PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 43/2001 - 19 March 2001
-----------------------------
"Some of the [Task Force] recommendations could be
accommodated in
the existing budget. Being able to identify new money is less
important
than identifying what to do with existing money."
--Paul Murdin, head of astronomy at the PPARC and director
of science at the British National Space Centre, 16 March
2001
"The British debate is noteworthy because it has moved the
subject
outside of the narrow realm of special interest participants. It
had led
to useful recommendations - new telescopes, use of existing
telescopes, recognition of the need for a data center, etc., but
(another
dichotomy) does not seem to be leading to any new funding or
program. This
dichotomy is not an accident - NEO observations are important,
interesting
and justified but not sufficiently so to displace priorities in
astronomy,
environment or defense or to constitute a crisis that warrants
economic
policy changes. If the participants in the field recognize and
accept
this they can move beyond hand wringing to constructive
action."
-- Louis Friedman, The Planetary Society, 17 March 2001
"Opposing research into the NEO threat because such
programmes might
divert funding from one's particular project may be quite
understandable
from a very narrow perspective, but it is an abrogation of the
responsibility of science to safeguard humankind. On the other
hand, to
support a multi disciplinary programme with such potential public
interest
can only thrust astronomy into the public eye as a useful and
responsible profession. Perhaps the time has come for astronomers
to
consider their position in society with care."
-- Jay Tate, Spaceguard UK, 17 March 2001
(1) ASTEROID HAZARD PROMPTS CASH CALL
The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16
March 2001
(2) COMMENT: VALUABLE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM LOOKING UP
The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16
March 2001
(3) AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT "RESPONSE" TO UK NEO TASK
FORCE
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(4) THE UK PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE AND CONSIDERATION OF NEAR EARTH
OBJECTS
Louis Friedman, The Planetary Society <tps.ldf@planetary.org>
(5) MODERN ASTRONOMY: EYES WIDE SHUT?
Jonathan Tate <fr77@dial.pipex.com>
(6) AN ASTEROID LED TO THE "GREAT DYING"
Astronomy.com, 17 March 2001
(7) GERVACE OF CANTERBURY
David Morrison <dmorrison@arc.nasa.gov>
(8) AN EYEWITNESS IMPACT DEBUNKED
SKY & TELESCOPE'S NEWS BULLETIN - MARCH
16, 2001
(9) JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ON 1178 LUNAR EYEWITNESS REPORT
Ed Vega <vegasky@mindspring.com>
(10) HOW BIENVENUTO CELLINI SURVIVED ATMOSPHERIC ANOMALY
Barbara Szabo <barbara@accesswest.com>
(11) IT'S FLYING ICE BALLS AGAIN
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(12) ON A COLLISION COURSE
Astronomy.com, 16 March 2001
(13) TWO ASTEROIDS BECOME IRISH ROCK LEGENDS
CNN, 17 March 2001
(14) GOLDILOCKS AND THE EXTRATERRESTRIALS
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(15) IMPACT HAZARD TALKS & LECTURES
(16) METEOR SHOWER OVER THE CHANNEL?
Jiri Borovicka <borovic@asu.cas.cz>
(17) A NUTTY EFFECT ON EROS
Michael Oates <mike@ph.u-net.com>
===========
(1) ASTEROID HAZARD PROMPTS CASH CALL
From The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16 March 2001
By Caroline Davis
Peers have called on the government to provide funds to avert the
potential
threat of asteroids and other space debris colliding with the
Earth.
Earlier this month, the government announced a package of
measures in
response to a report from the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous
Near-Earth
Objects (NEOs).
Lord Sainsbury said that the threat required international
action. In a
House of Lords debate last week, he said that the nature of the
risk made it
"difficult to make a case for large extra funds to be made
available."
He added that private funds were unlikely to be forthcoming and
that the
money would have to come form the existing astronomy and space
budgets.
These include a review of how UK telescope facilities can
identify and
monitor NEOs, to be carried out by the Particle Physics and
Astronomy
Research Council.
The PPARC is considering how to exploit its telescopes to
identify new NEOs,
in particular the Vista telescope in Chile, due for completion in
2004. The
La Palma telescopes in the Canary Islands could then be used to
track known
asteroids.
The UK will have greater access to telescopes when it becomes a
member of
the European Southern Observatory and the PPARC is looking at
refurbishing
older telescopes to devote them to NEOs.
The next step would be to characterise the objects by taking
spectra to
assess their threat and plan aversion tactics. The review, due
within a
year, will also look at the costs and politics involved.
Paul Murdin, head of astronomy at the PPARC and director of
science at the
British National Space Centre, said: "Some of the [Task
Force]
recommendations could be accommodated in the existing budget.
Being able to
identify new money is less important than identifying what to do
with
existing money."
The government said it would also set up a public information
facility, a
forum of decision-makers convened by the European Space Agency
and an
international discussion and action forum set up by the
Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
Copyright 2001, TSL Education Ltd.
========
(2) COMMENT: VALUABLE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM LOOKING UP
From The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16 March 2001
Anyone with the cinema habit knows that outer space is jammed
with objects
that threaten to collide with the Earth and extinguish human
life. But
whether it is worth doing anything about the threat is not so
simple, as a
government report has just [sic] analysed (page 52).
Near-Earth objects come in all shapes and sizes, from the sort
that saw off
the dinosaurs all way down to the fine dust responsible for
meteor showers.
One problem is a vast population of objects that would not wipe
out
humankind on impact, but are capable of devastating a city and
are too small
for practical detection [sic]. One hit remote Siberia in the 20th
century.
There are some near-Earth object orbits that could mean there is
little or
no notice of even a major impact.
But the department of Trade and Industry team is right to say
that more
resources should be devoted to mapping near-Earth objects, not
least because
their study is of scientific merit as well as having possible
survival
value. The objects are, after all, leftovers from the earliest
days of the
solar system.
The recent landing of Nasa's Near probe on the asteroid Eros
reminds us that
we still have much to learn from such objects. A thorough mapping
of their
distribution is part of this process. It would also inform a
future decision
about developing the technology to fight the threat.
