PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 93/2001 - 24 August 2001
------------------------------
"They're called catastrophists, a group of British
scientists who
question many of the aspects of Darwinian evolution and argue
that life
on Earth and the geology of the planet have been constantly
reshaped by
asteroid strikes and other external shocks."
--Barry James, International Herald Tribune, 23 August 2001
"Ceres, the first asteroid (minor planet) to be discovered
in the
Solar System, has held the record as the largest known object of
its kind
for two centuries. However, recent observations at the European
Southern Observatory with the world's first operational virtual
telescope, Astrovirtel, have determined that the newly discovered
distant
asteroid '2001 KX76' is significantly larger, with a diameter of
1200
km, possibly even 1400 km."
--European Space Agency, 23 August 2001
"In 1999, the NEO community developed the Torino scale, a
hazard
index structured something like the Richter Scale for earthquake
magnitude. The Torino scale was intended to improve definitions
and
communications between scientists, as well as their ability to
communicate
potential threats to the press and the public. But so far the
Torino scale
has been nearly nonexistent as far as the public is
concerned."
--Robert Britt, Space.com, 23 August 2001
(1) VIRTUAL TELESCOPE OBSERVES RECORD-BREAKING ASTEROID
European Space Agency, 23 August 2001
(2) CHALLENGER CROWNED KING OF ASTEROIDS
MSNBC, 24 August 2001
(3) ASTEROID NO THREAT, DESPITE RUMORS OF EARTH IMPACT
Space.com, 23 August 2001
(4) IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE: BRITISH NEO-CATASTROPHISM
International Herald Tribune, 23 August 2001
(5) PROFESSOR SIR FRED HOYLE
The Guardian, 23 August 2001
(6) BIG ENOUGH TO BURY DARWIN
The Guardian 23 August 2001
(7) WELL PRESERVED METEORITE YIELDS CLUES TO CARBON EVOLUTION IN
SPACE
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(8) MINING ASTEROIDS
IEEE SPECTRUM Online, 23 August 2001
(9) ASTEROID 2001 PM9
Carl Hergenrother <chergen@fortuna.lpl.arizona.edu>
(10) 2001 PM9: WE LUCKY FEW
Larry Robinson <lrobinsn@ix.netcom.com>
(12) 2001 PM9 & INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION REPORT
Andy Smith <astrosafe@yahoo.com>
(13) PLANETARY DEFENSE
Christian Gritzner <christian.gritzner@mailbox.tu-dresden.de>
(14) "RED HOT KILLER ASTEROID"
Phil Plait <badastro@badastronomy.com>
(15) DEFLECTION OF ASTEROIDS WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(16) DEFLECTION OF ASTEROIDS WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS
John Michael Williams <jwill@AstraGate.net>
(17) UPDATE ON TUNGUSKA
Luigi Foschini <foschini@tesre.bo.cnr.it>
(18) SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT
Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
(19) TAGISCH-LAKE METEORITE & SIR FRED HOYLE
Hermann Burchard <burchar@mail.math.okstate.
===========
(1) VIRTUAL TELESCOPE OBSERVES RECORD-BREAKING ASTEROID
>From the European Space Agency, 23 August 2001
http://sci.esa.int/hubble/news/index.cfm?oid=28146
Virtual Telescope Observes Record-Breaking Asteroid - New data
show that
'2001 KX76' is larger than Ceres
23-Aug-2001
Ceres, the first asteroid (minor planet) to be discovered in the
Solar
System, has held the record as the largest known object of its
kind for two
centuries. However, recent observations at the European Southern
Observatory
with the world's first operational virtual telescope,
Astrovirtel, have
determined that the newly discovered distant asteroid '2001 KX76'
is
significantly larger, with a diameter of 1200 km, possibly even
1400 km.
Astrovirtel provides decisive data about 2001 KX76
By combining data from the world's first operational 'virtual
telescope',
Astrovirtel, with that from a conventional telescope at the
European
Southern Observatory (ESO) at La Silla (Chile), European
astronomers have
determined the size of the newly found, remote asteroid, 2001
KX76.
Their measurements indicate that this icy rock has a diameter of
at least
1200 km and is therefore larger than any other known asteroid in
the Solar
System. The previous record-holder, the asteroid Ceres, was also
the first
object of its type to be discovered - by the Italian astronomer
Giuseppe
Piazzi on January 1, 1801. Its diameter is about 950 km,
relegating it to
second place after holding the asteroid size record for two
hundred years.
This conclusion is based on data from Astrovirtel, which has been
operating
at the ESO headquarters in Garching (Germany) for about one year.
This
advanced prototype science tool which in effect mimics a
telescope provides
astronomers with access to a wide variety of high-quality data.
The first
scientific results from Astrovirtel have allowed a substantial
improvement
of the accuracy of the computed orbit for 2001 KX76. It is now
possible to
confirm that this object is just outside that of the most remote
known major
planet Pluto. Further analysis carried out by the team seems to
indicate
that the orbit of 2001 KX76 is very similar to that of Pluto.
Asteroid 2001
KX76 is even larger than Pluto's moon Charon (diameter 1150 km),
adding fuel
to the fiery discussions concerning Pluto's status as a 'major'
or 'minor'
planet. The new data show that 2001 KX76 is about half the size
of Pluto
(diameter about 2300 km) and this increases the likelihood that
there are
other bodies still to be discovered in the outer Solar System
that are
similar in size to Pluto.
Observations of 2001 KX76
On July 2 2001, a group of American astronomers lead by Robert
Millis
(Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona) announced the discovery
of a
seemingly rather large so-called Kuiper Belt Object, designated
2001 KX76.
Objects of this type are icy planetary bodies that orbit beyond
Neptune in
the distant region of the Solar System known as the Kuiper Belt.
More than
400 such objects are currently known and they are believed to be
remnants of
the formation of the Solar System and consequently amongst the
most
primitive and least-evolved objects available for study in the
Solar System.
The first observations of 2001 KX76 were quite sparse, so the
initial
estimates of the size of the new asteroid were very uncertain.
However, it
did look large, possibly about the same size as the largest known
asteroid,
Ceres, the diameter of which had earlier been measured at about
950 km.
A team of German, Finnish and Swedish astronomers took the
initiative to
carry out a more accurate measurement of the size of 2001 KX76
within a
unique collaboration between Astrovirtel and a conventional ESO
telescope at
the La Silla Observatory in Chile. The results show that this
object is
definitely the largest Kuiper Belt Object so far discovered.
Determining the size of a distant asteroid
In order to measure the size of any asteroid, it is necessary
first to
determine its orbit around the Sun, which gives its present
distance from
the Earth. The next step is to estimate its 'albedo', i.e. the
percentage of
incident sunlight reflected from its surface. From these numbers
and the
measured, apparent brightness of the asteroid (as seen from the
Earth), its
diameter can finally be derived.
To determine the orbit of 2001 KX76 the group used Astrovirtel to
apply
automatic search software to scan through 'old' photographic
plates obtained
with various telescopes, as well as recent CCD observations made
with the
ESO Wide Field Imager (WFI) at the MPG/ESO 2.2 m telescope on La
Silla
(Chile).
The search was successful: the astronomers were able to find
several
photographic plates on which faint images of 2001 KX76 could be
identified -
some of these plates had been obtained as early as 1982. The
exact sky
positions were measured and with accurate positional data now
available over
a time span of no less than 18 years the team was able to compute
the first,
high-precision orbit of 2001 KX76. This also allowed the current
distance
from the Earth to be determined which turned out to be about 6.5
billion km
corresponding to 43 times the distance of the Earth from the Sun,
or nearly
one-and-a-half times farther from the Sun than Neptune.
Combining this with a realistic assumption for the albedo of 2001
KX76 of 7
percent (corresponding to the albedo of another well-observed
Kuiper Belt
Object, Varuna, and comparable to that of our own Moon), a
diameter of no
less than 1200 km was obtained. Assuming instead an albedo of
2001 KX76 of
only 4 percent - a typical value for icy cometary nuclei - leads
to the even
larger (although less likely) value of 1400 km.
A real name for 2001 KX76
Thanks to the work of this group of astronomers, the orbit of
2001 KX76 may
now be considered relatively secure and it may therefore soon
receive a real
name. Following astronomical tradition, the discoverers have the
right to
make a suggestion. The current custom dictates that a Kuiper Belt
Object
must be given a mythological name associated with creation. The
name must
then be confirmed by the International Astronomical Union before
becoming
official.
With a little bit of luck ...
The observations made with ESO's Wide Field Imager were crucial
for this
work to succeed in that they allowed this object's path to be
tracked back
in time. However, luck admittedly also played a key role.
"These
observations were originally made for a completely different
project," says
Gerhard Hahn, team-leader for the project. "And we found the
image of 2001
KX76 right at the edge of the WFI frames."
Jenni Virtanen, another member of the team, adds: "And if we
hadn't used our
powerful methods to improve the orbit we would still be searching
through
the archives."
Arno Gnaedig, a German amateur astronomer and team member,
performed the new
and accurate position measurements and also calculated the new
orbit on his
home computer: "To me this is a wonderful example of the
fruitful
collaboration that can take place between well-equipped amateur
astronomers
and professional astronomers," he says. "The Web and
the access to 'virtual
observatories' means that amateur astronomers - located far from
any 'real'
professional telescopes - can also make important
contributions."
Following this success, the group is currently working on a study
of the
long-term orbital evolution of 2001 KX76, accounting for orbital
uncertainties, in order to investigate the dynamical behaviour,
and its
relationship to both Pluto and Neptune.
The Astrovirtel coordinator, Piero Benvenuti, comments:
"These results are
thrilling for more than one reason. The latest in modern
astronomical
technology combined with a novel scientific procedure have been
able to
produce results that would otherwise have been very difficult to
achieve. I
am very delighted to see the first important scientific results
materialise
from our work with Astrovirtel."
The 'Virtual Observatory' concept, for which Astrovirtel is a
prototype, is
the start of a new era in astronomy. A larger study project
called the
'Astrophysical Virtual Observatory' is about to start within the
Fifth EC
Framework programme as a collaboration between ESO, ESA (ST-ECF),
the
University of Edinburgh (UK), CDS (Strasbourg, France), CNRS
(Paris, France)
and the University of Manchester (UK).
