PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet, 18/2000 - 27 January 2000
--------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Imagine watching live on your
computer as an un-piloted
spacecraft flies over the poles of the
moon to search for frozen
water that could one day provide fuel
for deep space voyages or
even sustain a human lunar colony. Or
picture a live asteroid
flyby, or a view from 20 miles (32
kilometers) above Mars's
mysterious shifting polar ice caps,
beamed directly to your home.
It could happen by the end of 2001, said
Boeing Co. and its new
deep-space partner, Spacedev Inc."
-- Space.com, 9
February
(1) ASTEROID 2000 BF19: MORE MEDIA REACTIONS
THE GOOD ....
SpaceViews, 9 February 2000
(2) THE BAD.......
ABCNews. com, 9 February 2000
(3) ... AND THE LAZY ONES!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_636000/636481.stm
(4) A VALENTINE
Oliver Morton <OliverMorton@netscape.net>
(5) UNPREDICTABLE NATURAL EVENTS OF EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL ORIGIN:
THEIR IMPACT ON HUMANITY
http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2000/lbe.htm
(6) GOOD LUCK, JIM: BOING & SPACEDEV TO END NASA MONOPOLY
SPACE.COM, 9 February 2000
(7) AND FINALLY: MEGADROUGHTS & SOCIAL UPHEAVAL
THE NEW YORK TIMES, 8 February 2000
=================
(1) ASTEROID 2000 BF19: MORE MEDIA REACTIONS
THE GOOD ....
From SpaceViews, 9 February 2000
http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/02/09b.html
NEW OBSERVATIONS ELIMINATE ASTEROID IMPACT THREAT
Just one day after astronomers reported that a newly-discovered
near-Earth asteroid had a small probability of colliding with the
Earth
in 2022, new observations have eliminated entirely the impact
hazard.
On Monday, Italian astronomer Andrea Milani reported that
asteroid 2000
BF19, discovered late last month, had a one-in-a-millon chance of
colliding with the Earth in 2022.
Within a day, new observations of the asteroid by Jim Scotti in
Arizona
and Rob McNaught in Australia allowed astronomers to recalculate
the
orbit of the asteroid and eliminate all possibility of an impact
in
2022, according to Milani. In this new orbit, 2000 BF19 comes no
closer
than 5.6 million km (3.5 million mi.) of the Earth over the next
50
years.
The combination of the low impact probability and the estimated
small
size of the asteroid -- well under 1 km (0.62 mi.) in diameter --
kept
the asteroid at a 0 on the Torino scale, a 0-10 measure of the
risk to
the Earth posed by a near-Earth asteroid.
Although the impact probability was not very high, Milani
publicized the
prediction to encourage astronomers to observe the asteroid so
the orbit
could be refined and the probability either increased or, in this
case,
eliminated. "This object is visible tonight and is fading,
so I rate
this message as scientifically urgent," he wrote.
One concern that Milani noted in his message declaring the
asteroid
"safe" was that the Arizona observations were performed
several days
before Milani announced the potential impact hazard on Monday. It
was
not immediately clear why those new observations were available
before
Milani hade his impact prediction.
Several asteroids have been discovered in the last two years with
non-zero impact probabilities. However, in every case but one,
those
impact probabilities have become zero as additional observations
of the
asteroid permitted refined calculations of its orbit that
eliminated any
chance of an impact.
The one exception, 1998 OX4, was lost before additional
observations
could be made. It presently has one chance in ten million of
hitting the
Earth in January 2038, and less likely impact probabilities in
2044 and
2046.
Events like this, when an asteroid briefly has a small chance of
striking the Earth, will become more common in the future, said
one
astronomer.
"It is worth noting that as more and more near-Earth objects
are
discovered, there will be an increasing number of objects whose
initial
orbits allow the remote possibility of an Earth impact at some
future
date," noted Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth
Object Program.
"However," he added, "as additional observations
of these newly
discovered objects become available for processing into the orbit
determination process, the vast majority of these potential Earth
impact
possibilities will disappear."
Copyright 2000, SpaceViews
================
(2) THE BAD.......
From ABCNews. com, 9 February 2000
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/asteroid000208.html
EARTH DODGES ANOTHER ASTEROID: ONE-IN-A-MILLION CHANCE NOW ZERO
By Matthew Fordahl
The Associated Press
Feb. 9 — An asteroid initially thought to be on a possible
collision
course with Earth in 2022 will miss the planet, astronomers said
Tuesday after reviewing new data collected by scientists around
the
world.