Copyright 2001, TSL Education Ltd.
================
(3) AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT "RESPONSE" TO UK NEO TASK
FORCE
From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny,
I have received the attached response from the Australian
Government. I have
also prepared an "adulterated" copy with a
tongue-in-cheek translation (aka
Ed Grondine).
regards
Michael Paine
---------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from) The Hon Nick Minchin, Minister for Industry,
Science and
Resources
5 Mar 2001
Dear Mr Paine
Thank you for your email of 21 December 2000 to the Hon Peter
Reith MP,
Minster for Defence concerning Australia's contribution to
Spaceguard. Your
letter has been referred to Senator the Hon Nick Minchin,
Minister for
Industry Science and Resources, who has responsibility for Near
Earth Object
(NEO) observation and research. The Minister has asked me to
respond on his
behalf.
The Government recognises the importance of Australian
involvement in
collaborative efforts with international partners in NEO
observation and
research. As you may be aware, the Australian National
University, the
University of Arizona and NASA are working together to detect and
track
asteroids from the Southern Hemisphere. I understand that the
upgrade and
modification of the Uppsala Schmidt telescope, to be completed by
early to
mid-2001 will provide a significant boost to our efforts.
The Government is also aware of the Report of the United Kingdom
Task Force
on Potentially Hazardous NEO's, initiated last year by the
Minister for
Science, Lord Sainsbury. We shall consider the British
Government's response
to this report, when released, for any possible
implications for our position on NEO observation.
Your sincerely
(signed)
for Anna McPhee
Advisor (Science)
Parliament House, Canberra, Fax 02 62734104
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Translation to plain English by M Paine]
Dear Mr Paine
Thank you for your email of 21 December 2000 to the Hon Peter
Reith MP,
Minster for Defence concerning Australia's [lack of] contribution
to
Spaceguard. Your letter has been referred [it had nothing
whatever to do
with defence - there is no enemy to shoot at] to Senator the Hon
Nick
Minchin, Minister for Industry Science and Resources, who has
responsibility
for Near Earth Object (NEO) observation and research [we are very
very
serious about this - a minister is actually responsible for it!].
The
Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf [except that he
has not
actually seen this letter so he does not KNOW he is responsible].
The Government recognises the importance of Australian
involvement in
collaborative efforts with international partners in NEO
observation and
research [we are just not prepared to spend any money on it]. As
you may be
aware, the Australian National University [which we fund and
therefore indirectly fund their astronomical work], the
University of
Arizona and NASA are working together to detect and track
asteroids from the
Southern Hemisphere [luckily NASA is putting up most of the cash
but we can
still claim some credit]. I understand that the upgrade and
modification of
the Uppsala Schmidt telescope, to be completed by early to
mid-2001 will
provide a significant boost to our efforts [well, going from
nothing to
something is an infinite increase isn't it?].
The Government is also aware of the Report of the United Kingdom
Task Force
on Potentially Hazardous NEO's, initiated last year by the
Minister for
Science, Lord Sainsbury [those pesky Brits have put out a report
that has
the nerve to suggest that other countries share in the cost of
Spaceguard].
We shall consider the British Government's response to this
report, when
released, for any possible implications for our position on NEO
observation.
[Oh no - there is a very slight risk that we might actually have
to spend
something on Spaceguard, just when we have made a commitment to
spend
billions on defence force upgrades and so don't have any money to
spare.
Especially since spending money on Spaceguard won't actually win
us any
votes in the federal election later this year. Or then again...].
Your sincerely
(signed)
for [!] Anna McPhee Advisor (Science)
[sorry Anna :)]
==============
(4) THE UK PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE AND CONSIDERATION OF NEAR EARTH
OBJECTS
From Louis Friedman, The Planetary Society <tps.ldf@planetary.org>
The Planetary Society welcomed the high-level consideration in
the United
Kingdom concerning Near Earth Objects. We have been privately
funding and
advocating increased observation programs of NEOs since the mid
1980s,
citing the extraordinary importance these objects have had and
will have in
the evolution of Earth and other bodies of the solar system, and
of life
itself on Earth. Our funding and support is global.
The recent debate in the House of Lords, and other follow-up
reaction to the
Ad Hoc Task Force Study for the British parliament emphasizes the
need for
international cooperation and coordination on this subject. NEO
policy is
full of dichotomies. National budgets vs. international
requirements;
apocalyptic warnings vs. environmental dismissiveness or even the
"giggle
factor," a few million dollars for increasing observations
vs. billions to
"protect the Earth," benign astronomical interest vs.
new challenges for
nuclear weapons. Actors with very different viewpoints and
motivations must
play all of these on a public stage. It is no wonder that public
policy
formulation has been difficult.
The British debate is noteworthy because it has moved the subject
outside of
the narrow realm of special interest participants. It had led to
useful
recommendations - new telescopes, use of existing telescopes,
recognition of
the need for a data center, etc., but (another dichotomy) does
not seem to
be leading to any new funding or program. This dichotomy is not
an accident
- NEO observations are important, interesting and justified but
not
sufficiently so to displace priorities in astronomy, environment
or defense
or to constitute a crisis that warrants economic policy changes.
If the
participants in the field recognize and accept this they can move
beyond
hand wringing to constructive action.
The seeds of constructive action are there. There are telescopes
around the
world where a little bit of program attention could substantively
increase
NEO observations and information. There is some U.S. sentiment
and
possibility for building a dedicated observatory; but money, as
noted, is an
issue. Perhaps a multi-national observatory or even an
international one can
be proposed. The Shoemaker-NEAR mission has whetted our appetites
for NEO
exploration. Perhaps the UK, or ESA, could lead development of an
international multi-asteroid exploration program. Russia has some
extraordinary capabilities in this regard that could be employed
at low
cost; the recent new US Administration decision to come back once
again to a
reliance on Russia in the space station development ought to
break apart any
inhibitions about that subject. And non-governmental
organizations like The
Planetary Society and the Spaceguard Foundation have nascent
programs that
could be developed into international communication and
information centers.
