PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 32/2002 - 7 March 2002
----------------------------
"A new 1.06-meter telescope dedicated to follow-up
astrometry of
Near Earth Objects (NEOs) has been put into operation at the Klet
Observatory in the Czech Republic. Using the 1.06-m KLENOT
Telescope we
hope to increase our understanding of the population of small
bodies of
the solar system and help to identify and mitigate possible
asteroid and
comet hazard in a close cooperation with colleagues all over the
world."
--Jana Ticha, Klet Observatory, 7 March 2002
"It seems that the time has come for us to urge NASA
Headquarters
and Marshall Space Flight Center to stop the pro-Nazi propaganda,
the
Smithsonian Institution to discontinue its yearly von Braun
Lecture,
and ourselves to remember and honor the political-prisoner
pioneers of
our international space programs."
--Tom Gehrels, 7 March 2002
(1) THE FIRST NEO ASTROMETRY WITH THE NEW 1-m KLENOT TELESCOPE
Jana Ticha < jticha@klet.cz
>
(2) CANADIAN FARMER FINDS BIG METEORITE
Ron Baalke < baalke@jpl.nasa.gov
>
(3) MORE METEORITE CLUES TO EARLY EARTH
Ron Baalke < baalke@jpl.nasa.gov
>
(4) SOLAR RADIO BURSTS AFFECT CELL PHONES
Harvey Leifert < hleifert@agu.org
>
(5) CUTS THREATEN MISSION TO PLUTO
The Baltimore Sun, 4 March 2002
(6) The von Braun Brothers
Tom Gehrels < tgehrels@lpl.arizona.edu
>
(7) FOR THE RECORD
Alan W. Harris < awharris@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
>
(8) WHAT IF?
Andy Nimmo < andy-nimmo@ntlworld.com
>
(9) NEOs & COMPARATIVE HAZARD ANALYSIS: BUCKMINSTER FULLER,
"SPACESHIP
EARTH", & THE TITANIC
Drake A. Mitchell < planetarydefence@netscape.net
>
(10) AND FINALLY: GIFTED FEW MAKE ORDER OUT OF CHAOS (and vice
versa :-)
New Scientist, 6 March 2002
=================
(1) THE FIRST NEO ASTROMETRY WITH THE NEW 1-m KLENOT TELESCOPE
>From Jana Ticha <jticha@klet.cz>
A new 1.06-meter telescope dedicated to follow-up astrometry of
Near Earth
Objects (NEOs) has been put into operation at the Klet
Observatory in the
Czech Republic.
The number of newly discovered Near Earth Objects (NEOs) has
extremely
increased in recent years due to large surveys LINEAR,
Spacewatch, NEAT,
LONEOS and CSS. This discovery process has to be followed by
follow-up
observations to obtain a sufficient number of precise astrometric
data
needed for an accurate orbit determination of these bodies and
for judgement
of their possible hazard for Earth.
Some of the newly discovered NEOs are observable by small
backyard
telescopes, but many other bodies are faint and fast-moving or
get fainter
during months and years after discovery and thus need observing
time on 1-m
class or larger professional telescopes. Considering these
critical points
of NEA astrometry mentioned above, we have decided to extend the
Klet NEO
programme to fainter objects using a new 1.06-meter reflector
equipped with
a new and more efficient CCD camera.
The KLENOT project is a project of the KLET observatory Near
earth and other
unusual objects observations team (and Telescope), concentrating
particularly on fainter objects, up to a limiting magnitude of
m=22.0. The
KLENOT telescope is being constructed using a 1.06-m primary
mirror and a
primary focus corrector to obtain a plane field of view
approximately 0.5 x
0.5 degrees. This telescope is equipped with a CCD camera
Photometrics
Series 300 equipped with a chip SITe 003B 1024x1024 pixels, pixel
size 24
microns. The KLENOT team consists of Jana Ticha, Milos Tichy and
Michal
Kocer. All the observing time will belong to our project.
The main goals of the KLENOT project are confirmations of newly
discovered
fainter NEOs, recoveries of NEOs in the second convenient
opposition,
follow-up astrometry of poorly observed fainter NEOs including so
called
virtual impactors and analysis of possible cometary features of
newly
discovered small bodies of the solar system.
The idea of the KLENOT project has issued from the long-term Klet
NEO
Follow-up Astrometric Programme pursued with 0.57-m reflector
since 1994
(the IAU Code 046).
Building of the KLENOT Telescope was started in 1997. The first
light was
obtained in November 2001. The first asteroid image was seen in
February
2002.
The first NEO astrometry listed in the Minor Planet Electronic
Circular with
1.06-m KLENOT Telescope was obtained by Jana Ticha and Milos
Tichy on 2002
March 4. A new NEO candidate discovered by Palomar Mountain/NEAT
was
observed and measured, positions subsequently submitted and
accepted by the
IAU Minor Planet Center. The KLENOT telescope has been assigned
IAU
Observatory Code 246. The positions and orbit of the
Earth-approaching
(Amor) asteroid 2002 EC were listed in the MPEC 2002-E11.
Using the 1.06-m KLENOT Telescope we hope to increase our
understanding of
the population of small bodies of the solar system and help to
identify and
mitigate possible asteroid and comet hazard in a close
cooperation with
colleagues all over the world.