Credit: ESA, ESO, Astrovirtel & Gerhard Hahn (German
Aerospace Center, DLR,
Berlin)
Notes for editors
This is a joint Press Release by the Space Telescope European
Coordinating
Facility (ST-ECF) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
Members of the group of scientists involved in these observations
are:
Gerhard Hahn (German Aerospace Center, DLR, Berlin), Claes-Ingvar
Lagerkvist
(Uppsala University, Sweden), Karri Muinonen, Jukka Piironen and
Jenni
Virtanen (University of Helsinki, Finland), Andreas Doppler and
Arno Gnaedig
(Archenhold Sternwarte, Berlin, Germany) and Francesco
Pierfederici
(ST-ECF/ESO).
Acknowledgments: Observations from Siding Spring Observatory
(Digitized Sky
Survey 1), and NEAT/JPL were also used in the orbit
determination.
Contacts
Lars Lindberg Christensen
Hubble European Space Agency Information Centre, Garching,
Germany
Phone: +49-89-3200-6306 (089 in Germany)
Cellular (24 hr): +49-173-38-72-621 (0173 in Germany)
E-mail: lars@eso.org
Richard West
European Southern Observatory, Garching, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-3200-6276
E-mail: rwest@eso.org
Gerhard Hahn
German Aerospace Center, DLR, Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49-30-670-55-417 (030 in Germany)
E-mail: gerhard.hahn@dlr.de
Karri Muinonen
Observatory, University of Helsinki, Finland
Phone: +358-(0)9-19122941
E-mail: Karri.Muinonen@Helsinki.Fi
Claes-Ingvar Lagerkvist
Uppsala Astronomical Observatory, Sweden
Phone: +46-18-471-5977
E-mail: classe@astro.uu.se
More about Astrovirtel
Astrovirtel is a collaboration between Europe's largest
astronomical
organisation, the European Southern Observatory (ESO), and the
European
Space Agency (ESA). It is the first virtual astronomical
telescope dedicated
to data mining and provides an interface between the scientists
and the huge
amounts of data stored in scientific archives. This interface
partly
consists of a combination of the development of special software
tools that
incorporate advanced data query methods and the dedicated support
of archive
astronomers.
Astrovirtel is a response to the rapid developments currently
taking place
in the fields of telescope and detector construction, computer
hardware,
data processing, archiving, and telescope operation.
Astronomical data archives increasingly resemble virtual gold
mines of
information. Nowadays astronomical telescopes can image
increasingly large
areas of the sky. They use an ever greater variety of different
instruments
and are equipped with ever-larger detectors. The quantity of
astronomical
data collected is thus rising dramatically, generating a
corresponding
increase in potentially interesting research projects.
Astrovirtel
facilitates such projects by enabling astronomers to access these
archives.
Astrovirtel is supported by the European Commission (EC) within
the 'Access
to Research Infrastructures' action under the 'Improving Human
Potential &
the Socio-economic Knowledge Base' of the EC Fifth Framework
Programme.
============
(2) CHALLENGER CROWNED KING OF ASTEROIDS
>From MSNBC, 24 August 2001
http://www.msnbc.com/news/586894.asp
Challenger crowned king of asteroids
Space Shorts: New diameter calculation favors 2001
KX76
COMPILED BY MSNBC
Aug. 23 - Ceres, the first asteroid to be discovered, has
held the record
as the largest known object of its kind for two centuries.
However,
calculations using data collected by the world's first
operational virtual
telescope have confirmed that the newly discovered asteroid 2001
KX76 is
significantly larger.
EUROPEAN ASTRONOMERS say they used the "virtual
telescope," known as
Astrovirtel, as well as other data from a conventional telescope
at the
European Southern Observatory in Chile to determine that 2001
KX76 had a
diameter of at least as 750 miles (1,200 kilometers).
That would make it larger than Ceres, which was discovered on
Jan. 1, 1801
and has a diameter of about 600 miles (950 kilometers). The
result has
raised hopes that other celestial bodies might be found on the
rim of the
solar system that are similar in size to the planet Pluto, which
measures
about 1,425 miles (2,300 kilometers) in diameter.
2001 KX76, discovered on July 2 by a group of American
astronomers, is just
one of hundreds of icy planetary bodies that orbit beyond Neptune
in the
distant region of the solar system known as the Kuiper Belt. Such
objects
are believed to be remnants of the formation of the solar system.
The first observations of 2001 KX76 were sparse, so the initial
estimates of
the size of the new asteroid had a high degree of uncertainty.
However, it
did look large, possibly about the same size as Ceres.
A team of German, Finnish and Swedish astronomers took the
initiative to
carry out a more accurate measurement of the size of 2001 KX76,
using
conventional observations as well as the analysis from
Astrovirtel, a
prototype science tool at the ESO's headquarters in Germany that
mimics a
telescope.
Astrovirtel scanned through the recent observations and past
photographic
images of the sky - and found several faint images of 2001 KX76,
going back
to 1982. Using those additional sky locations, the scientists
could compute
the first high-precision orbital data for the asteroid. The
scientists
combined that distance information with what they knew about the
reflective
characteristics of asteroids, enabling them to estimate that the
asteroid's
diameter ranged between 750 and 875 miles (1,200 to 1,400
kilometers).
Thanks to the work of this group of astronomers, the orbit of
2001 KX76 may
now be considered relatively secure, and it may therefore soon
receive a
real name. Following astronomical tradition, the discoverers have
the right
to make a suggestion. The current custom dictates that a Kuiper
Belt Object
must be given a mythological name associated with creation. The
name must
then be confirmed by the International Astronomical Union before
becoming
official.
Copyright 2001, MSNBC
===============
(3) ASTEROID NO THREAT, DESPITE RUMORS OF EARTH IMPACT
>From Space.com, 23 August 2001
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/asteroid_threat_010823.html
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
A newly discovered asteroid whose orbit around the Sun had only
been
tentatively investigated was rumored last weekend to be on a
collision
course with Earth.
As with similar cases in recent years, further scientific
observations
showed the asteroid, called 2001 PM9, poses no threat.
But before these additional observations could be made, the
initial data
collected on the space rock was released on a public Web site
called NEODyS,
which is run by scientists who hunt for and study potentially
hazardous
asteroids. The site is intended to inform other astronomers of
newly found asteroids, in part so that additional observations
can be made.
However, when 2001 PM9 was announced on NEODyS (Near Earth
Objects Dynamic
Site) on Friday, Aug. 17, it included odds of a possible impact
in 2005 and
2007 that were better than 1-in-a-million. Slim, but not none.
By early this week, the odds had been revised to none. Yet over
the weekend,
a handful of other Web sites disseminated the earlier
information, some
adding personal fears to their reports.
On a Web site called The Hot Sheets, a visitor posted details of
the
asteroid that included this warning: "Dear Readers,
following are some facts
that ought to set you right back in your chair, grow you some
grey hairs --
or cause a certain amount of lost sleep."
Not the first time
While not widely published in the popular press, the case of 2001
PM9
mirrors other instances in which the public was warned of
possible Earth
impacts that later turned out to be no threat at all. The first
and most
infamous was asteroid 1997 XF11, which in 1998 was said to be on
a
course that might hit the planet in 2040. Most major news
organizations
reported the threat, which scientists later withdrew.
The scenario was repeated in 1999, when asteroid 1999 AN10 was
said to have
a small chance to hit Earth in 2039. The release of that data,
and
subsequent publication by some media outlets, was criticized by
researchers
who still had a 1997 XF11 hangover and worried that their
credibility was being eroded.
NEODyS was created by a group of researchers at the University of
Pisa in
Italy -- the same researchers who published the initial data
about 1999
AN10. One goal was to provide better communication between
scientists
regarding asteroids, so that asteroid scares could be
avoided.
But anyone can access the information, and other NEO (Near Earth
Object)
organizations also reported the initial 2001 PM9 data. The first
reports of
2001 PM9 were disseminated by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) and
another research group called Spaceguard Foundation.
However, Donald Yeomans at JPL said his organization did nothing
wrong.
Though data on 2001 PM9 first appeared on JPL's Potentially
Hazardous
Asteroid list on Aug. 13, Yeomans said it was a "routine
posting of orbital
data and certainly not an announcement of any type of
threat."
No impact probabilities were listed on the JPL site, he said.
"At no time did JPL formally or informally release any
announcement about
asteroid 2001 PM9," Yeomans said. "Our activities were
restricted to
requesting new data, soliciting archival data and working to
compute updated
orbits so the results could show, as quickly as possible, that
this object was not a threat. We were rather proud that these
activities
took place so rapidly that by last Friday, the computations
showed no real
threat. That is exactly how things are supposed to work."
Floundering community of researchers
Brian Marsden is director of the International Astronomical
Union's Minor
Planet Center, which serves as the ultimate clearinghouse for
data and names
of asteroids and other small objects in the solar system. Marsden
said
scientists' ability to properly deal with early asteroid
data has not improved since 1998, and the problem stems from how
information
is communicated.
"This is not to say that NEODyS, or any other professionals
working in the
area, is doing bad science," Marsden said in comments today
on a newsletter
called CCNet, which provides a forum for discussing asteroid
hazards. "It is
very clear, however, that our community continues to
flounder in the way such information is made public."
Marsden was particularly critical of the fact that after the risk
was found
to be nil, a "risk page" about the asteroid was removed
from the NEODyS
site, rather than being updated to reflect the change.
"Illogical though it may seem to us, some people tend to
assume that such
removal means that the object has in fact become more dangerous,
not less,
and that the astronomers are involved in a cover-up,"
Marsden said. "A
simple posting to confirm that the object is no longer dangerous
would work
wonders."
Benny Peiser, a researcher at Liverpool John Moores University
and the
moderator of CCNet, said, "I wonder how many more asteroid
scares it will
take before the NEO community will heed the recurring calls for
adjustment
and make a determined effort to resolve this thorny issue."
Efforts have been made.
In 1999, the NEO community developed the Torino scale, a hazard
index
structured something like the Richter Scale for earthquake
magnitude. The
Torino scale was intended to improve definitions and
communications between
scientists, as well as their ability to communicate potential
threats to the press and the public.
But so far the Torino scale has been nearly nonexistent as far as
the public
is concerned.
The threat
According to scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
there are
currently 315 known "potentially hazardous asteroids,"
or PHAs. Each appears
to be on a course that will one day bring it close to Earth's
orbit, but
scientists stress that none of them are known to be on a
collision course with the planet.
Many other asteroids that might be listed as PHAs are thought to
be out
there but not yet found.
