PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 122/2002 - 22 October 2002
-------------------------------
"When somebody finds an asteroid that will be coming by the
Earth in
about 30 years, then you will see all the countries of the world
working
very hard to get the capability to get people out there to
mitigate the
threat. I think we should start building up our capability in the
very
near future. We should not wait for something to happen. We
should get ready
for it."
--Robert Farquhar, Johns Hopkins University, 19 October 2002
(1) DISCOVERY OF AN ASTEROID AND QUASI-SATELLITE IN AN EARTH-LIKE
HORSESHOE
ORBIT
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 37 (2002)
(2) EARTH'S LITTLE BROTHER FOUND
BBC News Online, 21 October 2002
(3) SCIENTISTS TO LOOK FOR METEORITE IN SIBERIA
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(4) SPACE STUDY SEEN AS KEY TO SURVIVAL
Houston Chronicle, 19 October 2002
(5) DEEP IMPACT MISSION IN DEEP TROUBLE?
Space.com, 18 October 2002
(6) COMET'S FEATURES LOOK A LOT LIKE SOME ON EARTH
Space.com, 21 October 2002
(7) NASA RESEARCHERS SEEK ASTROBIOLOGY INSIGHTS FROM LEONIDS
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(8) THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LARGE METEORITE IMPACTS
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(9) HOLOCENE CATASTROPHIC EVENTS RECORDED IN LAKES
Suzanne Leroy <Suzanne.Leroy@BRUNEL.AC.UK>
(10) SCIENCE AND SECURITY IN AN AGE OF TERRORISM
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(11) AND FINALLY: SHOCK, HORROR AS OHIO ALLOWS PUPILS TO THINK
CRITICALLY
(ABOUT DARWINISM)
National Review Online, 18 October 2002
========
(1) DISCOVERY OF AN ASTEROID AND QUASI-SATELLITE IN AN EARTH-LIKE
HORSESHOE
ORBIT
>From Meteoritics & Planetary Science 37 (2002)
http://www.uark.edu/~meteor/abst37-10.htm#connors
Martin Connors*, Paul Chodas, Seppo Mikkola, Paul Wiegert,
Christian
Veillet, Kimmo Innanen
*Correspondence author's address: Centre for Science,
Athabasca University,
1 University Drive, Athabasca AB, Canada T9S 3A3; e-mail address:
martinc@athabascau.ca
Abstract-The newly discovered asteroid 2002 AA29 moves in a very
Earth-like
orbit that relative to Earth has a unique horseshoe shape and
allows
transitions to a quasi-satellite state. This is the first body
known to be
in a simple heliocentric horseshoe orbit, moving along its parent
planet's
orbit. It is similarly also the first true co-orbital object of
Earth, since
other asteroids in 1:1 resonance with Earth have orbits very
dissimilar from
that of our planet. When a quasi-satellite, it remains within 0.2
AU of the
Earth for several decades. 2002 AA29 is the first asteroid known
to exhibit
this behavior. 2002 AA29 introduces an important new class of
objects
offering potential targets for space missions and clues to
asteroid orbit
transfer evolution.
© Meteoritical Society, 2002. Printed in USA.
===========
(2) EARTH'S LITTLE BROTHER FOUND
>From BBC News Online, 21 October 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2347663.stm
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
Astronomers have discovered the first object ever that is in a
companion
orbit to the Earth.
Asteroid 2002 AA29 is only about 100 metres wide and never comes
closer than
3.6 million miles to our planet.
But it shares the Earth's orbit around the Sun, at first on one
side of the
Earth and then escaping to travel along our planet's path around
the Sun
until it encounters the Earth from the other side. Then it goes
back again.
Researchers are speculating that 2002 AA29 could be visited by
astronauts or
used to understand the threat to our planet posed by such rocks
from space.
Co-orbital object
2002 AA29 was discovered by the linear automated sky survey
project on 9
January 2002.
Martin Connors of Athabaseca University in Canada writes in the
journal
Meteoritics and Planetary Science that it, "moves in a very
Earth-like
orbit," and is the "first true co-orbital object of
Earth."
2002 AA29 has a bizarre horseshoe orbit around the sun
General Simon Worden of the United States Space Command described
it as a
"near Earth object that is close to being trapped by the
Earth as a second
natural satellite".
According to Helena Morais of the University of Lisbon and
Allesandro
Morbidelli of the University of Nice, writing in a paper to be
published in
the journal, Icarus: "2002 AA29 seems to be in a temporary
horseshoe-like
orbit with the Earth."