For the fifth time (sic!) in two years, reports of
Earth-threatening
asteroids were proven wrong (sic!) within days of being
announced.
Some scientists fear the public may become desensitized to the
warnings.
Nothing to Worry About — Yet
"Someday, we’re going to find something that will have
a 1 in 1,000 or
1 in 100 chance of impacting Earth," said James Scotti, who
discovered
the asteroid last month at Kitt Peak National Observatory.
"When that
happens, I’d rather us be taken seriously."
Scotti did not know about the celestial rock’s possible
trajectory
until Monday, when Italian researcher Andrea Milani posted an
Internet
message warning of a 1 in 1 million chance of a collision and
asking
other astronomers to track it carefully.
A day later, Milani announced that the new observations allowed
him to
make more precise calculations. The asteroid, named 2000 BF19,
would
come no closer than 3½ million miles to Earth over the next 50
years,
he said.
New Data, New Calculations
"This change is the result of computation I did today from
the
response of my call to arms yesterday," Milani said. He said
it took
about four hours to compute the course using the new observations
from
around the world.
The object also was being followed (sic!) at the Near Earth
Object
Program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, but it quickly became apparent that the
half-mile-wide rock posed no real threat. The laboratory has
never
issued an asteroid collision warning (sic!).
"In almost all of the five cases, we’re the ones who
came back and
said it won’t happen," said the program’s manager,
Donald Yeomans.
"We’re the nay-sayers."
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.
===============
(3) ... AND THE LAZY ONES!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_636000/636481.stm
===============
(4) A VALENTINE
From Oliver Morton <OliverMorton@netscape.net>
Benny
I thought some of your readers might find this story (a long one
--
just posted the URL) amusing in the light of events on Monday
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.12/farquhar.html
best, o
Oliver is travelling: please cc replies to abq72@dial.pipex.com
===============
(5) UNPREDICTABLE NATURAL EVENTS OF EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL ORIGIN:
THEIR IMPACT ON HUMANITY
http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2000/lbe.htm
The 2000 AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition
will be held in Washington, D.C. on February 17-22, 2000 at the
Washington Marriott Wardman Park and the Omni Shoreham
Symposia Synopses - Looking Beyond Earth
Unpredictable Natural Events of Extra-Terrestrial Origin:
Their Impacts on Humanity
Saturday, February 19, 2000, 9:00am - 12:00noon
Organized by Rolf M. Sinclair, Chevy Chase, Maryland
SYNOPSIS
The Earth does not exist in splendid isolation, watching the
passing
parade of the Cosmos as a detached spectator. Affairs on Earth
are
quite strongly coupled to the Universe through a broad spectrum
of
tangible extraterrestrial inputs. These range from repeated
impacts
from the icy and stony rubble of the nearby Solar System, to
fluxes of
radiation arising far off in this and other galaxies. The very
imagery
of the skies, which is usually so predictable, can sometimes
change
without warning. This symposium will explore these
often-unpredictable
extraterrestrial inputs and the profound effect they have had on
human
culture. Two examples to be described are impactors from space
that can
physically devastate sizable regions on Earth, and spectacular
transient events visible to the naked eye that can stir the human
imagination and intellect. In this we are guided by the
geological as
well as the environmental, archaeological, and historic records.
Our
systematic and inclusive treatment of these data yields
surprising new
insights into the development of human civilization and our place
in
space.
SPEAKERS
Rolf M. Sinclair, Chevy Chase, Maryland
The Bombardment of Earth and the Changing Sky
Benny J. Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom
How Many Cosmic Impacts have Punctuated Earth
During the Last 10,000 Years?
Walter Dean, U.S. Geological Survey
A Geologic Perspective on Possible
Solar-Induced Climatic
Change
W. Bruce Masse, Los Alamos National Laboratory
The Living Sky: How Transient Celestial Events
Shaped Religion and Science
===============
(6) GOOD LUCK, JIM: BOING & SPACEDEV TO END NASA MONOPOLY
From SPACE.COM, 9 February 2000
http://www.space.com/space/business/boeing_spacedev_000209_wg.html
Boeing, Spacedev to End NASA Moonopoly
By Chris Stetkiewicz
posted: 11:40 am EST
09 February 200
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Imagine watching live on your computer as an
un-piloted spacecraft flies over the poles of the moon to search
for frozen water that could one day provide fuel for deep space
voyages or even sustain a human lunar colony.