An asteroid capable of global disaster would have to be more than
a
quarter-mile wide, researchers say. Asteroids that large strike
Earth only
once every 1,000 centuries on average, according to NASA
officials. Other
estimates range widely, reflecting the fact that researchers
don't know how
many asteroids are out there, let alone how many might eventually
cross the
path of Earth.
Smaller asteroids that are believed to strike Earth every 1,000
to 10,000
years could destroy a city or cause devastating tsunamis.
Scientists have in
recent years called on governments to begin making plans for how
to defend
the planet against such impacts.
Copyright 2001, Space.com
============
(4) IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE: BRITISH NEO-CATASTROPHISM
>From International Herald Tribune, 23 August 2001
http://www.iht.com/articles/30113.html
Barry James
International Herald Tribune
PARIS. They're called catastrophists, a group of British
scientists who
question many of the aspects of Darwinian evolution and argue
that life on
Earth and the geology of the planet have been constantly reshaped
by
asteroid strikes and other external shocks.
The latest sally from the catastrophist camp comes from the
astronomer and
mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe, who told a scientific
congress in
California in July that he had found microbes in air samples
scooped up by a
balloon flying 25 miles (about 40 kilometers) above the Earth's
surface.
Mr. Wickramasinghe, director of the department of Astrobiology at
Cardiff
University in Wales, said it was the first positive
identification of
extraterrestrial microbial life outside the atmosphere. The fact
that a
major British university has set up a department dedicated to a
theory still
regarded with much skepticism and hostility in the academic
community is one
indication of how accepted catastrophist ideas have become in
British
science.
There is no school of catastrophists as such in Britain. They are
a loosely
linked community of scientists drawn together by the
gravitational pull of
common interests, and who occasionally work together on joint
projects or
books. "There is no sense in which we come together to push
a common view,"
said Mark Bailey, an astronomer who is director of the
Observatory at Armagh
in Northern Ireland, now a center for catastrophist thinking.
"We are really
individuals," he continued, "although most of us have
worked together in
different combinations, so in that sense we get on well with one
another."
Catastrophism has never had much of a following in the United
States, partly
because of the debate between creationists and evolutionists, and
partly
because of the cultish influence of Immanuel Velikovsky, a
pseudo-scientist
who believed ancient myths could be explained by a near collision
between
Venus and Earth.
Because of the impact of the Velikovsky affair in America,
"it is very hard
for practicing scientists there to embrace the concept that
catastrophism is
really an ongoing process," Mr. Bailey said. On the other
hand, the Society
for Interdisciplinary Studies in Britain, which Mr. Bailey
described as "a
broad church," includes some Velikovskians.
Mr. Wickramasinghe and his mentor, the astronomer Fred Hoyle,
have long
argued that diseases like influenza that strike suddenly and
simultaneously
at many places around the Earth arrive here from space. They say
that
bombardment by external viruses or bacteria is a more logical
explanation of
life on Earth than the Darwinian view that micro-organisms
evolved into
higher life forms by constant replication and evolution.
While the Venus theory has been dismissed, two other British
astronomers,
Victor Clube and Bill Napier, developed the theory that the Earth
is
orbiting in the tail of a giant destroyed comet, and is under
constant
bombardment by bits of cometary debris, ranging from dust to
sizable rocks.
Occasionally, they say, it is hit by a particularly large chunk
of rock,
like the asteroid that fell in Siberia in 1908, or possibly a
huge body that
resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs.
A leading astronomer of the last century, Ernst Opik of Estonia,
who was the
first scientist to compute the collision probabilities of comets
and
asteroids against planets, worked at Armagh from the 1940s to the
1980s. His
grandson, Lembit Opik, a member of Parliament, successfully
helped lead the
scientific campaign that led the British government to set up the
official
Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects.
Another leading catastrophist is Mike Baillie, an expert in early
climate
change, at Queen's University in Belfast. Mr. Baillie starts from
scientific
grounds, such as the measurement of tree rings and the
examination of ice
core samples, and then delves into mythology to find out if
legends can
throw light on the extraordinary, perhaps catastrophic climatic
events
revealed by the records. In a book, "Exodus to Arthur,"
Mr. Baillie asks
whether the simultaneous emergence of legends about dragons in
China and
angels in Western mythology were common reactions to the
appearance of a
comet.
Mr. Baillie points out that contemporary accounts at the time of
the Black
Death, which killed one third of Europe's population in the 14th
century,
mentioned droughts, floods, masses of dead fish, earthquakes,
sheets of
fire, stinking smoke, huge hailstones and blasts of hot wind -
all possible
descriptions, he said, of a close encounter with an asteroid or
comet.
One record spoke of a large bright star over Paris, and another
said that
the sky looked yellow and the air red because of burning vapors.
Tree ring
studies reveal evidence of massive climate disturbance at the
same time, Mr.
Baillie added.
Catastrophism began receiving a fairer hearing in the 1980s after
Walter and
Luis Alvarez published an article in Science proposing that the
extinction
of the dinosaurs had been caused by the impact of an asteroid
about six
miles in diameter.
This was later linked to the crater, about 110 miles in diameter,
identified
in 1990 at Chicxulub in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. About
130 such
craters have now been identified on Earth. In 1994, scientists
watched at
least 21 large fragments from the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet plunge
into the
surface of Jupiter, throwing up fireballs as big as the Earth.
That, and a
mass of research culled from space observation, lends some
credence to the
catastrophist view that a future disastrous impact on Earth is
not a
question of if, but when.
Copyright 2001, The International Herald Tribune
================
(5) PROFESSOR SIR FRED HOYLE
The Guardian, 23 August 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,540961,00.html
Always a controversial astronomer, he rejected 'big bang' theory,
turned his
back on Cambridge and was mysteriously denied a Nobel prize
Bernard Lovell
Thursday August 23, 2001
The Guardian
Fred Hoyle, who has died aged 86, will be remembered as one of
the most
distinguished and controversial scientists of the 20th century.
Soon after
the end of the second world war he became widely known both by
scientists
and the public as one of the originators of a new theory of the
universe. He
was a fluent writer and speaker and became the main expositor of
this new
theory of the steady state, or continuous creation, according to
which the
universe had existed for an infinite past time and would continue
infinitely
into the future, as opposed to what Hoyle styled the "big
bang" theory.
As a young man during the second world war, Hoyle had worked in
the
Admiralty Signals Establishment and during that period he became
friendly
with Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. The ideas that led to the
continuous
creation theory were born at that time and in 1948 their historic
papers on
the theory were published. Although the names of Bondi, Hoyle and
Gold are
associated with that revolutionary theory, Hoyle's paper was
published
separately, two months later than the joint one of Bondi and
Gold. The
latter had stressed the philosophical aspect of a perfect
cosmological
principle in which the universe would have a high degree of
uniformity not
only in space but also in time, thereby evading the scientific
problem
associated with a beginning in a finite past time. Hoyle dealt
with the
continuous creation of the primordial hydrogen that would be
essential to
maintain the steady state, and placed the concept within the
framework of
general relativity.
The detailed presentation of the theory in the journal of the
Royal
Astronomical Society in 1948 was not a cooperative effort. The
evidence is
that Hoyle had sent his paper to an American journal, where it
was rejected.
Its eventual publication, two months after the Bondi-Gold paper,
was a
coincidence that formed an impenetrable phalanx for nearly two
decades. The
conflict with the conventional idea that the universe had a
specific origin
billions of years in time past was absolute. Until the discovery
of the
cosmic microwave background in 1965, the observational evidence
was
inconclusive and the emotive feelings aroused led to one of the
bitterest
scientific divisions of the century. Hoyle never accepted the
complete
defeat of the continuous creation theory, and long after the
"big bang"
universe had become conventional scientific wisdom he continued
to probe its
defects.
Although Hoyle was most widely known for this cosmological
theory, there is
little doubt that his most lasting and significant contribution
to science
concerns the origin of the elements. This theory of nucleogenesis
(the
build-up of the elements in the hot interiors of stars) was an
outstanding
scientific landmark of the 1950s. In the development of this
theory Hoyle
collaborated with WA Fowler of the California Institute of
Technology in
Pasadena, and with Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge.
Hitherto, the general belief was that all the elements must have
been
produced in the hot primordial universe. The new paper, on the
contrary,
showed that the elements could be produced from the primordial
hydrogen by
nucleo-synthesis in the hot interior of stars. The theory gave a
satisfactory account of the relative abundances of the elements,
provided an
explanation of the direction of stellar evolution and gave an
objective
basis for calculation of the internal constitution of stars.
The theory also confirmed a prediction of Hoyle's that there must
be an
excited state of the carbon twelve isotope - at the energy he had
predicted
from a consideration of the evolution of red giant stars. This,
incidentally, was agreeably consistent with the steady state
cosmological
theory, since there was no necessity for an initial hot condition
of a
primordial universe.
The paper, published in an American journal in 1957, has been
described as
monumental, and the theory has had a cardinal influence on
astrophysics.
Although there were four authors, it is widely known that the
Burbidges
contributed the data from their stellar observations and that the
core and
essence of the paper was the work of Fowler and Hoyle.
Fowler was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1983, and why
Hoyle was
not included in this award remains a mystery hidden in the
confidential
documents of the Royal Swedish Academy. The editor of the
scientific journal
Nature suggested that the academy did not wish to be associated
with any
endorsement of another idea then being promulgated by Hoyle. This
was linked
to Hoyle's belief that life must be of frequent occurrence in the
universe.
He argued that the primeval molecules from which life evolved on
Earth had
been transported from elsewhere in the universe. In itself this
idea would
not necessarily be rejected as absurd by the scientific
community, but Hoyle
had publicised a further argument that influenza epidemics were
associated
with the passage of the Earth through certain meteor streams, the
particles
of which conveyed the virus to Earth.
This was dismissed as fictional by nearly all members of the
biological and
physical scientific disciplines. Indeed, the idea belonged more
to Hoyle's
activity as a writer of science fiction for over three decades.
His most
famous novel was October The First Is Too Late, and several
others, such as
The Black Cloud (1957) and A For Andromeda (1962), which was made
into a
television serial, achieved a wide circulation. Another, Rockets
In Ursa
Major (1962), was also produced as a play.