This puts 2002 AA29 is in the same class as 3753 Cruithne, a
similar rocky
body in a horseshoe orbit around the Earth.
But astronomers classify 2002 AA29 as the first real co-orbital
body found
associated with the Earth because it more completely shares the
Earth's path
around the Sun.
Co-orbiting asteroids have been found around other planets.
Over 1,200 so called "Trojans" have been found moving
either ahead or behind
Jupiter.
Eight such objects have been found associated with Mars.
But despite detailed searches no one has yet found any Trojan
objects near
the Earth.
It is clear that 2002 AA29 was discovered by accident at a time
when it was
at one end of its horseshoe orbit and, being at its closest to
the Earth,
was bright enough to be detected in an automated sky survey.
Detailed observations of its trajectory through space show that
2002 AA29
will reach its minimum close approach to the Earth - 12 times the
distance
between Earth and the Moon - at 1900 GMT on 8 January 2003.
Cat-and-mouse game
Thereafter it will travel ahead of the Earth moving faster than
our planet
does, until after 95 years it will catch up with the other side
of the Earth
and then reverse its motion.
Analysis of 2002 AA29's motions have revealed a remarkable event
that
happens to it every few thousand years.
In 550AD, and again in 2600AD and 3880AD, for a while it will
become a true
satellite of our planet, in effect Earth's second moon, although
technically
it will remain under the gravitational control of the Sun.
It remains a second moon to Earth for about 50 years until it
escapes.
Although only about 100 metres across 2002 AA29 may play a role
in the
manned exploration of space out of all proportion to its size.
Already researchers are speculating that it could be visited by
an unmanned
spaceprobe or even become the first object after the Moon to be
stepped on
by astronauts.
The object could tell us a lot about the composition of
asteroids.
Some have speculated that it could be nudged into a permanent
Earth orbit
where it could be studied at greater length.
Copyright 2002, BBC
===========
(3) SCIENTISTS TO LOOK FOR METEORITE IN SIBERIA
>From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
[ http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=2799344
]
Monday, October 21, 2002, 08:44 GMT
SCIENTISTS TO LOOK FOR METEORITE IN SIBERIA
By Alexander Batalin
IRKUTSK (RIA Novosti) -- A scientific expedition will set out on
Tuesday for
the meteorite crash site in the Irkutsk region (Siberia).
According to the latest data disclosed by Viktor Grigoryev,
deputy head of
the Solar and Earth Physics Institute of the Siberian Department
of the
Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the meteorite fell on
September 25th
about 30km from the Mama village, not in the Bodai district as
was
previously believed. The crash site's co-ordinates were corrected
on the
basis of data obtained by Irkutsk seismologists and an American
satellite
which registered a burst of the meteorite exploding in the
atmosphere.
According to Grigoryev, chances to find fragments of the space
traveller are
low because of low temperatures and show in the region. The
primary
objective is to minimise the search area. Scientists are planning
to achieve
this goal by getting into hard-to-reach areas of taiga as far as
possible.
The expedition at issue will last for a week. Scientists are next
expected
to visit the area in spring.
© 2002 RIA Novosti
=========
(4) SPACE STUDY SEEN AS KEY TO SURVIVAL
>From Houston Chronicle, 19 October 2002
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1623817
By MARK CARREAU
With Apollo astronaut John Young leading the charge, top
aerospace experts
warned Friday that humanity's survival may depend on how boldly
the world's
space agencies venture into the final frontier.
Only a spacefaring culture with the skills to travel among and
settle
planets can be assured of escaping a collision between Earth and
a large
asteroid or devastation from the eruption of a super volcano,
they told the
World Space Congress.
"Space exploration is the key to the future of the human
race," said Young,
who strolled on the moon more than 30 years ago and now serves as
the
associate director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. "We
should be running
scared to go out into the solar system. We should be running
fast."
Scientists believe that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs more
than 60
million years ago, and are gathering evidence of previously large
collisions.
"The civilization of Earth does not have quite as much
protection as we
would like to believe," said Leonid Gorshkov, an exploration
strategist with
RSC Energia, one of Russia's largest aerospace companies.
"We should not
place all of our eggs in one basket."
Young and Gorshkov joined colleagues from Japan and France at the
space
congress to discuss wide ranging strategies for expanding human
exploration
beyond the U.S.-led international space station.
Space policy experts, aerospace engineers, scientists and
students from more
than 100 countries converged on Houston for the nine-day
gathering, which
ends today. As in previous deliberations, the participants in
Friday's
session wrestled with how to overcome the economic and political
obstacles
that have slowed the human migration into space.
