PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 10/2002 - 15 January 2002
------------------------------
"In recent weeks we have been greeted with repeated
announcements of
the reduction in funds available to NEO programs, as governments
whose
revenues are coming under stress due to the economic slowdown
seek to
economize. In view of these developments, which trend is likely
to
continue for at least the next couple of years, perhaps it is
time to
re-consider the use of the ancient Mayan technique for dealing
with
the hazard of asteroid and comet impact, specifically that of
human
sacrifice. Now many in the scientific community may scoff at the
idea
and dismiss it out of hand, but as the Mayan priests pointed out,
once they
began human sacrifice, they were never again pounded by the sky
gods. So by
inductive demonstration, the technique appears to work. It has
the
further advantage of being an extremely low cost scheme to put
into
operation, as it requires no payment for any telescopes,
electronic
devices, computers, or staff, and even less payment for the
bureaucrats
who manage these programs."
--Ed Grondine, 14 January 2002
"The journalists called it a "near miss", but
asteroid 2001 YB5
didn't really come close to earth. It was around 600,000km away
when it
whipped past our planet on Jan. 8. The experts did their best to
whip up
alarm. But the human race refused to get excited: you can safely
ignore a bullet that misses you by ten kilometres."
--Gwynne Dyer, 14 January 2002
"The rate they're going, the politicians are still not
taking this
threat very seriously. I don't know what it's going to take,
maybe a
small one hitting us first."
--Bob Farqua, 13 January 2001
"I don't think there is a right answer for how seriously to
take it.
A big asteroid hasn't hit in recorded human history, but it could
happen
next year. The chances are the same as dying in an airplane
crash, with or
without terrorists."
--Clark Chapman, 13 January 2001
(1) ASTRONOMERS SURVEY SKY FOR BIG ASTEROIDS
Florida Today, 13 January 2002
(2) RESPONSE TO ASTEROID THREAT DEPENDS ON ITS GEOLOGY
Florida Today, 13 January 2002
(3) ANOTHER NEAR MISS
Jordan Times, 14 January 2002
(4) UA SCIENTISTS BEGIN FIELD WORK ON CHICXULUB DRILLING PROJECT
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(5) CRATER HELPS SCIENTISTS IMAGINE A MARS MISSION
Miami Herald, 13 January 2002
(6) PLANETARY SOCIETY OFFERS NEW SCHOLARSHIPS
The Planetary Society <tps@planetary.org>
(7) IDENTIFYING RISK: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), October 2001
(8) IMPACTOR ANGST
Pavel Chichikov <fishhook@erols.com>
(9) RISK AND DISASTER CONFERENCE
(10) AND FINALLY: AN EXTREMELY LOW COST APPROACH TO DEALING WITH
THE NEO
HAZARD
E.P. Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
===============
(1) ASTRONOMERS SURVEY SKY FOR BIG ASTEROIDS
>From Florida Today, 13 January 2002
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryA8730A.htm
Researchers try to increase alert time for such objects
By Steven Siceloff
FLORIDA TODAY
CAPE CANAVERAL -- The odds of dying from an asteroid impact are
better than
winning the lottery, researchers said, but the nation puts little
effort
into preparing for the possibility.
The search for asteroids is critical if humans are to get a
chance to rescue
themselves, officials said. That's why Congress ordered NASA to
identify
almost all the objects two-thirds of a mile or larger by 2008. So
far, more
than 300 have been identified as possible threats to Earth.
"We're running as fast as we can with the technology we
have," said
astronomer Stephen Pravdo, project manager for the Near Earth
Asteroid
Tracking project.
But by allocating only a few million dollars a year to an effort
that must
identify 90 percent of the objects over six years, Congress is
playing the
odds, betting scientists will win.
They face a daunting task. The hazard was highlighted Jan. 7,
when a
300-yard-long rock missed Earth by 520,000 miles. The asteroid,
named YB5,
would have destroyed an area the size of France had it hit this
planet.
Researchers had almost no warning, and spotted it only two weeks
before its
closest approach.
Increasing the alert time for such objects is the sole goal for
the fewer
than 100 astronomers who have turned their attention to so-called
near-Earth
objects. They hope to give earthlings enough time to divert an
asteroid in
case one is found headed this way, even though the chances are
slim there
will be a major impact during their lifetimes.
"I don't think there is a right answer for how seriously to
take it," said
Clark Chapman, an asteroid impact specialist at the Southwest
Research
Institute in Boulder, Colo. "A big asteroid hasn't hit in
recorded human
history, but it could happen next year. The chances are the same
as dying in
an airplane crash, with or without terrorists."
Congress authorized as much as $7 million a year for a survey of
the solar
system near Earth that hopes to find 90 percent of all the
objects larger
than two-thirds of a mile, but only half of that is ever
allocated, David
Morrison said. He heads NASA's asteroid and comet impact research
effort at
Ames Research Center in California.
The money has provided technological leaps for asteroid
astronomers.
Working each year with slightly more than 1/10th the cost of the
Odyssey
robotic mission to Mars, astronomers have developed computers
that turn
telescopes into celestial sentries.
"Up to the early 1990s, it was a couple (asteroids found)
per year," Pravdo
said. "Now it's hundreds per year, sometimes 30 a
month."
So far this month, the team has found four new objects, one of
which passes
close enough to Earth to be considered dangerous, though it is
not expected
to hit the planet. Researchers have spotted 1,739 near-Earth
objects, the
majority since 1997. More than 500 of them are larger than
two-thirds of a
mile, with 367 classified as potential threats.
Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near Earth Objects program,
estimated there
are about 1,000 asteroids in the solar system larger than
two-thirds of a
mile. There could be 100,000 rocks big enough to chew up a state
if they hit
Earth.
When Pravdo and astronomers around the world find a new object,
other
astronomers use special devices and radar telescopes to determine
what it is
made of and calculate the exact path it will take.
The objects of most concern are the relatively large rocks that
could
explode over a city and asteroids almost a mile wide that could
spell a new
extinction. Earth's atmosphere absorbs the impact of countless
small objects
daily.
There are few signs of past meetings with asteroids. One of the
most famous
is a mile-wide crater in Arizona. A 100-foot meteor traveling
40,000 mph is
thought to have excavated the desert 50,000 years ago.
Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula is thought to be part of the crater
left by a
massive boulder from space that eliminated the dinosaurs 65
million years
ago.
"We're dealing with this hazard that is very unlikely to
happen, but if it
does happen, it will be the biggest event to happen to humanity
since we
emerged from the caves," Chapman said.
Morrison puts the odds of dying from an asteroid impact at 1 in
20,000
during a typical lifetime -- the same as dying in a plane crash.
The only way to know with relative certainty is to look for the
objects and
figure out where they are going.
"The issue is not statistics, but when the next hit will
take place,"
Morrison said. "That is why Spaceguard is finding and
tracking real objects,
not trying to improve the statistics."
Many in the space community argue for more funding to quicken the
pace of
discovery, and then work on finding smaller but lethal objects.
"If we could get the budget up to $10 million a year, we
could accomplish
what we need to accomplish," said Marc Schlather, director
of the
Washington, D.C.-based ProSpace grass-roots organization.
Morrison said the Earth needs 10 to 20 years warning to deal with
an
incoming object. That is possible with a thorough survey of the
heavens. The
country needs the time to develop rockets, spacecraft and plans
to divert
the asteroid.
Bob Farqua, who led the NEAR mission that landed on the asteroid
Eros last
year, said the space program should develop a small shuttle craft
that can
travel from space station Alpha to deep space on short order.
With that
capacity, a crew could intercept a killer asteroid years before
it has a
chance to threaten the planet.
Shuttle astronauts could attach a small rocket motor that
gradually would
push the object's orbit away from Earth. The Hollywood solution
-- nuclear
warheads shot at or detonated inside an asteroid -- would not
likely solve
the problem, most agree
"That might break it up into smaller pieces, and I'm not
sure if that's good
or bad," Farqua said.
For now, Farqua said it is important the country understand there
is a
danger that can be averted, but the risk is small during this
lifetime.
"The rate they're going, the politicians are still not
taking this threat
very seriously," he said. "I don't know what it's going
to take, maybe a
small one hitting us first."
Copyright 2002, Forida Today
===========
(2) RESPONSE TO ASTEROID THREAT DEPENDS ON ITS GEOLOGY
>From Florida Today, 13 January 2002
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryA8757A.htm
By Kelly Young
FLORIDA TODAY
CAPE CANAVERAL -- Asteroids are like the snowflakes of outer
space -- no two
are identical.
"Asteroids can run the gamut anywhere from an ex-cometary
fluff ball to a
slab of solid iron," said Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's
Near Earth
Objects program. That makes finding a cure-all for destroying an
Earth-approaching asteroid difficult.
"You need to know the enemy and . . . you'd need to know
what it was made
of," said Yeomans. "There is some rationale for
studying them up close with
spacecraft."
More than 100,000 asteroids have been catalogued and named. But
"there are
many, many more than that -- millions and millions," said
Robert Jedicke, an
asteroid hunter at the University of Arizona.
All of the solar system's asteroids began their life between Mars
and
Jupiter. There, a planet tried to form but couldn't because of
the
overpowering presence of Jupiter, the largest planet in the solar
system,
astronomers believe.
"Jupiter kept stirring them up," Yeomans said.
The larger asteroids in the main belt are like miniature planets
with an
iron core, a silicate mantle and a surface battered by
collisions. These
objects smash into one another, creating fragments that sometimes
veer
toward the inner solar system.
Scientists think the asteroid that flew by Earth last Monday was
probably
made of silicate like other Near Earth Objects.
Some asteroids are spent comets that have lost all of their ice.
The remains
are fragile enough to crumble in someone's hands.
Other asteroids are just conglomerates of rock rubble held
together by their
own gravity.
The asteroid Ceres, the first one discovered, spans about 600
miles across,
about the distance from New York City to Dayton, Ohio.
Vesta, the solar system's third largest asteroid, can be seen
with the naked
eye. NASA will send the Dawn spacecraft to Ceres and Vesta later
this
decade.
Copyright 2002, Florida Today
=============
(3) ANOTHER NEAR MISS
>From Jordan Times, 14 January 2002
http://www.jordantimes.com/Tue/features/features1.htm
By Gwynne Dyer
THE JOURNALISTS called it a "near miss", but asteroid
2001 YB5 didn't really
come close to earth. It was around 600,000km away when it whipped
past our
planet on Jan. 8. Given that it was not much bigger than an
aircraft carrier
(sic) (though a lot heavier), it was like having somebody fire a
.22 bullet
at you and miss by about 10km.
The experts did their best to whip up alarm (sic). "Such an
object could
wipe out a medium-sized country if it impacted and lead to a
global economic
meltdown," warned asteroid expert Benny Peiser of John
Moores University in
Liverpool. But the human race refused to get excited: you can
safely ignore
a bullet that misses you by ten kilometres.
But suppose that the maniac with the .22 got a free shot every
year or so.