The seeds are there, but a farmer is needed. This is where
Britain might
really take a leadership role. (I am not commenting on Britain's
agrarian
role, or making even a slight aside at the current agricultural
difficulties
in that country - merely a figure of speech). As the only
government to
really broaden the discussion of NEOs into larger societal and
political
considerations, let them follow it up internationally, and
globally. I.e. in
international government and non-governmental forums, and help
organize
international policy considerations and programs. The problem
isn't as big
as global warming (and the enthusiasts in the field should not
pretend it
is), but some small global attention to it can lead to very
useful
international programs of observations and information exchange,
not to
mention education for the public.
The Planetary Society is the largest space interest group on
Earth; and we
are the largest in Europe as well. We have a challenge before us,
as well,
to be come more truly international and effectively work with
national
policies all over the world to advance international undertakings
in space
exploration. The British study can be a motivator; we now must
look, as must
the entire community, for ways to set up international programs
that can be
more effective.
=============
(5) MODERN ASTRONOMY: EYES WIDE SHUT?
An open letter to the Astronomical community
by Jonathan Tate <fr77@dial.pipex.com>
Some modern astronomers, glued to their computer screens or
grappling with
the baffling mysteries of the cosmos, would prefer to ignore the
fact that
the roots of their profession lie in "superstition".
Ancient man was quite
convinced that cosmic influences had a significant part to play
in his way
of life and continued well-being. This conviction is clear in the
stories
and myths from around the world concerning conflict and disaster
meted out
from the skies, usually by omnipotent "gods". This
catastrophist view of the
cosmos dominated until the Age of Reason when Newtonian
principles turned
the unknown and unpredictable universe into a benign, mechanical
system and
Darwinism spawned the concept of gradual evolution over extended
periods of
time. In the resulting predictable, gradualist cosmos there was
no place for
catastrophism or major, sudden changes in the global environment.
In the
third quarter of the twentieth century the realisation dawned
that Darwinian
evolution has been punctuated by massive catastrophic events,
causing major
redirection in biological and geographic evolution. Past
prejudice against
catastrophist notions is ebbing away as the evidence builds, and
the reality
of major impacts is no longer in doubt. Perhaps it wasn't
entirely
superstition after all.
The widening appreciation of the hazard posed by asteroids and
comets should
be causing many researchers, especially astronomers to pause for
thought.
Astronomy developed as a utilitarian science with practical,
measurable
outputs mainly concerned with navigation and the measurement of
time. Once
these problems had been licked, astronomers were free to engage
in more
esoteric, and arguably less "useful" pursuits. But now
there is a genuine
call for the astronomical profession to demonstrate its
usefulness to the
public who, in the final analysis, pay the bills.
No one can dispute that Planetary Defence is a multi-disciplinary
undertaking. Astronomers have been at the forefront of the search
for, and
detection of NEOs, but planetary scientists, geologists,
palaeontologists,
biologists, physicists and many others have been deeply involved
in piecing
together the jigsaw that has resulted in our current state of
knowledge. But
is the problem strictly scientific? Scientists like to think that
they are
concerned with the acquisition and interpretation of new data. To
study
asteroids and comets the researcher needs to study only a
representative
sample; there is no need to find them all; a planetary defence
programme
would have to strive to do just that. The funding and resources
required to
detect and track all NEOs cannot therefore be justified on
research grounds.
Defence is usually the prerogative of the military, but there is
resistance
from the defence establishment to becoming involved in planetary
defence; it
is classed as a problem for the scientists. So therein lies
a problem.
There is a small core of professional astronomers that have had
the courage
to speak out about the impact hazard, and to point out the
opportunity for
the profession to engage in a subject that the public can
understand and
appreciate. However, within the wider astronomical community
there is still
some apparent disagreement, some acrimonious, over the nature and
extent of
the threat. It is natural for scientists to disagree, indeed that
is the
nature of the scientific method, but even the most ardent
disbeliever cannot
dispute at least the possibility of a significant threat. After
all, who
could be better placed to be aware of the facts than astronomers?
Ignorance
is not an option for professionals. Given the consequences of
major impact
events it is plainly not right to oppose programmes aimed at
preventing
them; that would be playing dice with the survival of the human
species.
Opposing research into the NEO threat because such programmes
might divert
funding from one's particular project may be quite understandable
from a
very narrow perspective, but it is an abrogation of the
responsibility of
science to safeguard humankind. On the other hand, to support a
multi
disciplinary programme with such potential public interest can
only thrust
astronomy into the public eye as a useful and responsible
profession.
Perhaps the time has come for astronomers to consider their
position in
society with care. Precisely what is astronomy for? In years gone
by the
answer was clear, but it is considerably less so now. No one
would dispute
the value of pure research, but is the expenditure required
justified in the
face of a real, practical threat to our way of life? Few would be
impressed
with a fire service that spent its time conducting detailed
studies into
major disaster scenarios while its own fire station burned to the
ground.
In five years the Spaceguard programme in the UK has moved from
the realm of
sci-fi - a bit of a joke - to a credible subject that has been
debated in
both Houses of Parliament and been the subject of a government
Task Force
who verified the hazard and recommended substantive action to
prevent
impacts in the future. Convincing the politicians of the need for
action
would have been easier with more support from the scientific
community, but,
with a few notable exceptions (I won't embarrass them by listing
names - or
myself when I forget one) the overwhelming response from the
astronomical
community, both professional and amateur, has largely been one of
indifference. Given the validated scale of the impact hazard, and
the
opportunities for public education in astronomy and science in
general, I
have difficulty in understanding the apparent reluctance of the
astronomical
community to grasp this opportunity to protect and educate their
fellow man.
