PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet DEBATE, 8 May 1998
------------------------
BOB KOBRES ON:
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF PAST AND POTENTIAL IMPACT EVENTS
From Bob Kobres <bkobres@uga.edu>
"I thus propose a new law of survival "The probability
of the
long-term survival of a civilization is inversely proportional
to the cost of Space Travel!" As a member of the public, can
I
ask that this become our long-term and openly stated aim?"
[The above excerpted from: Michael Martin-Smith's
<martin@miff.demon.co.uk>:
WHY PREVENTIVE NEO-TREATMENT IS BETTER THAN
CURATIVE MEDICINE, CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE DEBATES, 7 April 1998
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc040798.html
]
In all the polemics regarding the probability that the future
course of
1997 XF11 was, wasn't or should have been plain, a more important
probability relationship was mentioned but perhaps not
sufficiently
noted or commented upon. Michael Martin-Smith proposed that we
should
adopt the notion that 'The probability of the long-term survival
of our
civilization is inversely proportional to the cost of extending
human
civilization into Space.' This proposition very much echoes the
wise
words of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky: "The Earth is the cradle of
human
civilization, but one cannot live in the cradle
forever."
This man, who lived from 1857 to 1935, is considered to be the
father
of the theoretical science that led to human space flight. His
ideas
about the future of humanity in space are truly advanced, even
today.
Tsiolkovsky felt sure that the future of human civilization would
be in
Space, so he did, and suggested that we must, study the cosmos to
pave
the way for future generations.
History records that he formulated his calculations on space
flight
theory about a hundred and one years ago, on May 10, 1897. These
formulas first appeared in the article "Exploration of the
Universe
with Reaction Machines," in the monthly periodical "The
Science
Review," no. 5 (St. Petersburg, 1903). This is the first
paper in the
world on this subject.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/physics/RocketEquation.html
In addition he wrote and published over 500 works about space
travel
and related subjects. Among them, he discussed the design
and
construction of steerable space rocket engines, space stations
with
artificial gravity, the problems of eating, drinking, and
sleeping in
weightlessness. He thought of double walled pressurized
cabins to
protect from meteorites, gyroscopes for attitude control,
reclining
seats to protect from high inertia loads at launch, space suits
and air
locks for exiting the spaceship into the vacuum of space, as well
as
providing other astute observations of what would be necessary
for
Space travel. He also determined the escape velocity from
the Earth
into orbit was 8 km./second, and that this would most efficiently
be
achieved by using a multi-stage rocket fueled by liquefied oxygen
and
hydrogen. Tsiolkovsky did not miss the idea of mining
asteroids for
materials and even envisioned closed cycle biological systems to
provide food and oxygen for space colonies.
This fellow was as interested in the philosophy of a human
presence in
Space as he was with the engineering needed to make that
possible. His
main work on this subject was "Ethics or the Natural
Foundations of
Morality" (1902-1918). In 1932 Tsiolkovsky wrote
"The Cosmic
Philosophy," which was a summary of his philosophical
ideas. Though
this likely sounds outrageously naive and idealistic to most
people,
his main idea was to work toward happiness not only for humanity,
but
also for all living beings in the Universe. Perhaps easier
for the
tooth and claw set to accept is his belief that human occupation
of
space is inevitable and will drive human evolution.
But let us not pass too quickly on this incredibly insightful
man's
principal goal. According to Tsiolkovsky's Cosmic
Philosophy,
"'happiness' is the absence of all kind of suffering
throughout the
Universe, for all times, as well as the absence of all of
the
processes for destroying goodness. How shall we start this
evolution
to 'Universal Happiness?' The main task is to study the
laws that
rule the Universe. To do so, we must study the Universe,
and
therefore we must learn how to live in outer space. To
begin that
long period of our evolution, we will have to design large
manned
space rockets. So, the first space flight will be the
beginning of
the new era of space exploration, the beginning of Space
Culture in
human history. It will be the beginning of our history
itself."
This man truly believed that it was possible for humankind to
occupy
the solar system, expand into the depth of the cosmos and create
a
cosmic civilization that would, by understanding the laws that
govern
nature, abolish natural catastrophes, and achieve happiness for
all.