In fact, imagine that there were thousands of near-sighted
maniacs with .22
rifles, each taking a shot at you from time to time, plus 700-odd
drunken
lunatics with rocket-launchers who also get a free go at you
every year or
so. Sooner or later, something's going to hit you, and even a .22
bullet can
hurt. A rocket-propelled grenade can ruin your whole day [note
the use of
terrorist imagery to convey the impact hazard to people in the
Middle East;
BJP].
There are an estimated 700 asteroids, give or take a couple of
hundred, that
are big enough to change the whole fate of life on earth if they
struck it -
between one and ten kilometres across - and in orbits that could
one day
lead to a collision. There are literally thousands of others,
ranging down
to the size of 2001 YB5, that could wipe out a country the size
of France or
Korea if they hit the earth. The problem is the time-scale of the
threat:
"long-term planning" in most human contexts is five to
ten years.
No country-killer asteroid is likely to hit our planet in the
next decade;
indeed, there's only a one per cent chance that it will happen
any time in
the next century. As for the really big strikes that could wipe
out the
human race, only two such asteroids have hit in the past 251
million years.
In debates about next year's budget, preventing that huge but
unlikely
catastrophe will always tend to lose out to more urgent
priorities.
Yet there is no reason to despair. Given that nobody had any idea
of the
scale of the asteroid threat only 25 years ago, the way we have
climbed the
learning curve in a series of huge intellectual leaps is actually
quite
impressive.
First, there was the whole idea of a "nuclear winter":
the hypothesis, first
put forward by Carl Sagan et al. during the 1970s, that
explosions which
lift large amounts of dust high into the atmosphere could have
planet-wide
effects, since the dust would stay up there for years, blocking
sunlight,
killing crops and changing the whole climate.
Sagan and his colleagues were mainly concerned about the effects
of
thousands of thermonuclear weapons being exploded near the
ground, which
seemed alarmingly likely during the cold war. But then, in the
early 80s,
the father-and-son Alvarez team - physicist father Luis and
geologist son
Walter - looked at the thin layer of iridium that is found
worldwide in
geological strata about 65 million years old. They surmised that
it could
not have a terrestrial origin, and suggested that it was due to a
giant
asteroid strike - which also wiped out the dinosaurs by causing a
prolonged
"nuclear winter".
The dates matched, and only a few years later the discovery of a
giant
crater of the right age off Mexico's Yucatan peninsula gave the
theory added
credibility. Doubters pointed to the enormous volcanic eruptions
of the same
time that covered much of southern India with a thick layer of
lava (the
"Deccan Traps") as a rival cause of global climatic
disruption and the
extinction of the dinosaurs, but now it seems that the asteroid
strike and
the intense volcanic activity may actually have been connected.
There was an even larger calamity 251 million years ago: the
"Great Dying",
when 70 per cent of land vertebrates and 90 per cent of all
marine animals
suddenly became extinct. Last year, scientists at the
universities of
Rochester and Washington published a paper in the respected
journal Science,
identifying geological evidence of a massive asteroid or cometary
strike at
that time too. No crater for this strike has been identified yet,
but once
again it coincides with an unprecedented period of massive
volcanic
activity, this time in Siberia.
In only 25 years, therefore, we have changed our Darwin-based
ideas about
evolution to include rare but massive changes caused by asteroid
strikes. We
have begun to suspect that these huge strikes trigger volcanic
episodes that
disrupt the planetary environment for long enough to cause mass
extinctions
worldwide. And we have identified and plotted at least a
significant
fraction of the most dangerous objects in the solar system.
We have not yet developed the technology to divert them, but the
average
secondary school graduate today is likely to understand the
nature of the
threat. Far more than gestures like the creation of a
"Planetary Protection
Office" at the US National Aeronautics and Space Agency, it
is this
planet-wide raising of consciousness that will eventually create
the
political basis for a real planetary defence programme.
Copyright 2002, Jordan Times
===============
(4) UA SCIENTISTS BEGIN FIELD WORK ON CHICXULUB DRILLING PROJECT
>From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://uanews.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=4715
UA SCIENTISTS BEGIN FIELD WORK ON CHICXULUB DRILLING PROJECT
>From Lori Stiles, UA News Services, 520-621-1877
January 14, 2002
University of Arizona scientists in the next week or two will
begin field
work on the Chicxulub Scientific Drilling Project (CSDP) near
Merida,
Yucatan, Mexico -- an international project to core 1.8
kilometers into an
immense crater created by the impact of an asteroid or comet 65
million
years ago.
The Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) impact is thought to have led to
one of the
greatest mass extinctions in Earth history, including dinosaur
extinction.
The impact generated ten thousand times more energy than in the
world's
nuclear arsenal, and six million times more energy than the 1980
Mount St.
Helens volcanic eruption.
"This is a very special collaboration with our neighbors in
Mexico and
highlights the success of international cooperation among
scientists
throughout the world," said David A. Kring, UA associate
professor of
planetary sciences and co-investigator in the CSDP. "We
appreciate the
opportunity to work with our colleagues from UNAM and ICDP
member-nations."
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) is the lead
institution on
the project. Kring collaborates closely with Jaime Urrutia
Fucugauchi of the
UNAM Instituto de Geofisica, who directs the drilling project.
Other
principal investigators include Dante Moran Zenteno (UNAM),
Virgil Sharpton
(University of Alaska), Richard Buffler (University of Texas),
Dieter
Stoeffler (Humbolt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) and Jan Smit
(Vrije
University, Netherlands).
"The hypothesis that a meteorite impact caused the demise of
the dinosaurs
and consequently, perhaps paved the way for mammalian evolution
has been one
of the most important recent findings in Earth sciences,"
said UA College of
Science Dean Joaquin Ruiz, professor of geosciences. Discovering
what the
object was and the details of the impact "is very
important," he added. "The
fact that the University of Arizona has one of the leading
investigators in
the field testifies to the quality of science that goes on at
this
institution."