The last of NASA's Apollo moon missions returned to Earth on Dec.
19, 1972,
and no human has ventured as far since. Efforts to unite the
world's major
spacefaring nations aboard the space station have been stymied by
cost
overruns. As political support waned, NASA scaled the project
back at least
temporarily, straining relations with its partners in Canada,
Europe and
Japan.
"When somebody finds an asteroid that will be coming by the
Earth in about
30 years, then you will see all the countries of the world
working very hard
to get the capability to get people out there to mitigate the
threat," said
Robert Farquhar, a deep space mission design expert at the Johns
Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory in Baltimore. "I think
we should start
building up our capability in the very near future. We should not
wait for
something to happen. We should get ready for it."
During Friday's discussions, experts struggled to find agreement
on
strategies to embark on an internationally backed migration into
deep space.
Young favored the moon; Gorshkov's company favored a mission to
Mars by
2022, though it lacks the financial backing. Without the
finances, the
Russian said cosmonauts will at least attempt to mount an orbital
mission to
Mars where they could supervise the activities of robots on the
surface
below.
The Europeans envision human missions to Mars by 2030. Near-term
robotic
missions would attempt to collect soil samples from the Red
Planet for
analysis. The European strategy, though, relies on sustained
political and
financial support from more than a dozen nations.
For the moment, Japan seems most allied with NASA's strategy to
move beyond
the space station with an Earth-orbiting human habitat near the
moon.
Although they have not identified dates for the mission, planners
believe
the habitat could become a staging area for the launch of
deep-space
successors to the Hubble Space Telescopes.
As it expands, the habitat would also become a staging site for
missions to
the lunar surface.
"I think we need a set of destinations for human exploration
that
systematically pursues its fulfillment in a step-by-step fashion
with both
robotic and human spaceflight," said Wes Huntress, a former
NASA space
science chief who directs the Geophysical Laboratory at the
Carnegie
Institution in Washington.
He predicted that little will happen unless there is a
groundswell of new
public support for space exploration.
"There has to be a public imperative to go. It will not
happen unless the
administration, the Congress and the people of the United States
decide this
is what they want," Huntress told space congress
participants. "We have to
build a case for why the taxpayers of the world should pay for
this
enterprise."
Copyright 2002, Houston Chronicle
===========
(5) DEEP IMPACT MISSION IN DEEP TROUBLE?
>From Space.com, 18 October 2002
http://www.space.com/news/wsc_astronotes-1.html
Deep Impact is a NASA econo-class mission to shoot a projectile
at a comet
in July 2005, making a football field-sized crater deep within a
speeding
comet. But the word here at the World Space Congress is that the
mission is
in deep trouble encountering technical woes and cost growth. The
mission is
being led by a Univ. of Maryland, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and
Ball
Aerospace team. NASA Headquarters recently called the Deep Impact
folks in
for discussion of possible cancellation of the project. The
outcome of those
talks remains in the "to be determined" column as the
Deep Impact team tries
to save the effort.
Copyright 2002, Space.com
=========
(6) COMET'S FEATURES LOOK A LOT LIKE SOME ON EARTH
>From Space.com, 21 October 2002
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/borrelly_geology_021021.html
By Diana Jong
Staff Writer
Venus has its volcanoes. Mars has a canyon grander than any on
Earth. Eros
the asteroid is pockmarked by impact craters and littered with
boulders.
Many Sun-orbiting objects have geologic features that are
analogous to those
here on Earth. New research reveals that even comets, the dirty
balls of ice
from the edge of the solar system, can remind us of home.
Last September, while on its last leg, the Deep Space 1 (DS1)
spacecraft
zipped by comet Borrelly, taking some of the most detailed images
ever of a
comet's core. Examining these images, scientists noticed mesas,
ridges and
hills, all resembling terrestrial surface features.
Scientists detected many Earth-like features on Borrelly, such as
mesas,
hills and ridges, as noted on this image. The geologic features
on Earth and
Borrelly are formed through the same basic processes.
This new color-enhanced composite of Borrelly images taken by DS1
was
released earlier this month. It shows features of the comet's
nucleus, dust
jets escaping the nucleus and the cloud-like coma of dust and
gases.
On Earth, analogous structures are carved out largely through the
erosive
forces of wind and rain. On a ball of dust and ice (with perhaps
some rock)
hurtling through space, however, geology is formed when a
material turns
directly from a solid into a gaseous state, a process called
sublimation.
"It's basically all physics," says Dan Britt, a
geologist from the
University of Tennessee and a member of the DS1 science team.