In 1926 Tsiolkovsky defined his "Plan of Space
Exploration," consisting
of sixteen steps for human expansion into space:
1) Creation of rocket airplanes with wings.
2) Progressively increasing the speed and altitude of these
airplanes.
3) Production of real rockets-without wings.
4) Ability to land on the surface of the sea.
5) Reaching escape velocity (about 8 Km/second), and the first
flight
into Earth orbit.
6) Lengthening rocket flight times in space.
7) Experimental use of plants to make an artificial atmosphere in
spaceships.
8) Using pressurized space suits for activity outside of
spaceships.
9) Making orbiting greenhouses for plants.
10) Constructing large orbital habitats around the Earth.
11) Using solar radiation to grow food, to heat space quarters,
and for
transport throughout the Solar System.
12) Colonization of the asteroid belt.
13) Colonization of the entire Solar System and beyond.
14) Achievement of individual and social perfection.
15) Overcrowding of the Solar System and the colonization of the
Galaxy.
16) The Sun begins to die and the people remaining in the Solar
System's population go to other suns.
Now this fellow was definitely thinking beyond the next election
and I
rather think that Tsiolkovsky had a better fix on what might be
possible than most, if not all, contemporary decision makers. And
this
gets back to the suggestion of our contributing family physician,
Michael Martin-Smith, that our long term and openly stated aim
needs to
be developing the ways and means of moving human culture into
Space
quickly and efficiently. By doing this we can not only gain the
best
position for protecting the biosphere on Earth but we will also
provide
ourselves with insurance that a failure to avert an assault to
civilization from whatever vector need not spell THE END to the
amazing
progress we have made toward the laudable goals of Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky.
For more info visit:
The Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky State Museum of the History of
Cosmonautics at http://www.informatics.org/museum/tsiol.html
For some additional background on our meteoric rise to today see:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nica.html
Another important observation buried in the fray is excerpted
below
from: Alain Maury's <maury@ocar01.obs-azur.fr>
ALL IN ALL, I CONSIDER THE XF11 AFFAIR A VERY GOOD THING
CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE DEBATE, 3 April 1998
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc040398.html
"The few around here who search for Earth Grazing Asteroids
are mostly
involved into this not for political, religious or financial
reasons,
but because we know night after night, that despite the small
search
area we are covering, there are many NEOs out there. There are
certainly much better ways to succeed in a scientific career than
to
try to support an asteroid search program.
"We seem to be out of phase with about everything which
makes the rest
of the world: Our astronomer colleagues, who deeply hope to get
back to
'normal affairs', and still consider most of us as nuts, the
general
public, who has never seen a star, except in the background of
publicities, read astrology magazines, and places the
astronomer's sky
(I mean space around us, the real thing) among other concepts
like the
one in which you can see an old man on a sledge every Xmas, or
the sky
who has an effect on our daily sexual life, or the one in which
we will
certainly go after our death, if we have been good.
"There is an enormous amount of public information to be
done to convey
a real image of the sky to these persons. For your information,
there
are still some religious wars around (ask Mark Bailey), all this
in the
inner edge of an arm of a galaxy we call our own, and because
some
stupid jerks still think their god is better than the neighbours
god.
There are still people who commit suicide because they happen to
trust
another jerk who has told them wrong things about what a comet
is. We
badly need to tell people what a comet or an asteroid is."
The salient points made by Maury are that we who are involved in
this
new area of study are still very much a minority and we are also
treading into an arena with information that is going to step on
the
tales that lie under many extant belief systems. This situation
is
rather certain to cause some political problems that might be
lessened
by taking a proactive approach now.
Already I have seen on the Internet comments such as: 'Are
impacts with
comets or asteroids the way God cast Judgment upon the
world?' Such as:
http://www.askelm.com/p971105.htm
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~pcsng/comets.htm
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/astanton/whathpns.htm
http://home.inreach.com/dov/wc597b.htm
Here lies the potential continued durability of supernatural
belief
systems--the top Deus has absolute control of everything so,
regardless
of what people who are deceived by the scientific method say,
it's
ultimately God's call that will decide what happens. This
type of
world-view is not going to be supportive of the notion that we
should
try to protect Earth from what they perceive as their creator's
will.