Ruiz and Rene Drucker, UNAM coordinator of scientific
investigation,
tomorrow (Jan. 15) in Mexico City will sign a memoradum of
understanding
that will facilitate and pay for the exchange of students and
faculty on
this project and future projects involving UA College of Science
departments.
The Chicxulub Scientific Drilling Project is being run under the
auspices of
the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP),
headquartered in Potsdam, Germany. In addition to Mexico,
Germany, and the
United States, nations funding ICDP operations include Canada,
China, Japan,
and Poland. Corporate affiliates include UNESCO, the
international Ocean
Drilling Program, and Schlumberger Inc.
Kring and undergraduate geosciences major Jake Bailey will join
operations
at the Yaxcopoil-1 site, 40 kilometers southwest of the
province's capital,
Merida. Ruiz will visit the site in a few weeks on a future trip
to Mexico.
Workers cleared the site of vegetation, constructed a well to
supply water
to the drilling rig, and installed the drilling rig in November
and early
December. The governor of Yucatan, UNAM scientists and officials,
and a
German delegation inaugurated the project with opening ceremonies
on Dec.3.
Actual drilling began Dec. 12, and the crew reached impact
breccias late
last week.
"We expect to reach the 1.8-kilometer (one and one-tenth
mile) depth after
69 days of drilling," Kring said, at a cost of $1.5 million
from the ICDP.
"We planned to hit rocks in the crater between 500 meters
(1,640 feet) and
one kilometer (3,280 feet), then continue through the impact
crater itself
-- through breccias and the impact melt layer -- all the way down
to
continental crust bedrock. If we succeed in getting more funds,
we'll core
down to 2.5 kilometers (1 and a half miles)," he added.
The hypothesis that an asteroid or comet impact caused K/T mass
extinction
was first proposed in 1980 by Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez, his
geologist
son, Walter, and others at the University of California-Berkeley.
Kring was one of seven scientists who confirmed the highly
controversial
theory in the early 1990s.
During oil exploration, PEMEX geophysicists Antonio
Carmargo-Zanoguera and
Glen Penfield identified the Chicxulub structure as a possible
impact
crater. Alan Hildebrand of the University of Calgary (then a UA
graduate
student), Kring, and UA planetary sciences professor William
Boynton,
working with Penfield, Carmargo-Z., Mark Pilkington of the
Canadian
Geological Survey and Stein Jacobsen from Harvard University,
confirmed with
petrologic and geochemical studies that the 180-kilometer
(110-mile)
diameter Chicxulub structure was indeed formed by giant asteroid
or comet
impact.
Scientists will analyze cores for details on exactly how the
Chicxulub
impact suddenly, catastrophically changed Earth's environment and
ecology,
killing more than 75 percent of the plant and animal species on
land and in
the oceans.
At the Yaxcopoil-1 site, a professional drilling crew uses a
diamond-tipped
drill to extract 64mm-diameter (2 and a half inch-diameter) core
in segments
up to 6-meters (19 and a half feet) long. Core segments are
placed on a
bench at the work site.
UNAM staff and students -- soon to be joined by the UA team --
then wash,
label, measure, and box the cores. The boxed cores are processed
on site and
at a laboratory in Merida, where cores also are scanned as
digital images
that Kring and other scientists can view over the Internet.
Kring, his students, and researchers from other institutions will
be able to
further analyze the core samples at the Lunar and Planetary
Laboratory and
other labs after the drilling is complete.
Kring's work on the Chicxulub impact crater and K/T boundary mass
extinction
event has been supported by NASA, the National Science
Foundation, ICDP, and
the University of Arizona.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links
UA Space Imagery Center - Impact Cratering
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/impact_cratering/intro/
Downloadable schematic of the drilling site
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/impact_cratering/Chicxulubprpage/Chicxulubrel.html
International Continental Drilling Program
http://icdp.gfz-potsdam.de/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Information
David A. Kring
520-621-2024, kring@lpl.arizona.edu
Joaquin Ruiz
520-621-4090, jruiz@u.arizona.edu
=============
(5) CRATER HELPS SCIENTISTS IMAGINE A MARS MISSION
>From Miami Herald, 13 January 2002
http://www.miami.com/herald/content/news/local/florida/digdocs/112615.htm
BILL KACZOR
Associated Press
PENSACOLA -- Computer expert William J. Clancey tags along when
NASA
researchers visit a crater 500 miles from the North Pole to
explore its
Mars-like environment.
``The scientists are studying the crater, the geology and biology
of this
land, and I'm studying the scientists,'' Clancey says.
He wants to see how they go about their business to develop ways
that
computers and other devices can be used to help astronauts
explore Mars.
Clancey, a computer scientist specializing in artificial
intelligence at the
University of West Florida's Institute of Human and Machine
Cognition in
Pensacola, is on loan to the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett
Field,
Calif.
NASA scientists have found that the Canadian Arctic's Haughton
Crater,
formed when an asteroid struck Devon Island 24 million years ago,
has many
geological features similar to Mars. ``It was like Mars on Earth,
a Mars
park, if you will,'' said Pascal Lee, a planetary scientist for
the private
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute at Mountain
View, Calif.
Lee also works at Ames as leader of the Haughton-Mars Project,
which studies
the similarities and differences between Devon Island and Mars.
EXPLORATION
Clancey, as leader of a NASA space exploration research team, has
joined the
Haughton scientists on annual visits the past four years,
spending 10 days
to a month on the island each summer.