The KLENOT Telescope is managed by the Klet Observatory, Czech
Republic. It
was built by the Klet Observatory with support from the Regional
Government
Office of the Czech Republic in Ceske Budejovice, the Grant
Agency of the
Czech Republic and the Planetary Society.
Additional information on the KLENOT project is available at
http://www.klet.org/klenot
Jana Ticha
(the director of the Klet Observatory and KLENOT P.I.)
==========
(2) CANADIAN FARMER FINDS BIG METEORITE
>From Ron Baalke < baalke@jpl.nasa.gov
>
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/05/canada.meteorite.reut/index.html
Canadian farmer finds big meteorite
March 5, 2002
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) -- A retired Canadian farmer has
accidentally
discovered the second largest meteorite ever found in Canada,
researchers
said Tuesday.
That 8.2 kilogram (18 pound) souvenir became a astronomical coup
after Wood
brought his booty into a rock identification clinic at a nearby
rural store
last summer.
Researchers said the meteorite was well weathered, with most of
its fusion
crust worn off, revealing an interior that showed cracks from the
shattering
of its parent asteroid.
Full story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/05/canada.meteorite.reut/index.html
==========
(3) MORE METEORITE CLUES TO EARLY EARTH
>From Ron Baalke < baalke@jpl.nasa.gov
>
Rutgers
Contact:
Bill Haduch , 732/932-7084, extension 633
E-mail: bhaduch@ur.rutgers.edu
February 27, 2002
A refined approach to measuring time offers clues to Earth's
beginnings
NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. -- Researchers using refined
techniques to
study minerals from meteorites now believe it took about 20
million years
for the Earth to coalesce from the materials already gathered
around our sun
as the solar system. Recent estimates had pegged the
interval closer to 50 million years.
Brigitte Zanda-Hewins, an adjunct member of the graduate faculty
at Rutgers
department of geological sciences and associate professor at the
mineralogy
laboratory of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris,
is among a
group of researchers publishing its findings in
the international journal "Science," on Mar. 1.
The group studied radioactive forms of the elements niobium and
zirconium
found in samples of meteorites. Because meteorites are the oldest
objects of
our solar system available for study, scientists use their
components as a
kind of "radioactive chronometer" to help estimate time
intervals separating
events during the formation of the solar system, including the
formation of
the Earth.
While recent attempts to use the niobium-zirconium
"chronometer" had
produced the 50-million-year estimate, Zanda-Hewins said the new
20-million-year figure is the result of performing mineral
separations in the samples for the first time, and using extreme
precautions
to maintain the purity of the samples. Researchers used special
processing
equipment, anti-contamination air flow and filters, magnetic
separation
devices and a wide range of chemical separation techniques to
avoid any
interference by foreign materials.
"We designed an extremely careful approach to separate the
minerals and
isolate the right ones," she said. The method is described
in the article
entitled "Niobium-Zirconium Chronometry and Early Solar
System Development."
Zanda-Hewins' co-authors are Maria Schönbächler, Mark
Rehkämper, Alex N.
Halliday and Der-Chuen Lee of ETH Zurich Institute of Isotope
Geology and
Mineral Resources; Bodo Hattendorf and Detlef Günther of ETH
Zurich
Laboratory of Inorganic Chemistry; and Michèle Bourot-Denise of
the Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris.
Besides her work at Rutgers, Zanda-Hewins is well-known as a
Paris-based
geologist who helps coordinate distribution of meteorite samples
for
scientific study around the world. She is the author of the 2001
book
"Meteorites: Their Impact on Science and History."
===========
(4) SOLAR RADIO BURSTS AFFECT CELL PHONES
>From Harvey Leifert < hleifert@agu.org
>
American Geophysical Union/Bell Laboratories/New Jersey
Institute of Technology Joint Release
6 March 2002
AGU Release No. 02-08
For Immediate Release
AGU Contact: Harvey Leifert
(202) 777-7507
hleifert@agu.org
Bell Labs Contact: Saswato Das
(908) 582-4824
srdas@lucent.com
NJIT Contact: Sheryl Weinstein
(973) 596-3436
Sheryl.M.Weinstein@njit.edu
Solar Radio Bursts Can Disrupt Wireless Cell
Communications Several Times per Year
WASHINGTON - Bursts of energy from the Sun on microwave radio
frequencies
can disrupt wireless cell communications several times a year,
according to
scientists who have studied records
covering 40 years of such bursts. Solar bursts are most likely to
occur
around solar maximum, the most active portion of the Sun's 11
year cycle.
One such maximum was recently passed, but
significant bursts may occur for several more years, according to
Louis J.
Lanzerotti of Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New
Jersey, one
of the researchers. The study not only examines the effect on
current
systems, but also looks at higher frequencies where future
systems will
operate, says Dale E. Gary, associate professor of physics at New
Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT), Newark, and principal
investigator of the
project.
A good understanding of how solar bursts affect cellular
communications will
help in the design of future generations of wireless systems, the
researchers say. Their report is published March 7 and appears in
the
March-April issue of the journal, Radio Science, published by the
American
Geophysical Union.