Unfortunately the more zealous believers of these inherited
explanations for everything are fast gaining political clout in
the
USA. It is too early to tell how strong their influence will
become
but already we are seeing their view on abortion interfering with
support for projects that desperately need continued
funding.
Ultimately the extent to which these folks can exercise their
fear-of-God-based ways is dependent upon a continued recruitment
of
youth. It's in this aspect of our activities that a proactive
approach
is most needed.
Aside from trepidation about one of the world's
time-trip-odometers
rolling over in a couple of years the chief allure of these
established
All-Mighty predicated belief systems is they are familiar and
offer
more emotional comfort than the world-view that is generally
perceived
to be supplied by practitioners of the scientific method. The
notion
that Life on Earth is an insignificant product of the Great-Laws
of the
physics that govern the Universe does not set well with many
people--me
included. In my opinion it is both presumptuous and
counterproductive
for the scientific community to tacitly promote what is
interpreted by
most, even if they accept this view as an axiom, to be a
demeaning of
the value of Life. The fact is we don't know diddly about why
Life is
and I think it rather important to acknowledge this ignorance to
the
general public more often.
As Alain Maury went on to point out, research is not about always
being
there with the correct answers. The attractive part of scientific
investigation is that the generally productive methodology
employed can
often lead to a better understanding of what's going on. In the
almost
two decades that I've been involved with learning what I could
about
our situation with respect to cosmic crashes past and potential,
I ran
into too many academics who pontificated Science for a
living. Because
they had allowed themselves to become dogmatic they were
unwilling to
even consider some of what is now coming to be demonstrably
correct.
The few who did become interested generally kept it under their
hats
because of woes about the influence research in this virtually
taboo
area might have on future funding. That's a sad and
dangerous
situation that could easily be exacerbated if the US purse
strings for
research funds become more controlled by the 'Religious Right.'
To win broad lasting support for a planetary protection system
and
Space development in general, I think that the concept needs to
be
presented as if we are embarking upon a long and noble
adventure--very
much in the spirit that Konstantin Tsiolkovsky conveyed.
What could be
wrong with more researchers publicly stating that they are
aspiring to
bring about a happier situation for all, through the continued
pursuit
of knowledge? A positive optimistic attitude is much more
likely to
enlist support from youth than a stodgy pessimistic evaluation of
whatever.
We might also promote terminology that can help to bridge the gap
between investigators and the vested. A phrase I have used
for some
time now as a ‘plug-in’ for Deity references is Grand
Omniverse Design.
I’ve found this quite helpful when spending US money without
feeling
the urge—often acted upon in the past—to strike the O
and ink in a REE.
Anyway, the idea here is to convey a fixed set of rules that
facilitates all that happens rather than a moody Almighty that
might
just decide to trash the whole thing and start over. In this
context
the use of the scientific method to secure a greater
understanding of
GOD is quite reasonable. I must add that this concept does not
imply a
designer, but it does acknowledge that we are part of an
incredible web
of continuous creation which we cannot now fully explain. A faith
that
there is Grand Omniverse Design does not evoke fear but rather
marvel
at the intricate relationships that allow our experience of
Life.
Another term I’ve sought to co-opt from the clergy’s
repertoire of
verbal imagery is EDEN. I think that this might actually
stand for
Earth Doing Ecologically Nicely. Corny—yes—but a
worthwhile goal to
strive for nevertheless!
All in all I think it would be a good idea for members of this
forum,
who feel inclined, to express their view of the social impact
this new
knowledge we are accumulating is apt to have in the immediate
future.
Again, it is preferable for us to be proactive in public
relations as
we are advocating an undertaking that is, by its very nature,
anticipatory.