Hoyle played a prominent part in the scientific affairs of the
UK. He served
on the council of the Royal Society as vice president from 1969
to 1971 and
was president of the Royal Astronomical Society 1971-73. As a
member of the
Science Research Council from 1967 to 1972 he was active in the
assessment
of the astronomical facilities in the southern hemisphere, which
led to the
creation of the 150-inch Anglo-Australian telescope at Siding
Spring in New
South Wales. He was a member of the joint policy committee from
1967, during
the planning stage for the telescope, and became chairman of the
Anglo-Australian telescope board in 1973, and presided at the
inauguration
of the telescope in 1974 by the Prince of Wales.
Hoyle was born at Bingley in Yorkshire, the son of a wool
merchant, and by
the age of 10 could navigate by the stars. From Bingley grammar
school he
went up to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, to read maths: he was the
Mayhew
Prizeman in the 1936 Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. In his
immediate
postgraduate years he was Smith's Prizeman, Goldsmith
Exhibitioner and was
awarded a senior exhibition by the Commission for the Exhibition
of 1851. He
was elected to a fellowship at St John's in 1939.
During these years he first became associated with RA Lyttleton
on problems
of accretion of dust and gas around large bodies. Thereby began
his shift of
interest from mathematical physics to astronomy and, in later
years, led to
his work on the formation of planetary systems and to his
conviction that
life must be of frequent occurrence in the universe. In a
broadcast talk in
the early 50s, at a time when Australia was dominating England at
cricket,
he remarked that he would wager that somewhere in the Milky Way
there was a
cricket team who could beat the Australians.
During the war he was engaged in technical projects, such as
radar for the
Admiralty, where he found himself working with Bondi and Gold.
Hoyle
returned to Cambridge after the war as university lecturer in
mathematics.
In 1958 he was appointed the Plumian professor of astronomy and
became the
first director of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical
Astronomy in 1967.
Although the occupant of two such distinguished offices, he
became immensely
unhappy with his life in Cambridge. The crisis came over a
dispute
concerning the election to a professorial chair and he tendered
his
resignation as Plumian professor from 1972 and as director of the
institute
from 1973.
For many years I had been closely associated with Hoyle in
astronomical and
policy matters and his attitude to Cambridge was epitomised in
his
explanatory letter to me.
"I do not see any sense in continuing to skirmish on a
battlefield where I
can never hope to win. The Cambridge system is effectively
designed to
prevent one ever establishing a directed policy - key decisions
can be upset
by ill-informed and politically motivated committees. To be
effective in
this system one must for ever be watching one's colleagues,
almost like a
Robespierre spy system. If one does so, then of course little
time is left
for any real science."
At the age of 57, Hoyle retired from his formal appointments in
the UK,
residing first in the Lake District and then on the south coast.
He held
honorary research professorships at the University of Manchester
and
University College, Cardiff, from which he published extensively
with NC
Wickramasinghe on the biological aspects of his astronomical
concepts. He
did much of his work in the United States, particularly in the
California
Institute of Technology, where he was appointed visiting
associate in
physics in 1963, and at Cornell, where he held a visiting
professorship for
six years after he retired from Cambridge.
Hoyle was awarded numerous honorary doctorates, medals and
prizes. His many
books included Frontiers of Astronomy (1955), Men And
Materialism(1956),
Star Formation (1963), Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (1965), The
Relation Of
Physics And Cosmology (1973), Ten Faces Of The Universe (1977)
and On
Stonehenge (1977). His autobiography, Home Is Where The Wind
Blows, was
published in 1994.
He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1957 and was
knighted in
1972. In 1974 he was awarded the royal medal of the Royal
Society, and on
that occasion the president said that Hoyle was one of the most
original
minds in present-day astronomy and that his "enormous output
of ideas are
immediately recognised as challenging to astronomers generally...
his
popularisation of astronomical science can be warmly commended
for the
descriptive style used and the feeling of enthusiasm about his
subject which
they succeed in conveying".
Indeed, Hoyle packed the lecture rooms wherever he spoke in the
world, and
"according to Hoyle" was a frequent catchphrase of the
second half of the
20th century.
He is survived by his wife, Barbara Clark, whom he married in
1939, and by
his son and daughter.
* Fred Hoyle, astronomer and writer, born June 24 1915; died
August 20 2001
Copyright 2001, The Guardian
===============
(6) BIG ENOUGH TO BURY DARWIN
>From The Guardian 23 August 2001
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/physicalscience/story/0,9836,541468,00.html
Lee Elliot Major looks at the theories that secured Sir Fred
Hoyle's
reputation as one of the 20th century's leading scientists
Thursday August 23, 2001
Professor Fred Hoyle
Three ground-breaking scientific debates played a part in
securing the
reputation of Sir Fred Hoyle, who died this week aged 86, as one
of the
founding fathers of cosmology, the most creative astrophysicist
of his time,
and the greatest scientific rebel of the late 20th century.
The formation of stars
Dr Hoyle helped to solve a problem that had dogged physicists for
years: how
do stars create heavier elements, such as carbon, nitrogen and
oxygen? A sun
derives its power from the fusion of basic elements. But it was
only when
Hoyle's identified the final link - a special state of carbon-12
- that the
full chain reaction could be understood. One of Hoyle's
collaborators
received a Nobel Prize for their work.
The big bang theory
Hoyle coined the phrase 'big bang' to ridicule the theory that
the cosmos
was created by a huge explosion 12bn years ago. Yet the phrase
helped to
popularise the theory, assuming universal status among the very
scientists
arguing the ripples of the great explosion can still be observed
in a slowly
expanding universe today.
Hoyle's rival theory is that the universe exists in a steady
state. It
contends that matter is constantly being created, so the
expanding universe
remains roughly the same at all times, with no beginning or end.
Few
scientists support Hoyle's steady state model.
Life originated from outer space
Even more controversial than Hoyle's cosmological theories, was
his
contention that life did not evolve according to Darwin's theory
of natural
selection, but was created from micro-organisms or biochemical
compounds
from outer space. 'Panspermia' is based on the idea that mutating
life-forms
continually fall from space.
Nor did Hoyle think this was a random process. He argued it was
the
handiwork of a super-intelligent civilisation wishing to
"seed" planet
Earth. Hoyle's research also attributed the onset of various
epidemics to
interstellar viruses, drawing connections between asteroids and
flu
outbreaks at schools in remote parts of England and Wales.
Hoyle's belief in a cosmic super-intelligence also surfaced
during his
successful career as a science fiction writer. In his 1962 novel,
A for
Andromeda, radio instructions were sent by aliens telling humans
how to
build an all-powerful and destructive machine. The book was
developed into a
BBC television series, starring Julie Christie.
Hoyleisms: A selection of quotes from the great man:
* "Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away
if your car
could go straight upwards."
*"There is a coherent plan in the universe, though I don't
know what it's a
plan for."
*"I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they
seem
incredible."
*"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate
matter is one to a
number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury
Darwin and
the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup,
neither on this
planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not
random, they
must therefore have been the product of purposeful
intelligence."
*"Once we see, however, that the probability of life
originating at random
is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it
becomes
sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics, on
which life
depends, are in every respect deliberate... It is, therefore,
almost
inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect
higher
intelligence - even to the extreme idealized limit of God."
*"The popular news media were back on the job now.
Displaying to the full
their twin characteristics, incredible persistence and the
incredible
inability to see the point, they clamored for an answer to the
absurd
question: Could Martian computers be said to be really alive?
[from Hoyle's
novel, Element 79]
Copyright 2001, The Guardian
=============
(7) WELL PRESERVED METEORITE YIELDS CLUES TO CARBON EVOLUTION IN
SPACE
>From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
Arizona State University
Contact:
James Hathaway, (480) 965-6375, Hathaway@asu.edu
Source:
Sandra Pizzarello, 480-965-3370, pizar@asu.edu
Embargoed until 2 p.m. EST, August 23, 2001
Well Preserved Meteorite Yields Clues to Carbon Evolution in
Space
The first results are in from the organic analysis of the Tagish
Lake
Meteorite, a rare, carbon-rich meteorite classified as a
"carbonaceous
chondrite" that fell on a frozen Canadian lake in January
2000 and is the
most pristine specimen ever studied of this group of important
space
objects. Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites contain vital clues to
the
evolution of carbon compounds in our solar system preceding the
origin of
life.
The analysis, conducted by a team headed by chemist Sandra
Pizzarello, a
research scientist at Arizona State University, on 4.5 grams
taken from the
sealed interior of the meteorite, found organic compounds in the
meteorite
with some similarities to other known carbonaceous chondrites,
but also
clear differences -- most notably the near-absence of the amino
acids found
in some meteorites studied before.
In an article scheduled to appear in the August 24 issue of the
online
journal Science Express
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1062614v1
, with publication
in Science to follow) the team notes that the chemistry of the
Tagish Lake
Meteorite appears to preserve organics that accumulated or
developed in the
early history of the Solar System -- including molecular bubbles
of carbon
(fullerenes or "buckyballs") containing the noble
gasses helium and argon in
a ratio similar to the gas and dust cloud that formed the planets
-- and
thus perhaps reflects an early stage in a process of evolution of
complex
carbon compounds in space.
"The chemistry here is different from that we have seen in
any other
meteorite," said Pizzarello. "It's simple, when
compared with Murchison (a
famous carbon meteorite found in Australia in 1969 that contained
numerous
amino acids and a variety of other organic compounds) and
probably
represents a separate line of chemical evolution. However, it
still includes
compounds that are identical to biomolecules."
Other members of the research team include Yongsong Huang from
the
Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University; Luann
Becker from the
Institute for Crustal Studies at the University of California
Santa Barbara;
Robert J. Poreda from the Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences,
University of Rochester; George Cooper from the NASA Ames
Research Center;
and Ronald A. Nieman and Michael Williams, both also from ASU.
The Science paper notes that many of the organic compounds found
in the
Tagish Lake sample have also been found in other meteorites, but
that the
distribution of compounds is different, particularly for the
amino acids and
carboxylic acids.
"Some people have been disappointed that we found virtually
no amino acids,
but scientifically this is very exciting," Pizzarello said.
"This meteorite
shows the complexity of the history of organic compounds in space
-- it
seems to have had a distinct evolution.
"We found some compounds identical to some in Murchison that
show the same
'interstellar connection' in their abundance of deuterium (heavy
hydrogen),
while some others differ from Murchison in amounts and
variety," said
Pizzarello, meaning that for some groups of organic molecules,
only the
simplest species were found in Tagish Lake, as opposed to a
broader
distribution of species found in Murchison. "Overall, Tagish
Lake represents
a simpler, more unaltered stage than we have seen before."