``We want to understand exploration,'' Clancey said during a
recent visit to
West Florida. ``How do people explore?''
To make the research realistic, scientists put on space suits
that restrict
their visibility and maneuverability. They also limit their time
on each
traverse because on Mars they would be restricted by the amount
of oxygen
they could take with them.
One of the first lessons from Haughton was that motorcycle-based
all-terrain
vehicles with single seats offer better mobility than larger moon
buggies
with side-by-side seating for two astronauts.
``You have much better balance,'' Clancey said. ``It would be a
one-on-one
thing, but in a pinch if one of them breaks down you can get two
people on
one.''
Cumbersome space-suit gloves quickly posed a challenge to the
scientists as
they took notes on their observations. Clancey said the answer
could be
audio recordings that may have to be transmitted to earth for
transcription
unless sufficient improvements are made in speech recognition
software so it
can be done on Mars.
Storing and accessing data, getting it back to earth and
communicating with
earth are other issues his team is working on. Astronauts have
near-instantaneous contact with mission control while in earth
orbit but
will face lengthy delays from faraway places such as Mars.
``Imagine you're on Mars, and you just had a malfunction,''
Clancey said. It
may be 10 minutes before the message gets to mission control,
which uses 10
more minutes to formulate a response that takes yet another 10
minutes to
get back to Mars. ``That's 30 minutes from the time that you
said, `Houston,
we have problem,' '' Clancey said.
The answer may be computers such as the fictional HAL 9000 in the
film 2001:
A Space Odyssey, which advised astronauts in emergencies.
``We haven't built HAL, but it's the general notion of artificial
intelligence,'' Clancey said. ``We definitely have it within our
capabilities to have programs that answer basic factual questions
about
where stuff is stored, what are the procedures I should follow,
what's the
interpretation?''
FOCUS OF PROJECT
In contrast with past moon exploration, Clancey found scientists
at Haughton
returned repeatedly to the same spots instead of trying to sample
as many
different places as they could.
``They're not just out there on what we'd call a fishing
expedition,''
Clancey said. ``They have a sense in mind of what there is to be
found and
where they might look.''
That's important for NASA to understand when designing Mars
missions, SETI's
Lee said in a telephone interview from his home in San Jose,
Calif. ``Bill
Clancey's work is at the very core of learning how to optimize
the living
and working conditions of humans on Mars,'' he said.
Another focus is on what scientists will do inside their Mars
habitats. The
Mars Society in 2000 built a research station at Haughton similar
to those
that might be established on Mars. Six-member crews rotate in and
out from
June through August. The private group is building another
station at
Hanksville, Utah, for year-round study.
Clancey, meanwhile, is working on computer software to create a
virtual-reality habitat for testing layouts, designs and
procedures and
training future Mars explorers.
There is disagreement inside and outside the scientific community
about
whether humans should go to Mars at all or if exploration should
be left to
robots. Clancey believes there is a place for both.
``We're not going to Mars just for the science,'' Clancey said.
``We go
because of the adventure. Why do you climb Everest? It's not just
to get
samples of rocks.''
Copyright 2002 Miami Herald
===============
(6) PLANETARY SOCIETY OFFERS NEW SCHOLARSHIPS
>From The Planetary Society <tps@planetary.org>
NEWS RELEASE
The Planetary Society
65 N. Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91106-2301 (626) 793-5100 Fax
(626)
793-5528 E-mail: tps@planetary.org
Web: http://planetary.org
For Immediate Release: January 14,
2002
Contact: Susan Lendroth
Planetary Society Offers New Scholarships
Students entering space-related fields may want to study the new
scholarships offered by The Planetary Society. The Society will
award two
Planetary Society Scholarship for Space Studies each year for the
next five
years, beginning with the 2002-2003 school year.
Both high school seniors and full-time college students can apply
for the
$1000 scholarships. Applicants must write a 500-word essay
about how they
plan to use the scholarship, and how that use will be related to
the mission
of The Planetary Society.
To be eligible to apply students must either be a member of the
Society or
nominated by a member of it. They also need to submit the
scholarship
application and required materials no later than April 30,
2002.
For more information about The Planetary Society's new
Scholarships for
Space Studies, visit the Society's website at http://planetary.org or call
Linda Wong at (626)793-5100.
The Society is also offering this year a full-tuition scholarship
to the
International Space University (ISU) Summer Session. The
scholarship is
open to all candidates who have already been accepted to attend
the 2002 ISU
summer session, but who have not yet secured scholarships to
cover their
fees. This year's ISU summer session will be held in
Pomona, California.
The Jim and Lin Burke Scholarship was named for James (Jim) and
Lin Burke,
long-time advocates and staff participants in the ISU summer
session and
active Planetary Society members. Jim Burke, one of the
pioneers of
America's space program, is the technical editor of the Society's
magazine,
The Planetary Report. The Jim and Lin Burke scholarship was
made possible
by a donation from ISU graduate, Eric Tilenius.
-o0o-
THE PLANETARY SOCIETY:
Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray and Louis Friedman founded The Planetary
Society in
1980 to advance the exploration of the solar system and to
continue the
search for extraterrestrial life. With members in over 140
countries, the
Society is the largest space interest group in the world.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
For more information about The Planetary Society, contact Susan
Lendroth at
(626) 793-5100 ext. 237 or by e-mail at susan.lendroth@planetary.org.
