, which are pretty well established. Even if asteroid defense is not science, these people understand statistics. If we can't convince them this is serious enough to warrant action, then we don't have data that shows it. <br /><br />And second, we just aren't going to get more money. All this talk about an asteroid hitting us and getting Congress to pay for a better search as ammends. Even if we do get hit, which is a very small probability, Congress will be like the Robin Williams character in "The World According to Garp" When a plane crashes into the house he is being shown by a real estate agent, he says "I'll buy it! What are the odds of the house being hit twice?" Congress would figure that the impact was our once per millennium event, and STOP funding the search. Or maybe not.<br />

 

[qso1]

vulture2:<br />Although large impacts are rare, given the large number of people that could be killed, the likelihood of any of us actually dying from an asteroid impact...<br /><br />Me:<br />If its a large enough impact, blaming someone will be the least of our problems. <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>

 

[holmec]

"the likelihood of any of us actually dying from an asteroid impact is at least comparable to the hazards from lightning, sharks, and other things we worry about"<br /><br />Sure if you look at one person. But in this case if one dies, we all die! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[comga]

The statement that NASA can't afford to hunt for NEO's is the product of letting Aerospace Corp put a $1B price tag on it. No one knows how they got such a high number. It is rumored that the report will be buried rather than released.