Congress

Russian meteor, asteroid flyby get the attention of the House Science Committee

Two similar but unrelated events on Friday—a meteor that struck the Chelyabinsk region of Russia, reportedly causing hundreds of (mostly minor) injuries, and the flyby Friday afternoon of asteroid 2012 DA14, which will pass closer to the Earth than geostationary orbit satellites—have gotten the attention of many people, including a key congressman who is vowing to look into the issue in the near future.

“Today’s events are a stark reminder of the need to invest in space science,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, in a statement Friday. “We should continue to invest in systems that identify threatening asteroids and develop contingencies, if needed, to change the course of an asteroid headed toward Earth.”

Smith’s statement noted that the science committee will hold a hearing “in the coming weeks” on the issue, specifically “ways to better identify and address asteroids that pose a potential threat to Earth.”

The committee’s vice-chairman, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), has frequently talked about what is sometimes called planetary defense, and he’s also spoken out on the issue. “This should serve as a wake-up call,” he said in a separate statement Friday. He added that he’s particularly concerned “we have no plan that can protect the Earth from any comet or asteroid. So, even if we find one that will hit us, we might not be able to deflect it.”

Rohrabacher also noted that he is working with Rep. Smith “to expedite a hearing on planetary protection from these ‘near Earth objects’ as soon as we can.”

116 comments to Russian meteor, asteroid flyby get the attention of the House Science Committee

  • A M Swallow

    So we need to spot the meteor before it arrives.
    Work out where it is going to crash. High accuracy is best but within a mile will do.

    Long term devise ways of diverting meteors and comments so they miss the Earth.

    Advance warning is important because we can get ready for the crash. Extra doctors and ambulance men can be on duty. Extra firemen to rescue the people and repair men to fix water pipes, telephones and roads can be shipped in. Tents, food and water can be brought near to the area.

    Given 3 to 4 days warning a city can be evacuated.

    The basic plans can be prepared in advance as part of the civil defence. School bus drivers can be trained to take people without cars to safely.

    • Ed

      A M Swallow, we don’t necessarily want to prevent all comments from reaching Earth.

      For example, the comment “Go Niners!” could be assumed to be from a friendly, benevolent race. A cross between, say, Vulcans and Angels. We could prepare to welcome them.

      A comment such as “Go Ravens” would be clear indication of a vile, evil, flatulent race. A cross between, say, Potato Bugs and Rush Limbaugh.

      • David K. M. Klaus

        “For example, the comment ‘Go Niners!’ could be assumed to be from a friendly, benevolent race. A cross between, say, Vulcans and Angels. We could prepare to welcome them.

        “A comment such as ‘Go Ravens’ would be clear indication of a vile, evil, flatulent race. A cross between, say, Potato Bugs and Rush Limbaugh.”

        My wife says that the potato bugs are getting the raw end of that deal.

        I say you Win The Internets for today.

    • A M Swallow

      c/comments/comets/

  • It’s not clear yet that they’re unrelated events.

  • OK, it now does look like they’re independent events. But did one hit in Cuba as well?

  • common sense

    E.P. Grondine it is your time to make your stuff happens.

    It won’t last.

    Good luck!

  • amightywind

    “we have no plan that can protect the Earth from any comet or asteroid. So, even if we find one that will hit us, we might not be able to deflect it.”

    It ain’t the Earth we are protecting. The Earth continues to grow happily by accretion. The threat doesn’t merit a defense. Why defend when you can run? The damage caused by this collision was minimal. A few broken windows. A curiosity certainly, but nothing worth spending billions over. I certainly don’t want to pay to defend Russia’s territory. I certainly don’t want to give the political and union classes in this country use an opportunity to be “prepare” (read get paid!).

    I go by the anthropic principle. We are here and have been here for a long time. So it is likely that we will continue to be safe from a large asteroid impact. I find the reflex of the political class to “do something” far more disturbing than the thought of a large impact.

    • Hobart Schramm

      I go by the anthropic principle. We are here and have been here for a long time. So it is likely that we will continue to be safe from a large asteroid impact.

      That’s what the dinosaurs said! Well, they weren’t anthropic. That’s where they were wrong. We, on the other hand, proudly live by anthropic exceptionalism. Take that, rogue asteroids!

    • Ed

      That is simply silly.

      A planetary body killing millions or billions of people is not a matter of “if”, it’s a matter of “when” (unless we’ve killed ourselves off before such an impact occurs).

      An impact such as that which is theorized to have wiped out the dinosaurs might not cause human extinction.

      Perhaps it would. And, perhaps a worse impact is “in the cards”.

      Regarding more “minor” events, I happen to think that saving even a paltry few million people is worth-while.

      Aside from the suggestion that Russians may not be worth saving, do you really believe that future such events will confine themselves to the vicinity of the former Soviet Union?

      It’s unfortunate that people with mental processes that result in dismissing such events are allowed to vote.

      • Coastal Ron

        Ed said:

        A planetary body killing millions or billions of people is not a matter of “if”, it’s a matter of “when” (unless we’ve killed ourselves off before such an impact occurs).

        In case you haven’t noticed, the political election cycle is 2, 4 and 6 years in the U.S. for national office, which means that problems deemed to be far off (whatever that may be) or “one-in-a-million” have a hard time rising to the top.

        The two recent meteor events may case more awareness, but until the “when” can be quantified as within our lifetime, there is not much for politicians to get excited about spending significant amounts of money.

        So for those that truly believe it is better to know when the next one is going to hit, it is really upon their shoulders to gather the information. That may not seem right, but that’s just the way human nature works…

    • Paul

      The Earth continues to grow happily by accretion.

      This is not clear. The estimate I’ve seen is the Earth accretes about 100 tons/day of meteoric material. However, the Earth loses about 260 tons/day of hydrogen.

    • Mader

      What a utterly cretinous statements.

      “I certainly don’t want to pay to defend Russia’s territory.”
      You know that it could be anywhere else on Earth, including USA, riiiight?

      “The damage caused by this collision was minimal. A few broken windows.”
      Those subhuman ruskies just got lucky. If angle of entry was not that shallow, meteorite would explode way lower or even hit ground directly, causing hundred thousands deaths of dirty commies. I guess you would be happy with that.

      “A curiosity certainly, but nothing worth spending billions over.”
      Half of megaton worth explosion is NOT mere curiosity.

      • Guest

        My understanding is that this particular mass was destined to explode no matter what. I did a few simulator runs and they were surprisingly accurate with known parameters.

        • Coastal Ron

          Guest said:

          I did a few simulator runs and they were surprisingly accurate with known parameters.