The study was possible only because of an archive of data on
solar radio
bursts that has been assembled by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) from observations made
around the world by the U.S. Air Force and other entities and
that is now
maintained by the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) of NOAA
in
Boulder, Colorado. The first detections of solar radio bursts (at
much lower
frequencies) were made inadvertently in 1942 by some of the
earliest radars
deployed during World War II. After the war, solar radio studies
became a
recognized field of astronomical research, and the Air Force was
active in
collecting data, since the bursts continued to affect radar.
Because cellular communication has greatly expanded in recent
years, the
researchers looked back at the last four decades (1960-1999) of
NGDC data in
the context of noise levels found in
wireless communication systems. This data interval covered
slightly more
than four solar cycles, including the solar maximum in 1989-1991
which
occurred before cellular communications
became ubiquitous around the world. The researchers note that the
number and
location of collection points varied over time, and the
instruments used to
measure solar radio bursts have improved significantly since the
early
years. They do not believe that these variations affect the main
results of
their study.
Radio wave energy received from the Sun is measured in solar flux
units
(SFU), with one SFU equaling 10^-22 [1/10 followed by 22 zeros]
watts per
square meter of receptor area per hertz. During a burst, the
energy received
may be as high as 100,000 SFU, with the energy also depending
upon the
frequency measured. In the study, the scientists at Bell
Laboratories,
together with Gary of NJIT, sought to determine how often bursts
of at least
1,000 SFU have occurred over the years, this being the level that
can
potentially disrupt cell communications by covering conversation
with noise
or causing calls to be dropped.
Counting the number of solar bursts was difficult, since the same
event may
have been recorded by several monitoring stations, often on
different
frequencies, and separate events may also have
occurred close in time to one another. The researchers' analysis
suggested
that on 12 minutes was the minimum interval between what they
would regard
as separate solar bursts, and they limited
their study to the frequency range of 1-20 gigahertz (Ghz). Most
present-day
cell phone transmitters currently operate in the band from 900
megahertz
(MHz) to around 3 GHz.
The analysis of the data by the research team, which also
included Dr. Bala
Balachandran and Dr. David Thomson, then of Bell Labs, revealed
that solar
radio bursts of 1,000 SFU can occur on 10-20 days per year, on
average, with
higher rates and stronger bursts during solar maximum periods and
lower,
weaker ones during solar minimum periods. The effect of bursts on
wireless
communications is dependent upon the orientation of cell
antennas, with
those pointing east-west more susceptible mornings and evenings
than at
noon. Therefore, any given cell site might be affected by solar
radio bursts
only every 40-80 days, or several times per year on average. But
any single
burst could affect a large service area, since number of cell
sites are
likely to be pointed in the direction of the Sun when an event
occurs.
Furthermore, the impacts on service, in terms of increased noise
levels and
call disruptions, would be expected to be more frequent during
the years of
maximum solar activity.
The study was supported in part by Lucent Technologies and in
part by the
Space Weather Program of the National Science Foundation at the
New Jersey
Institute of Technology.
**********
Notes for journalists:
The paper, Balachandran Bala, Louis J. Lanzerotti, Dale E. Gary,
David J.
Thompson, "Noise in Wireless Systems Produced by Solar Radio
Bursts," will
be published in Radio Science, Volume.
37, number 2 (March-April 2002). Citation is to the online
version:
10.1029/2001RS002481, 2002. This press release and the paper to
which it
refers are not embargoed.
Journalists (only) may receive a copy of the paper on request to
Emily Crum
at < ecrum@agu.org >.
Specify whether you prefer to receive it as a PDF file
by email or as a fax. Please include your name, name of
publication, phone,
fax, and email address.
Contact information for the authors:
Bala Balachandran, (917) 214-2446, bala.balachandran@njit.edu
Louis J. Lanzerotti, (908) 582-2279, ljl@bell-labs.com
Dale E. Gary, (973)642-7878, dgary@njit.edu
David J. Thomson, djt@mast.queensu.ca
============
(5) CUTS THREATEN MISSION TO PLUTO
>From The Baltimore Sun, 4 March 2002
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-te.md.pluto04mar04.story?coll=bal%2Dlocal%2Dheadlines
By Frank D. Roylance
Unless Congress acts this year to restore funding cut by the Bush
administration, scientists say, they might lose their last
opportunity for
the next 200 years to study Pluto - the only planet in the solar
system not
yet visited by a spacecraft from Earth.
At risk is the $488 million New Horizons mission, now in the
design stage at
the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel
and
planned for launch in January 2006.
The Bush administration canceled funding for exploration of the
outer
planets in NASA's proposed 2003 budget, saying the projects had
grown too
costly. The cuts mean there's no money for the APL to start
building its
Pluto probe in the fall.
NASA officials said there might be a new round of competition for
a Pluto
mission, but that would mean a delay of at least two years. If
the launch
doesn't occur by 2006, scientists warn, they would lose the
opportunity to
study Pluto's atmosphere.
"Let us hope the last word has not been said on this
mission," said
Stamatios M. Krimigis, the head of the APL's space department.
It hasn't. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, is
chairwoman of
the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the National
Aeronautics and
Space Administration's budget. A longtime booster for the
Maryland
institutions engaged in space exploration, she resuscitated the
APL Pluto
mission after it was canceled last year by securing the $30
million needed
for this year's design work.
"I am going to fight to restore the funding for Pluto this
year so we can
make a 2006 launch, and get the best science for the scientists
and the best
value for the taxpayer," Mikulski said. "Delaying the
mission will just
increase the cost and decrease the science."