Or picture a live asteroid flyby, or a view from 20 miles (32
kilometers) above Mars's mysterious shifting polar ice caps,
beamed directly to your home.
It could happen by the end of 2001, said Boeing Co. and its new
deep-space partner, Spacedev Inc. The pair last week unveiled
plans for what would be the first for-profit lunar launch
and end NASA's 30-year monopoly on moon missions.
"You have experiments the scientific community would like to
see
done that NASA doesn't care about. Combined with the public zest
for space, it could be hugely profitable," said Jim Benson,
president of Spacedev, which is based in Poway, California.
FULL STORY AT
http://www.space.com/space/business/boeing_spacedev_000209_wg.html
==========
(7) AND FINALLY: MEGADROUGHTS & SOCIAL UPHEAVAL
From THE NEW YORK TIMES, 8 February 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/020800sci-environ-drought.html
Megadrought Appears to Loom in Africa
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
Lately, it has become increasingly clear to scientists that in
the
10,000 years since the last ice age ended, the world's climate
has
often served up droughts far surpassing anything seen in the last
150
years, resulting in some cases in the collapse of entire ancient
civilizations.
[...] Natural long-term variations in precipitation, especially
dry
periods, have long had a major impact on human societies.
Researchers have linked a 300-year drought starting about 4,200
years
ago to the collapse of the world's first great empire, that of
the
Akkadians in Mesopotamia. Drought is also believed responsible
for the
collapse of several pre-Inca civilizations in South America, and
to
have been a major contributor to the disappearance of the Mayan
civilization in Central America.
FULL STORY AT
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/020800sci-environ-drought.html
----------------------------------------
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
*
CCNet-ESSAY, 10 February 2000
-----------------------------
THE WORDEN-ESSAY: A UK RESPONSE
By Jonathan Tate, SPACEGUARD UK <fr77@dial.pipex.com>
As Brigadier General Worden started his essay with a disclaimer,
I feel
that I ought to do the same, although as a mere Major I am
significantly lower in the food chain than he is! Suffice to say
that
the British Ministry of Defence has no official view on the
Near-Earth
Object (NEO) hazard, and has made it clear to the author that it
considers this hazard outside its remit ("shut up and go
away").
However, the Department of Trade and Industry has taken the
responsibility upon itself, and this, in itself, is something of
a
triumph!
Over the past couple of years the concerns of parts the NEO
community
have begun to shift from the threat posed by the
"traditional" one
kilometre or larger objects to the 50 to 500 metre objects that
are
capable of inflicting local or regional damage. This shift in
emphasis
seems to be, at least in part, the result of a number of factors:
* The recent, and continuing success of detection programmes such
as
LINEAR and Spacewatch in detecting unprecedented numbers
of the
larger NEOs, and a substantial number of smaller ones.
These
increasing detection rates, coupled with well publicised
estimates
that appear to have reduced the number of large
threatening objects
are beginning to engender the hope that we will soon have
the
situation as it pertains to these larger objects under
control.
* Emerging technology makes the detection of smaller, dimmer
objects
increasingly practical.
* The realisation that small impacts can have hitherto
unrecognised
effects on the environment and the infrastructure on which
our
civilisation depends.
* An increasing understanding of the rate at which small impacts
occur.
* And finally, over the past few years it has become clear,
despite the
best efforts of many, that the NEO community is unlikely
to be able
to grip funding agencies (particularly governments) with a
threat
that occurs only on timescales of hundreds of thousands of
years.
While these are all good arguments to shift the centre of gravity
of
our proposals and work, the fact remains that the main threat
posed to
the physical well being of our species (and that of all of the
others
as well) comes from the rare, globally threatening impacts. The
arguments put forward in the middle of the last decade still hold
water.
The speed at which research is advancing in all aspects of this
subject
is staggering, in theoretical studies, hardware and software
development, and in the integration of other disciplines into the
overall picture. We should also not forget the changes being made
in
the public perception of the impact hazard. Each advance, in
whatever
sphere, changes our overall perception of the threat to a greater
or
lesser extent. However, we should not lose sight of the fact
that, as
far as detection is concerned, we are far from achieving our goal
with
the larger objects. True, we may see the light at the end of the
tunnel, but there’s a long way to daylight yet. Some members
of the
public and the press are getting the idea that the scientists
have the
problem licked. This is dangerous and should be discouraged. Some
statements that have appeared recently tread a perilous line
between
comforting optimism and irresponsibility.