Plugging along.
bobk
Bob Kobres
bkobres@uga.edu
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk
706-542-0583
Main Library
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
*
CCNet DIGEST, 8 May 1998*
------------------------
*On the day DEEP IMPACT opens & 53 years after the end of
World War II
(1) MORE ON THE NEW NASA PROGRAM OFFICE: A FEW MINUTES WITH
DR. WESLEY HUNTRESS
Ed Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
(2) COSMIC DUST MAY CAUSE CLIMATE CATASTROPHES
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(3) VIRTUAL DEEP IMPACTS: SANDIA SCIENTISTS SIMULATE SOME BIG
HITS
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(4) DANISH EXPEDITION IN SEARCH OF GREENLAND IMPACT DEBRIS
Reuters/Wired, 7 May 1998
(5) RETIRED DON'S SIMPLE SUM UNCOVERS A GLOBAL ERROR
Robert Matthews, The Sunday Telegraph
==============================
(1) MORE ON THE NEW NASA PROGRAM OFFICE: A FEW MINUTES WITH
DR. WESLEY HUNTRESS
From Ed Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
Benny -
Once again yesterday I got up at 3:30 in the morning and went in
to DC
for "Global Air & Space 98", the annual meeting of
the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. In the evening a
reception
was held for the fellows of the AIAA, and Dr. Wesley Hutress very
graciously took a few mintues away from enjoying cocktails with
his wife
and a close friend to take a few questions.
(After the first item, which confirms Leonard David's earlier
story in
Space News, this is all new material, so I hope Dr. Morrison is
satisfied with the report.)
Dr. Huntress told me that the program office is being set up for
him by
Carl Pilcher. The office will intially serve as a focus point for
current NASA efforts.
Continuing, for quite some time about every other year or so NASA
had
been considering setting up a program office. Generally, this had
followed the raising of public's awareness of the issue following
movies, BUT most significantly following the impact on Jupiter of
Comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9, and then once again after last year's movie.
This
time NASA decided to stop thinking about it and do it.
NASA is fully aware that dealing with the problem is beyond
NASA's
abilities alone. NASA will be coordinating with other
countries
efforts and will coordinate with the IAU and the MPC.
NASA will also be coordinating with FEMA (the Federal
Emergency
Management Agency) as well as with disaster relief agencies and
organizations.
The initial NASA efforts will be focused on upgrading small
telescopes.
Asked if "Planetary Defense" would be upgraded to the
status of "Theme"
in the NASA Strategic Plan, Dr. Huntress emphatically responded
no,
absolutely not. NASA will coordinate with DoD (the
Department of
Defense) and BMDO (DoD's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.)
Mitigation efforts will be DoD' responsibility; NASA is solely
concerned with trying to find potential Earth impactors. Further,
NASA
has absolutely no desire to be in that business (nuclear charges
and
interceptor guidance systems).
At this point dinner was starting, and after exchanging mutual
apologies, me to Dr. Huntress and his party for intruding on a
social
occasion, and Dr. Huntress for not having more time, Dr. Huntress
suggested that I contact Carl Picher. Then Dr. Huntress and his
wife
and friend departed to the ballroom, and thus the interview came
to an
end.
This is the best picture I can get of the state of NASA's efforts
on
the eve of the opening of "Deep Impact". NASA has set
up a firm base on
which the expansion of efforts could be made, and importantly has
set up
a focal point for their current efforts which they can point to,
and
thus spare NASA and the administration from unwarranted
criticism.
I very much would have liked to ask Dr. Huntress if the detection
of
PHO's would be elevated to the status of "Theme" in the
NASA Strategic
Plan, but unfortunately time did not permit. I suspect that
such an
expansion may be very dependent on exactly how successful
"Deep Impact"
is at the box office, in other words exactly how much public
support is
generated for such an expansion.
It is interesting to note Dr. Huntress's emphasis on the
upgrading of
small telescopes. That the search for PHOs is something
which is going
to require lots of observing time on the larger telescopes is a
decision which NASA is avoiding for now, and in my opinion this
is
largely in deference to the cosmologists who are their
predominate
clients in the astronomical community.