The mesas on Borrelly are more than 300 feet (100 meters) tall
and can be 20
times as wide. Britt says they resemble the mesas in the American
Southwest,
which are formed when a cap of hard rock overlies softer material
that
erodes faster. The cap acts as a type of shield.
On Borrelly, the caps are made of the dust and rock left behind
when
volatiles, such as water and methane ice, sublimate. Sublimation
continues
from the sides of the mesa, and a resistant cap finally drops
down when it
is undermined, Britt said. During the course of Borrelly's
seven-year orbit
around the Sun, Britt adds, the mesas erode as much as thirty
feet (10
meters).
There are also regions on Borrelly that experience slower
sublimation-related erosion, a fact Britt figures is responsible
for making
the hills and linear features on the comet. Overall, he says,
sublimation
removes about three feet (1 meter) of Borrelly every cycle.
"That's actually pretty active erosion, even in geologic
terms," Britt said
in a telephone interview. "If your yard eroded one meter
every seven years,
you'd be upset."
Britt and his colleagues also observed ridges on Borrelly. These
were
formed, they believe, when one part of the comet broke off and
was pushed
back at an angle.
"When you have two moveable objects pushing against each
other, you make
ridges," he said. "That's how you make mountains on
Earth."
As simple as it may sound to draw a correlation between Earth and
comets,
these findings are somewhat surprising, Britt says.
"Comets, up until now, have been really astronomical
objects, sort of dots
on a photographic plate, or blobs," he said. "I've
never really thought that
a ball of ice and dust would make interesting surfaces and have
interesting
processes and produce interesting pictures."
Britt and his colleagues compiled DS1's images of Borrelly to
create 3-D
composites. They then carefully examined and measured the
features on the
comet. They presented their findings earlier this month at a
meeting of the
Division of Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, Alabama.
Astronomers have been taking pictures of comets for more than a
decade, but
none have been as detailed as those of Borrelly, made when DS1
passed within
1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) of the comet.
In 1986, the European Space Agency's Giotto mission took pictures
of comet
Halley. Those images, however, did not resolve the surface of the
comet. In
2003, ESA will launch Rosetta, which will visit comet Wirtanen.
It will be
followed in 2004 by NASA's Deep Impact, designed to slam a probe
into a
comet while the mother ship monitors the event from afar, so as
to learn
more about comet insides.
DS1, launched in 1998, was designed primarily to test new
technology,
including an ion engine. Science was a secondary objective.
Copyright 2002, Space.com
===========
(7) NASA RESEARCHERS SEEK ASTROBIOLOGY INSIGHTS FROM LEONIDS
>From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=170
NASA Researchers Seek Astrobiology Insights on the Leonid
Multi-Instrument
Aircraft Campaign
By: David Lamb
NASA Astrobiology Institute
October 18, 2002
This November, Peter Jenniskens will again be leading a NASA team
to explore
the 2002 Leonid meteor storm from high altitudes.
Meteor showers may be a beautiful, heavenly spectacle that can
provide for a
good evening of entertainment, but they are also much more.
Meteors, or
"shooting stars" are streaks of light that appear in
the sky when small
particles from space enter Earth's atmosphere. They have amazed
stargazers
for millennia. But only recently have scientists realized their
importance
to understanding the evolution of the solar system - and their
connection to
astrobiology. One shower in particular, the Leonids, has been
especially
strong recently. And this year, stargazers and scientists alike
are in for a
spectacular show, and astrobiologists will be closely monitoring
from high
altitudes.
In 1965, Comet (55P) Tempel-Tuttle, the comet responsible for the
Leonid
meteor shower, was rediscovered after being lost for nearly a
century. The
following year, many onlookers viewed flurries of meteors that
may have
reached 40 per second! Although we probably won't experience
rates that high
this year, we will still be in for a good show. This is good news
for Dr.
Peter Jenniskens, the Principal Investigator (PI) for the Leonid
Multi-Instrument Aircraft Campaign (MAC), which is designed
specifically
around tracking, monitoring, and recording the recent increased
rates of the
Leonids. Dr. Jenniskens has been following the Leonids closely
since he
noticed an increase in their rates in 1994. This year, after
three
successful missions, he and his team are gearing up for another
intense
Leonid storm (a heavy meteor shower).
About the Leonid MAC Mission:
Since 1998, Dr. Jenniskens has been leading the Leonid
Multi-Instrument
Aircraft Campaign. The MAC is an airborne NASA mission that
brings together
researchers from different disciplines to be able to examine the
meteors
from different scientific perspectives. Only an airborne mission
can
guarantee clear viewing and appropriate location to study the
Leonids. The
aircraft serves as a platform for various scientific instruments.