          How odd. I did a few simulator runs and they were surprisingly accurate with unknown parameters…

          • Guest

            I’m not sure which impact simulator you used but the one I used would not return a result with undetermined parameters. I tried a variety of angles of incidence and all of them showed complete destruction of the impacting body before it reached the ground. To get it to hit the ground seemed to require either more speed or a higher density and a higher angle with the ground. With higher density meteors a higher altitude helps it reach the ground as well.

            Are you just naturally contrary or do you have some numbers to share with us?

            • Coastal Ron

              Guest said:

              do you have some numbers to share with us?

              Just one – 42.

              • Guest

                I take that answer to be a negative then. You don’t have any numbers.

                One has to wonder if there are any credible space cadets posting here.

              • Coastal Ron

                Guest said:

                One has to wonder if there are any credible space cadets posting here.

                By definition, can a “space cadet” be credible?

                Of course I don’t see myself as a “space cadet”, but a “space enthusiast”. Space is an area of personal interest, but I’m not employed by any companies in the field. However my area of expertise, manufacturing operations, does provide me with a good basis to understand a number of the issues that are influencing what we can and cannot do in space.

                I take that answer to be a negative then. You don’t have any numbers.

                42 is the answer to the “Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything“. Not sure why you didn’t catch that.

                But I’m surprised that you would think that you can use unknown parameters to determine anything – miss that bit of humor? I was poking fun at your seriousness in telling us that you have verified that your simulations were surprisingly accurate with known parameters. Would you tell us if they were surprisingly INACCURATE with known parameters?

              • Guest

                So technically computers and their programs are deterministic von Neumann machines, so yeah, the output is exactly what was expected. But since I don’t have access to the source code all I can do is compare the output parameters to the observed explosive yield and explosion height. I didn’t check a lot of things to see exactly what is required to get a medium sized meteor to hit the ground, and the inputs are rather limited and I’m sure it’s using some kind of table derived from more advanced numerical and computational treatments. I just wasn’t able to make an impact reach the ground with the numbers I had by varying impact angle.

                These aren’t symplectic integrators. Impact explosions are messy. But another thing I have observed is that the meteor impact and explosion and the resulting debris field from the single distant dash cam that captures almost the entire event from start to finish, looks very much like any many other larger grazing micrometeoroid impacts I have witnessed, for instance, the Perseids – only this was much larger. However, the dynamical form and evolution of these events seem to be very similar, at least up to the size that we have observed until now. The impactor has a well defined initial kinetic energy, and a fraction of that is ultimately delivered to the atmosphere as heat and light, the rest being distributed across the individual impact fragments that hit. And it appears in this case there were a lot of very small impact fragments, but it still remains to be determined how fast they were going and how many of them reached the ground, in some ellipse, although rough estimates can be obtained from the explosive yield.

                I did suggest to the workers in this field that they need to start developing some aircraft sampling procedures for the immediate aftermath of these kinds of impact events in order to get a pristine set of microscopic impact proxies before the impact plume disperses, and in order to get much larger samples of the fresh microscopic impact particles before they have a chance to dilute from dispersion.

  • Sooo. we’re back to putting back in the $400 M to $600M people wanted for a NASA mission to look for asteroids?

    Or should Bill Gates/Warren Buffet just suck it up and write a check to the B612 Foundation?

    • E. P. Grondine

      Hi Doug –

      You know, seats on spacecraft have been pretty expensive, and the nations who have paid for them have usually selected their best citizens to sit in them.

      Now, as their lives are at risk, the people chosen to sit in those seats generally become pretty knowledgeable about the management of the space agencies which selected them and how they operate.

      So, when you see a number of former astronauts putting a lot of their time and effort into setting up a non-profit organization to raise money to deal with a space related hazard, you have to ask yourself “Why are they doing that”? And if you think about that question for a short while, the answer becomes fairly clear.

      Another question you might want to consider is “Why are you expecting Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet to foot the bill for this”? Bill Gates and Mr. Buffet are not the only wealthy people living on this planet, and for that matter you might want to consider getting your own pen ready, to write a letter to your representatives if nothing else.

  • Scott Bass

    wake up call ? I doubt anything will come of it. I imagine the meteor that struck the Chelyabinsk will provide some valuable data on the extent of damage to expect, The reports I read say it was pretty tiny, perhaps the size of a kitchen table is what I read.
    You all have probably already seen all the videos but I did add a link to the ones showing the blast wave at my blog http://mercury7.weebly.com

    regardless I am glad this opened up the conversation without loss of life.

  • Scott Bass

    This USA today article is saying it was bus sized and 20 hiroshimas….that does not sound right
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/15/russia-meteorite/1921991/

  • DCSCA

    This is an issue for the UN, not a subcommittee in the American House of Representatives.

    • Bennett In Vermont

      Oh right. The UN would take millions from the USA taxpayers and then have the IPCC spearhead a program for meteor strike mitigation.

      I can’t wait.

  • The best meteor shower since October 1989. :-)

    I saw a tweet that read:

    BREAKING NEWS: Baby found in the middle of the Meteorite crash site, he is miraculously unharmed. Wrapped in what seems to be a red cape.

  • Scott bass

    Haha Stephen … Great!

  • James

    Governments always wait till after the deadly crash in the historically busy and accident prone intersection before appropriating funds for a life saving traffic light.

    Homeland Security popped up after 9/11, not before.

    Don’t look for government to provide any NASA any additional funds around the dangers of comets, asteroids, meteorites .

    As usual, it will be up to commercial/private entities (go B612!) to make the difference here.

    • Robert G. Oler

      James
      February 15, 2013 at 9:04 pm · Reply

      Governments always wait till after the deadly crash in the historically busy and accident prone intersection before appropriating funds for a life saving traffic light.

      Homeland Security popped up after 9/11, not before. >>

      that is really not accurate…Well Homeland security did pop up after 9/11 but the procedures were in place which should have prevented the 9/11 perps from boarding the airplanes Or boarding them armed with “box cutters” if only the folks at the “ding ding ding” machines had followed the rules.

      Several of the 9/11 people can be seen explaining their “box cutters” to the security people before they are allowed to continue on.

      Security is like safety more a state of mind or thought then anything else. If the US or the world are anyone were worried about something from space entering the earths atmosphere and doing some damage even as a rhetorical note then the money is there.

      Over his 8 years in office Bush43 spent nearly 60 billion dollars on what is a mockeery of a ballistic missile defense in Alaska, the one where the silos are filling full of water and the war heads (such as they are) have never hit anything in a test. INdeed on 9/11 Condi Rice was going to deliver a speech about “the imminent threat of North Korean missiles” to justify even more money

      then they found a better excuse. RGO

      • James

        RGO; Your response proves my point, though I missed the details you point out. That is, government is asleep, unaware, despite all the signals, and stays asleep until disaster strikes. Only then does is wake up. This was the case for Challenger and Columbia too. Sadly, even though disaster strikes, and the shackles of unawareness are loosened, the root cause is often missed; the government/organization goes back to sleep thinking it has solved the problem…and then…we have Columbia.