The Planetary Society
65 N. Catalina Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91106-2301
Tel: (626) 793-5100
Fax: (626) 793-5528
E-Mail: tps@planetary.org
================
(7) IDENTIFYING RISK: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
>From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD),
October 2001
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/8d00615172fd2a63c125685d005300b5/c1256985004c66e3c1256ae10052c5f8/$FILE/JT00114276.DOC
1. How is risk identification and assessment integrated into the
policy-making process?
2. Which capacities (e.g. legal and policy framework, human,
financial and
institutional capacities) do Governments have to identify risk?
Assessing risk in a context of uncertainty
3. At what point would you consider that a hazard poses an actual
risk and
according to which criteria?
Dealing with various perceptions of risk
4. What are the criteria to evaluate the importance of a risk
(e.g.
probability, severity of consequences, public perceptions)?
And adopting a risk management approach
5. What lessons and insights on risk identification can you offer
to others?
I. Why should governments focus on risk identification?
1. Conventional risks tend to take on new dimensions due to a
number of
factors (e.g. an increase in extreme weather conditions, growing
geographical concentration of populations and wealth, etc.). At
the same
time, emerging issues such as bio-terrorism and new technologies
are
occurring, many of which are characterised by extreme uncertainty
and the
possibility of extensive harm. Risks often have a strong economic
impact
(e.g. on infrastructure, tourism, budget, public health, etc.)
which should
not be underestimated. Most of the time, risks have no
borders: they can
spread and entail a series of adverse effects in several
countries.
2. Government capacity to adjust to traditional and new risks
seems
increasingly challenged by modern complexities, while at the same
time
people seem more ready to accept risks resulting from
"private" decisions
rather than those resulting from "public" decisions.
3. In this fast-moving environment, the identification of risk
can be a
difficult task. Identifying risks, in particular environmental
risks,
represents a real challenge for governments when considering
burning issues
such as cloning, contaminated blood, foot-and-mouth disease,
flooding,
earthquakes, typhoons or BSE. The Centres of government are
strategically
placed to bring the concrete implications of risk identification
to the
attention of political leaders.
Defining the issue
4. Risk can be generically defined as "the probability that
the actual input
variables and the outcome results may vary from those originally
estimated"
(Remenyi, 1999). Thus, risk can inherently be both positive and
negative.
Taking a risk or not is a question of finding a balance between
risk and
opportunity, that is to say between the perceived risk and the
expected
benefits. For instance, one can wonder at what point an
innovation like
cloning is to be considered as an actual risk.
5. One should try to differentiate risk from hazard, which are
two
interrelated, but distinct concepts:
- A hazard represents a substance that has the potential to harm
the
economy, health, the environment, etc. Fortunately, many
hazards can be
either contained or avoided, so not every potential hazard poses
an actual
risk. In term of frequency and strength, true hazards remain
broadly
uninfluenced in human activity over time.
- A risk, in turn, is the likelihood of adverse effects arising
from
exposure to a hazard, resulting from two factors, the probability
of
exposure and the severity of the consequences.
6. The definition of risk involves one or more of three essential
elements:
- a time frame over which risks are being considered;
- a probability of the occurrence of one or more events; and
- a measure of the consequence of those events.
Analysing a multifaceted risk
7. Global risks can be analysed in a number of identified
contexts:
"natural" disasters; new technologies; the provision of
services -
especially in the medical field - and political risk.
A short typology of risks
Natural disasters and accidents constitute the first category
where public
expectation is that there will be well-developed plans to respond
- and
ensure that in the case of accidents there is no recurrence. It
includes
risks related to hazards (e.g. earthquakes). This is the
"traditional"
category of risks, although they may have increased in frequency
and
intensity in recent years, in particular through global warming
(e.g.
possible side-effects of climate change).
New technologies are a field of emerging risks where public
aversion to risk
at any level has been increasing. Technology-related risks are
often an area
where confidence in governments' objectivity and the degree of
reassurance
offered is decreasing. This is particularly true of the
consequences of
accidents/failures in large-scale units (e.g. nuclear power
plants,
supertankers), major dysfunctioning of network technologies (e.g.
cyberterrorism), and major accidents related to biotechnology
(e.g. spread
of harmful "rogue" genetically modified genes,
bioterrorism).
In addition to these two major categories, the provision of
services,
particularly in the medical field, is also raising important
issues related
to potential risks. In general the public is less tolerant of
failure in the
medical field than in the past. This is especially true for state
provision,
but it also applies to private sector provision where there is an
expectation of state regulation. The emergence of new diseases
(e.g. AIDS,
BSE), resurgence of diseases hitherto thought to be largely
eradicated (e.g.
TB, malaria), as well as issues related to possible pandemics
(e.g.
influenza) are very significant phenomena.
Risk is also a component of long-term planning and the evaluation
and
management of large-scale investments (e.g. IT investment).
Long-term
planning typically generates political risks, where particularly
in the case
of long-term strategies, early and unpopular action is required,
but where
the penalties for inaction appear remote or the benefits are not
immediately
evident.
Understanding the importance of risk identification
8. Many risks have consequences not only on the environment but
also on
politics, economics and society at the local, national and
international
level. Decision-makers should thus not underestimate the
importance of risk
identification and management for the good of the general
public.
9. In addition, the public will evaluate decision-makers' ability
to
anticipate, act, react and communicate during a crisis and will
draw more
general conclusions on their leadership capacity. Citizens'
scrutiny has
become more and more vigilant in recent years, making political
accountability central to the risk management process.
II. What are the challenges of risk identification?
Assessing risk in a context of uncertainty
10. Uncertainty is at the heart of risk. Indeed, most risk
assessment
findings are carefully couched in terms of the strengths and
weaknesses of
the evidence of risk, uncertainties about the degree of risk, and
guarded
statements about the likely effectiveness of various remedies.