Researchers on board use spectrometers, cameras, and counters
(for meteor
flux measurement) to gather their data. Experiments on the MAC
help to
answer important questions such as:
"Will a particularly intense meteor storm cause satellites
to malfunction
some time in the future?"
"What chemical reactions will occur as the meteors
incinerate?"
"Might cometary debris have influenced the development of
life on Earth?"
MAC missions also took place in 1999 and 2001 (low rates
prevented a
comprehensive MAC mission in 2000). This year, two planes will be
monitoring
the Leonids, the NKC 135-E FISTA and the NASA DC-8 Airborne
laboratory. The
planes can fly at a 100-km distance and make stereoscopic
observations of
the Leonids. For more details on the mission specifications,
click here:
http://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/logo.html
MAC Astrobiology Initiatives and International Cooperation
The 1998 MAC was dubbed as NASA's first astrobiology mission. One
of the
overall objectives of the MAC is to "learn how
extraterrestrial materials
may have been brought to Earth at the time of the origin of
life." Also,
MAC seeks to understand more about the reactions of meteors and
Earth's
atmosphere. Specifically, Peter Jenniskens and his team are
looking to find
the fate of organic matter in the meteors as the plunge into
Earth's
atmosphere. At the 2001 Meteoroids conference in Kiruna, Sweden,
Dr.
Jenniskens notes that "Meteors dominated the supply of
organics to the early
Earth if organic matter survived this pathway efficiently.
Understanding
these processes relies heavily on empirical evidence that is
still very
limited."
Depending on the year, the MAC team has flown to various parts of
the globe
to get the best views of the Leonids. In 2002, they will be
flying above
Spain. The Centro de Astrobiologia (CAB), an NAI International
Partner, will
host the deployment of the MAC. CAB will also participate in some
of the key
experiments on the DC-8 airborne lab. The Centro de Astrobiologia
previously
helped coordinate Leonid observations in 2000.
Experience the Mission!
Information on the Leonids and the Multi-Instrument Aircraft
Campaign is
well documented on the MAC website. For example, during the 2001
mission
researchers recorded some spectacular shots of the Leonids. You
can view
still images and even a short video on an 8 sec "Taurid
fireball" at the MAC
2001 scientific results page: http://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/01images.html
If you are interested in viewing the Leonids this year, you will
soon be
able to access the Leonid MAC Flux Estimator to help find prime
viewing
conditions in your area: http://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/estimator.html
also has an article giving more information on viewing.
You too can also be a part of the mission! Amateur astronomers
are needed to
help count local rates of the Leonid storm. If you are interested
in being a
counter for the mission, click here:
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/leonid/stormcount.html
=========
(8) THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LARGE METEORITE IMPACTS
>From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/largeimpacts2003/largeimpacts2003.1st.html
Third International Conference on
Large Meteorite Impacts
August 5-7, 2003
Nordlingen, Germany
FIRST ANNOUNCMENT - OCTOBER 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
SPONSORED BY
Lunar and Planetary Institute
Stadt Nördlingen
Humboldt University, Berlin
University of Münster
Märker Zementwerke AG
Meteoritical Society
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Burkhard Dressler, Chair, Lunar and Planetary Institute
Thomas Kenkmann, Co-Chair, Humboldt University, Berlin
Alex Deutsch, University of Münster
Richard Grieve, Earth
Science Sector, Natural Resources Canada
Robbie Herrick, Lunar and Planetary Institute
Fred Hörz, NASA Johnson Space Center
Falko Langenhorst, University of Bayreuth
Jean Pohl, University of Munich
Buck Sharpton, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Dieter Stöffler, Humboldt University, Berlin
LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Michael Schieber, Chair, Rieskratermuseum, Nördlingen
Thomas Kenkmann, Co-Chair, Humboldt University, Berlin
Gisela Pösges, Co-Chair, Rieskratermuseum, Nördlingen
Falko Langenhorst, University of Bayreuth
Jean Pohl, University of Munich
Peter Schiele, City of Nördlingen
-------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE
The conference (formerly "Large
Meteorite Impact and Planetary
Evolution") will bring together
researchers working on a wide
range of aspects of impact cratering
with emphasis on large
terrestrial and planetary impact
structures and the ways in which
they influenced planet formation and
evolution. Of special
interest are new observations and
interpretations obtained from
studies of the three very large
terrestrial structures -
Chicxulub, Sudbury, and Vredefort.