Another item of interest is that NASA expects that the Balllistic
Missile Defense Organization will be able to handle mitigation
efforts
by itself. Unlike ballistic missiles, which are just barely
transatmospheric, PHOs are deep space objects, and one wonders
what
BMDO will propose to use to handle this task. Other questions are
how
BMDO will coordinate with the responsible agencies in other
advanced
countries (Russia, China, and the members of the EU come to
mind), as
well as what kind of educational program BMDO is going to
undertake
with the launch officers in newly armed nations such as Pakistan,
India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Egypt, to warn them that
not
necessarily every very large explosion is nuclear.
The answers to these questions will most likely be gained at
another
dinner. Lunch anyone?
Best wishes -
Ed
==============================
(2) COSMIC DUST MAY CAUSE CLIMATE CATASTROPHES
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
University of Florida
Sources: Stanley Dermott, (352) 392-2052;
Stephen Kortenkamp, (202) 686-4370 ext. 4440
Writer: Kristen Vecellio, vecellio@ufl.edu
May 7, 1998
INTERPLANETARY DUST MAY CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE, GRADUAL EXTINCTION
GAINESVILLE -- Space dust in the earth's atmosphere and changes
in the
planet's orbit may have started the gradual extinction of
dinosaurs and
other life thousands of years before a massive asteroid collision
dealt
the final blow, according to research from the University of
Florida
and the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
The dust build-up, which rises and falls on about a 100,000-year
cycle,
also may answer some big questions researchers have about the
history
of earth's climate, said Stanley Dermott, chairman of UF's
astronomy
department.
"A major, outstanding problem in present day geophysics is
understanding the history of earth's climate," said Dermott.
The research will be published in the Friday (5/8) issue of the
journal
Science.
The earth's climate varies on a 100,000 year scale, and during
that
time the earth's eccentricity changes causing the earth to move
closer
or farther away from the sun. Current scientific thinking says
this
variation in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, known as
the
Milankovich Effect, changed the earth's climate.
But Dermott and Stephen Kortenkamp, a postdoctoral fellow at the
Carnegie Institution, both felt this assumption was unlikely.
"The amount of variation is extremely small," Dermott
said.
Dermott and Kortenkamp did calculations spanning 1.2 million
years to
prove the amount of dust in the atmosphere did vary and that the
eccentricity of Earth's orbit can make dust accumulation rates
vary by
a factor of 2 or 3. Dermott said the earth gains nearly 30
million
kilograms of dust a year, and the amount of dust in the
atmosphere
could effect earth's climate.
However, Dermott said, even that amount of dust is relatively
small, so
scientists still aren't sure exactly how much it could influence
the
climate.
Earth accumulates dust through gravitational focusing, an effect
that
causes the earth to pull dust particles toward it. To gather
information on dust levels, NASA launched a craft the size of a
school
bus into the earth's atmosphere and counted the number of
particle
impacts on the side of the craft over several years. "It was
a good
record of the impact of dust striking earth," said Dermott.
Kortenkamp, a UF graduate, said the effects of interplanetary
dust on
the climate will be similar to the effects of volcanic dust in
the
atmosphere. Past volcanic eruptions have caused a detectable
cooling of
the earth's surface. Volcanic dust settles in a couple of months
and
the cooling effect is short-term.
But the effects of space dust on the atmosphere can last much
longer.
"The influx of interplanetary dust could remain at high
levels for
extended periods several hundred thousand years and therefore any
associated cooling would also persist for this length of
time," said
Kortenkamp.
The researchers also examined the possibility that if the amount
of
dust in earth's atmosphere altered the climate, the change could
cause
gradual extinctions.
Dermott said every 100 million years the majority life on earth
is
destroyed by a catastrophic event, such as an asteroid striking
Earth's
surface, but history doesn't show an exact moment or date in time
for
the extinction of life.
Dermott and Kortenkamp are investigating the idea that if
atmospheric
dust effects the climate, then the dust may effect life on earth
as
well. For example, an asteroid collision creates a dust wave that
reaches earth 1 million years before the asteroid. The dust may
alter
the climate enough to cause a gradual extinction before the
asteroid
hits earth's surface and causes a catastrophic event.
"While the issue is controversial, there are groups of
paleontologists
who have found evidence suggesting some mass extinctions were
gradual,
lasting for hundreds of thousands of years," Kortenkamp
said.