        The pattern continues.

        • Robert G. Oler

          James…perhaps we are making the same point: I dont think so but its probably not important perhaps it is a difference in terms.

          There is a difference between being “asleep” and “ignoring”…in my view we are simply in the ignore phase. RGO

          • James

            RGO, yes, we are making the same point. In my book ignoring implies a level of awareness of an issue, and one chooses not to act. Asleep , in my book, points to a lack of awareness all together. We’re splitting hairs. Thanks for the post.

          • Malmesbury

            Yup – next is “Theatre” phase.

            Everyone will be required to take their shoes off to stop asteroids hitting cities…..

  • A M Swallow

    I doubt that the US Government will provide money for a meteor detection system. It may however request that a report be written on the subject. The annexes to this report could contain (a) initial plans for a meteor detection system, (b) initial plans for civil defense following a meteor hit and (c) suggestions on how information about an incoming meteor should be forwarded to other countries – possible via the UN.

    One day, possible following a meteor strike, there will be a demand for something to be done. Some plans in a say 20 year old document will give them a good starting point.

  • E. P. Grondine

    Hi everyone,
    and Ed (whoever he may be :P)-

    As you can imagine, I am pretty busy right now. Thanks for the post, Jeff.

    We were blessed that their were no fatalities, and that most of the casualties were small treatable wounds. Also that the nearby nuclear facilities were missed, and there was no meltdown, and that no manufacturing plant went up with deadly consequences.

    I don’t know how many warnings people think they are going to get. AW, they are all not that small, and they are much more frequent than you imagine.

    as far as the House Committee goes, they need to subpoena the papers relating to Don Yeoaman’s annual requests, and the ensuing discussions.

    Also those NASA papers relating to Griffin’s failing to respond to the George Brown Jr amendment. This second one will be tricky as Sen Nelson was involved in the Congress’s response.

    Whether this story will break into the story of one of the bitterest scientific fights in modern times is another question. There is a trail of my reportage that journalists can use for leads on “the comets don’t hit theorists” and their activities.

    Once again, the minimum that is needed operationally is 45 minutes warning as to impact epicenter for the small carbonaceous chondrites (read comet pieces) and 2 to 3 days warning of the blast epicenter for the bigger ones, between say 150 meters and 1,000 meters.

    We can do this, and with sufficient warning we can handle even the biggest.

    • E. P. Grondine

      “sordid” is a far better word than
      “bitterest”. One of the most sordid scientific scandals in decades.

      I also want to point out ro all of you that the Congress did its job in passing the George Brown Jr amendment, and did so on a bipartisan bases.

      In as much as Griffin committed contempt of Congress in suppressing that expert report, any member of the Congress could ask for a GAO report on his and his colleagues actions. That would save the media the time of FOIA requests.

      Administrator Bolden does not have to answer for Griffin’s actions, but he is responsible for NASA’s immediate response to the Congress and media for information needed for the nation’s well being.

      I have diabetes now and have had a stroke, so why you’re expecting me to do more than I’ve already done is beyond my understanding.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    I just keep reminding myself that if this thing were the size of the Tunguska cometary fragment, we’d probably be looking at a five-figure body-count by now and God alone knows the knock-on effects from the wrecked nuclear waste facilities and industrial plants.

    Almightywind, you might want to remember that you share a planet with those ‘filthy foreigners’ and that their disaster could very quickly become yours too.

  • E. P. Grondine

    The Dragon waking:
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-02/16/c_124351175.htm

    We’re also likely to need some modification to the Wolf amendment within the year, so someone should be thinking through the language.

  • The amazing 1 in 100 million coincidence of the flyby of asteroid 2012 DA14 and the meteor explosion over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk on Friday, February 15, 2013 is even more remarkable in that at this time Russia presides over the G20 in 2013. The G20 is the primary international forum for determining the future of the world economy. High level meetings are underway at this time in Moscow addressing how to get the world economy moving sustainably. Notwithstanding the damage to thousands of buildings and over 1,000 injured, we can view the meteor encounter as a positive omen. It is important that industrial development of space get on the agenda of the G20. A. P. Kalam, former President of India, attempted to get space-based solar power on the G20 agenda in 2010. Now there may be a chance to seriously discuss mining the Moon and asteroids as a means to address the current economic crisis. A serious effort to build large powerplants in orbit would require comparable investment as on Earth – hundreds of billions of dollars – and has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs in all countries of the world. For the $2 trillion price of the Iraq war the space industrial revolution can be launched that simultaneously solves the global warming problem, creates the potential for long term sustainable economic growth by literally expanding the global market to a Solar System market. Governments have a role to provide leadership, but industry will quickly become the primary driver generating significant tax revenue to solve other critical problems facing humankind. See – http://thespacereview.com/article/2190/1

    • Coastal Ron

      Vid Beldavs said:

      Now there may be a chance to seriously discuss mining the Moon and asteroids as a means to address the current economic crisis.

      There is no tangible connection between asteroid protection and space mining – they are completely independent, just like building a navy here on Earth is independent from fracking for natural gas in Pennsylvania.

      A serious effort to build large powerplants in orbit would require comparable investment as on Earth – hundreds of billions of dollars – and has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs in all countries of the world.

      What is the goal? Is it to employ “hundreds of thousands” in high paying jobs, or is it reduce the cost of power delivered to specific regions of Earth?

      Any large amounts of money will create jobs, so let’s focus on the need for power. Yes, electricity is a needed commodity, but the question has not been answered whether electricity can be delivered to customers here on Earth for a competitive price from space-based sources.

      Just like it has taken decades to get the terrestrial solar and wind energy systems to become competitive, so likely will be the same for any space-based systems. And that doesn’t even take into account the safety issues that need to be addressed for building, operating and transmitting all that energy.

      I’m OK with government money being spent to help determine if the idea is viable, but I’m not OK with a massive program that is based on un-validated assumptions (i.e. viability, safety, cost effectiveness, etc.).

      For the $2 trillion price of the Iraq war the space industrial revolution can be launched that simultaneously solves the global warming problem…

      You mean for $2T more. The money that was spent in Iraq is already spent – it can’t be retargeted to anything. And I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Congress is not in any mood to INCREASE spending, they want to decrease it so we can pay down our debt. Bad timing on your part I know, but that’s the situation in any case.

      Congrats on the Space Review article.

      • Paul

        Ron, actually there are elements in common.

        Asteroid defense and space mining would both start by locating the asteroids. Asteroids that *almost* hit Earth are also the asteroids from which material can be returned with the lowest delta-V.