Contributions dealing with the
following topics are invited:
¥ Impacts
and Earth evolution
¥ Impact
structures and climate change
¥ Role of
target volatiles
¥
Formation of melt sheets, melt breccias, and impact glasses in
crystalline and sedimentary targets - melt sheets and melt
breccias within the impactite sequence
¥
Mass-movement of subsurface materials as revealed by
macroscopic and microscopic observations from crater floors,
mega-block zones, central uplifts, peak rings, and collar rocks
¥ Impacts
in marine environments
¥ Impacts
on other planets
¥
Material response to hypervelocity impact - shock metamorphism
¥
Geophysical signatures of planetary impacts
¥
Economic significance of impacts
¥
Experimental and numerical studies
PROCEEDINGS VOLUME
A proceedings volume presenting the
results of the conference will
be produced as a GSA Special Paper or
similar publication.
TRAVEL ASSISTANCE
Moderate funds will be made available to
students, recent
graduates, and Ph.D.s who present
results dealing with the topic
of the conference. Students from
developing countries are
specifically encouraged to apply.
GUEST PROGRAM
Medieval Nördlingen is a beautiful city
offering guided and
self-guided walking tours to the city
wall, churches, and other
interesting buildings. Day tours by bus
to other medieval towns
nearby will be offered, depending on
demand.
SCHEDULE
December 13, 2002 Indication of Interest
forms due
March 7, 2003 Second
announcement with call for
abstracts and preregistration
information posted on LPI Web site
May
8, 2003
Deadline for hard-copy submission
of abstracts to LPI
May
15, 2003 Deadline for
electronic submission
of abstracts to LPI
June
13, 2003 Final announcement with
preliminary
program and abstracts posted
on LPI Web site
August 3-4, 2003 Preconference field trip, Ries
and
Steinheim impact craters
August 5-7, 2003 Third International
Conference on
Large Meteorite Impacts in
Nördlingen
August 8-9, 2003 Postconference field trip, Ries and
Steinheim impact craters
CONTACTS
MEETING ORGANIZERS
Burkhard Dressler, Lunar and
Planetary LPI MEETING COORDINATOR
Institute
Kimberly Taylor
e-mail: dressler@lpi.usra.edu
Publications and Program
Services Dept.
Thomas Kenkmann, Humboldt
University, Lunar and Planetary
Berlin
Institute
e-mail:
3600 Bay Area Boulevard
thomas.kenkmann@rz.hu-berlin.de
Houston TX 77058-1113
phone: 281-486-2151
Michael Schieber,
Rieskratermuseum, fax:
281-486-2160
Nördlingen
e-mail:
e-mail:
taylor@lpi.usra.edu
rieskratermuseum@noerdlingen.de
FUTURE ANNOUNCMENTS
Future announcements, including
information for submission of
abstracts, will be posted on this LPI
Web site.
INDICATION OF INTEREST
To subscribe to a mailing list to
receive electronic reminders and
special announcements relating to the
meeting via e-mail, please
submit an electronic Indication of
Interest form by December 13,
2002.
You may also send an e-mail with
"Largeimpacts 2003 Interest" in
the subject line to meetings@lpi.usra.edu.
Please include your
name and affiliation within the body of
the message. Also, include
a valid e-mail address if you are
sending it from an e-mail that
is different from your own. (Do not send
any important messages
with "Largeimpacts 2003
Interest" in the subject line; these
e-mails will only be used for compiling
a mailing list.)
Please submit the Indication of Interest
form even if you do not
care about electronic notification of
future announcements. The
number of e-mails tallied will also
serve to facilitate meeting
planning by the Local Organizing
Committee.
=============
(9) HOLOCENE CATASTROPHIC EVENTS RECORDED IN LAKES
From: Suzanne Leroy <Suzanne.Leroy@BRUNEL.AC.UK>
To: PALEOLIM@LISTS.UFL.EDU
Special Session of the 2003 Limnogeology Congress (ILIC3) to be
held in
Tucson, AZ USA from the 29 Mar.-2 Apr., 2003 on Holocene
Catastrophic Events
Recorded in Lakes.
Dear Colleagues,
Daniel Ariztegui and myself (Suzanne Leroy) are organizing
a special
session entitled "Holocene Catastrophic Events Recorded in
Lakes".
We have the pleasure to invite you to submit a paper in this
session.
Please take a moment to look at the web site at
http://w3.arizona.edu/~uaextend/ilic3/
where you can find all information
you will need for registration, abstract submission, hotel
information,
field trips, etc.