==================
(6) AN ASTEROID LED TO THE "GREAT DYING"
From Astronomy.com, 17 March 2001
http://www2.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/000/324uqmlf.asp
Scientists have found evidence that an asteroid or comet slammed
Earth and
caused the greatest mass extinction of all.
by Paul Morledge
About 185 million years before the demise of the dinosaurs, an
even greater
mass extinction wiped out 90 percent of all sea creatures and 70
percent of
land animals. Scientists have puzzled over the cause of
this
Permian-Triassic (P-T) boundary event, also known as the
"Great Dying." Now
a research team has literally unearthed evidence that an asteroid
or comet
was to blame.
Nearly 250 million years ago a three- to six-mile-wide bolide
(asteroid or
comet) slammed into and shook Earth, releasing energy comparable
to a
million times that generated by the largest earthquake in
recorded history.
"It was like a 12.0 earthquake on the Richter scale,"
says Robert Poreda,
associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the
University of
Rochester and one of the authors of a report that details this
P-T boundary
event in the February 23 issue of Science.
The exact site of the impact is unknown. At the time, all of
Earth's land
was clumped together as one super-continent called Pangea. But
scientists,
such as Luann Becker, a University of Washington Earth and space
scientist
and lead author of the report, were able to infer its occurrence
by a series
of chemical fingerprints left deep inside Earth.
Becker and her team found these prints within sedimentary layers
at
excavation sites in Japan, China, and Hungary. The telltale
evidence came in
the form of complex carbon molecules known as
buckminsterfullerenes - or
more affectionately, buckyballs - whose 60 carbon-atom structures
resemble
the geodesic domes designed by 20th century futurist Buckminster
Fuller.
Helium was discovered trapped inside the buckyballs, which would
soon reveal
their origin.
"These gas-laden fullerenes [buckyballs] were formed outside
the solar
system, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary
means they
were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker.
Becker discovered that the sediment containing these
extraterrestrial
buckyballs lay as a thin boundary layer between sediment from the
Permian
and Triassic periods. Buckyballs were found at very low
concentrations above
and below the P-T boundary layer, but in unusually high
concentrations
within it - pinpointing the time of this extraterrestrial
deposit.
Becker realized that these particular buckyballs were once
imported from
outer space. How? By looking at the isotopic ratio of the helium
found
inside. The caged helium showed a relatively large
abundance of its isotope
helium-3, which is rare on this planet but quite common in the
interstellar
medium. Most helium found on Earth is helium-4, with only a
smattering of
helium-3.
Scientists don't think this crashing bolide acted alone in the
Great Dying.
The impact may have triggered a chain of events, such as massive
volcanism
and subsequent changes in vital atmospheric gases, which then led
to this
wholesale extinction.
"If species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a
survival-of-the-fittest sort
of thing," Becker says. "To knock out 90 percent of
organisms, you've got to
attack them on more than one front."
At the time of impact, Poreda's group estimates the Earth was
already
bubbling with more than 1.6 million cubic kilometers of lava -
enough to
cover the entire planet with a blanket of lava 10 feet deep.
"It was the proverbial blast from the double-barreled
shotgun," Poreda says.
"We're not sure of all the environmental consequences, but
with both the
impact and the volcanic activity, we do know that Earth was not a
happy
place. It may be that the combined effects of impact and
volcanism are
necessary to cause such a tremendous extinction."
Interestingly, most scientists believe the dual attack of a
massive bolide
impact and widespread volcanic activity set the stage for
dinosaur
extinction - known as at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary
event - as
well.
"These two extinctions are like bookends for the age of the
dinosaurs,"
Poreda says. "The P-T boundary helped to usher in the age of
the dinosaurs,
and the K-T boundary snuffed it out."
Copyright © 1996-2001 Kalmbach Publishing Co.
================
(7) GERVACE OF CANTERBURY
From David Morrison <dmorrison@arc.nasa.gov>
NEO News (03/16/01) Gervase of Canterbury
Dear Friends and Students of NEOs:
Many writers dealing with the impact phenomenon have noted the
apparent
eyewitness impact on the Moon recorded by the monk Gervase of
Canterbury in
1178. Because this event occurred close to the
intersection of the Earth's orbit with the Taurid meteor stream,
this event
has sometimes been quoted as supporting the suggestion that large
objects in
the Taurid stream pose a special threat to the Earth. For
example, Clube and
Napier devote several pages to this hypothesis in their book
"The Cosmic
Winter". Specifically, the impact has been identified with
he bright ray
crater Giordano Bruno.
In his book "Rain of Iron and Ice", John Lewis provides
the following
translation of the report:
"In this year, on the Sunday before the feast of St John the
Baptist, after sunset when the Moon had just become visible, a
marvelous
phenomenon was witnessed by some five or more men who were siting
facing the Moon. Now there was a bright new Moon, and as usual in
that
phase its horns were tilted toward the east; and suddenly the
upper horn
split in two. From the midpoint in the division a flaming torch
sprang
up, spewing out, over considerable distance, fire, hot coals, and
sparks. Meanwhile the body of the Moon which was below writhed,
as it were,
in anxiety, and to put it in the words of those who reported it
to me, and
saw it with their own eyes, the Moon throbbed like a wounded
snake.
Afterwards it assumed its proper state. This phenomenon was
repeated a
dozen times or more, the flame assuming various twisted shapes
and then
returning to normal. Then, after these transformations, the Moon
from horn
to horn, along its whole length, took on a blackish appearance.
The
present writer was given this report by men who saw it with their
own eyes,
and are prepared to stake their honor on an oath that they have
made no
additions or falsifications in the above narrative."
Following is a story just posted by Sky and Telescope that
disputes the
identification of this event with the crater Giordano Bruno, and
thus
undercuts the reality of the medieval report, or at least its
relevance to
NEO impacts and the Taurid meteor stream.