To prove their theory, Kortenkamp said, a detailed analysis must
be
done of geological records looking for enhanced dust accumulation
connected with gradual mass extinctions.
==========================
(3) VIRTUAL DEEP IMPACTS: SANDIA SCIENTISTS SIMULATE SOME BIG
HITS
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
Sandia National Laboratories
Media contact:
John German, jdgerma@sandia.gov,
(505) 844-5199
Technical contacts:
David Crawford (hypervelocity impact physics),
dacrawf@sandia.gov, (505)
845-8975
Arthurine Breckenridge (3-D computer visualization),
arbreck@sandia.gov, (505)
845-8390
Real (not reel) deep impacts: Sandia scientists predict what an
asteroid strike would look like, really
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Steven Spielberg's new blockbuster movie --
with
its computer-animated interpretation of a comet striking Earth --
promises to be a big hit at the box office this summer. But
computer
scientists at Sandia National Laboratories are creating some big
hits
of their own these days that they think may better approximate a
real
asteroid catastrophe.
Using virtual reality techniques, decades of experience in shock
physics, advanced computer programs, and the world's fastest
computer,
the scientists have completed in recent weeks one of the largest
hypervelocity impact physics calculations ever performed.
In the latest computing scenario, an asteroid 1.4 kilometers in
diameter strikes the Atlantic Ocean 25 miles south of Brooklyn,
N.Y. To
model the event the scientists broke up a 120-square-mile space
that
roughly approximates the New York City metropolitan area, the air
above, and the water and earth below, into 100 million separate
cubes,
or grids. Sandia's teraflops supercomputer then calculated what
happened inside each cube as the asteroid splashed down. The
cubes were
reassembled to produce a three-dimensional moving picture of the
collision. The teraflops, currently the world's fastest computer,
performs more than one trillion mathematical operations per
second.
The simulation is no video game; the calculations take into
account the
real-world laws of physics governing time, temperature, pressure,
gravity, the densities of water and earth, and hundreds of other
considerations to create an accurate prediction. What's more, the
resulting computer simulation can be explored using interactive
virtual
reality techniques. For instance, scientists can "fly
through" the 3-D
movie to get a better idea of what's happening on Coney Island if
they
want.
The work supports Sandia's Department of Energy mission to use
the
world's highest-performance computers to develop computer codes
that
can one day model the extremely complex physics that occur during
a
nuclear weapon blast. In the absence of real-world nuclear
testing, DOE
and the weapons labs are developing continually more powerful
supercomputers and computer codes to simulate the complex 3-D
physics
involved in nuclear-weapon performance and to accurately predict
the
degradation of nuclear weapon components as they age in the
stockpile.
Simulating comet impacts provides an opportunity to test and
improve
the codes.
How did Spielberg do?
So what would happen during such an impact, really? According to
the
simulation, the impact would vaporize the asteroid, deform the
ocean
floor, and eject hundreds of cubic miles of superheated water
vapor,
melted rock, and other debris into the upper atmosphere and back
into
space. Much of the debris would then rain down over the world for
the
next several hours and also form a high global cloud, says David
Crawford of Sandia's Computational Physics and Mechanics
Department.
The shock wave from the impact would level much of the New
England
region. The heat would incinerate cities and forests there
instantaneously. The global cloud would then lower temperatures
worldwide, and a global snowstorm likely would ensue and last
several
days to several weeks, initiating a "nuclear winter"
that would create
more hardships for earth's inhabitants.
An impact of this magnitude can be expected to occur on Earth
about
once every 300,000 years and approximates what scientists
consider to
be the "global catastrophe threshold," he says.
So how close is Spielberg's interpretation of the event to the
teraflops' virtual predictions?
"The movie makers didn't have the benefit of the world's
fastest
computer, but they produced superior visuals that appear
remarkably
realistic," says Arthurine Breckenridge of Sandia's Computer
Architectures Department.
In the movie preview, the comet strikes at an angle and raises a
symmetrical steam cloud, she says, which probably wouldn't
happen. "We
now know that the vapor cloud produced by an impact is initially
asymmetric, sending more material in the direction of the
ricochet."