What emerges from the analysis is evidence for what Pizzarello
calls "a
different outcome" of organic chemical evolution in space
likely to have
happened during the formation and development of the solar
system, "but one
that still might have contributed molecular precursors of
biomolecules to
the origins of life," she noted.
============
OUR SOLAR SYSTEM'S OLDEST RAW MATERIALS
News Service
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
News Service Contact:
Janet Kerlin, Science@brown.edu
For Immediate Release: August 23, 2001
Our solar system's oldest raw materials
Brown scientists identify Tagish Lake meteorite's origin in space
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Brown geologists Takahiro Hiroi and Carle
Pieters and a
colleague from NASA have identified the location from which an
unusually
well-preserved meteorite fell -- the mid-to-far end of the
asteroid belt
between Mars and Jupiter. Their results confirm that the Tagish
Lake
meteorite is made of probably the oldest materials in the solar
system.
To the amazement of observers, the fireball fell in northern
British
Columbia in January 2000. The event was photographed, recorded by
satellites, and resulted in hundreds of fragments being collected
from a
frozen lake. The meteorite was probably the size of van, but
broke into
fragments that were preserved in ice from the lake.
Hiroi, Pieters and Michael Zolensky of NASA's Johnson Space
Center in
Houston are the first to identify the carbon-rich meteorite as
having broken
off from a D-type asteroid, the kind that most scientists
acknowledge
contains the oldest raw materials among asteroids. Their results
were
published by the journal Science, within the "Science
Express" Web site, on
Aug. 23, 2001
[ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1063734v1
].
Their method, reflectance spectroscopy, provides an optical
fingerprint
showing a meteorite's composition. Data is obtained by measuring
the amount
of reflected light as wavelength is changed from visible to
near-infrared.
Their study provides clues in determining the formation of the
solar system
4.6 billion years ago. The research was funded by grants from
NASA.
A second article on the "Science Express" Web site
details the organic
content of the Tagish Lake meteorite. Brown assistant professor
Yongsong
Huang is a co-author with lead investigator Sandra Pizzarello of
the Arizona
State University Chemistry Department.
At Brown, the researchers used state-of-the art technology to
measure the
isotopic composition of individual compounds. The findings
provide insight
to an outcome of early solar chemical evolution that differs from
any seen
in meteorites so far.
==============
(8) MINING ASTEROIDS
>From IEEE SPECTRUM Online, 23 August 2001
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/aug01/aster.html
Melting trapped ice could turn a profit for private companies,
with metal
processing not far behind
By Mark Ingebretsen, Contributing Editor
One day this century an unmanned space probe will touch down on a
dormant
comet. The probe will drill through the comet's gravel-like shell
to reach
the ice beneath. Next, a tube will descend into the drilled hole,
and, using
heat from solar mirrors, will slowly melt the ice, pumping the
melt into a
giant balloon-like tank. As the tank fills, the water in it will
freeze once
again. Some of the water will be diverted into the probe, where
it will be
heated later, again by means of solar energy. The resulting steam
will be
used to supply the thrust needed for the probe's return to Earth
orbit [see
diagram].
Arriving there months later, the probe's icy cargo might be used
to
steam-power a follow-up mission or to supply drinking water to
orbital
outposts like the Alpha Space Station. Or it might be used to
form a frozen
ring to shield those outposts from harmful radiation.
True, a steam-belching rocket ferrying a balloon full of ice
through space
isn't as exciting as a manned expedition to Mars. Nonetheless, a
fledgling
group of researchers believes a mission similar to the one
described here is
not only possible using present-day technology, but could make
money for its
organizers.
Indeed, a veritable El Dorado awaits in the so-called near Earth
objects
(NEOs) within the solar system. The term NEO refers to both
dormant comets
(comets that no longer produce distinctive tails) and asteroids
that travel
about the sun, often in highly elliptical orbits. Unlike the
space rubble
that lies in the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter, the
NEOs' orbits
occasionally bring them quite close to Earth, some even to the
point of
impact [see diagram].
Astronomers have catalogued many types of NEOs. The dormant-comet
variety
contains mostly water mixed in with bits of sand and loose rock.
Other NEOs,
called C types, are a rough mixture of volatiles (made up of
clays, hydrated
salts, and water), plus silicates along with metals like iron,
nickel, and
platinum.
John Lewis, who co-directs the Space Engineering Research Center
at the
University of Arizona at Tucson, studied one C-type asteroid, a
2-km-wide
NEO called Amun. He concluded that the monetary value of Amun's
platinum
group metals (pgms)-platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium, and so
on-is more
than US $6 trillion. Amun's iron and nickel might be worth
something on the
order of $8 trillion. Add another $6 trillion for Amun's cobalt
deposits,
and the asteroid's value totals a spectacular $20 trillion!
To get at these valuable resources, Amun's metallic ores would
need to be
separated out from the asteroid's silicates and volatiles. But
another kind
of asteroid, the M-type, is almost pure metal, mostly iron. Some
M-types,
like the unassumingly named 1986 DA, are mountain-sized blends of
iron,
nickel, and cobalt-in other words, naturally occurring stainless
steel. In
all, roughly 2000 NEOs about the size of 1986 DA are known to
exist, with as
many as 50 more being discovered each year.
Gravity's rainbow
NEOs came to the public's attention last February, when NASA's
Near Earth
Asteroid Rendezvous probe made a controlled landing on the
asteroid Eros.
But researchers have pondered for decades ways that asteroids
might be
profitably mined. Their interest has everything to do with
gravity. Because
of the negligible gravity of NEOs, sending a probe to reach one
takes less
energy than a visit to any other celestial body, including the
moon.
In space, a mass continues in motion forever unless it collides
with
something. In navigating among orbiting bodies in space, the
primary measure
of how hard it is to get from point A to point B becomes not
distance but a
quantity called delta-V (DV). Escaping one planet's gravity,
adjusting orbit
so as to synchronize the time of arrival with the destination's
own path
through space, and finally slowing enough to land gently or enter
orbit upon
arrival-all require considerable changes in velocity, or DV.
The amount of energy required to travel between destination
points (and
hence how much fuel must be carried) increases with the total DV
and the
mass of the spacecraft. The DV needed to ascend to low Earth
orbit (LEO) is
a crippling 9 km/s or so-most of the mass of a rocket has to be
fuel and
engines, not payload. But as science fiction writer Robert
Heinlein noted,
after you reach Earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere. That's
because a
rocket, sitting on a launch pad, is considered to have zero
velocity.
(Strictly speaking, the earth's rotation makes a difference: a
rocket
launched at the equator in the direction of that rotation has an
initial
velocity advantage over one launched at a higher latitude in the
same
direction.)
But once the rocket is in LEO, the additional increases in
velocity needed
to reach many destinations in the solar system are smaller-and
hence the
energy required is less, too [see graph]. To go another 340 000
km from LEO
and land gently on the moon, for instance, requires an additional
velocity
change of a little over 6 km/s. But a voyage from Earth orbit to
an NEO
would require only 5 km/s, possibly even less than 4.3 km/s,
depending on
the asteroid's size and trajectory in relation to Earth.
Even greater reductions in DV could be achieved on return trips
from NEOs.
Lifting off the lunar surface and traveling to Earth orbit would
take a DV
of 3 km/s, assuming Earth's atmosphere is used for aerobraking.
In contrast,
a trip from an asteroid would require just 1 km/s or less,
because many NEOs
possess negligible gravity, so hardly any energy is required to
lift objects
off their surfaces. This DV difference between NEOs and the moon
for the
return trip is important, since it is during that portion of the
trip that
the probe would carry its bulky cargo of ores.
Any reduction in required velocity, of course, translates
directly into
rocket fuel savings. In addition, many asteroids are thought to
be richer in
metals and volatiles than the lunar surface. All told, mining
NEOs would
take less energy and time and so yield a higher return than would
be the
case with the moon.
Big science
With these facts in mind, elaborate plans have been drawn up for
NEO
missions. In a typical plan, a ship departs Earth for an asteroid
when the
two bodies' orbits are such that the lowest DV is required.
Mining
operations might last many months, and meanwhile, Earth and the
NEO would be
moving farther and farther apart. When the two orbits coincided
once again,
the mined materials could be shipped back to Earth.
As with most, if not all, speculative space ventures, debate has
raged over
whether these missions should be manned or robotic [see
"Modes of Mining in
Orbit"]. But early blueprints of NEO mining missions put
human crews
squarely at the helm.
One of the first detailed plans for an asteroid mission emerged
in 1977, as
part of a NASA study on space colonization. The plan, co-authored
by
space-futurist Brian O'Leary, came soon after the huge
expenditures of the
Apollo program. Accordingly, it employed a philosophy of striking
with
overwhelming force.
O'Leary's task force was charged with devising ways to retrieve
raw
materials from an NEO. The group's solution was to send a large
crew of
astronaut-miners to a C-type asteroid. Over the course of their
three-year
mission, volatiles would be baked out of the rock, using a 600
°C solar
furnace. The volatiles, which would include water and potential
fuel-producing substances such as nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, and
phosphorus,
would supply the fuel needed to separate out the asteroid's
metals and other
materials, which would be catapulted back to LEO for further
processing.
The study determined that to retrieve half the mass of a
million-metric-ton
asteroid, some 10 000 metric tons of materials would need to be
lifted into
LEO at an assumed cost of $240/kg (1977 dollars). The total cost
of the
mission was put at $31 billion, including R&D costs. To ship
the same
quantity of mined materials from Earth's surface would cost a
prohibitive
$663 billion.
Islands of ice
In 1993, perhaps to accommodate diminished expectations in space,
Lewis, of
the University of Arizona, published a similar study that
examined the cost
of mining fuels and other materials on the moon, versus mining
them on NEOs.
For starters, Lewis reasoned that the lunar mission could use as
fuel for
its return trip hydrogen from the ice supposed to exist at the
lunar poles.
The resulting payback after 10 lunar missions would be 8:1. That
is, eight
times more fuel could be transported than consumed. His
calculations
included the amount of fuel needed to send the vessel to the moon
so that
fuel recovery operations could begin.
When Lewis looked at NEOs as a source of water and fuel, the
potential
payback improved considerably. He estimated that an NEO mission
could return
three times as much fuel or water as it consumed in making the
voyage—and that was just for the first trip and after
factoring in the
fuel cost of getting the probe to the asteroid to be refueled for
the return
voyage.