David Morrison
MODERATOR'S NOTE: Not so fast, my friend. While I agree that the
Giordano
Bruno crater appears to be too large indeed to be convincingly
associated
with a hypothesised lunar impact in 1178, neither Gervase's
report nor the
possibility of an observed impact on the Moon - and not even the
speculation
about a link with the Taurid meteor stream have been
"debunked." As Ed Vega
rightly stresses, it's Carl Sagan's (and others') association of
the
eyewitness report with the Giordano Bruno crater that has been
"debunked",
not the report and its impact-interpretation itself. BJP
============
(8) AN EYEWITNESS IMPACT DEBUNKED
From SKY & TELESCOPE'S NEWS BULLETIN - MARCH 16, 2001
Were a small asteroid to hit the Moon, could we see the impact
with the
naked eye? In his chronicles of medieval life, Gervase of
Canterbury
described a dramatic event witnessed on the evening of June 18,
1178:
"Now there was a bright new Moon . . . and suddenly the
upper horn split in
two. From the midpoint of this division a flaming torch sprang
up, spewing
out . . . fire, hot coals, and sparks . . . The body of the Moon
which was
below writhed . . . throbbed like a wounded snake. Afterwards it
resumed its
proper state. The phenomenon was repeated a dozen times or more.
[Finally]
the Moon . . . along its whole length took on a blackish
appearance."
In 1976 geologist Jack B. Hartung (State University of New York)
proposed
that this passage describes the creation of Giordano Bruno, a
relatively
young, 22-kilometer-wide crater near the Moon's northeast limb.
Hartung
reasoned that, seen from Earth, this brightly rayed crater
appears near the
midpoint of the young crescent Moon. Astronomers were quick to
counter that
on the date in question the Moon was only 1.3 days past new and
thus too
near the Sun to be easily visible at all. Also, Gervase's
witnesses claimed
to have seen the "flaming torch" many times, which
sounds a lot more like
the ordinary atmospheric distortions often seen near the horizon.
Still,
Hartung's hypothesis has made its way into many astronomy books
and
articles. It proved difficult to confirm or refute because data
on Giordano
Bruno and its surroundings were limited.
Now a new analysis demonstrates that a cratering event could not
have
happened in 1178. Paul Withers (University of Arizona) finds that
an impact
large enough to create a 22-km crater would likely have showered
Earth with
10 million tons of ejected fragments -- perhaps a trillion bright
meteors in
all -- during the days that followed. "A meteor storm as
impressive as this
and lasting for a week would have been considered apocalyptic by
all
medieval observers," Withers comments. Yet no mention of
such displays
appears in English, European, Arabic, or Asian chronicles of the
era.
Laser-ranging experiments during the 1970s revealed that the Moon
nods back
and forth by a tiny amount ("free libration"),
suggesting to Hartung's
supporters that the globe was still reverberating from the
impact. But
Withers notes that a reanalysis of the laser-ranging data later
showed that
the slight oscillation arises instead from fluid motions deep in
the lunar
interior. Furthermore, while Giordano Bruno is indeed the
youngest crater of
its size anywhere on the Moon, multispectral images from the
Clementine
spacecraft show that this impact site has to be much older than
800 years.
Details of Withers's analysis will appear in the April issue of
Meteoritics.
Copyright 2001 Sky Publishing Corporation.
For images and Web links for these items, visit http://www.skypub.com
============
(9) JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS ON 1178 LUNAR EYEWITNESS REPORT
From Ed Vega <vegasky@mindspring.com>
I AGREE THAT IF GERVASE'S ACCOUNT OF A LUNAR IMPACT IN 1178 WERE
RELATED TO
A HUGE CRATER SUCH AS GIORDANO BRUNO, THE EFFECTS ON THE
ENTIRE EARTH WOULD
HAVE BEEN SPECTACULAR AND MAYBE EVEN DISASTROUS [...].
ON THE OTHER HAND HE MAY HAVE DOCUMENTED A MUCH SMALLER IMPACT
THAT COULD
STILL HAVE BEEN WITNESS BY ANYONE THAT AT THAT MOMENT WAS
PERCHANCE LOOKING
UP TOWARDS THE MOON.
AN IMPACT ON THE MOON SURFACE OF A PLANETESIMAL, LETS SAY SIMILAR
TO THE ONE
THAT HIT NEAR PRESENT DAY FLAGSTAFF (ARIZONA) A FEW THOUSAND
YEARS AGO,
COULD CONCEIVABLY BE SEEN FROM THE EARTH AND YET PRODUCE NO
REALLY
SPECTACULAR EFFECTS ON OUR PLANET.
SO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DEBUNKED IS THE THEORY THAT THE EYEWITNESS
REPORT IS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE GIORDANO BRUNO; NOT THE EYEWITNESS REPORT
ITSELF.
WE ALSO NEED TO REMEMBER THAT IN THOSE CENTURIES VERY FEW PEOPLE
KNEW HOW TO
WRITE, AND NEWS SPREAD MOSTLY BY WORD OF MOUTH. SO IT IS NOT
UNUSUAL THAT
EVEN SIGNIFICANT EVENTS FROM THOSE TIMES WERE POORLY OR NOT
DOCUMENTED AT
ALL. ALSO, ONLY A MINUTE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN THEN HAS
SURVIVED TO
THIS DATE.
GERVASE WAS A MONK AND THUS ONE OF THE FEW EDUCATED AT THAT TIME.
HE MAY
HAVE BEEN THE ONLY ONE TO DOCUMENT A PHENOMENON THAT WAS
WITNESSED BY MANY,
OR MAYBE HIS REPORT IS THE ONLY ONE TO SURVIVE TO THIS DAY. HE
ALSO MAY HAVE
SIGNIFICANTLY EXAGGERATED THE ACCOUNT AND THE WOBBLING OF THE
MOON MAY HAVE
BEEN THE WOBBLING OF HIS OWN HEAD AS IN EXCITEMENT HE CALLED FOR
OTHER TO
WATCH.
ON THE OTHER HAND HE MAY HAVE MADE THE WHOLE THING UP. BUT IT IS
DIFFICULT
TO IMAGINE THAT HE WOULD HAVE COME UP AT THAT TIME WITH THE IDEAL
THAT AFTER
THE EVENT, THE ENTIRE MOON TOOK A BLACKISH APPEARANCE.