The movie does realistically depict a tsunami that would surely
follow
an ocean impact, she says.
Spielberg's Deep Impact opens this Friday, May 8. Another movie,
Armageddon, which depicts an asteroid "the size of
Texas" threatening
to strike Earth, opens July 1.
An experiment you would never want to do
The teraflops simulations employ "massively parallel
computing," a
computing approach pioneered by Sandia in the late 1980s. In
massively
parallel computing, thousands of discrete computing tasks are
assigned
to several hundred separate computing "processors"
inside the
supercomputer. The computing tasks are accomplished
simultaneously and
their results reassembled. All of today's high performance
supercomputing employs a massively parallel approach.
In the most recent 100-million-cell calculation, the teraflops
used
8,192 of its 9,000 processors. The entire calculation lasted 18
hours.
Sandia has done similar calculations on its high performance
computers,
including a 54-million-cell simulation of a comet striking the
ocean.
In 1994, Crawford and Sandia scientist Mark Boslough accurately
simulated what would happen when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 plunged
into
Jupiter's atmosphere. Months later, the world's astronomers
watched the
Sandia-predicted event unfold in real life through the Hubble
space
telescope.
"A lot of major breakthroughs in science are going to come
from these
kinds of calculations," Boslough says. He notes that the
impact
simulations are something that can't be done any other way.
"It's
almost like doing an experiment -- one you could never do. One
you
would never want to do."
Sandia's teraflops computer is a joint development of DOE,
Sandia, and
Intel. It represents the initial goal of DOE's Accelerated
Strategic
Computing Initiative, a ten-year program designed to move nuclear
weapons design and maintenance from a test-based to
simulation-based
engineering approach.
Sandia is a multiprogram Department of Energy laboratory operated
by
Lockheed Martin Corp. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M.,
and
Livermore, Calif., Sandia has research and development programs
contributing to national defense, energy and environmental
technologies, and economic competitiveness.
----------------------------------------------------------
The simulations in Quick Time format, other illustrations, and
links to
information about other Sandia comet modeling work are available
at
http://sherpa.sandia.gov/asteroid/
A video tape containing the simulation and other Sandia
comet-modeling
work is available from Sandia's media relations office; call
(505)
844-5199.
PHOTO CAPTIONS: [http://www.sandia.gov/media/comethit.htm]
[Comet hit simulation image 1]
This computer-generated image by Sandia National Laboratories'
scientists shows the impact of a 1-km comet (or asteroid) hitting
in
the open ocean. The comet and 300 to 500 cubic kilometers of
ocean
water would be vaporized nearly instantaneously by the tremendous
energy of the impact. The impact energy of about 300 gigatons of
TNT
would be equivalent to about 10 times the explosive power of all
the
nuclear weapons in existence in the 1960s at the height of the
Cold
War.
[Comet hit simulation image 2]
Five seconds after a 1.4 kilometer-wide asteroid crashes into the
Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New York, an impact plume
containing
superheated water, earth, and other debris blankets major
portions of
Long Island. The viewpoint is from orbital altitude from a
location
about 100 kilometers west of New York City looking east. Long
Island
trails off in the distance. Manhattan and Staten Islands are in
the
foreground.
[Comet hit simulation image 3]
Eleven seconds after impact, Long Island and the New York
shoreline are
engulfed in debris and superheated steam, and much of the
material in
the upper portions of the impact plume is on suborbital
trajectories.
In both images, water is blue, land is brown, water vapor is
white, and
hot material (greater than 5,000 Celsius) is orange.
===============================
(4) DANISH EXPEDITION IN SEARCH OF GREENLAND IMPACT DEBRIS
From Reuters/Wired, 7 May 1998
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/technology/wired/story.html?s=z/reuters/980507/wired/stories/meteor_1..html
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A Danish expedition will go to Greenland
in July
to search for fragments of a meteorite that crashed to the ground
last
December, hoping to find clues to the birth of the solar system.
"It was a blazing meteorite...that lit up the night sky and
fragmented
over the southwestern part of the Greenland icecap," the
Tycho Brahe
Planetarium astronomy centre said in a statement.