        If we want to test asteroid deflection, the first step is characterizing the structure, composition and strength of many asteroids. Asteroid mining would also require such surveys, to find particularly rich bodies.

      • Mader

        “There is no tangible connection between asteroid protection and space mining – they are completely independent”
        False.
        For both, you have to know first, what is out there – what asteroids, what orbits, mineral composition etc. Very tangible connection.

  • amightywind

    High level meetings are underway at this time in Moscow addressing how to get the world economy moving sustainably.

    That is easy. Slash taxes and government spending, and leave consumers with more money to spend. Reagan showed us how. Furthermore, in the 3rd world, establish the rule of law and democratic, peaceful transfer of power. As long as presidents for life persist in 3rd world countries, their economies will continue to be looted and economic stagnation will persist.

    A. P. Kalam, former President of India, attempted to get space-based solar power on the G20 agenda in 2010.

    I think the US should follow India’s lead on this one. Fracking makes much more economic sense to meet the growing energy needs of the planet. The greatest risk to the world economy is the growing number of nuts who think they can control climate favorably with political structures.

    $2 trillion price of the Iraq war

    There are $trillions in funds in the world market waiting to be invested. That they stay on the sidelines tells us something about the risk of green energy projects.

  • Guest

    There is no tangible connection between asteroid protection and space mining – they are completely independent, just like building a navy here on Earth is independent from fracking for natural gas in Pennsylvania.

    You’ve got to be kidding. You aren’t going to move one unless you can get out there to do it. You can’t get out there to move an asteroid unless you are routinely out there moving it. The only reason you would be out there moving the dirt around is if you are ‘mining’ it. The only reason you would be mining dirt is because you need to be out there. Mining dirt is both the means and the end, moving asteroids is just a side benefit of this process, a benefit you will never be able to achieve otherwise.

    Exploration will not work here.

    • Coastal Ron

      Guest said:

      You aren’t going to move one unless you can get out there to do it.

      Mining an asteroid is different than changing it’s trajectory. Keep in mind too that the sizes of the asteroids demand different solutions for either trajectory changes or for mining.

      For instance, no is going to be bringing a “planet killer” into the vicinity of Earth to mine it, or at least not until we have capabilities far in advance of anything envisioned today.

      So my point was that we are not at a point where saving the Earth from asteroids uses the same technologies and techniques that would be used for space mining. Some generic ones, like Earth to LEO transport sure, but otherwise they are two different efforts.

      • Martijn Meijering (@mmeijeri)

        Some generic ones, like Earth to LEO transport sure, but otherwise they are two different efforts.

        Detection and inspection are probably very important for both.

      • Guest

        I’ve got a publishable idea on this already which I hope to develop later today and this week with the rest of the ‘group’. Thanks for your interest in this concept.

        • Coastal Ron

          Guest said:

          I’ve got a publishable idea on this already which I hope to develop later today and this week with the rest of the ‘group’. Thanks for your interest in this concept.

          I’m looking at the conversation thread that you responded to, but I don’t see any evidence of “interest”, nor anything where you said you had a “concept”. Talking to yourself again?

          And in any case, we’re still waiting for you to provide a link to the paper you said you published regarding doing things at the Moon’s south pole (or wherever).

          • Guest

            It’s on NSPIRES for peer review. Log on and review it if you like. You’ve already ripped it to shreds, which is fine by me. The moon is so yesterday considering current events. It’s feels kind of like betting on the wrong horse. But asteroids are orders of magnitude more difficult and will require large scale industrial technology regardless of the technique, unless you want to do cube sats, and then it will be difficult to do anything except return some samples, which is mining anyways. Considering the recent rush for PR value I prefer publishing first anyways. And it’s going to require some simulations and calculations first, so I would prefer that my own people have the first crack at ripping the idea to shreds, it’s only fair. Plus, it appears there is some free market competition on these ideas.

            • Coastal Ron

              Guest said:

              The moon is so yesterday considering current events.

              You mean the Russian meteor? You already said that you knew about the frequency of meteor hits on the Earth, so what has changed?

              I think this shows how flaky your Moon plans were in the first place, if the justification for it can be obliterated by an event that didn’t cause any deaths.

              But asteroids are orders of magnitude more difficult and will require large scale industrial technology regardless of the technique…

              And, IIRC, weren’t you saying we had to do the Moon first before heading out to mine asteroids?

              By contrast, those of us that focus on lowering the cost to access space haven’t had to change our goals at all, since lowering the cost to access space makes doing everything in space less expensive and more open to experimentation (i.e. more potential solutions can be tested to find the best).

              Since asteroids are now the focus of your time, maybe you should consider offering your services to the B612 Foundation, Planetary Resources or Deep Space Industries?

              • Guest

                Since asteroids are now the focus of your time, maybe you should consider offering your services to the B612 Foundation, Planetary Resources or Deep Space Industries?

                The asteroids are a side trip, I explained that already, but I’m thinking more and more – Blue Origin, because I need an efficient and very large launch vehicle. You aren’t going to do this with expensive robots, it will have to be integrated into an upper or core stage.

                The primary driver is dust and debris abatement. The moon and Mars are entirely different from a dust and/or regolith – dirt perspective. Asteroids even more so, but the idea is not to create dust and debris but rather to atomize or vaporize any ejecta without large particles.

                This is the most difficult problem related to deflection that I see.

              • Coastal Ron

                Guest said:

                …Blue Origin, because I need an efficient and very large launch vehicle.

                Wow, I like what Blue Origin has been doing, but aren’t you betting the farm on the assumption that Blue Origin is planning to build “an efficient and very large launch vehicle”?

                Why not start with a Falcon Heavy, which can get 53mt of mass to LEO for $128M? And that’s with $0 of R&D for the rocket. From a $/kg standpoint, that will be the most efficient way to get mass to orbit for the foreseeable future.

                it will have to be integrated into an upper or core stage.

                Only if you plan on bringing the payload back to Earth in the same way you get it to orbit. Forcing one system to do everything is very much like what the Shuttle was, which was a jack of all trades but master of none (and the most expensive option for all).

                …but the idea is not to create dust and debris but rather to atomize or vaporize any ejecta without large particles.

                OK, you are off on some other tangent.

    • Malmesbury

      Given relative cost levels – a comprehensive search of the neighborhood of the Earth can be done for a fraction of the cost of mining a single asteroid – it close to certain detailed maps of NEOs would be a result of asteroid mining operations.

      Any asteroid mining company would be want to be able to check location vs object content comprehensively before spending money going on a prospecting mission.