11. This cautious approach, while frustrating in its complexity,
permits
regulators and political decision-makers to make the final choice
to
intervene or not while having in hand a range of scientific
analyses. It
also helps to evaluate various options for controlling risks
without being
restricted to a predetermined risk estimate and a single control
option.
12. This implies two main steps for policy-makers in determining
the nature
of risk: risk characterisation and risk estimation.
- Risk characterisation is the estimation of the incidence and
severity of
the adverse effects likely to occur due to actual or predicted
exposure to a
substance, i.e. integration of the effects and exposure
assessments.
- Risk estimation is the quantification of the likelihood (i.e.
probability)
that adverse effects will occur due to actual or predicted
exposure to a
substance.
Risk probability versus risk consequences
Decision-makers often have to balance risk characterisation
(incidence/severity of consequences) and risk estimation
(probability)
before taking a decision.
For instance, asteroids would have an enormous impact on
environment and
human health (risk characterisation) but their probability (risk
estimation)
is very low. On the contrary, the impact of global warming is
still
indeterminate (risk characterisation) whereas its probability
(risk
estimation) is high.
Dealing with various perceptions of risk
13. Once a risk has been identified and analysed, decision-makers
should be
able to anticipate, analyse and take into account the reactions
of the
public when facing a risk. Indeed, citizens are puzzled about how
they
should react to the acceleration of scientific innovation and are
increasingly reluctant to put their faith in science and
governments'
reassurances.
14. Furthermore, citizens consider that exposure to hazardous
situations is
acceptable, assuming of course, there is a personal choice in
deciding
whether or not to subject oneself to these hazards (personal
risks on the
roads). On the contrary, collective risks are barely tolerated,
regardless
of the anticipated degree of risk. Accordingly, citizens have an
increasing
aversion to any perceived risk in the public domain.
15. Uncertainty also comes from the fact that there are many risk
stakeholders including politicians, scientists, the public and
journalists.
These people often have different perceptions of risk as their
"time
reference" varies. The media, who strive for news and work
on "hot news",
usually have a short-term view ("striking headlines")
whereas scientists
would have a more balanced and long-term perspective on a risk
issue. As for
citizens, their risk perception is closely linked to their own
experience of
risk and the memory they have of them. And of course
decision-makers take
into account various political factors such as public
representations of
risk or the imminence of elections. Furthermore,
perceptions might vary a
lot among a single category of stakeholders (e.g. lack of
consensus of
scientists on a risk issue), which makes the problem even more
complicated.
The myth of scientists' and journalists' objectivity
Many problems can be traced to the myth of objectivity resident
in both
scientific and journalists' disciplines. For instance, the
journalistic
construction of an environmental risk mirrors only partially, or
not at all,
the scientific construction of environmental issues and risk.
Scientists and
journalists who acknowledge that a degree of bias is normal are
likely to be
better prepared to distinguish facts from value judgements, in
both expert
statements and media accounts of risk debates.
Accordingly, the different stakeholders should share their
knowledge so as
to get a view on a risk issue that is as unbiased as possible
before taking
a decision.
And adopting a risk management approach
16. Accordingly, the risk management process is the means by
which
governments and other standard-setting organisations seek to
define a
rational level of acceptable or tolerable risk for a hazard. This
means
considering the severity and probability of harmful effects (on
health,
psychology, economy, etc.), the amount of exposure experienced by
human
populations and the expected costs and benefits of various
risk-reduction
strategies.
17. Politicians take very different types of decisions depending
on the
imminence of risk and its probability. Their approach would be
completely
different when facing a potential risk and a risk that has
already occurred
and that has to be dealt with. In the same way, risk
communication is to be
managed in a very different way when dealing with a risk with a
low
probability and a risk that is very likely to occur.
18. Risk management derives its greatest advantage, not from
technocratic
rationality, but from its ability to organise and examine
scientific and
socio-economic information in a public forum open to free
communication and
debate by all concerned parties. In this sense, risk management
should be
viewed as a means of promoting public accountability by
communicating
information about risk among stakeholders, with the objective of
producing
decisions that include both scientific advice and prudent
decision making.
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(8) IMPACTOR ANGST
>From Pavel Chichikov <fishhook@erols.com>
Dear Dr. Peiser and all,
Friends and acquaintances of mine who are scientists - lovable as
they may
be - very often take for granted that societies, presented with a
rational
choice, will seize upon it. But that's not how societies are
mobilized, at
least those I'm familiar with.
I don't sense any *urgency* in people about a spaceguard program.
If
Shoemaker-Levy didn't make it happen, what will? But that was
Jupiter, this
is Earth.
It usually works this way: immediate demonstrated threat (show
them the
instruments), resultant fear and anxiety (ample amounts of it on
an
illustrative September 11), followed by action, with money to
back it up.
Threats seen as abstract will not get decisive attention,
especially not in
the US.
Those are the social ground rules.
There may be programs in the less public, shall we say, areas of
the US
federal budget which have to do with surveillance and possible
interception
of Earth impactors. Who knows? I certainly don't, but if I did I
might not
be writing about it to a public forum like this one.
In any case, if you want money for progams you have to give
reasons that
make sense to the people with the money bags and the votes. You
have to make
them nervous, and so far you haven't.
All best wishes.
Pavel
fishhook@erols.com
===============
(9) RISK AND DISASTER CONFERENCE
Dear Benny,
are you aware that item (9) (RISK AND DISASTER CONFERENCE Anna
McGuire) of
todays normally excellent unmissable missive is simply an
advertisement to
attract fee-paying participants? I would discourage you
from incorporating
such material in the future as it dilutes the scientific content
of your
otherwise admirable service. Anonymous: Name withheld.