If the ship could be reused five times, the payback ratio would
rise to
15:1. "Each trip makes considerable masses of propellant
available for other
uses in near Earth space," Lewis wrote.
But the actual distances must be taken into account; if many
round trips
from the moon to LEO can be made in the same time as one round
trip from an
NEO to Earth orbit, lunar mining will still prove to be the most
economical.
This constraint indicates a need for an approach to NEO mining
with
continuous operations and multiple transport ships, increasing
start-up
costs.
Many researchers agree with the choice of water as the likely
first target
of an NEO mining mission. "Water is peculiarly easy to
handle and peculiarly
useful," said Mark Sonter, a mining engineer based in
Sydney, Australia, who
has written several papers on profitable ways to mine NEOs.
"You're almost
guaranteed 10-30 percent recoverable water from water-bearing
asteroids," he
said. "Once you've extracted it at the asteroid, you can use
it directly as
propellant in a steam rocket or you can split it into hydrogen
and oxygen
and use it in a classic chemical rocket, and using some of it,
you can
return the rest to Earth orbit, where it can be used as
propellant, as life
support, or as radiation shielding."
A market for water already exists in LEO, believes Kevin Reed, a
research
scientist for the aerospace-defense firm BAE Systems,
Farnborough, UK. Like
Sonter and many another NEO mining enthusiast, Reed earns a
living at an
unrelated day job, but spends much of his free time devising ways
to profit
from asteroid mining. The market for water, he said, is the Alpha
Space
Station, which currently gets its water as a byproduct of
visiting space
shuttles' fuel cells. As the station grows, so will its need for
consumables. "You could sell [Alpha] water and oxygen,"
he says. And in the
future, "If the Russians got the capability of supplying
water and oxygen to
a Mir 2, they could take up as many [space tourists like] Denis
Tito as they
want."
All that glitters
But why bother ferrying water around instead of mining metals and
returning
them to Earth's surface-especially since trillions of dollars
worth of
high-valued metals are ripe for the taking?
The fact is that transporting materials back to Earth changes the
economics
of the equation. For starters, the logistical problems greatly
increase.
"One of the things that we're discovering is just how
fragile atmospheric
physics is," said Richard Gertsch, an assistant professor in
the mining and
materials engineering department at Michigan Technological
University,
Houghton. Thus, any miscalculation could turn an ore-bearing
shuttle into a
hailstorm of molten metal. Disasters aside, developing a craft
that
transports materials back to Earth as efficiently as ships and
rail cars now
transport ores from terrestrial mines is a tall order.
An even bigger problem from an economic standpoint is that
asteroidal
supplies of iron may easily exceed demand, depressing prices. A
huge influx
of space metals-or even the expectation that they might come onto
the
market-would result in a price collapse. Also, any venture aimed
at
returning these materials from space has to compete with the
highly
efficient terrestrial mining techniques already in use.
Still, given that asteroids contain platinum metals worth
trillions, why
isn't it possible to profitably return these to earth? "The
whole idea of
space resources is that the resources are huge. How you use them
has been
the real problem," Gertsch laments. "Everyone goes back
to high-value
metals, the pgms."
Vexed by the problem, Gertsch co-wrote a study with his wife
Leslie, another
assistant professor at Michigan Technological University with a
special
interest in asteroid mining. They envisioned a project equivalent
in scale
to the Anglo-French Channel Tunnel. It would cost at least $5
billion and
take up to 12 years to finish. The study assumed that the
asteroid mined
would be made up of 150 parts per million of pgms, a
concentration thought
to occur in about one in 10 platinum-bearing asteroids.
Finding a suitable asteroid and mounting a mission would consume
up to four
years of the project, the Gertsches reasoned. On arrival, miners
would need
to sift through 500 million metric tons of material in order to
extract
enough platinum-some 68 thousand metric tons, at an assumed price
of about
$13 per gram-to generate a return of 100 percent on the project.
However, even a 100 percent return rate would not attract the
needed
billions in risk capital, given the 12-year timetable and the
high
probability of failure, the Gertsches concluded.
Space is the place
Another proponent of expeditions to the asteroids is Jim Benson,
chief
executive officer of a publicly traded company called SpaceDev,
in Poway,
Calif. At a meeting he attended with a prominent venture
capitalist, "I was
told they wouldn't consider plans in which they would only make
100 times
their money," Benson said. "Unless they were going to
make 1000 times their
money, they're not even interested."
For this reason, researchers have tried to promote the idea of
mining
materials in space for use in orbit. "I don't think these
resources need to
be brought back," Benson said. Since it costs $10 000/kg to
lift anything
into space, any material in orbit already has a putative value of
$10 000,
he explained. His company hopes to raise the $12 million needed
to set a
probe down on an asteroid, assay its resources, then legally
claim it [see
artist's rendering]. Actual mining missions would come later.
Last November a group called the Space Resources Roundtable met
to discuss
similar plans to bootstrap NEO mining operations. The group's
members are
drawn from the space, mining, and financial communities and have
been
meeting under the auspices of the Colorado School of Mines, in
Golden, since
1999. The roundtable bases its ideas on the thinking of Lewis and
others
that NEO mining can be launched cheaply and multiple missions can
be
undertaken. The end result should be an increasingly valuable
bank of water
or other materials in LEO.
Another strategy is offered by Brad Blair, a former mining
company engineer
and now a doctoral candidate at the Colorado School of Mines. He
proposes
turning the second stages of commercial launch rockets into
transports for
space miners and their equipment to NEOs. Once depleted, these
stages are
normally allowed to burn up in the atmosphere, but Blair claims
they could
be modified to run on steam.
Beyond this horizon
How long before any of this begins to happen? Many cite 20 years
as a
realistic figure, especially if companies from the private sector
lead the
way. "The problem is not the technology [but] companies'
perceptions of what
the risks would be and their perceptions of how it would be
received by the
investment community," said mining engineer Sonter.
But that may change as investors continue to search for the Next
Big Thing.
"It's going to become increasingly obvious to people with
money that this is
going to be the new Internet," said SpaceDev's Benson. His
company has
allied with a Canadian nonprofit group called the Northern Center
for
Advanced Technology Inc. in Sudbury, Ont., Canada. The group, in
part,
represents mining interests from that region, and hopes to
develop new
markets for local technological know-how as mines there gradually
become
depleted. Ironically, those mines contain ores from an asteroid
impact some
100 million years ago.
Stephen Cass, Editor
Copyright 2001, IEEE
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(9) ASTEROID 2001 PM9
>From Carl Hergenrother <chergen@fortuna.lpl.arizona.edu>
The '2001 PM9' affair has again called into question the method
by which
potential impactors are recognized and disseminated to the
scientific
community and public at large. In a perfect world, every newly
discovered
Near-Earth object (NEO) would be followed for months to years
after
discovery in order to accurately predict any future impact
events.
Unfortunately this perfect world does not exist. There are
presently not
enough resources avaliable to adequately monitor all NEO
discoveries,
especially when they are fainter than 20th magnitude. Due to this
current
state of affairs, the limited observers who do the service of
following NEOs
need to concentrate on those objects that are a threat. The
announcements by
the Spaceguard Central Node (I didn't see the JPL one) do a good
job of
informing the follow-up community of objects that are
urgently in need of observation and help focus attention on them.
These
announcements, and the calculations by the Pisa and JPL programs
that
precede them, have done their job and definitely focused
attention.
The question at hand is what is the best way to get the word out
and more
importantly, can we do better? If an object is recognized as a
potential
impactor, further observations are needed in order to rule out an
impact or
in the worst case, to better define when and where it will
impact. A few
options are available, 1) persuade an observer to conduct future
observations, 2) to sit back and hope the object is observed
during the
course of routine observations or 3) forget the
future and inform observers with access to past images to look
for
pre-discovery observations. Option 2 is dangerous, in that one
can never
guarantee that any object will be observed again. Many objects
are followed
for only a short time and then lost. Losing an object may be due
to it's
faintness, location in the sky, bad weather, etc. Even relatively
bright
objects that are well in the range of the majority of observers
can fall
through the cracks as observers concentrate on newer discoveries.
1998 OX4
and most of the objects that currently reside on the NEODyS 'Risk
page' are
examples of objects that could have been better observed had
their
importance been known at the time. Option 3 is one that can
really make a
big difference in a short amount of time. Orbital arcs can be
substantially
increased by the measurement of precovery observations. But
option 3 also
doesn't guarantee a detection and can highly bias a computed
orbit if there
are uncertainties in the measurement. 2000 SG344 is an example, a
single
night of overweighted precovery observations from a year earlier
led to its
announcement as an impact candidate. Further observations from
that year
showed the object to be less of a hazard. Option 1, on the other
hand, has a
much higher probability of producing further data since in most
cases the
object is still visible. Longer discovery apparition arcs also
insure a
greater chance of recovering the object at further apparitions.
When should observers be asked for further observations?
Currently, it is
done as soon as a dangerous object is recognized. Sometimes, as
in 2001 PM9,
2000 SG344, 2000 AN10, etc, observations which show an object to
be harmless
are obtained in days or even hours of the announcement. If the
initial
impact scenario has been reported in the press, the subsequent
'all clear'
does make our community look bad. A mistake was made, it's a
cover-up, a
scheme to wrestle more funding from the government, and damn
those
scientists for scaring us; these are all sentiments that have
been published
in follow-up articles after an impact scenario has been
eliminated. But does
that mean the announcement for further observations was flawed?
It did it's
job, further observations did surface, observations that may not
have been
made had the nature of the object in question not been broadcast
to the
observers. Unless further observations are known to be
forthcoming, the
impact announcement should be released immediately. A delay could
result in
the losing of an object as it fades or as the moon brightens the
sky. It's
never too early to study and prepare for a potential natural
disaster.
One issue that hasn't been mentioned in previous statements on
the subject
but may not be lurking too far below the surface, is the issue of
who gets
notified when a potential impactor is found. Unless we allow the
fates to
decide and sit back hoping the impactor is observed in the
future, observers
with access to telescopes or past data must be notified. Should
this
notification be limited to a few key observers in order to lessen
the chance
of the impactor 'leaking' to the public? Though this course of
action would
probably allow most impact scenarios to come and go behind close
doors; is
the secrecy worth it? If word did leak out, news of a cover-up
concerning
the potential end of the world would naturally occur, and the
news wouldn't
be too far off the mark. Who would be trusted to conduct these
observations
and what if they wanted to make their work public anyway? The
important
thing is to obtain as much information on a problem object as
soon as
possible; why limit the number of people who can help? Much of
the current
follow-up of objects brighter than 19th magnitude are done by
private
citizens and not professionals. To exclude this important
resource would be
wasteful.