      • Guest

        Searching the neighborhood isn’t the same as industrial regolith utilization or asteroid diversion. And we don’t have to actually ‘mine the asteroids’. We just need that capability. Because without that we will be screwed when it comes time to actually act on the information that we have. We already have enough information to know there is a big problem with asteroids and ‘junk’.

  • Scott Bass

    Thought I would update with latest statistics
    500 kiloton blast…. Wow!
    http://mercury7.weebly.com/space.html

  • Guest

    no is going to be bringing a “planet killer” into the vicinity of Earth to mine it

    A ‘planet killer’ will come to Earth all on its own. But to move it just enough to make a difference requires you to be on the scene well in advance, a great distance from Earth. You will not have that capability without lunar and asteroid ‘mining’ operations because that capability will not be available otherwise. This is not a last ditch effort, that is easily available on Earth with the missiles and nuclear bombs we already have available, so that problem is solved.

    The problem is getting there, being there, and doing something useful in order to develop those technologies so that we don’t have to leave it to last minute chance dependent upon intense cooperation between armed nations. There will always be something that slips though the net or comes out of nowhere at the last minute, trackable but not periodic cometary objects.

    Space mining is it. Space exploration is not it. Human space exploration isn’t even on the short list for ‘it’. But that does provide the great amusement and entertainment readily available from the faith based space advocacy community.

    • Coastal Ron

      Guest said:

      You will not have that capability without lunar and asteroid ‘mining’ operations because that capability will not be available otherwise.

      Sure we could. We don’t need to be doing lunar mining BEFORE we try to change the trajectory of an asteroid. The two are not related.

      Space mining is it. Space exploration is not it. Human space exploration isn’t even on the short list for ‘it’.

      I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s the private sector that is spending time and money to develop space mining, and it’s the government that is spending money on human space exploration.

      So yes, human space exploration is on the “short list” – it’s one of the explicit goals that the President has given NASA, and it’s one of the “reasons” given for needing the SLS and MPCV.

      How much government money is being directed toward space mining? I don’t see any.

      • Guest

        I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s the private sector that is spending time and money to develop space mining, and it’s the government that is spending money on human space exploration.

        No they aren’t. Small companies are developing some space based sensors and cube sats, and the government is spending money on a large expendable launch vehicle. There is a difference. It’s actually quite a big difference from a commitment from the government to greatly expand space activities to incorporate large scale industrial activities which will obviously require very large reusable launch vehicles instead of expendable launch vehicles.

        • Coastal Ron

          Guest said:

          No they aren’t. Small companies are developing some space based sensors and cube sats…

          Hmmm. Yet they have names like “Planetary Resources” and “Deep Space Industries”, and they have both stated that their goals are to mine resources off-Earth. Space-based sensors are just the start of their operations. They say it’s their goal, so I guess your argument is with them, huh?

          …and the government is spending money on a large expendable launch vehicle.

          And a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle that is capable of venturing (with humans) beyond LEO. Oh, and then there is the President’s stated goal for NASA that we reach an asteroid by 2025, and Mars orbit by 2035, which they are expending NASA resources preparing for. They say it’s their goal, so I guess your argument is with the President, huh?

          …to incorporate large scale industrial activities which will obviously require very large reusable launch vehicles instead of expendable launch vehicles.

          Considering that there are no government “reusable launch vehicles” in development, and the current leader in commercial reusable rockets (i.e. SpaceX) is still years away from perfecting any form of reusability, all anyone has to work with is the expendable kind. Higher costs, sure, but we could move a lot of mass to LEO with the money we have yet to spend on the SLS over the next decade. We don’t have to wait.

          • Googaw

            Hmmm. Yet they have names like “Planetary Resources” and “Deep Space Industries”, and they have both stated that their goals are to mine resources off-Earth.

            Good old Coastal, taking sci-fi marketing stories at face value as reality.

            If you look at the engineering talent these companies have actually hired, Guest’s characterization of them as “small companies… developing some space based sensors and cube sats” is right on the money. They are chasing NASA contracts to do cut-rate deep space unmanned exploration. A worthy goal, but extremely far removed in engineering skills and technological capabilities from actual mining.

            In fact, these companies are in a far better position to help with asteroid detection and characterization than they are with anything like mining, which is a good thing since asteroid detection is practical and large-scale space mining is about a hundred years or more in the future. Watch for their marketing story to change as the political winds change. Now having just written that,a few seconds of Googling shows me that this change has already started:

            http://www.planetaryresources.com/2013/02/russian-meteorite-update/

            “We don’t know when the next one of these might appear, but we’re working to see it coming!”

            Of course, Guest is probably as guilty as you of confusing silly sci-fi stories with economically promising projects. He just wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for trying to make our dreams of the far future come true today, since it’s quite obvious that private companies won’t be doing this on their own dime any time soon (hyping such science fiction in order to win somebody else’s dimes being a very different endeavour).

            • Coastal Ron

              Googaw, wow, long time no hear from you. Can’t say I missed you though… ;-)

              If you look at the engineering talent these companies have actually hired, Guest’s characterization of them as “small companies… developing some space based sensors and cube sats” is right on the money.

              Funny though, I didn’t disagree with that statement, I disagreed with his conclusion that they weren’t planning to do space mining.

              A worthy goal, but extremely far removed in engineering skills and technological capabilities from actual mining.

              Considering that they only announced themselves during the past year, what were you expecting? Massive mining ships ready to leave orbit?

              They have laid out a gradual plan that will allow them to test out their business assumptions far before they have to commit vast sums of money, which is part of the Lean Startup methodology. Pretty smart.

              • Googaw

                Considering that they only announced themselves during the past year, what were you expecting?

                If there was any prospect of any real space mining such as those suggested in these marketer/lobbyist phantasmagorias, I would expect at minimum:

                (1) An executive team with experience in the business end of extraction or materials processing industries (financing and managing capital-intensive investments, legal and political issues related to mineral rights, especially in analogous areas such as the ocean, etc.).

                (2) Engineers with experience in mining or other analogous business-scale extraction or materials processing technologie.

                These companies have none of that. Nada. Zero. The intersection of their resumes with actual mining, or any other extraction or materials processing industry, is the empty set. Instead, they are staffed with executives experienced at chasing NASA contracts and engineers experienced with small satellites and sensor technologies, a few space scientists looking to put those technologies to scientific uses, and some very imaginative marketing/lobbying folks to win NASA contracts NewSpace-style, by whipping up enthusiasm through the Popular Science extravaganza.

                Contrast for example with SpaceX — while Elon himself was a vacuum virgin he hired many people with extensive experience in space industries, such as Gwynne Shotwell and most of his engineers. If it had just been a bunch of web/Paypal people pretending to launch rockets, they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the point of actually launching satellites. The technologcal distance betweeen space sensors and business-scale extraction and processing is even greater.