WAS IT AN IMPACT, VULCANISM OF A DREAM? WE WILL PROBABLY
NEVER KNOW UNTIL
WE EXPLORE IN MUCH DETAIL THAT PORTION OF THE MOON.
DR. ED VEGA
TUCSON, ARIZONA
===========
(10) HOW BIENVENUTO CELLINI SURVIVED ATMOSPHERIC ANOMALY
From: Barbara Szabo <barbara@accesswest.com>
To: Gerrit Verschuur <GVERSCHR@LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Dear Dr. Verschuur,
My husband and I have just read your book "Impact!"
with delight. We both
worked for a time at the Clark Lake Radio Observatory for the
University of
Maryland, and so have some background in and appreciation of
astronomy, and
we find your treatment of the subject compelling.
We'd like to share a reference to what might have been an
encounter with a
small comet or comet tail in historic times. In the unlikely
source--the
autobiography of the artist and sculptor Bienvenuto
Cellini--there is an
event he describes, almost nonchalantly, that is quite
intriguing. The date,
placing it between other dated events in his chronicle, would
have been
between January and September 1545. In Book Second, Chapter 50 he
records
(translated by John Addington Symonds):
"We were one day distant from Lyons, and it was close upon
the hour
of twenty-two (the hour is reckoned according to an old Italian
fashion, from sunset of one day to sunset of the next, so if this
were March it would be around four p.m.) when the heavens began
to thunder
with sharp rattling claps, although the sky was quite clear at
the time.
[Translator's footnote: "'E l'aria era bianchissima.'
Perhaps this ought
to be: 'and the air blazed with lightnings.' Goethe takes it as I
do
above."] I was riding a cross-bow shot before my comrades.
After the
thunder the heavens made a noise so great and horrible that I
thought the
last day had come; so I reined in for a moment, while a shower of
hail began
to fall without a drop of water. At first the hail was somewhat
larger than pellets from a popgun, and when these struck me, they
hurt
considerably. Little by little it increased in size, until the
stones
might be compared to balls from a crossbow. My horse became
restive with
fright; so I wheeled round, and returned at a gallop to where I
found my
comrades taking refuge in a fir-wood. The hail now grew to the
size
of big lemons. I began to sing a Miserere; and while I was
devoutly
uttering this psalm to God, there fell a stone so huge that it
smashed the
thick branches of the pine under which I had retired for safety.
Another of the hailstones hit my horse upon the head, and almost
stunned
him; one struck me also, but not directly, else it would have
killed
me. In like manner, poor old Lionardo Tedaldi, who like me was
kneeling on
the ground, received so shrewd a blow that he fell grovelling
upon all
fours. When I saw that the fir bough offered no protection, and
that I
ought to act as well as to intone my Misereres, I began at once
to wrap my
mantle round my head. At the same time I cried to Lionardo, who
was
shrieking for succour, "Jesus! Jesus!" that Jesus would
help him if he
helped himself. I had more trouble in looking after this man's
safety
than my own. The storm raged for some while, but at last it
stopped; and we,
who were pounded black and blue, scrambled as well as we could
upon our
horses. Pursuing the way to our lodging for the night, we showed
our
scratches and bruises to each other; but about a mile farther on
we came
upon a scene of devastation which surpassed what we had suffered,
and defies description. All the trees were stripped of their
leaves and
shattered; the beasts in the field lay dead; many of the herdsmen
had also
been killed; we observed large quantities of hailstones which
could
not have been grasped with two hands. Feeling then that we had
come well
out of a great peril, we acknowledged that our prayers to God and
Misereres
had helped us more than we could have helped ourselves..."
Whatever the source of the hail, this passage might be of
interest to
someone collecting references to events in historic times of
"atmospheric
anomalies" if not outright comet impacts. Please feel free
to pass it along,
and thank you again for your efforts in bringing greater
awareness to the
public of the danger and likelihood of impacts by comets and
asteroids.
Sincerely,
Barbara (& Alex) Szabo
===========
(11) IT'S FLYING ICE BALLS AGAIN
From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny,
I am skeptical about the following story (it is difficult to
explain how a
chunk of ice travelling at 50km/s could survive a collision with
the Earth)
but it is interesting to me since it occurred just 3km from where
I live!
regards
Michael Paine
FLYING ICE BLOCK MAY HAVE ALIEN ORIGIN
From The Daily Telegraph, 17 Mar 2001
http://news.com.au:80/common/story_page/0,4057,1765066%255E421,00.html
Flying ice block may have alien origin.
A NEW theory has emerged in the mystery surrounding a lumpof ice
that fell
through the roof of a Harbord home -- it could have
come from a comet.
NASA has become involved in the investigation and yesterday sent
a special
container to Australia to transport the ice to the space agency's
headquarters in California.
The ice, which was 30cm long and 15cm thick, crashed through the
roof of a
house in Coles Rd, Harbord, on March 6. The lump pierced the
gyprock
ceiling, before hitting the bathroom floor and shattering.
Experts were not able to explain its origin. Dr Roger Buick,
lecturer in
geo-sciences at Sydney University, was contacted by Manly police
after the
story ran in The Daily Telegraph.
He contacted some former colleagues from NASA, who offered to
collect a
sample of the ice for testing. "I've worked for NASA over
the years, and
thought that they might be interested in it. They're taking it to
their
testing laboratory in California," he said. "They're
going to send out a
specialised container to put it in, so it doesn't get
contaminated. It's
currently in the freezer of the owners of the house."
Dr Buick said because the origin of the ice could not be
explained, there
was a remote possibility it was part ofa comet.
"There's an outside possibility that it could be
extra-terrestrial," he
said. "As far as I know, no one's been able to get a decent
sample of a
comet before. "NASA spends billions trying to get comet
tails, so they'd be
interested to see what we've got."
He agreed the mystery could not be sufficiently explained by
weather
conditions or an object dropping from an aircraft. CSIRO
atmospheric
researcher Paul Holper said there was no meteorological
explanation for such
a large chunk of ice, which was too large to be a hailstone.