Contrary to the public's and even many researcher's
preconceptions, our
ability to observe dangerous asteroids and comets is limited.
Telescopes are
scheduled months in advance. One can not just simply waltz up to
a
professional telescope and observe, even if it's a known
potential
impactor. Other observers might be observing and many aren't
concerned with
our area of study plus many times the instrumentation on the
telescope that
night may not be suited for the observations. If observations are
needed,
the word must be disseminated to the widest possible audience of
potential
observers in a timely manner in order to insure that observation
attempts
can be made. Notifing a subset of observers only increases the
chance of
failure.
The main concern about the current state of NEO impector
notification seems
to be less about it's scientific merit and more about the
public's
perception of asteroid researchers. We are in a delicate
position. We are
the front line of defense against a very rare yet very
destructive
natural phenomenon. Chances are we will detect nothing that will
do harm in
our lifetimes, or our children's, grandchildren's, etc. But
search we must,
just in case. But as a result, most impact
warnings will be nothing but warnings, the probablity of impact
falling to
zero. The average person has a hard time grasping the real
meaning of
probabilities. If further observations prove that an object has a
probability of impact that is zero, that does not mean a previous
prediction
with less data that showed a probability of impact of 1-in-100
was wrong or
a mistake. Whether we like it or not most of our warnings will be
'flase
alarms'. But is that a bad thing? People are used to 'erroneous'
predictions
of natural disasters. Every time a tropical storm forms in the
Atlantic, the
news is swamped with stories even if the storm has little chance
of
landfall.
How many times has a hurricane been forecast to impact the east
coast of the
US only to veer off to the northeast. The forecasters don't
decide to hold
back all news of potential landfalling storm for 72 hours just to
get it
right. Yes, 'flase alarms' will make the public more cynical
about asteroid
predictions but some amount of that is expected and unavoidable
due to the
uncertainty of the problem. If the day comes when a true impactor
has been
found, some people will listen and some will be non-believers,
whether they
are average people, government officials or even fellow
scientists. People
may think asteroid scientists are often wrong but very few doubt
that an
asteroid impact can happen. I believe people should be informed
about what
we are doing and not kept in the dark. If the media wants to
report our
actions, so be it. If the fringe wants to scream cover-up about
roaming
Martian moons, that's their right. Our policies should not be
entirely
dictated by the public's perception. It must be balanced by
scientific
merit. An open policy of impactor announcements is the best way
to insure
that the required work will get done by the most people. Scaring
a few
people or making asteroid researchers look like clowns every now
and then
may be the price we pay for insuring we don't go the way of the
dinosaurs.
To steal the sentiment of Benjamin Franklin, this policy may not
be the best
but it may be the best that we can do. Of course, if anyone has
anything
better...
==========
(10) 2001 PM9: WE LUCKY FEW
>From Larry Robinson <lrobinsn@ix.netcom.com>
Dear Benny:
I realize at times it must seem like the astronomy community is
disorganized
and alarmist, and perhaps it is. The fact of the matter is that
there are
really very few people contributing to this effort and the need
for data in
the event of initial suspects like 2001 PM9 sometimes prompts
some urgent
emails to the small band of follow up stations out here taking
pictures and
making measurments. Our group here in Kansas at Powell
Observatory is just
one of those stations. When we saw the email traffic on 2001 PM9
from NEODys
and others, we prioritized our observations of 2001 PM9. We have
a larger
than normal aperture amateur telescope and a brand new back
illuminated
super sensative CCD camera funded by a grant from NASA's Office
of Space
Science. What would be an object too fast moving and faint with
our old
camera was now an easy target and Kyle Smalley was able to get
more than one
night of data on 2001 PM9, contributing to the improved orbital
determination.
Would this have been done without the emails from NEODys and
private emails
from others? Maybe not. So it did some good, didn't it? You
can sleep
easier tonight, because it was done. Doesn't that make it
worthwhile? So a
little ink was used and some bandwidth consumed. Maybe it will
motivate some
folks to take these matters more seriously and speed up the
funding of the
research and help fill in that huge blind spot in the southern
hemisphere.
We few here in Kansas, all volunteers, and in particular, Kyle
Smalley, who
spends every clear night at Powell Observatory, enjoy the
opportunity to
contribute what we can, when we can. We leave it to Brian
Marsden and
others to sort out the political implications of the urgent
announcements
and how to handle information dissemination to the public. Just
so long as
we know how we can help soon enough to do some good is all we few
really
care about. Let's not let the flap over matters like 2001 PM9
cause the
communications to slow down or shut down, just because someone
might be
embarrassed in the press. There is really nothing to be
embarrassed about.
Cheers...
Larry Robinson
Sunflower Observatory 739
14680 W 144th Street
Olathe KS 66062
lrobinsn@ix.netcom.com
===============
(12) 2001 PM9 & INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION REPORT
>From Andy Smith <astrosafe@yahoo.com>
Hi Benny and CCNet,
We think you are handling the 2001 PM9 situation appropriately.
Scare or
alarm articles will be
written, from time to time, as the World becomes increasingly
aware of the
danger we face. We strongly encourage a rapid response from the
"truth team"
(as you did, in this case) and we urge the IAU to speed-up the
processing
time for new discoveries...so the truth can get out quickly.
PHA Definition Needs Attention
The present cut-off size for potentially hazardous asteroids
(PHA) is Mag.
22. It is our impression that objects smaller than that are not
included on
the PHA lists (NEODys, MPC). Such an object would be about 400
meters wide
and be equal, in destructive energy, to about 1,200 million tons
(megatons)
of TNT.
We think objects that size and smaller (down to the
Tunguska or Barringer
size - 50 meters wide and Mag 25 or so) should be included on the
PHA lists.
They are extremely hazardous and should be tracked and given the
same
attention as the larger rock-bombs. We think the MPC and NEO/DYS
teams are
doing great jobs and we hope they and their IAU colleagues will
make this
adjustment.
International Space Cooperation Report
It was good to hear from the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs
(CCNet,
yesterday) and we hope many of you will look at the Workshop
Report which
was mentioned. This appears to have been a very productive
meeting.
We were surprised to see no mention, in the report, of the two
landmark and
very supportive AIAA position statements, made in 1991 and 1995.
The first
statement, as you know, led to the very important series of
international
conferences that were held in the U.S., Russia, Italy and
elsewhere, in the
early 1990's. Also the two U.S. Congressional hearings held on
planetary
defense were not mentioned and neither the Spaceguard nor the
Space Shield
Foundations were recognized. Spaceguard has major organizations,
now, in
several countries and Space Shield is providing major global
leadership, in
the study of issues related to mitigation.
In addition, there was no mention of the fact that the entire
decade of the
1990's was designated, by the U.N., as the Decade for Natural
Disaster
Reduction and meetings and conferences were held, during that
period, all
over the World and those activities are still continuing (see Web
citations). The activities were sponsored by the United Nations
and repeated
attempts were made, by many of us, to get the asteroid/comet
danger included
on the list of natural threats and those attempts were ignored,
at both
national and international levels.
Much of the difficulty we face, as we try to focus attention on
the
important matter of asteroid/comet (AC) protection, is concerned
with the
need to inform leaders, and to get them to support key
programs......and we
should not underestimate that need. The funding requirment, for
example, to
complete the vital NEO data base (100,000 objects or so)in a
decade, rather
than 300 years, is relatively small...if we can get an
appropriate priority
assigned. The total cost of the program would be less than half
the cost of
one shuttle flight....and the results could very well save
humanity.
Finally, we want to call to the attention of those now trying to
organize
the long overdue international program, that there is a newly
formed Natural
Hazards Caucus in the U.S.Senate and it does not recognize the AC
danger. We
invite them and all of the CCNet and AIAA devotees to contact and
inform
them. This program is also easy to find on the Web.
There are at least 2,000 specialists, around the World, who are
spending a
lot of volunteer time on this important matter and we hope the
planners of
the future Workshops will keep us informed of meeting plans and
available
information products. This excellent newsletter (CCNet) would be
a great
information channel. It would also be helpful to hold the next
meeting in
the U.S. and to give support to the many ongoing and very
important
programs, here.
We appreciate, very much, the availability of the March Workshop
report, on
the Web, and the results of the Workshop were impressive. We hope
the work
will continue and we urge full openness and high visibility, in
the future.
Cheers
Andy Smith
===============
(13) PLANETARY DEFENSE
>From Christian Gritzner <christian.gritzner@mailbox.tu-dresden.de>
Dear Benny,
just a brief comment on the note "DOUBTS ABOUT PLANETARY
DEFENSE" by John
Michael Williams in CCNet 92/2001 - 23 August 2001:
Because nuclear explosives for NEO mitigation will be operated in
the vacuum
of space the energy is transfered only by radiation. Beside the
thermal
radiation there will be a high portion of x-rays and emmitted
neutrons
(depending on the type of the nuclear explosive) which will
interact with the surface of the asteroid or comet. It is assumed
that the
radiation will heat up the surface layer and spall it away
producing an
impulse on the remaining NEO. This effect may be intensified when
performing
a surface or sub-surface explosion. The major concern with
nuclear
explosives is an undesired fracturing or partial/total
destruction of the
NEO.
For further information have a look at the report of the
"Planetary Defense
Workshop", 1995:
http://www.llnl.gov/planetary/
The book "Hazards due to comets and asteroids" by Tom
Gehrels (editor), The
University of Arizona Press, 1994, ISBN 0-8165-1505-0, gives a
good
overview, too!
With kind regards,
Christian Gritzner
--
Dresden University of Technology
Institute for Aerospace Engineering
Dr.-Ing. Christian Gritzner, Senior Engineer
01062 Dresden, Germany
Tel.: +49-(0)351-463-8234 (Fax: -8126)
E-mail: christian.gritzner@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
Homepage: www.tu-dresden.de/mw/ilr/space/space.htm
============
(14) "RED HOT KILLER ASTEROID"
>From Phil Plait <badastro@badastronomy.com>
Hi Benny--
In the CCNet 92/2001 - 23 August 2001 there was this
letter:
>A nuclear bomb operates mainly by release of immense amounts
of heat. The
>only way it creates mechanical stress at any significant
distance is because
>of changes in air pressure caused by the
>heating. Everyone reading this must be familiar with the
mushroom-shaped
>cloud, which represents the leftover heated air, that which
did not
>contribute to the shock wave in nearby air. A nuclear bomb
probably would do
>little more to an approaching "killer asteroid"
than to make it red hot, too
>hot to touch.