                (There’s also a parallel with SpaceX, who it should be observed have never hired a greenhouse architect!)

                As far the lean startup methodology, these companies have no ability to pivot to space mining even if that did ever become a promising possibility in their lifetimes. It lies much too far outside their actual skill set. The pivot is about switching to something else your team can build, such as from one kind of web service to another. They would be superseded by people who actually have education and experience in extraction and business-scale materials processing.

                BTW, for all your focus on the names, they are quite ambiguous: the “planet” in “Planetary Resources” could just come to refer to good old Earth, a “Resource” can refer to anything tangible or intangible deemed of value, and “Deep Space Industries” will just come to refer to the good old industry of chasing NASA contracts to build deep space probes.

                But by all means believe the sci-fi and ignore the reality. Par for the course in space activism, as you yourself sometimes show glimmers of realizing.

              • Coastal Ron

                Googaw said:

                These companies have none of that. Nada. Zero. The intersection of their resumes with actual mining, or any other extraction or materials processing industry, is the empty set.

                Gosh, I’m sure you’re right. That just like what DCSCA says, unless someone has done something before, they can never do it in the future… ;-)

                Being a business kind of guy, when I look at the list of people involved in Planetary Resources, I see a lot of people that have a bias for getting things done and pushing past artificial limits.

                And as to the lack of people who have real, hands on mining experience, since that’s not a skill that is needed for at least many years down the road, paying someone now would be a waste of money – what would they do 40 hours a week?

                As far the lean startup methodology, these companies have no ability to pivot to space mining

                I’m glad you followed my link to the Wikipedia page for “Lean Startup”, but you weren’t able to absorb all the concepts.

                They are not going to “pivot to space mining”. Their business plan is to do space mining, so if they did a pivot it would be to go away from space mining, towards some other business model (selling sensor services, wrangling asteroids for others to mine, etc. etc.). In any case, you don’t do a pivot until you are ready to ask yourself:

                Are we making sufficient progress to believe that our original strategic hypothesis is correct, or do we need to make a major change?

                And they are still years away from that evaluation point.

              • NeilShipley

                Yes CR, totaly agree. Sounds a bit like another Newspace startup. Who could that be? Well god-dang, if it doesn’t start with an ‘S’ and end with an ‘X ‘!

              • NeilShipley

                Well serve me right. Googaw mentioned SpaceX and since he’s so longwinded, I didn’t bother reading his entire post. My bad but now that I have read it, we’ll that was a bit of a waste of time. Oh well!

            • Dark Blue Nine

              “Now having just written that,a few seconds of Googling shows me that this change has already started:”

              No, Planetary Resources has always advertised their 20″ telescopes as their first step, and that they are looking for partners and sponsors for them:

              http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/leo-space-telescope/

              • Googaw

                as their first step

                Their first step to what? That’s what’s changing.

              • Coastal Ron

                Googaw said:

                Their first step to what? That’s what’s changing.

                The title on their website says it all:

                Planetary Resources – The Asteroid Mining Company

                That has not changed since Day 1.

                What’s changed, apparently, is some of your brain chemistry… ;-)

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “Their first step to what? That’s what’s changing.”

                Not really. Planetary Resources has been partnering on and advertising their 20cm telescopes for purposes other than NEO resource detection/characterization since the beginning:

                http://www.planetaryresources.com/2012/08/mit-researcher-plans-for-arkyd-space-telescope-to-find-alien-planet/

                http://www.planetaryresources.com/2012/09/jupiters-big-impact/

                It’s stupid for any business with a core capability not to find as many uses and customers for that capability as possible.

                And even if Planetary Resources is suddenly changing direction, what do you care? In the best case, one of their microsats will do humanity a favor and find a city- or country-killing NEA in time to deflect it for a fraction of what it would have cost the B612 Foundation and a very small fraction of what it would have cost NASA or another in-house government program. At worst, they’ll blow some tiny amount of Larry Page’s multi-billion dollar fortune before he pulls the plug. Unlike a government program, it’s not your (or my) money. No harm, no foul. So what?

            • Googaw

              they are still years away from that evaluation point.

              Anybody with common sense can evaluate it right now. A sci-fi story is not a business plan.

              It’s a great way to hook the suckers into helping you lobby for your NASA contracts to do space science, though.

              • Coastal Ron

                Googaw opined:

                Anybody with common sense can evaluate it right now.

                And successful business people (who obviously have demonstrated common sense) have evaluated what they propose to do, and have invested. Haven’t you read the “Team” page on the Planetary Resources website?

                But as DBN points out, since this is a private venture, why do you care about what other people do with their own money? Jealous?

                A sci-fi story is not a business plan.

                Just like a comment from someone going by the moniker “Googaw” is not to be taken seriously… ;-)

                It’s a great way to hook the suckers into helping you lobby for your NASA contracts to do space science, though.

                Yes, yes, your normal rant about even $1 of government money is poison. Feel better?

              • Googaw

                since this is a private venture, why do you care about what other people do with their own money?

                Well, Coastal, because they are in fact, as opposed to futuristic hallucination, anything but a purely free enterprise venture. They are a government contractor wannabe. For the foreseeable future government, and indeed likely only NASA and its contractors, are and will be their only significant revenue source. Not 1%, but practically 100%.

                It is, in short, like most other NewSpace ventures, light-years removed from actual free enterprise in space.

                But as I observed, there seem to be an endless number of suckers who can be deluded by slick sci-fi marketing into believing the opposite.

              • NeilShipley

                Yes I’m pretty sure that’s what people said about SpaceX.

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “they are in fact, as opposed to futuristic hallucination, anything but a purely free enterprise venture. They are a government contractor wannabe. For the foreseeable future government, and indeed likely only NASA and its contractors, are and will be their only significant revenue source. Not 1%, but practically 100%.”

                Again, I have to ask, “So what?”

                If an outfit like Planetary Resources never sells an ounce of extraterrestrial platinum to a private buyer, who cares besides you and (maybe) Larry Page?

                If Planetary Resources can find Earth-threatening asteroids more efficiently than anyone else using microsat technology built from consumer electronics, great — I want NASA (or the Air Force or whoever gets the federal asteroid defense job) contracting with Planetary Resources and not some bloated outfit with an outdated plan that never gets to flight after billions spent. I want my tax dollars spent efficiently and effectively. That’s the important bottomline, not the semantics on the contractor’s mission statement.

                “It is, in short, like most other NewSpace ventures, light-years removed from actual free enterprise in space.”

                So what? Who cares?