A suggestion the ice may have come from a plane flying over the
northern
beaches was discounted by Airservices Australia, a spokesman
saying it is
`virtually impossible'.
Last week, physics expert Greg Skeoch said the ice may have been
travelling
in excess of 200km/h before it hit the house.
NASA operates a program to examine asteroids, meteors and comets
in space,
in an attempt to find out their composition and origin. Deep
Space One,
launched from Cape Canaveral in October 1998, employs the latest
technology
to examine dust and vapours in asteroids and comets as they
travel through
the solar system.
It will next come into contact with a comet in September. Once
the sample
reaches NASA, the test will be straightforward. Scientists can
eliminate the
possibility that the ice came from an extra-terrestrial source if
they find
earthly content within it. These could be materials such as
sodium chloride,
table salt, or gypsum, chalk.
A similar ice chunk that fell in Meliana, Spain, last January was
discounted
as a comet fragment after scientists detected these substances in
a sample.
Copyright 2001, Daily Telegraph
==========
(12) ON A COLLISION COURSE
From Astronomy.com, 16 March 2001
http://www2.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/000/349cqpid.asp
Are we prepared to confront a large near-Earth object (NEO)
heading for our
planet.
by Paul Morledge
If a reasonable sized asteroid or comet was guaranteed to slam
into our
planet in the near future, would we be prepared for it? Not
according to
some researchers who have just completed a study of the issue
entitled: "The
Comet/Asteroid Impact Hazard -- A Systems
Approach."
"The impact hazard from near-Earth asteroids and comets has
evolved from a
science fiction scenario to a serious societal issue during the
past
twenty-five years," says report authors Clark Chapman and
Daniel Durda of
the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and Robert
Gold of
Johns Hopkins University.
It was in 1980 when Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez first proposed
the "asteroid
theory" behind global mass extinctions, or at least the
extinction of the
dinosaurs, known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary event.
Since
then, scientists have blamed near-Earth objects (NEOs) for other
major
extinctions, even the greatest of all - known as the
Permian-Triassic (P-T)
boundary event, in which over 90 percent of Earth's animal and
plant species
vanished
"The dinosaurs could not evaluate and mitigate the natural
forces that
exterminated them, but human beings have the intelligence to do
so," say the
authors, who call for a much more pro-active and concerted
international
effort to deal with this very serious, albeit low probability,
threat of a
NEO impact.
Despite recent efforts by NASA and the U.S. Air Force to track
NEOs, we
still don't have nearly enough land-based eyes and lens-power
devoted to NEO
detection, the authors claim. They also contend that we need a
host of
space-based and interplanetary observational instruments to
detect the most
elusive NEOs, such as those with low-albedo, odd orbital paths,
and the
so-called Atens: a population of asteroids known to exist inside
of Earth's
orbit.
According to the report, we still need more basic science about
NEOs - such
as their physical characteristics. There are many types of NEOs,
which
differ in mineralogy, surface geology and tension, internal
structure and
cohesion, shape, spin state, and the like. These properties are
crucial for
scientists and engineers to know if they are to design and build
instruments
for the potential deflection or destruction of Earthbound NEOs.
Much of this
information can only be attained from fly-by spacecraft equipped
with proper
instrumentation.
Lack of political awareness and governmental procrastination in
dealing with
the issue is also cited by the report. "I have no idea who
in the U.S.
government would be receptive to serious information we might
have one day
about an impending impact," said Brian Marsden, director of
the
International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center, which
catalogues all
NEO reportings."
"Already a dozen years have passed since major public
discussion began about
the NEO impact hazard, and some think that the failure of
politicians to act
has to do with the fact that an impact - or the need to mitigate
one - is
extremely unlikely to happen on a current politician's
'watch,'" the authors
contest. Politicians are not going to force an issue that the
public is
unaware of or deems unlikely.
Another issue is the potential for finger pointing if an impact
does indeed
occur. How should we assign relative state, national, and
international
responsibilities for mitigation efforts in case of a NEO impact?
Theoretically, until an Earthbound NEO is discovered, everybody -
from the
smallest states and nations to the largest countries - is at
risk. A large
enough impact would likely have global effects, and even a
smaller impact in
the ocean could affect many nations. But, the report
claims, the most
likely NEO impact, at least in the near future, will be one of
modest size
and only disrupt things locally - probably within a single
nation.
What's the good news? There is none. The authors conclude
we Earthlings are
woefully unprepared for just about every facet of a NEO impact.
"Finally, we believe that international human society (and
elements of it,
like the U.S. government) needs to make an informed, formal
judgment about
the seriousness of the impact hazard and the degree to which
resources
should be spent toward taking steps to address, and plan for
mitigation of,
potential cosmic impacts," the authors admonish.
Copyright 2001, Copyright © 1996-2001 Kalmbach Publishing Co.
=========
(13) TWO ASTEROIDS BECOME IRISH ROCK LEGENDS
From CNN, 17 March 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/03/17/irish.asteroids/index.html
(CNN) -- No word on whether they are green or not, but two
asteroids have
been given Irish names just in time for St. Patrick's Day.
Ardmacha and Armaghobs, discovered by leading asteroid hunter
Eleanor Helin,
received their new designated titles from the International
Astronomical
Union to recognize Irish contributions to space research.
The first asteroid was given the original name of the town of
Armagh in
Northern Ireland, which has hosted the Armagh Observatory since
1790.
Ardmacha is the ancient Gaelic name for the city, which tradition
holds St.
Patrick founded.
"The City of Armagh is steeped in history. It is the
ecclesiastical capital
of Ireland and home of the venerable Armagh Observatory,"
announced an
International Astronomical Union citation.
According to legend, St. Patrick chose Ardmacha as the center of
his mission
in Ireland, building his main church on one of its seven hills in
445.
Ardmacha is a main-belt asteroid that revolves around the sun
between the
orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It is estimated to be about 6.2 miles
(10 km)
across.