$173 million to Md. groups
>From the mission's $488 million price tag, the APL would get
$170 million
over 20 years to design, build and operate the spacecraft. The
Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt would get about $3 million to build
and operate
its infrared camera.
Icy Pluto would be the last of the nine planets to be visited by
a
spacecraft from Earth. It is 3 billion miles from Earth - about a
10-year
journey, though the APL's mission designers said last week that
they had
found a way to do it in nine.
They're in a rush because by 2020, scientist believe, Pluto's
tenuous
atmosphere will have frozen and snowed onto the surface as the
planet's
eccentric orbit carries it still farther from the sun. It won't
warm up
enough to study for 200 years.
The Bush administration has proposed increased funding for space
science at
NASA. But it is reshuffling the cards in a way that could delay -
or scuttle
- the APL's launch plans.
Under the agency's new administrator, Sean O'Keefe, NASA canceled
funding
for missions to Pluto and to Europa - a moon of Jupiter believed
to have
oceans that could harbor life - calling them too costly.
Instead, the space agency is launching a drive to develop nuclear
propulsion
for spacecraft, which could significantly cut travel time to
other planets.
NASA also has created a new class of missions for the outer
planets, called
New Frontiers. It is modeled after the successful Discovery
series of
low-cost, competitively bid missions, but cost-capped at $650
million -about
twice Discovery's limits.
That's plenty of cash for the APL voyage to Pluto. But even if
the APL won a
competition for New Frontiers money, said Jay Bergstralh,
associate NASA
director for solar system exploration, "they probably would
not meet a 2006
or 2007 launching date." There's not enough money in NASA's
2003 New
Frontiers budget to start construction.
Scientists say Pluto can't wait. "Taking a year out would be
suicide for the
mission," said S. Alan Stern of the Southwest Research
Institute in Boulder,
Colo., who heads the APL project. "I think our supporters in
the public and
in Congress would see it as an attempt to actually kill it."
Editors of the respected science journal Nature argued lastweek
for APL's
New Horizons mission as "the best way to reach the last
uncharted planet." A
craft with nuclear propulsion might get there in five years, they
said, but
it would take years to develop and test, and would cost more.
The road to Pluto always has been bumpy. The first Pluto mission,
designed
by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, was scrapped
in 2000
after its costs climbed past $1.5 billion.
NASA solicited new, less costly proposals, but budget tightening
last spring
halted the process.
Mikulski steps in
When Democrats took control of the Senate in June, Mikulski
secured the $30
million to restart the competition and keep the Pluto mission
alive for
another year. In November, NASA chose APL's concept, and design
work began.
Krimigis said a detailed design will be completed by the end of
the summer.
He said he was puzzled by the administration's argument that
plans to visit
Pluto had grown too expensive. The APL's winning proposal last
year cut the
cost to less than half that of the scrapped JPL mission.
"NASA knows that,
and everyone knows that," he said.
Bergstralh said the APL's Pluto mission nevertheless will have to
compete
for further funding. It also must fit in with a set of space
science goals
and priorities for the next 10 years, to be set by planetary
scientists in a
National Academy of Sciences report due in the spring.
"Supposing that the academy says Pluto is a top priority,
then I don't see
any reason why [the APL] couldn't propose something like
that," Bergstralh
said.
Krimigis said the APL's Pluto mission fits the New Frontiers
model well and
ought to be funded as is.
Stern said the Pluto mission should not have to compete again for
funding.
"The timing is just too critical to horse around for a
year," he said.
Besides, a new competition would allow the APL's rivals to
capitalize
unfairly on its ideas, which are now public.
Stern argues that the APL's Pluto mission should be grandfathered
into the
New Frontiers program and funded for construction without further
delay. "I
think there's a number of ways this can be done from a
budgeteer's
standpoint," he said.
And he's confident that Congress and NASA will find a way to do
it. "I don't
lose sleep over it," he said. "This mission's very
publicly popular. I have
a hard time believing this isn't going to happen."
Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(6) The von Braun Brothers
>From Tom Gehrels < tgehrels@lpl.arizona.edu
>
Dear Benny,
I have been asked to comment on
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/history/vonBraun/vonBraun.html
which appears to be the official NASA biography of Wernher von
Braun,
issued, and updated on 21 June 2000, by the Marshall Space Flight
Center.
It does not even mention the years when Wernher and his brother
Magnus
played leading roles at DORA, where the V-2 rockets were built at
the
expense in torturous death of 20,000 men, who mostly were
political
prisoners, the finest individuals of Europe.
The neglect seems inexcusable also because the case of the von
Brauns is one
of the most intriguing in the history of science, with a moral
for all of
us, not to get carried away by our fascinations, that still is
valid today.
I documented all of this at the request of the editors of NATURE
in their
Volume 372, 511, 1994, "Of Truth and Consequences."
Since that time, I have
received notarized statements from DORA inmates that Wernher
slapped them,
and that he was involved in the hangings (slowly choking them to
death). And
many interesting details, such as how every morning Wernher and a
woman
would have to side-step gingerly by the hanging victims and a
pile of the
night's harvest of other dead in order to get to their daily work
inside the
tunnels.