Important dates to keep in mind are:
· Jan 2nd-abstract submission deadline
· Jan. 15th-Early registration deadline.
Please forward all questions to ILIC3@geo.arizona.edu
Many thanks!
See you there,
Suzanne
-----------------------
Prof. Suzanne A. G. Leroy,
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences
Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, (West London),
UK.
suzanne.leroy@brunel.ac.uk,
direct: +44-1895-20 31 78; fax: +44-1895-20 32 17, secr:
+44-1895-20 32 15
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/geo/people
============
(10) SCIENCE AND SECURITY IN AN AGE OF TERRORISM
>From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
National Academies
Washington, D.C.
October 18, 2002
Statement on Science and Security in an Age of Terrorism
>From Bruce Alberts, Wm. A. Wulf, and Harvey Fineberg,
Presidents of the
National Academies
After the September 11, 2001, assaults on the World Trade Center
and the
Pentagon, and the subsequent anthrax attacks via the postal
system, the
scientific, engineering, and health research community was quick
to respond
at many levels, from initiating new research to analyzing needs
for improved
security. This community recognizes that it has a clear
responsibility to
protect the United States, as it has in the past, by harnessing
the best
science and technology to help counter terrorism and other
national security
threats.
In meeting this responsibility, the scientific, engineering, and
health
research community also recognizes a need to achieve an
appropriate balance
between scientific openness and restrictions on public
information.
Restrictions are clearly needed to safeguard strategic secrets;
but
openness also is needed to accelerate the progress of technical
knowledge
and enhance the nation's understanding of potential threats.
A successful balance between these two needs -- security and
openness --
demands clarity in the distinctions between classified and
unclassified
research. We believe it to be essential that these distinctions
not include
poorly defined categories of "sensitive but
unclassified" information that
do not provide precise guidance on what information should be
restricted
from public access. Experience shows that vague criteria of this
kind
generate deep uncertainties among both scientists and officials
responsible
for enforcing regulations. The inevitable effect is to stifle
scientific
creativity and to weaken national security.
To develop sharp criteria for determining when to classify and/or
restrict
public access to scientific information, as well as to address
the other
important issues outlined below, we call for a renewed dialogue
among
scientists, engineers, health researchers and policy-makers. To
stimulate such a dialogue, we present two "action
points": one focused on
scientists, engineers, and health researchers and the other
focused on
policy-makers.
Action Point 1
The scientific, engineering, and health research community should
work
closely with the federal government to determine which research
may be
related to possible new security threats and to develop
principles for
researchers in each field. Among the questions that the
scientific,
engineering, and health community should address are the
following:
* Are there areas of currently unclassified research that should
be
classified in the new security environment?
* How can the scientific, engineering, and health community
establish
systems that can monitor this issue effectively, as science and
potential
threats change over time?
* Do any materials widely used in research require additional
security
procedures?
* How can the scientific, engineering, and health community
establish
systems that will rapidly detect new potential threats from
terrorism, as
well as novel opportunities for countering terrorism, that arise
from new
discoveries, and convey these in an effective manner to the
relevant
government agencies?
Action Point 2
The federal government should affirm and maintain the general
principle of
National Security Decision Directive 189, issued in 1985:
"No restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting
of federally
funded fundamental research that has not received national
security
classification, except as provided in applicable U.S.
statutes."
In determining what research and information should be restricted
from
public access, agencies should ask:
* How should we apply the principle of building "high fences
around narrow
areas" in the new security environment, so as to protect
critical and
well-defined information and yet permit the essential flow of
scientific and
technical knowledge and human capital?
* How can such determinations be made at the outset of a research
program so
as not to disrupt the research?
* How can we avoid creation of vague and poorly defined
categories of
"sensitive but unclassified" information that do not
provide precise
guidance on what information should be restricted from public
access?
* How can the government enlist the help of a large number of the
nation's
best scientists, engineers, and health researchers in
counterterrorism
efforts, for both the unclassified and the classified areas of
the overall
program?
Achieving the purpose of scientific and technological activity --
to promote
the welfare of society and to strengthen national security --
will require
ingenuity from our science, engineering, and health community, as
well as
from the many agencies of the federal, state,
and local governments involved in counterterrorism. The nation's
safety and
the continued improvement of our standard of living depend on
careful,
informed action on the part of both governments and the
scientific,
engineering, and health community. A continuing, meaningful
dialogue needs
to begin -- one that produces a true collaboration for the many
decisions
that need to be made.