                If SpaceX, for example, never launches a commercial comsat, they’ve still built a launch vehicle for a small fraction of what Ares I was going to cost and a fraction of what Air Force/NASA cost models says it would have cost them to build the exact same vehicle. They’ve lowered the cost to orbit and to the ISS by tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the alternative. They’ve been a win-win-win for the U.S. taxpayer, even if they never bring a foreign comsat launch back to U.S. soil.

                This pattern of ostensibly “commercial” aerospace firms winding up with the government as a large, primary, or their biggest customer has been happening since Orbital Sciences Corporation was founded. It’s nothing new.

                And it’s nothing special to the space sector, either. Federal Express, a “commercial” courier delivery services company, has had a multi-billion contract with the U.S. Postal Service to handle their overnight and express mail for a decade now. Oshkosh Corporation, a “commercial” truck design and manufacturing company, has one of its four divisions dedicated to DoD business. (Another is division is dedicated to local/state/federal emergency vehicles.) This is not some conspiracy by commercial space firms to hijack the definition of “commercial”. It happens in many sectors. Tell us something we don’t know.

                I’m sorry that you lost some money in a commercial space firm or were spurned romantically by one of their engineers or whatever offense that sector affronted you with. But your irrationally puritanical, definitionally anal retentive, ad nauseum argument that commercial firms often wind up with the government as one of their largest customer is a meaningless waste of electrons.

                Get a life.

              • Googaw

                If an outfit like Planetary Resources never sells an ounce of extraterrestrial platinum to a private buyer, who cares besides you and (maybe) Larry Page?

                How about the thousands of well-meaning suckers out there who set their hearts on this nonsense? These phantasms give rise to emotional investments as well as financial ones.

                How about the millions of honest taxpayers who don’t like the government giving their money to liars?

                They do care, or will.

              • Coastal Ron

                Googaw protested:

                How about the thousands of well-meaning suckers out there who set their hearts on this nonsense?

                Who would that be? Planetary Resources is not a public company, they only have a few private investors. Were you suckered out of some money by someone? Is that what all of this is about?

                Besides, how is getting excited about asteroid mining any different than getting excited about a new aircraft design, or a new music star? Are you the appointed person for making sure people don’t get too excited about things they are interested in? Weird.

                How about the millions of honest taxpayers who don’t like the government giving their money to liars?

                What? Who are the “liars”? The politicians?

                You can’t mean private companies that are getting paid for services rendered, since by definition if they have produced a product or service, then they are not liars.

                You still don’t make sense.

              • Googaw

                Besides, how is getting excited about asteroid mining any different than getting excited about a new aircraft design, or a new music star?

                Wow! Another classic example of the galactic-scale disconnect between NewSpace junkies and reality.

                What is the difference, indeed, between something that happens all the time (new aircraft designs and new pop stars) and something that has never happened, and doesn’t show any substantial evidence of being much more likely over the next forty years than it was forty years ago? What is the difference between economic reality and pure science fiction?

                Earth to NewSpace!

              • Dark Blue Nine

                “How about the thousands of well-meaning suckers out there who set their hearts on this nonsense? These phantasms give rise to emotional investments as well as financial ones.”

                This is the argument you’re hanging your hat on? That you’re performing a service to “thousands” as the commercial space “emotional investment” police? Really?

                You’re really that delusional about your self-importance? Really?

                And you’re so out-of-touch with reality that you really think people need defending against “emotional investment”? Really?

                Oh no, I’m starting care about which team wins the Superbowl/World Series/March Madness! Call the NFL/MLB/NCAA police! I’m becoming “emotionally invested”! Heaven forbid I buy a ticket and be disappointed! Waaah!

                Oh no, my wife is starting care about a character on General Hospital/Downton Abbey/BattleStar Galactica! Call the Daytime Soaps/PBS/SciFi police! She’s becoming “emotionally invested”! Heaven forbid she records an episode and is disappointed! Waaah!

                Oh no, my teenage son is starting to care about the handling and performance of next year’s Camaro/Mustang/Challenger! Call the GM/Ford/Dodge police! He’s becoming “emotionally invested”! Heaven forbid he takes a test drive and is disappointed! Waaah!

                Defending against disappointment from emotional investment. What a ridiculously stupid position to take.

                “How about the millions of honest taxpayers who don’t like the government giving their money to liars?”

                Whining about whether a company is truly “commercial” if some portion or all of its revenues are derived from federal contracts has no bearing on a company’s performance or fraud. A taxpayer doesn’t care what aspirational statements are present in a corporation’s vision statement as long as they get the job done on schedule and cost. Not even a government attorney cares about such anal retentive definitional nitpicking.

                And even if it did matter, if and when a company promises something contractually to the government and fails to deliver, then the company will lose the payment or contract, get sued for damages, or have their leadership go to jail, depending on the particulars and level of fraud, if any, involved. There are literally thousands upon thousands of government contract experts, managers, lawyers, and inspectors general that spend every working day trying to minimize the government’s exposure to
                bad contracts and companies. Witness Rocketplane Kistler getting the boot from the old COTS program.

                The government has this covered, in spades. The system works. No one needs your insane “help”.

                “They do care, or will.”

                Right, the American public is just going to be up in arms about whether a company is correctly using the term “commercial” because the American public cares so much when they’re lied to about things like nutritional supplements, exercise machines, church sex scandals, and political promises.

                Right, there are huge protests in Washington every day on these issues. Crowds numbering in the tens and hundreds of thousands, angry over organizations and institutions that they’ve spent money, Sundays, and votes on lying to them.

                Right. If the American public cares so much about these lies, then they’re really going to care about whether commercial space companies are truly “commercial”. Compared to whether they’re getting defrauded out of a couple hundred bucks for a useless weight reduction gimmick or whether a church or political leader is lying to them, the definition of what’s truly “commercial” is right up there in outrages that get the average American to jump up out of their recliner.

                Right…

                Get a grip…

  • common sense

    “For the $2 trillion price of the Iraq war the space industrial revolution can be launched that simultaneously solves the global warming problem, creates the potential for long term sustainable economic growth by literally expanding the global market to a Solar System market. ”

    It would be nice that the space advocacy community starts to live in the real world. Seriously. What are the odds of any thing like that to happen? Investing $2T ???

    And I would love to see the logic between impacts and lunar mining or climate change. Must be very interesting in a politically convoluted kind of way.

    Years ago in a far, far away NASA center I once was in meetings where we were told that if we could bring the cost of a Mars trip down to $50B from an estimated $100B then it would happen. After all these years we cannot even go to the Moon for $50B but we are going to convince some one, any one, to invest $2T ???? Yeah. Right.

    I really wonder often if I chose the right kind of work considering this kind of advocacy.

    Should have been a lawyer or a quant. At least there is real money to be made. And it is all very ethical.