It seems that the time has come for us to urge NASA Headquarters
and
Marshall Space Flight Center to stop the pro-Nazi propaganda, the
Smithsonian Institution to discontinue its yearly von Braun
Lecture, and
ourselves to remember and honor the political-prisoner pioneers
of our
international space programs.
Tom Gehrels
================
(7) FOR THE RECORD
>From Alan W. Harris < awharris@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
>
Dear Benny,
Since it seems to have made such a splash in CCNet, let me
clarify a point
in the newspaper report of my talk in Fayetteville:
The last sentence of the article was a garbled misunderstanding
of a
standard closing I use when giving "killer asteroid"
public lectures. I
simply pointed out that the risk of death associated with
traveling to
Fayetteville (once) to give the lecture was about 1:200,000, to
be compared
with various other risks I mentioned in the talk.
*******************************************************************
Alan Harris
Senior Research Scientist
MS 183-501 Phone: 818-354-6741
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Fax: 818-354-0966
Pasadena, CA 91109 email: Alan.W.Harris@jpl.nasa.gov
*******************************************************************
===========
(8) WHAT IF?
>From Andy Nimmo < andy-nimmo@ntlworld.com
>
Dear Dr Peiser,
Re Mark Kidger's piece, what if 2002 EA is around 130-m in
diameter, and had
as he said, been discovered by Raffael Ferrando in the way that
happened,
but instead of missing us by millions of kms it was found to be
dead on
target for London, New York or Tokyo, and we had the same notice
of when it
would arrive as we have had?
What effect would a 130 m object have if it landed on one of the
major
cities? Given the shortness of the notice, what, if anything,
could
governments do to minimize casualties? Is there anything they
should be
doing now, that was maybe missed in the Task Force Report, to
ensure maximum
survival later, should such an event really happen?
Perhaps we need to continue to make more noise about this kind of
thing if
we really want governments to act?
Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.
===========
(9) NEOs & COMPARATIVE HAZARD ANALYSIS: BUCKMINSTER FULLER,
"SPACESHIP
EARTH", & THE TITANIC
>From Drake A. Mitchell < planetarydefence@netscape.net
>
The NEO hazard that threatens our world appears to be worse than
the
Titanic's emergency on 11 out of 13 points of comparison.
Some readers may be surprised to discover that the legendary
original
thinker, R. Buckminster Fuller, attended the U.S. Naval Academy
and served
during WWI, given that environmentalists seem to comprise the
largest single
constituency within his worldwide readership. These
environmentalists may be
equally surprised to learn that the third form of pure carbon -
the
Carbon-60 and higher molecules named "fullerenes" and
"buckyballs" in his
honor, discovered in the laboratory in 1985 and the object of the
1996 Nobel
Prize for Chemistry - has been found in the Murchison meteorite,
the
Sudbury, Ontario impact crater, and the infamous KT boundary
layer. Not only
do these buckyballs contain extraterrestrial isotopes, but higher
fullerenes
were first discovered in nature in 1999 in a sample of the
4.6-billion-year-old Allende meteorite that crashed into Mexico
in 1969 [1].
Fascinating coincidences aside, Professor Fuller pioneered such
concepts as
synergy and design science. Wired News called his
"Synergetics" "one of the
most extraordinary books of the century" [2]. His phrase
"Spaceship Earth"
appeared in the title of his classic 1963 manual [3], translated
into German
in 1998 [4]. The phrase dates further back, however, to his 1951
lecture at
the University of Michigan [5]. His work continues to inspire
such areas as
science, engineering, mathematics, architecture, sustainable
economic
development, and education [6].
This essay presents a simple yet novel analysis of the Near-Earth
Object
hazard confronting "Spaceship Earth." It aims to do so
objectively, in fair
and useful detail, comparing the present NEO hazard situation in
2002 to the
ocean iceberg hazard that sank the R.M.S. Titanic on its
ill-fated voyage in
1912. The basis for the comparison is that both scenarios feature
a
low-probability, high-consequence natural hazard.
Low-probability,
high-consequence hazards present serious problems in rational
threat
perception at the levels of both individual cognition and group
psychology
[7]. The ship-and-impactor analogy provides a useful context for
visualization. The analysis in this essay offers a baker's dozen
of
strategic and tactical points of comparison. It renders a stark
verdict: the
risk profile of modern civilization appears to be substantially
worse than
that of the Titanic.
Point of Comparison #1: Number of Lifeboats Available. The
880-foot Titanic
left Southampton, England on 10 April, 1912 with ~2,227
passengers and crew
bound for New York [8]. Upon sinking on April 15th, less than
three hours
after colliding with an iceberg, 705 survivors were aboard 20
lifeboats,
which could have safely accomodated only 1,200. ~1,522 (68%)
needlessly
perished, largely due to shipbuilder-influenced regulations that
required
lifeboats for only 962 [9]. In contrast, at the present time
modern
civilization on Spaceship Earth has no "lifeboats".
Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #2: Number of Safe Harbours or Ports of Call
Available.
The Titanic deployed its lifeboats about 350 miles (531 km)
southeast of
Newfoundland, Canada. At the present time, potential survivors of
a large
impact event on Spaceship Earth would have no alternate external
support
infrastructure available, e.g. colonies on the Moon, Mars, NEOs
themselves,
etc. Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #3: Number of Other Parties Available for
Warning or
S.O.S. Six different ships sent eight iceberg warnings to the
Titanic, some
of which were not even reported to the bridge. One nearby ship
missed the
S.O.S. The Cunard liner Carpathia rescued the survivors soon
after. Current
efforts like SETI offer a mere sliver of possibility. Advantage:
Titanic.
