PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet DEBATE, 8 October 1998
----------------------------
(1) COMET OF 1680/81 NOT TO YIELD END OF WORLD IN 2255
Brian G. Marsden <bmarsden@cfa.harvard.edu>
(2) "PLANETARY DEFENSE IS NOT NASA'S TASK" - DAN GOLDIN
E.P. Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
(3) SMALL ASTEROID COULD BE USED AS WEAPON
Oliver Morton <abq72@pop.dial.pipex.com>
(4) WHEN REQUIRED, PLANETARY DEFENSE SOULD BE UNLOCKED BY
UN SECURITY COUNCIL
Jens Kieffer-Olsen <dstdba@post4.tele.dk>
==================
(1) COMET OF 1680/81 NOT TO YIELD END OF WORLD IN 2255
From Brian G. Marsden <bmarsden@cfa.harvard.edu>
Let me respond to Mike Baillie's question by remarking that the
575-year period, given by Halley and apparently embraced by
Newton, for
the celebrated 1680/1681 comet arose solely because of Halley's
conviction that the same comet had previously appeared in 1106,
531 and
44 B.C., this last being supposedly the comet said to have
appeared
following the assassination of Julius Caesar.
It was proven by Cowell and Crommelin early in the twentieth
century that the 531 (actually 530) comet is in fact an early
apparition
of Halley's 75-year-period comet. It was suspected by
Kreutz, already
a century ago, that the 1106 comet was a member of the sungrazing
comet group that bears his name; while an actual proof of this
seems
not to be possible, my own study of the Kreutz comets, which have
orbits
significantly different from that of the 1680/1681 comet, has
tended
to support the Kreutz hypothesis. Finally, it was shown by
Ramsey and Licht in their recent monograph on "Caesar's
Comet" that
Halley's scenario was completely wrong with regard to the month
in
which the object appeared, as well as to the time of day and
position
in the sky. So, while Halley's conjecture of the 575-year
period was
quite ingenious, all three pieces of earlier supporting evidence
have
now disappeared.
Furthermore, given the crudeness of the positional data available
to them, there was no way that either Newton or Halley would have
been
able to say that the observations in 1680/1681 could not be
satisfied
by a parabola. Encke published a more thorough study of the
1680/1681
data in 1818, refining the comet's positions by means of more
precise
information about the positions of the reference stars to which
the
comet's positions were referred. As a result, he derived a
nominal
revolution period for the comet of more than 8000 years and
suggested
that a period of less than 2000 years would be an impossibility.
Whiston, the rather bizzarre character who succeeded Newton in
the Lucasian chair at Cambridge, took things to extremes and used
the
575-year period to tie the comet to The Deluge (which he supposed
to
occur in 2349 B.C.) and predicted that the comet's next
appearance in
2255 would signify the end of the world. If the world does
end in
2255, it will not be because of the 1680/1681 comet.
========================
(2) "PLANETARY DEFENSE IS NOT NASA'S TASK" - DAN GOLDIN
From E.P. Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
Benny -
Sorry to be so late in getting this to you. Last wednesday I went
into
Washington for a hearing of the House Space subcommittee marking
NASA's
40th anniversary, as well as to a speech by Dan Goldin at NASA
marking
the occasion. I think that the Conference members will find Dan
Goldin's current long range view of the United States's future in
space
of interest, and I know they will find the extremely brief
conversation
I had with him on the NEO problem fascinating.
Originally the hearing witnesses were to have been Dan Goldin;
Dr.
Eilene Galloway (who spoke on her Congressional work during the
Eisenhower administration); Astronaut Pete Conrad, now Chairman
of
Universal Space Lines; Dr. Howard McCurdy, Professor of Public
Administration (bureaucracy) at American University; and two
witnesses
hostile to NASA: Mr. Rick Tumlinson, President of the Space
Frontier
Foundation, and Keith Cowling, Former NASA Employee and publisher
of
NASA Watch. Deft moves on NASA's part succeeded in getting
Keith
Cowling removed as a witness, and the hearing time moved from
3:00 PM,
which would have allowed time for an attack on NASA, to
12:00-2:00,
which did not. Turnout by the Congressmen was light, but
another
hearing has been scheduled for this wednesday at which the
Clinton
administration's and NASA's policy of working with the Russians
on the
International Space Station will be attacked.
Dan Goldin set out NASA's immediate operational as such: 1)
Insure the
safety of the astronauts and make sure NASA does no harm to other
people; 2)Get the International Space Station into operation;
3)Develop
new launch systems to lower the cost of getting into space.
Administrator Goldin set out a brief fictional account of a
Japanese
Prime Minister's work 40 years from now which described his own
vision of the future. First, Goldin mentioned a craft
capable of flying
in 2 hours from Washington to Tokyo (this would use technologies
evolved along the lines of the X-30 scramjet, which was initially
looked at during the Reagan administration). An international
outpost
has been set up on Mars. An interstellar probe has just been
launched,
and advanced telescopes are capable of imaging planets in other
solar
systems. The weather can be accurately forecast for
decades.
The private sector is involved with manufacturing, mining, energy
production and tourism on the Moon, Mars, and Near Earth
Asteroids.