Astronomer Lars Lindberg Christensen, a member of the expedition,
said
that the Greenland meteorite was likely to have been the size of
a
private car.
"We believe that this was a very big meteorite," he
told Reuters. The
object from outer space had probably been a so-called stone
meteorite-one of three main categories of meteorites, he said.
Traces of more than 10,000 meteorites have been found on earth.
The
Greenland find is special because it is one of the few that was
actually seen falling down.
The Tycho Brahe centre has over one hundred eyewitness reports,
three
seconds of video-tape and data from a U.S. defence satellite of
the
meteorite's plunge through the earth's atmosphere.
So far it has been possible to calculate the orbits of just four
meteorites crashing down on earth, Christensen said. Advanced
computer
technology and mathematics were currently being applied on the
information collected to determine the Greenland meteorite's
orbit, he
said.
Because the fragments had landed on ice, any pieces found would
be
"nearly pure and not contaminated", as was often the
case with
meteorites found in forests or agricultural areas, he said.
The stone material believed to have composed the Greenland
meteorite
would be different from any stone or rock found on earth.
"The fragments can provide clues to the birth of the solar
system,"
Christensen said.
The four-man expedition, made up of a polar scientist, an
astronomer,
an electronics engineer and a mountain climber, planned to spend
up to
four weeks in Greenland.
Meteorite fragments found by the expedition would be sent to the
Geological Museum in Copenhagen for analyses. Some collected
material
would also be sent to research institutes in other countries.
(C) 1998 Reuters/Wired
======================
(5) RETIRED DON'S SIMPLE SUM UNCOVERS A GLOBAL ERROR
From The Sunday Telegraph, 3 May 1998
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
By Robert Matthews
A CHEMISTRY professor has embarrassed experts by pointing out a
flaw in
their predictions about the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
David Taylor, an emeritus professor of chemistry living in
retirement
in Scarborough, has examined the claims for global warming - and,
in
particular, the argument that pollution must be to blame. He
claims to
have made an astonishing discovery: the mere act of burning
fossil fuel
may heat the atmosphere at the rate of around half a degree
centigrade
a decade - just the sort of rise that climatologists have tried
to
blame on pollution.
Climatologists, using sophisticated computer models, have claimed
to be
able to predict the consequences of this global warming, and have
issued dire warnings to politicians. Last week, European
ministers duly
signed up to an international agreement aimed at cutting back on
the
amount of pollution.
Mr Taylor said: "Whatever it is used for, all this energy
will
eventually turn up as heat - by friction if in no other way. And
it
ends up warming the biosphere." Of the claims made by
scientists that
global warming is caused by pollution, Mr Taylor said: "I
think this
calculation makes them look pretty silly."
Yet despite this, Mr Taylor initially met a wall of silence when
he
sent his calculations to climate experts. He said: "Someone
accused me
of missing out a factor of 10, which I hadn't. But apart from
that,
there did not really seem to be much reaction at all - except, I
suppose, incredulity."
However, shown Mr Taylor's calculations by The Telegraph, experts
at
the Hadley Centre, Britain's leading climate research centre in
Bracknell, Berks, admitted that the effect was genuine - and that
their
computer models ignore the fact that burning fuel makes heat.
Peter Rowntree, of the centre, said: "We have not so far
included this
heating effect in the climate model, although we have been
considering
whether we should." He insisted that the effect was almost
certainly
much smaller than Mr Taylor claims.
But he conceded that the only way of showing that the effect
highlighted by Mr Taylor could be ignored would be to include it
in a
full computer model - which may now be carried out, following Mr
Taylor's discovery.
Critics of the reliance put on computer models of the climate
point to
previous cases of "garbage in, garbage out". They
include the discovery
that the warming effects of methane from the flatulence of the
world's
cattle had been radically overestimated - as scientists had
forgotten
that cattle in developing countries are half-starved.
Mr Taylor said: "What my calculations really show is that
one just
doesn't know what other effects have been left out of the climate
models. God knows what else they have missed."
(C) 1998 The Sunday Telegraph
--------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
----------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe, please
contact the moderator Benny J Peiser at <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 electronic archive of the CCNet can be found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html