MODERATOR'S NOTE: If I were to stop posting announcements of
academic
conferences that charge a fee for participation, there would be
hardly any
posted on CCNet. I always thought that conference announcements
are all
about attracting fee-paying participants? Whether the
presentations at the
conference in question are value for money, is another matter.
BJP
===================
(10) AND FINALLY: AN EXTREMELY LOW COST APPROACH TO DEALING WITH
THE NEO
HAZARD
>From E.P. Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
Hello Benny -
In recent weeks we have been greeted with repeated announcements
of the
reduction in funds available to NEO programs, as governments
whose revenues
are coming under stress due to the economic slowdown seek to
economize. In
view of these developments, which trend is likely to continue for
at least
the next couple of years, perhaps it is time to re-consider the
use of the
ancient Mayan technique for dealing with the hazard of asteroid
and comet
impact, specifically that of human sacrifice.
Now many in the scientific community may scoff at the idea and
dismiss it
out of hand, but as the Mayan priests pointed out, once they
began human
sacrifice, they were never again pounded by the sky gods.
So by inductive
demonstration, the technique appears to work. It has the further
advantage
of being an extremely low cost scheme to put into operation, as
it requires
no payment for any telescopes, electronic devices, computers, or
staff, and
even less paynment for the bureaucrats who manage these programs.
Of course, one does run into the problem of obtaining human
sacrificial
victims. While the Mayan resolved this problem by sacrificing
their
unwanted, literally their poor bastards, given the current
economic
conditions and the prevalence of extra-marital sex, such a plan
may not gain
wide public support today. But perhaps a ready solution to this
problem may
lie immediately at hand, specifically, in the use of lawyers as
human
sacrificial victims.
To my knowledge I do not believe that anyone in the NEO community
has ever
previously considered the use of lawyers for this purpose. What
advantages
does the use of lawyers as human sacrificial victims bring, aside
from the
fact that there appears to be an over-abundant supply of them?
Well, first
off, they seem to be universally despised, and this seems to be
true in
every nation. Given the international scope of the NEO effort, it
is nice to
find a common point about which the ciizens of most nations can
agree.
Second, lawyers could easily be captured for this purpose by the
simple
technique of placing a newspaper advertisement seeking an
attourney for a
lawsuit against a wealthy corporation. Once obtained, my
understanding is
that lawyers may usually be sedated by the administration of
flavored
alcoholic beverages.
Of course, one problem with the plan may lie in ripping their
beating hearts
out out of their living bodies, as it is widely reported that
lawyers have
no hearts. On the other hand, it is also widely reported that
lawyers have
no feelings, and this may make the entire process somewhat easier
to
accomplish, in the case that lawyers can indeed be found who have
hearts.
In the case where it does turn out that lawyers indeed do not
have hearts,
then that does not necessarily mean that the scheme of using
human sacrifice
to fend off the next asteroid oor comet impact must be abandoned.
It is
still possible that the scheme could be realized by the use of
government
accountants or bureaucrats instead.
Yours in science,
EP
[addendum from bjp]:
Good British cynicism always good for a laugh :-)
REVIEW
>From The Times, 15 January 2002
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,161-2002022962,00.html
BY JOE JOSEPH
Have you noticed how the further into outer space (and towards
the fringes
of known science) a documentary reaches, the more its narrator
sounds like
one of those salesmen on the shopping channel who struggle to
convince you
that you really do need a revolutionary new grillpan that drains
away fat
from the food you are cooking and magically processes it into
handy
firelighters? Both sound just a little too eager; as if they are
trying to
convince themselves of what they are saying as much as they are
trying to
convince you.
Take the outer space series that Channel 4 is currently
screening. "Edge of
the Universe" promises to explore "the most terrifying
and mysterious
phenomena that we know of in the universe." What, including
Stephen Byers's
political longevity? Last night's episode, dramatically entitled
Killers in
Space, warned us that "the asteroid belt is unstable".
Maybe it is. But so
are half the people we come across every day; several of whom
have ready
access to sharp implements. One of them may even have invented
the
revolutionary grill pan that neatly drains away fat from the food
you are
cooking and magically processes it into handy firelighters
(banish barbecue
misery!).
John Hurt, the narrator, went on to say that: "Orbiting
within striking
distance of Earth are at least 10,000 asteroids half a mile or
more across;
there are more than 100,000 the size of a football field; and 100
million
the size of a house." And so? And so "if a near Earth
object should be
discovered heading our way, what could we do to avert disaster?
There is no
international plan on how to defend the Earth from the
catastrophe of an
impact from space. It has been left up to individual scientists
to dream up
ways of saving the planet."
Now, that really is terrifying. Saving the planet? Most
scientists are
barely able to save their ties from getting covered in egg
stains. But you
know what? There doesn't seem to be any international plan to
save the world
from nuclear holocaust either, which - if I really have to worry
about
something - seems to me a worthier target for my hand-wringing.
Scientists are justifying their interest in asteroids by
speculating that
"robot communities could be dispatched to mine rich
resources. Then there
would follow human settlements." Really? When might that be,
exactly? The
Government reckons that it will take at least a decade to get
Britain's
trains running in a way that bears some resemblance to the
published
timetable. How quickly do you think it might finally get around
to
organising the dispatch of robot communities to lumps of rock in
outer
space? Then Hurt played his final ace in his game of trying to
scare us into
being interested: "It's 65 million years since the last
great impact. The
next one could happen at any time!" Actually, that frequency
does sound a
little similar to Britain's rail service....
Copyright 2002, The Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily
reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.