Point of Comparison #4: Control and Manoeuvrability. Had the
Titanic's
bridge and crew received the warnings with a different mindset,
the
collision speed of 20.5 knots could have been substantially
reduced, if not
averted altogether. Applications have indeed been published for
the
engineering of orbit modifications for Spaceship Earth, but the
cure might
not be fast enough or better than either alternate defencive
strategies, or
the impact itself [10]. Grim humour has circulated the
possibility of
nudging Spaceship Earth, partially or completely, out of the way
of an
incoming NEO with a sufficient number of h-bomb detonations over
a
"suitable" territory, but this option apparently
remains unquantified and
problematic. Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #5: Threat, Location and Directionality. The
Titanic
only had to be concerned with slow-moving icebergs dead-ahead,
distributed
in the plane of the ocean's surface, capable of breaching a
single hull with
low transverse bulkheads. Smaller icebergs known as
"growlers" would
frequently screech along howling hulls. Spaceship Earth's NEO
hazard
consists of hypervelocity asteroids and comets, with densities
ranging from
that of ice all the way to solid iron. The vast majority of these
approach
undetected from all around the ecliptic plane, many with large
inclinations. NEOs larger than a poorly understood threshold are
capable of
disrupting, reducing or effectively ending the existing world
order through
a long list of global effects that can last for months, years,
decades and
longer. Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #6: Visibility. The Titanic had adequate
observational
freedom, albeit with binoculars missing. Spaceship Earth is
presently using
inadequate, limited weather-dependent ground-based optical
telescopes that
are practically useless during the day - rendering it mostly
blind to port,
partially blind to starboard, near-sighted, night-blind, and
cross-eyed.
Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #7: "Weather." April marks the
beginning of the North
Atlantic's spring iceberg peak. Worse, the Titanic's crossing
apparently
occured during a cyclical peak in the number and extent of
icebergs. This
peak correlates with the 11-year solar cycle of sunspots, which
can result
in significant climatic variations e.g. wind patterns, colder sea
temperatures, and stronger storms [11]. Periodicities in the NEO
flux have
been posited, e.g. comet showers, and trails of dust and large
object
fragments similar to annual meteor showers, but remain uncertain.
Advantage:
To be determined.
Point of Comparison #8: Warning and Response Times. Had the
Titanic been
equipped with less than twice the number of lifeboats, it
probably would
have had enough time to avoid most fatalities, despite inadequate
deployment
drills. Even with proposed scenarios for evacuations, shelters,
"lifeboats"
or defences, the same cannot be said for Spaceship Earth at the
present
time, which constitutes a readiness emergency. The roughly 10% of
"global
killer" near-Earth asteroids that are expected to remain
undetected by the
end of the decade are the most challenging ones to find, and the
fraction of
the NEO threat from low-warning long-period comets remains
considerably
uncertain, with published estimates ranging from 10% to over 50%.
Advantage:
Titanic.
Point of Comparison #9: Maximum Casualties Being Risked. The
Titanic's
2,227, compared to up to 100% of the human species at the present
time, and
possibly large fractions of large numbers of other species as
well.
Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #10: Risk to Survivor Quality of Life. One
devastating
ocean voyage calamity, compared to possibly the worst disaster in
recorded
history, if not an historical regression or outright historical
hiatus.
Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #11: Leadership's Command and Focus. The
Titanic's
captain, officers, crew, engineers and ownership were focused on
commercial
efficiency with complacent confidence. There is tentative
evidence that they
may also have been contending with an out-of-control fire in
boiler room 6,
with an ongoing cover-up and deliberate maximum speed to New York
[13].
Today's dictators and elected officials make groping attempts to
manage a
fantastically complex morass of armed conflicts, epidemics,
famine, poverty,
globalization and a "clash of civilizations" that
finally erupted into a
global war on terrorism with a tri-focal "axis of
evil." Advantage: Titanic.
Point of Comparison #12: Cultural Attitudes and Awareness.
Victorian-era
hubris regarding the invulnerability of ships like the Titanic
[9], compared
to the growing global awareness in a new internet-enabled
millennium of the
accumulating evidence of civilization's vulnerability.
Advantage: Spaceship Earth.
Point of Comparison #13: Acceptance of the Hazard. On 11 April
1912, SS
Niagara struck two icebergs within about 10 miles of where the
Titanic met
its fate, cutting it in two places below the waterline. Going
back to 1900,
at least 45 collisions with icebergs are recorded resulting in 8
sinkings.
>From 1899 to 1850, at least 315 resulted in 53 sinkings. From
1849 to 1686,
at least 59 resulted in 21 sinkings [12]. Thus with at least 82
vessels
sinking from 419 collisions with icebergs prior to the Titanic's
voyage, it
is hard to argue against the wide acceptance of the iceberg
hazard. Evidence
of negligence in the mishap was still being investigated in the
1990's [13].