The second asteroid honors the observatory itself, today a modern
facility
that often scans the skies in search of celestial objects near
Earth.
Armaghobs is a Mars-approaching object with a slightly more
unstable orbit,
meaning that it could possibly collide with the Earth in the
distant future.
It is about 3.1 miles (5 km) in size.
Helin, who tracks asteroids near Earth for NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory,
has often collaborated with Armagh astronomers. In 1997 she
discovered these
two particular space rocks, first known by the scientifically dry
designations of 1987 QF6 and 1987 OT.
"The asteroids were named to honor the rich heritage of the
ancient city of
Armagh, and noteworthy contributions from the 200-year-old
observatory," she
said in a statement.
The International Astronomical Union published the new asteroid
names in the
January 2001 Minor Planet Circular.
Copyright 2001, CNN
==========
(14) GOLDILOCKS AND THE EXTRATERRESTRIALS
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
University of New South Wales
Sydney, NSW, Australia
CONTACT DETAILS:
Dr Lineweaver, School of Physics, UNSW
tel. (02) 9385 5168, email: charley@bat.phys.unsw.edu.au
Rory McGuire, tel. (02) 9385 5751, mobile 0413 930 728
11 January 2001
GOLDILOCKS AND THE EXTRATERRESTRIALS
So far, searches for ET have come up empty-handed. No signals
have been
detected.
But UNSW astronomer Dr Charles Lineweaver has come up with a new
way to tell
us something about extra-terrestrials. By cleverly combining
observations of
extra-solar planets and the rate of star formation in the
Universe, he has
found that our Earth is much younger than other Earth-like
planets in the
Universe.
In a paper recently submitted to Icarus, the leading journal of
planetary
science, Dr Lineweaver reported that "three quarters of the
Earth-like
planets in the Universe are older than the Earth and their
average age is
1.8 (plus or minus 0.9) billion years older than the Earth".
Dr Lineweaver outlined his argument as follows:
"Immediately after the Big Bang, 13 billion years ago, the
Universe was made
of hydrogen and helium. There was no carbon, oxygen, iron or
silicon.
Therefore no Earth-like planets could form around the first
stars. Then, in
a strong burst of star formation that lasted a few billion years,
these
ingredients were produced in abundance by stars. This meant the
formation of
Earth-like planets became possible.
"But there is a catch. Too much of these ingredients seems
to be a bad thing
for Earth formation. The 50 or so huge extra-solar planets
detected so far
are found preferentially around stars rich in these ingredients.
And these
huge planets are in orbits that would destroy any Earth-like
planets. You
can think of this as a 'Goldilocks effect': with a shortage of
ingredients
Earths were unable to form, with too much, giant planets would
destroy any
Earths trying to form. As Goldilocks insisted, the porridge had
to be 'just
right' or there was no deal."
Although his analysis is about terrestrial planets, not life on
them, Dr
Lineweaver concluded that if life formed as readily on other
Earth-like
planets as it did on Earth -- as suggested by the rapid
appearance of life
on Earth (about 3.5 billion years ago) -- this gives us an age
distribution
for life on such planets and a rare clue about how we compare
with other
life that might inhabit the Universe.
"The 'rare clue' is this: most of the life forms in the
Universe have had
two billion years longer to evolve than we have. To put this time
span in
perspective, two billion years ago our ancestors were microscopic
single-celled amoebas," he said.
Dr Lineweaver's article: "An Estimate of the Age
Distribution of Terrestrial
Planets in the Universe: Quantifying Metallicity as a Selection
Effect" is
available online at http://xxx.adelaide.edu.au/abs/astro-ph/0012399
.
The 13 January issue of New Scientist will include an article
about Dr
Lineweaver's research.
=========
(15) IMPACT HAZARD TALKS & LECTURES
NATIONAL PHYSICS CONGRESS 2001, Brighton
http://physics.iop.org/IOP/Congress/2001/lecture.html.
Monday, 19 March 2001
Benny Peiser, JMU: Preventing Armageddon: The Physics of
Planetary Defence
Lembit Opik, MP: Making a Deep Impact on the Government's Space
Policy
Tuesday, 20 Match
Lord Sainsbury (Minister for Science): Performance and Challenges
of UK
Physics
Monica Grady (Natural History Museum): Moon Rocks and Meteorites
WITH FURTHER LECTURES IN LEEDS ....
More northern CCNet readers might like to know that Duncan Steel
will give a
public talk at the University of Leeds tonight (19th) at 7:30 pm
(about
Spaceguard, of course). Venue: Rupert Beckett Lecture Theatre, in
the
Michael Sadler Building. Organised by the Institute of Physics.
All welcome.
... AND IRELAND: CORK INSTITITE OF TECHNOLOGY
Jay Tate, Spaceguard - The untold Story, 23 March
===========================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
===========================
(16) METEOR SHOWER OVER THE CHANNEL?
From Jiri Borovicka <borovic@asu.cas.cz>
Dear Benny,
this seems to be a local event rather than a meteor shower. No
meteors were
reported here (Czech Republic) despite clear weather
and the photographic all-sky camera at the Ondrejov Observatory
detected no
single meteor during that night. The camera is sensitive
to bright meteors (-4 mag and brighter).
Sincerely,
Jiri Borovicka
===========
(17) A NUTTY EFFECT ON EROS
From Michael Oates <mike@ph.u-net.com>
Dear Benny,
I don't know why the scientists expect to see craters near
boulder
groupings, after an impact the debris could be thrown far from
the surface
of the asteroid, only to come back to the surface quite some time
later due
to the low gravity and the rotation of the asteroid the debris
could be
spread over a large area well away from the impact point. Some of
the debris
could even remain in orbit for a while before falling back to the
surface.
This could explain why some of the boulders seen in the images
are split in
too several pieces, these are the debris that has fallen back to
the surface
at a relatively slow speed (compared to the initial impact),
thereby not
creating a crater themselves, but getting damaged in the process.
Regards,
Michael Oates
Manchester, UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.