Ah, but that's the point! As planetologist John Lewis comments in
his
fascinating book "Rain of Iron and Ice", detonating a
nuclear weapon a few
asteroid radii off the surface heats it substantially. This vapor
then
expands rapidly, exerting a push on the asteroid itself. In this
way, the
orbit of the asteroid can be modified. Given a long enough lead
time (as is
always the case when trying to toss around objects of this kind
of mass) the
orbit can be turned from malignant to benign.
The exact execution of this sort of orbital manipulation depends
on many
factors, not the least of which is the composition of the
asteroid itself.
This to me is one of the best reasons to send more probes to
NEAs.
-Phil
* * *
* * The Bad
Astronomer *
* * *
Phil
Plait
badastro@badastronomy.com
The Bad Astronomy Web Page: http://www.badastronomy.com
===========
(15) DEFLECTION OF ASTEROIDS WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS
>From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny
Re John Michael Williams comments about nuclear deflection.
I covered the topic of deflecting asteroids in a series of
articles for
Space.com last year. Links and references are at:
http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/reading.html#ez8
Very briefly, a "stand-off" nuclear blast is favored
because it is less
likely to shatter a fragile asteroid (leading to the more deadly
shotgun
effect when it reaches Earth). Much of the energy from the
stand-off blast
is wasted but the theory is that enough radiant energy reaches
the surface
of the asteroid to vaporise material which then flies off into
space. This
gives the asteroid a small impulse in the opposite direction
(away from the
blast). The important point about the Spaceguard effort is that
the earlier
an Earth-threatening asteroid is detected the smaller the nudge
that is
needed to prevent a collision. Ideally such deflections should
take
place dozens of orbits before impact (say 100 years, with typical
orbits
around 3 years) and a nudge is applied during successive orbits
until the
asteroid is declared safe.
I also reviewed non-nuclear methods of deflection. Some could be
quite
feasible within a few years, although the size of the nudge would
probably
be less than with nuclear bombs.
I actually started researching this issue a few years ago when,
to my
annoyance, an Australian politician stated on TV that there was
no point in
looking for asteroids because there was nothing we could do if
one was found
to be on a collision course!
regards
Michael Paine
===========
(16) DEFLECTION OF ASTEROIDS WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS
>From John Michael Williams <jwill@AstraGate.net>
Hello Benny and Michael.
I think EARLY identification of approaching objects, and rapid
evaluation of
their mechanical characteristics, would have to precede effective
defense efforts.
For example, a modified ICBM with 10-ish megaton warhead might be
able to
bury itself deep enough in a comet to blow it up, with a
favorable result
much the same as a detonation in air or water.
However, launching of one or more nuclear missiles from Earth
into the
distance would be extremely risky, and the damage done by a
failed launch
might be worse than that of a small asteroid impact.
Thus, I think a Moon base would be a better idea than
Earth-launched efforts
or the flying of huge chemical depots near the upper-atmosphere
orbital
station (ISS). Materials could be transported in a safe and
leisurely way to
the Moon, there to be dispatched on
riskier missions. This my favorite reason for advocating
establishment of a
Moon base. However, although I favor nuclear power on the
Moon, I think in general heavy
weaponry should be avoided, even weaponry intended for
humanitarian
purposes.
The issue of deflection of stony or solid, (effectively)
cast-iron asteroids
is quite a different one from that of comets. Given enough
warning, a big rocket motor
might be brought in contact, aligned with the asteroid's center
of gravity,
and thus the asteroid's course might be changed.
Although I haven't done the calculations, I am sure the energy
usage and
momentum transfer would be better by burning 1 kton of hydrogen
in a rocket, than by
detonating a 1 Mton thermonuclear bomb to get an ounce of photons
and a few hundred kg of
gasified metal. As has been rumored, in fact, E = m*c^2--and c is
a VERY big number.
I would like to point out that one big asteroid would be far more
deadly
than the same broken into small pieces. The pieces would be
subject to greater atmospheric
ablation and reduction of velocity, in view of the greater
surface-to-volume ratio. Also, larger
impactors would be associated with lower-frequency,
longer-wavelength
effects, which would spread damage farther than the same mass in
smaller
pieces.
There is no way, unfortunately, to get a nuclear
missile in position for enough reaction force to
pulverize a solid asteroid in vacuum. A drilling
operation would have to be mounted.
That said, I did read a couple of the postings at Michael's link.
His
opinions seem more or less to follow Solem's at that site,
http://www.llnl.gov/planetary/.
I disagree with the opinion that nuclear explosives would be of
use against
a solid asteroid, unless time did not permit a more effective
response.
Solem's statement that a nuclear bomb could "blast a
crater" in the side of
a solid rock in vacuum seems unlikely to be correct. No air; no
blast.
However, I am not sure of the benefit of spending the time to do
the
calculations to prove this.
I should only like to point out that the insight of the
participants at the
site above seemed mostly based on wartime and cold war testing in
air,
against targets in surface soil or water, and usually made of
inflammable
material. A cubic kilometer of cast iron would be a beast of
another genre.
Quite honestly, I think the fear of an asteroid impact is an idle
one. As
Dr. Laura Schlessinger once asked, "What is the difference
between a
chronically fearful woman and a drug addict?"
The correct answer: "Nothing".
So, maybe a preventive dose of "Vitamin Moon" might do
no harm; but, arming
ISS to blow up asteroids would be more of a shot in the head than
one in the arm.
--
John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
==========
(17) UPDATE ON TUNGUSKA
>From Luigi Foschini <foschini@tesre.bo.cnr.it>
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
the Italian Scientific Expedition Tunguska99 has been carried out
on July
1999, just 2 years ago. Now, first results begins to appear. You
can find
new publications (abstracts and preprints) at the Tunguska web
page of the
University of Bologna: http://www-th.bo.infn.it/tunguska/
specifically at the page dedicated to publications.
Among new publications, it is worth noting that the full paper
(17 pages):
P. Farinella, L. Foschini, Ch. Froeschlé, R. Gonczi, T.J. Jopek,
G. Longo,
P. Michel:
Probable asteroidal origin of the Tunguska Cosmic Body.
has been accepted for the publication by Astronomy and
Astrophysics. This
work originated from an idea of the late Paolo Farinella,
deceased on March
25th, 2000. We dedicate it to him.
A preprint (PS or PDF) is available at the web page written
above.
Greetings,
Luigi Foschini
Dr. Luigi Foschini
Istituto TeSRE - CNR
Via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna (Italy)
Tel. +39 051.6398706 - Fax +39 051.6398724
Email: foschini@tesre.bo.cnr.it
Home : luifosc@tin.it
URL: http://tonno.tesre.bo.cnr.it/~foschini/
===========
(18) SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT
>From Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
Forwarded from ROBIN CLEGG <ROBIN.CLEGG@PPARC.AC.UK>
Colleagues at MSSL have asked me to advertise to the list a 3-day
seminar
with this title. It's at the Royal Society London, from
16-18 October.
The space environment is a multi-discpilinary topic in science,
applications
and engineering. There are ntaural connections in terms of
scientific
techniques and the space technologies required.
The meeting's main goals are: to identify links between
different science &
technology areas; identify gaps in science, interpretation
and
applications; and to indentify underlying technologies.
Main topics are: Observation of the Earth (including climate
change, land
and ocean monitoring); Sun-Earth Connection; Hazard Warning
(including
storms, space dust and debris); and Space and Spacecraft
Technologies
(including communications, cryogenics, software and
miniaturization).
A press conference will be held in conjunction with the start of
the
meeting.
Further details from www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_seminar/roy.html
or from
Rosalind Medland, Mullard Space Science Laboratory (rer@mssl.ucl.ac.uk)
Robin Clegg
_________________________________
Dr Robin Clegg
Head, Public Understanding of Science & Technology
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
Polaris House, North Star Avenue,
Swindon, SN2 1SZ, UK
Tel +44 (0)1793 442010
Fax +44 (0)1793 442002
Email Robin.Clegg@pparc.ac.uk
=============
(19) TAGISCH-LAKE METEORITE & SIR FRED HOYLE
>From Hermann Burchard <burchar@mail.math.okstate.edu>
Dear Benny,
the leading German paper DIE WELT is reporting on the Tagish Lake
Meteorite
in great detail, emphasizing its uniquely primitive composition,
wealth of
organic molecules including Fullerenes, agreement of chemistry
with the
spectra of type D asteroids from the outer belt, and grains
"older than the solar system."
http://www.welt.de/daten/2001/08/24/0824astr277065.htx
Sir Fred Hoyle must have been delighted by the fortuitous
recovery when it
occurred, as this confirmed some of his predictions (not sure
about reports
of comments by him). I did see that he was quoted as believing in
a universe
without limits in time and space, and denying the Big Bang, so
named by him.
The less well known Inflationary Universe (in which we inhabit a
small
fractal bubble if I got it right) would seem to suit his criteria
better. I
wonder if a cosmology along those lines should not allow models
without
beginning and end.
Mathematically the exact meaning of such statements is unclear,
as even
things like the infinite line, plane, space, etc, are among many
entities in
a mathematical, logical world, each with numberless copies.
Such a world is
unlimited in other ways - often in paradoxical manner - explored
by Georg
Cantor and Kurt G"odel. It is interesting to note that
G"odel has published
on cosmology.
Immanuel Kant would have had none of any of this as being
"outside of the
bounds of any possible experience", and I think he was
largely right. What
eluded even him was the clear methodical distinction between our
logical,
linguistic accounts of the universe, among which all of
mathematics,
theoretical physics, and all cosmologies must be reckoned on the
one hand,
and the actual universe on the other. The true question is then
why this
universe does allow us to form logical, linguistic accounts of
itself (which
are of course an albeit minuscule part of it).
Sir Fred's work - even if not always universally accepted - was
honored on
CCNet by those who know him best whom I wish to join with
admiration for a
vigorous proponent of the unity of science.
Regards,
Hermann G.W. Burchard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.