In contrast, evidence of the NEO hazard has proven much more
difficult to
collect and present. Even with a decade of quasi-concerted effort
and over
100 terrestrial impact craters identified, a program to
internationally
recognize, study, and if necessary protect these sites and the
many more
remaining to be found, e.g. through UNESCO's 1972 World Heritage
Convention
[14], is yet to be formally proposed or implemented. Advantage:
Titanic.
Thus the NEO hazard that threatens our world appears to be worse
than the
Titanic's emergency on 11 out of 13 points of comparison. For
brevity, these
13 points actually consolidate 19 points of comparison, on which
scale the
count comes to 16.
Critics of this analysis may object that it does not include the
relative
probabilities of the hazards, which themselves are subject to
uncertainty.
However, the unimpeachable basis for this analysis is that both
scenarios
comprise low-probability, high-consequence hazards that benefit
from
rational threat perception, a notoriously challenging standard.
Thus the
actual relative probabilities, while important, are
inconsequential to this
particular analysis: both low-probability scenarios present the
same
perceptual challenges to human decision-makers. Thus this
point-by-point
comparison is entirely justified, apparently dramatically so,
although it is
not exhaustive e.g. further effort could weight the comparative
risks, and
other methodologies may apply; your mileage may vary [15].
The fact is that when the NEO hazard is compared in detail to the
Titanic
catastrophe, an actual historical event which has tenaciously
gripped the
public imagination for nearly a century, it is compellingly
apparent that we
are exposed to a risk that is worse in many more dimensions.
Though
sobering, the comparison also provides instructive and
prescriptive force
and utility. This meets a critical need, as recognizing and
communicating
urgency has been a most problematic aspect of NEO hazard
management. Urgency
is a fundamental attribute of management, and this analysis
provides a substantial basis for communicating the urgency of the
NEO hazard
far and wide.
Critical communication challenges remain. For example, the public
has not
yet been provided with adequate assessments of the known
collection of
man-made and natural global hazards (including biohazards and
non-negligible
risks from cosmic-ray jets, supernovae, and small stray black
holes).
Therefore, it remains difficult for the public and their elected
representatives to gauge the relative urgency of the NEO hazard,
especially
when it comes to comparing appropriate funding levels for these
hazards with
other societal problems. Making the case for urgency assists such
efforts,
and subsequent work will focus on lessons learned from crash
development
programs and the implications for the economics of the NEO
hazard.
What more can be said in the current context? First, the events
that
unfolded upon the Titanic in a mere three hours may provide a
model for
anticipating developments worldwide that would proceed over the
weeks and
months after an NEO impact event with global effects.
Second, Prof. Fuller's design science approach uses such
principles as
exploring nature's design strategies, planetary planning, and
working with
nature. Arguably this would have made Prof. Fuller a supporter of
the
planetary defence strategy of "cosmic billiards",
whereby a suitable
smaller NEO is deflected to create an additional crater on a
hazardous
larger NEO. This strategy would require a much more aggressive
program to
inventory the huge NEO population at a much smaller minimum size,
which
would also reduce the risk of smaller much more frequent impacts
and
increase the opportunities for space-based resource development
[16]. Of
course it must be kept in mind that every strategy has limits, in
this case
dependencies on orbital, compositional, and structural factors in
both
deflector and target. Problems deriving from such dependencies
can only be
responsibly resolved through simulation and testing far in
advance of an
actual contingency.
Third, Prof. Fuller might have supported the tax on international
currency
trading proposed by Nobel-laureate economist James Tobin, which
might
generate $100B's annually [17] and may be a further way for the
financial
and political community to regain the public's trust after the
Enron
meltdown. Of course, planetary defence would still have to
compete with the
likes of global warming, the $40B/yr war on global poverty [18],
$50B+ for
the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository recently approved by
the Bush
Administation [19], and a potential $300B+ in the event of a
single serious
nuclear reactor accident, terrorist-created or not [20].
Fourth, since basic risk management principles advocate portfolio
diversification, and we have seen that all humanity is at
substantial risk
in the single basket of Spaceship Earth, it is also incumbent on
today's
generations to kick open the space frontier and humbly try to
establish
self-sufficient colonies nearby for the safety and benefit of all
future
generations. A human NEO mission is the least expensive
"next giant leap"
for mankind beyond Earth, enabling the goals already mentioned as
well as
raising the world's gaze to a nobler vision of the future [21].
Although
behind schedule, if China does send taikonauts beyond Earth-orbit
[22] then
a manned near-Earth asteroid rendezvous and sample return is an
obvious
prestige mission with an important science bonanza for the world.
Two other Nobel laureates deserve mention in the present context.
Harry
Kroto, 1996 Nobel laureate in Chemistry, co-discoverer of C60
Buckminsterfullerene, is working with the Vega Science Trust on a
new
prime-time TV program dedicated to science called Science Night,
and
another program called Science Forum, "a broadcast of
well-informed
constructive debate on science related issues" [23]. Other
potential allies
include Murray Gell-Mann, 1969 Nobel laureate in Physics, a
cofounder of the
transdisciplinary Sante Fe Institute [24] who has been especially
outspoken
on the public responsibilities of the scientific community, and
his equally
zealous colleague Sir Robert May [25].
The Titanic was not doomed, although it did push its luck too
far. All our
futures could be snatched away at a moment's notice, but we have
a decent
fighting chance if we don't squander our most precious resource:
time. In a
1980 quote, three years before his death, R. Buckminster Fuller
stated:
"Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a
touch-and-go relay race
right up to the final moment." We can only agree more.