It is also worth remembering that detection, while being the
“sexy” end
of the market, is of little or no value unless there is the back
up
support of follow-up observations, characterisation, physical and
dynamical studies etc, etc. These areas are barely keeping up
with
current detection rates, and will be severely pressured by
further
increases.
All of this is not to say that we shouldn’t be raising a
large red flag
over the smaller object threat. All of the factors that I
mentioned
above apply, but we still do not have the levels of funding that
allow
us to concentrate on anything but the primary threat.
However, to use
the threat from smaller objects as a trigger for additional
funding is
both appropriate and to be encouraged. The one thing that has
become
abundantly clear in the UK is that we are not going to achieve a
full-blown, all encompassing programme overnight. We have to
attack the
problem incrementally, based on current research and the
political and
financial realities of the moment. If additional or independent
resources should become available, or when our survey of the
larger
objects reaches an acceptable level of completeness, then we
should
shift the emphasis to smaller objects. We may, of course, be
overtaken
by events, in which case the problems of funding might disappear
anyway.
We should be anything but complacent about the “Tunguska”
type of
event. Indeed, such events pose a clear and present danger to
every
part of the globe, but we must be very careful about complacency
over
the ever-present threat of a globally threatening catastrophe.
On a slightly separate issue, I was a little surprised to read
some of
the things in Louis Friedman’s comment. Firstly, he implies
that
discussion of methods to prevent a catastrophic NEO collision has
led
to a loss of credibility for the NEO community. I fear that, as
far as
the public are concerned (who pay for science, after all)
precisely the
opposite is true. They cannot see any point in detecting,
tracking and
studying NEOs unless there is something that we can do about the
hazard! I have heard the concept of study without planning for
mitigatory action described as "scientific
masturbation" – and that by
a politician.
I was also a bit surprised by the arguments against military
involvement in the search for NEOs. The question of whether the
NEO
problem is one of research or defence has been well aired over
the
years, and here is not the place to retread the old paths. I do
not see
Brigadier Worden’s proposal as a solution looking for a
problem, but
even if it is, if the DoD is indeed willing to search for a role,
better this than some other things that I can think of. There are
certainly drawbacks to military involvement in essentially civil
programmes, but the military have skills that civilians can have
difficulty with and resources that can be of great value. Also,
the
"mainstream" scientific community, certainly in UK, has
a really hard
time viewing NEO survey as "pure research" (remember
Duncan Steel’s
kangaroos?), so resources become difficult to find. In my
original
paper (that was submitted to the British Ministry of Defence) I
pointed
out that the Government of the United Kingdom has been charged,
by the
Crown, with the defence of the realm. This duty has been
distilled into
three National Defence Roles:
Defence Role 1 - To ensure the protection and security of the
United
Kingdom and its dependent territories, even when there is
no
immediate external threat.
Defence Role 2 - To ensure against any major external
threat to the
United Kingdom and its allies.
Defence Role 3 - To contribute to promoting the United
Kingdom's wider
security interests through the maintenance of
international peace and
security.
It should be noted that there is no definition or limitation on
possible threats to the United Kingdom explicit in these tasks.
You
will see that, for the UK at least, there need be no
"mission search" –
it’s already implicit in the MOD Mission Statement.
I think it is imprudent to be dismissive of military involvement
at
this early stage – they (we) have C3I systems, hardware and
wetware
that are ideally suited to search programmes and the essential
task of
planetary defence. NEOs are not just objects of sterile
scientific
interest – the public demands security and that means
defence against
threats internal and external. We are burying our heads in the
sand if
we think that we needn’t worry about mitigation.
Anyway, congratulations to Pete Worden on a long awaited and well
deserved promotion – too long in coming!
Finally, all best wishes from the members of Spaceguard UK to
Paolo
Farinella after his operation. I gather that all is well at the
moment,
and we pray for his steady and drama free recovery.
Jay Tate
Spaceguard UK
-----------------
CCNet-ESSAY is part of the Cambridge Conference Network. It
includes
interesting and thought-provoking essays about our place in space
and
the prospects of a planetary civilisation that is in control of
our
terrestrial and extraterrestrial environment. Contributions to
this
ongoing debate are welcome. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
CCNet,
please contact Benny J Peiser at <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
The fully
indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be found
at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html