    • Common Sense wrote:

      Years ago in a far, far away NASA center I once was in meetings where we were told that if we could bring the cost of a Mars trip down to $50B from an estimated $100B then it would happen.

      Political self-delusion. Congress has no interest in funding a Mars mission. They may talk the talk. But they won’t fund it.

      It’s truly amazing how many people in the space advocacy field have no clue how politics work. They think that all it takes is for the President to walk onto the floor of Congress and demand we fly to the Moon/Mars/fill-in-the-blank and it will magically happen, costs be damned.

      • Googaw

        Congress has no interest in funding a [manned] Mars mission. They may talk the talk. But they won’t fund it.

        They’ve been fantasizing about this without funding it for over four decades, and it’s a good bet that the talk/$$$ ratio will remain as high for at least the next forty years. There’s always a new generation of suckers.

      • common sense

        I know what you mean but in the excerpt you took I was talking about NASA managers and a few other types… Not advocates. What is worse might you ask then…

  • Guest

    And I would love to see the logic between impacts and lunar mining or climate change.

    If you can’t see the connection then there would be no use explaining it. But as an aside I note that Mr. Obama recently gave away couple of trillion to the banking industry and the economy in general, as reward for malfeasance.

    • common sense

      It is unfortunate that you don’t understand bailing out our economic drivers and financing lunacy but I am not surprised considering your prior posts re SLS with F9 boosters nonsense.

      BTW Please let us know the status of your proposal so that you can shut me up. I am sure several here would enjoy it.

      In the mean time…

  • E. P. Grondine

    I hope someone on the sub-committee will ask about Comet 73P, say the mass of its fragments, where it will be in 2022, how NASA knows it will all turn into magic comet dust, and where the Hubble images are of its most recent trip through the inner solar system.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    Google “hubble comet 73P” and you’ll find dozens of images like this one:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/Comet_73P.html

    There’s no conspiracy here.

    • E. P. Grondine

      Hi DBN –

      But if you google for Hubble imagery of 73P’s 2011 perihelion passage, there is none.

      Now since the 73P is coming close to Earth in 2022, that means either that NASA is entirely incompetent, or someone is holding on to that imagery for some reason.

      So which is it?

  • DougSpace

    The one that hit Russia was about 17 meters in diameter. So, less than about 20m and it won’t kill anyone.

    Greater than about 30m and we are getting to the point where we are able to detect them with at least the two days’ warning needed to evacuate an area. For example, Tunguska (60m) would likely have been detected a week or more in advance. We do however need to do better detecting int the sunward direction.

    Greater than about 500m and we’re detecting a large proportion of them years in advance so that we don’t need to do anything with those until we find any of them that might intersect us probably at a time far enough in the future that we have enough time to develop a diversion mission.

    Finally, we are getting to the point where very large asteroids (e.g. > 10 km) are statistically all known.

    So, we need to develop the technology to close the 20-30 meter window.

    • Coastal Ron

      DougSpace said:

      So, we need to develop the technology to close the 20-30 meter window.

      Nice summary.

    • Guest

      No, this event had an extremely fortuitous trajectory and most of the injuries were a result of ignorance or misunderstanding of what was being witnessed. It could have been much worse, or much a better result either way.

      Also, this is more of a ten year event rather than a hundred year event. Tunguska, a much larger bolide, is a hundred year event. There is a paper recently published on the Arxiv with some newly refined calculations.

      • Coastal Ron

        Guest said:

        Also, this is more of a ten year event rather than a hundred year event.

        Events of this size may happen every ten years or so on average, but their impact on civilization appears to be more like every hundred or so. There is a difference between the two (event frequency vs event effect on civilization).

        • Guest

          Civilization hasn’t been around long enough to make those kinds of distinctions and there hasn’t been enough empirical evidence of actual Earth surface or atmospheric impacts of this magnitude yet either. Just recently have the ice cores been examined for these kinds of impact proxies, and the field of microscopic impact proxies is brand new and still in development, and is also one of deep controversy and contention as well. All we have are statistics from the moon and Mars. Most impacts that we infer must have occurred from the statistics have been unobserved. You have a bunch of physical parameters to deal with as well, size, mass, composition, structure, velocity and impact angle, and even altitude all conspire to produce different results. So I have to say your comments and entirely unfounded, including the fact that impacts are aperiodic. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • E. P. Grondine

            Hi Guest –

            Actually, we also have an archaeological record, and proto-historical records.

            While Europeans have only been living in the Americas for 500 years, other peoples have been living here for a very long time, long enough to be affected by impacts.

            • Guest

              Well, Ed, until the legitimacy of microscopic impact proxies is demonstrated and refined all you have are oral and written histories and graphic art. It’s easy enough to see there is something to it, but what ‘it’ is remains to be demonstrated.

              • E. P. Grondine

                Hi Guest –

                You are wishing away the semimultaneous global extinction of many animals. You are also trying to wish away several astroblemes from the time.

                Here’s an old hint: Don’t try to lay no boogie woogie on the king of rock and roll.

        • A M Swallow

          We have more built up areas than 100 years ago.

          • Guest

            That’s true, and also much of the Earth is covered with oceans, making presumably three quarters of impacts unobserved by anyone but mariners. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the ocean, and over several decades I’ve seen several fireballs light up the night sky like daylight through the windows, and was once knocked right out of my bed by what I can only presume was the impact shockwave, although I did not observe it and was not affected by any wave action from the event. I would expect that other mariners have similar stories as well.

          • E. P. Grondine

            Hi AM –

            Add in the nuclear electric plants and the chemical plants, and small ones can easily take out several counties, if not a good part of a state.

    • A M Swallow

      We may need to put a telescopes at SEL3 to detect meteors coming from the other side of the sun.

    • E. P. Grondine

      Uhhhh, Doug –

      The angle of entry was 20 degrees, and this small ordinary chondrite exploded very high up; and that’s the only reason there were no casualties.

      The only reason.

      The amount of energy reaching the ground was very small.

      I know its hard for us to imagine forces in the kiloton and megaton range; I also know most of us don’t know how to react when suddenly faced with a new problem we never really understood we had.

    • Paul

      Oh good grief. From the link:

      DVK: Many media reported that an airburst caused window breakage and some structural damage in downtown Chelaybinsk. Normally, some damage begins to occur at around five times normal air pressure at sea level. Widespread window damage is expected around 10–20 times this value.

      I can assure you, if the blast wave that hit Chelyabinsk had a pressure of 5 atmospheres, no buildings would be standing.

  • vulture4

    The main need. as B612 points out, is a telescope near the orbit of Venus to detect objects in near earth orbits or slightly closer to the sun than Earth against the darkness of space. For a telescope in Earth orbit these are difficult to see against the sun’s glare.

Leave a Reply to Paul Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>