[1] http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc092900.html
[2] http://www.bfi.org/Trimtab/t1298d.htm#synergetics
[3] http://www.bfi.org/operating_manual.htm
[4] http://www.bfi.org/News_Archive/german_manual.htm
[5] http://www.bfi.org/time_expanded.htm
http://www.bfi.org/EveryThing/everything_i_know9.htm
[6] http://www.spaceshipearth.org
http://www.bfi.org/News_Archive/leonardo.htm
Leonardo, Journal of the International Society for the Arts,
Sciences and
Technology vol. 31, No. 4 (August 1998) contains an article
entitled
"Education Automation on Spaceship Earth: Buckminster
Fuller's
Vision----More Relevant than Ever" by Allegra Fuller Snyder
with Victoria
Vesna. Leonardo is published by The MIT Press.
[7] James S. Knox, Jr., Lt Col, USAF, "Planetary Defense:
Legacy for a
Certain Future" Chapter 2, pages 21-27.
http://papers.maxwell.af.mil/projects/ay1998/awc/98-150.pdf
Quotes from
Chauncey Starr and Chris Whipple, "Risks of Risk
Decisions," Science 208,
no. 4448 (6 June 1980): 1116-1117.
[8] http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/titanic.htm
[9] http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~branderr/risk_essay/titanic.html
[10] Korycansky, Laughlin, and Adams. "Astronomical
Engineering: A Strategy
for Modifiying Planetary Orbits." Astrophysics and Space
Science 275 (4):
349-366, March 2001.
http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/282187
[11] http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032100.html
[12] Brian T. Hill, Natural Resources Council Canada, Institute
for Marine
Dynamics http://www.nrc.ca/imd/ice/bergs2_01e.html
[13] http://www2.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/titanic2/media/media95.htm
[14] http://www.unesco.org:80//whc/world_he.htm
[15] Although this analysis may be an unconventional exercise in
lateral
thought, this is known as thinking "outside of the
box." The "politically
correct" are invited to jump into a deep, cold lake:).
[16] http://ww.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/lunar_caps_011212-2.html
[17] http://www.tobintax.org
[18] http://www.bfi.org/Trimtab/winter02/marshallPlan.htm
[19] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A26791-2002Jan10
[20] http://www.safeenergy.org/pp052401.htm
[21] http://www.aas.org/~dps/decadal/sstm.pdf
http://www.aas.org/decadal/Uploads/000020-000000-draft110401.doc
[22] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_627000/627313.stm
[23] http://www.vega.org.uk
http://www.bfi.org/Trimtab/t699d.htm#vega_science
[24] http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/
[25] http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletinSummer01/features/may.html
============
(10) AND FINALLY: GIFTED FEW MAKE ORDER OUT OF CHAOS (and vice
versa :-)
>From New Scientist, 6 March 2002
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992003
Some people have a special gift for predicting the twists and
turns of
chaotic systems like the weather and perhaps even financial
markets,
according to an Australian psychologist.
Richard Heath, who has now moved to the UK's University of
Sunderland tried
to identify people who can do this by showing volunteers a list
of eight
numbers and asking them to predict the next four. The volunteers
were told
that the numbers were maximum temperatures for the previous eight
days. In
fact the numbers were computer-generated: some sets were part of
a chaotic
series while the rest were random.
Random sequences are by their nature unpredictable, whereas
chaotic
sequences follow specific rules. Despite this, chaotic sequences
are very
hard to predict in practice because of the "butterfly
effect" - even an
unmeasurably small change in initial conditions can have a
dramatic impact
on their future state.
Nonetheless, Heath found that a quarter of the people he tested
could
predict the temperature for at least the next two days if the
sequence was
chaotic, rather than random, even though there is no obvious
pattern to the
figures.
"The $64,000 question is what is going on in their
heads," says Heath. He is
now planning studies to find out whether the skill is related to
specific
personality types, or to aspects of intelligence such as
mathematical
ability.
No cheating
David Gilden, a psychologist at the University of Texas in
Austin, doubts
that people can detect the next step in any sequence that lacks a
perceptible pattern. "It's a strong claim, to assert that
the skill only
exists implicitly," he says.
But others are convinced that Heath is onto something. "It's
sound. The
effect looks real," says artificial intelligence expert Jeff
Pressing of the
University of Melbourne.
He and others point to a crucial difference between this and
previous
studies claiming to show that people can identify the patterns in
chaotic
systems: Heath distinguished between the effects of chaos and
other
characteristics of the sequences that might help people make
correct
predictions.
In particular, Heath was able to exclude the possibility that the
people
making successful predictions were doing so by looking only at
the last few
numbers. In other words, they were not able to cheat by assuming
that "the
weather tomorrow is likely to be the same as the weather
today".
If the finding does stand up, testing for sensitivity to chaos
might help
financial institutions identify people who would do well as
financial
traders. "Some guys can't communicate what they are doing,
but they make
millions," says Pressing. "They have some sort of
intuition. My guess is
that they are sensitive to subtle non-linear structures like
chaos."
Journal reference: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life
Sciences (vol 6, p 37)
Copyright 2002, New Scientist
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.