NASA operates a facility at Solar Libration Point 1. The Mars
ship has
a closed loop life support system and is self sufficient. Virtual
reality systems have evolved, and people use them to vicariously
join in
the exploration of the solar system. All of these
technologies
mentioned relied on intelligent computer
systems.
Goldin's closed his presentation with a defense of NASA and an
appeal
for bi-partisan support and a stable legislative environment. The
next
few weeks show tell whether he gets any of this, but Rick
Tumlinson
then set out the Space Frontier Foundations goals, which it
appears
that Newt Gingrich is going to use as the ideological cover for
his
attack on NASA and the Administration.
Tumlinson's desires are evident: "you and I and our children
have
little more chance of going into space...than we had at (NASA's)
beginning.", and he deeply resents not being among the
"few elite
government employees and their friends" who are astronauts.
To get into
space Tumlinson has several schemes, none well thought out.
Tumlinson
wants to privatize the Shuttle now, so that he can use it to fly
to
space. He wants Mir to be privatized and kept in orbit as a
tourist
destination. (I hope the Russians don't actually take this guy
seriously. I'm sure Speaker Gingrich differs with him on this
point.)
Tumlinson wants to privatize the ISS, which is then supposed to
be
transformed into the tourist destination "Alpha Town".
NASA is supposed
to take all the money it saves by doing these things and buy a
Mars
outpost from the private sector, in other words from the people
of the
Space Frontier Foundation: "Moneys saved from space station
shuttle and
center operations should be used to fund the development and
operation
of pioneering technologies that will enable the exploration and
settlement of Mars." As for the Moon, Tumlinson sees
that "Lunar
missions could go a long way to laying the groundwork for the
rapid
development of the first human outpost on another world."
The pathetic thing is that this guy was invited to speak by the
Committee in the first place, and it is a sign of how bizarre
things
have become in Washington that he was not laughed out of the
hearing
room.
The hearing ended at 2:00 PM sharp, and Dan Goldin proceeded to
the
NASA auditorium where he gave the same speech to NASA
employees.
Afterwards a reception was held in front of the auditorium, and I
had a
chance to speak him.
A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH DAN GOLDIN ON THE NEO PROBLEM
E.P.: "I noticed that your presentation made no mention of
Planetary
Defense.
Goldin (smiling):"Planetary Defense is not NASA's
task."
E.P.: "But surely you help the Air Force with
tracking?"
Goldin: "I had so many things to mention." (pause)
"I must have 30 things hanging over my head right now."
(motions with
hand over head )
(pause)
E.P.: "You have a real problem there."
Goldin: "How so?"
E.P.: "The numbers that you are working with are about 3
times too low.
We know this from the historical record."
(looked me directly in the eyes)
Goldin: "Thanks."
==========================
(3) SMALL ASTEROID COULD BE USED AS WEAPON FOR REGIONAL
DESTRUCTION
From Oliver Morton <abq72@pop.dial.pipex.com>
Dear Benny -- your latest stirred a few thoughts.
While I'm not greatly invested in the Sagan/Ostro threat, I
thought
James Perry was a little too dismissive. His confidence that a
strangelove-style madman would be easily controlled through PALs,
etc,
ignores the fact that most nuclear powers do not have universal
PALs or
similar controls. What's more, he assumes at some points
that the risk
is of a global catastrophe, while engineered regional
devestations are
also possible. They'd be harder to pull off, I agree, but
politicians
and generals have been known to attempt things they couldn't pull
off
while all the time convinced that they could...
He also assumes that a collision would be engineered using an
existing
deflection system, which is not necessarily the case. And he
ignores
the fact that an asteroid, while unwieldy, might when used as a
weapon
provide benefits in terms of leverage and deniability.
Jens Kieffer-Olsen assumes that use of nuclear explosives means
the
involvement of the military. While in the rest of the world this
might
be the case, in the US nuclear explosives come under the remit of
the
Department of Energy. As I understand it, this is the result of a
decision -- in the Eisenhower administration, or earlier -- that
nukes
were too important to leave to the generals. It is the DoE that
designs
and makes the things; nuclear tests were, when they used to
occur, DoE
responsibilities, I believe. So a civilian use of nuclear
explosives is
conceivable -- indeed, precedent suggests that American public
opinion
and political prractice would both point to civilian control of
non-military nukes in such a context.
Yours, oliver
====================
(4) WHEN REQUIRED, PLANETARY DEFENSE SOULD BE UNLOCKED BY
UN SECURITY COUNCIL
From Jens Kieffer-Olsen <dstdba@post4.tele.dk>
I wasn't aware of the DoE being involved with nuclear tests.
Anyway, my
main point is that the defense of planet Earth should not lie in
the
same domain as the scientific exploration of space. Quite simply
because the decision to prioritize and allocate available funds
should
be taken at a visible, political level.
Following up on James Perry's contribution I can say that in my
vision
each nuclear device in space needs to be unlocked by five keys,
each of
the permanent members of UN security council possessing one.
Our fears are then reduced to the possibility that one key-holder
refuses to unlock the device when it's badly needed. That
could be
helped by four out of five keys being sufficient for the
deployment
with the caveat that due to the leading role played by the US
their key
is mandatory.
Jens Kieffer-Olsen, M.Sc.(Elec.Eng.)
----------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
----------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe, please
contact the moderator Benny J Peiser at <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
The electronic archive of the CCNet can be found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html