BRUCE ALBERTS, President, National Academy of Sciences
WM. A. WULF, President, National Academy of Engineering
HARVEY V. FINEBERG, President, Institute of Medicine
[NOTE: Read the accompanying background material at
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/fc340309c47a1e43852567460067595e/0a1a170caa649c2a85256c56005f0e3e?OpenDocument
]
=================
(11) AND FINALLY: SHOCK, HORROR AS OHIO ALLOWS PUPILS TO THINK
CRITICALLY
(ABOUT DARWINISM)
>From National Review Online, 18 October 2002
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-winnick101802.asp
By Pamela R. Winnick
COLUMBUS, OHIO - In what could turn out to be a stunning victory
for
opponents of evolution, the Ohio Department of Education voted
17-0 on
Tuesday to pass a "resolution of intent" to adopt
science standards that
would allow students to "investigate and critically
analyze" Darwin's theory
of evolution. With additional hearings scheduled for November and
a final
vote to be held in December, Ohio is likely to become the latest
battleground in the never-ending debate over how life began.
"The key words are 'critically analyze,'" said Stephen
Meyer, director of
the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a
Seattle-based organization that promotes alternative theories to
evolution.
"The new language is a clear victory for students, parents,
and scientists
in Ohio who have been calling for a 'teach the controversy'
approach to
evolution,'" he added.
Meyers said, "The board should be commended for insisting
that Ohio students
learn about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory as a
part of a good
science education. Such a policy represents science education at
its very
best, and it promotes the academic freedom of students and
teachers who want
to explore the full range of scientific views over
evolution."
"Darwin's dike is finally breaking down," he said.
The vote drew ire as well as praise, however.
"It's clear that the motivation is anti-evolutionist,"
said Eugenie Scott,
director of the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science
Education,
a nonprofit organization that monitors school districts that run
afoul of
the "evolution only" approach to science education. And
Patricia
Princehouse, a history professor at Case Western Reserve in
Cleveland,
warned: "The American Civil Liberties Union will find it
unconstitutional."
In recent years, a handful of renegade scientists and academics
have
launched a revolt against Darwinism. Unlike creationists, they
accept that
the Earth is four billion years old and that species undergo some
change
over time. What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the
transition from
one species to the next - as in ape to man. Scientists in the
"intelligent
design" community don't advocate any particular religion,
but they do
believe that some higher intelligence - though not necessarily
the God of
the Bible - created life in all its forms. Proponents of
intelligent design
agree with the scientific establishment that students should be
taught
evolution, but they think students should be made aware there is
some
controversy over the theory.
Ohio is hardly alone in its "teach the controversy"
approach. Last month,
Cobb County, located in the suburbs of Atlanta, stunned the
scientific
community by allowing (though not requiring) teachers to present
"disputed
views" about evolution. Though the federal government has no
authority over
science education, the conference report accompanying this year's
No Child
Left Behind Act notes that, "where topics are taught that
may generate
controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should
help
students to understand the full range of scientific views that
exist, why
such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific
discoveries can
profoundly affect society."
The language adopted by the Ohio board falls short of that pushed
by three
anti-evolutionist members, who last week circulated an amendment
that was
more forthright about allowing students to be exposed to theories
that
contradict Darwin's theory of evolution - including the theory of
"intelligent design." But what the adopted language
does do, according to
board member Mike Cochran, is to "allow students to
understand that there
are dissenting views within the scientific community"
regarding evolution.
"The earlier language was more clear cut," concedes
Deborah Owens Fink, a
board member from Richfield and one of three on the board who
support
intelligent design, "but this language gives some
leeway" about how
evolution is taught.
Those in the scientific mainstream say there is no genuine
dispute over
evolution - at least not within scientific circles. They cite
such phenomena
as antibiotic-resistant bacteria as proof that species change in
response to
environmental stressors, with nature weeding out the weak and
favoring the
strong. They hold that students in public schools should be
taught evolution
- and evolution only - and that religious views on such matters
should be
restricted to the home and the church.
But the public disagrees.
According to a June poll conducted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
82 percent
of Ohioans said they believed teachings on the origins of life
should not be
restricted to evolution. The board received 20,000 letters urging
that
multiple theories be taught and, in a packed room on the day of
the vote,
the overwhelming majority of public speakers urged the board to
be open to
theories that challenge Darwinian evolution.
Ohio's numbers mirror the national consensus. A recent Zogby poll
showed
that 71 percent of Americans supported the proposition that
"biology
teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the
scientific
evidence against it." Nationally, 160 scientists recently
signed a statement
calling for "careful examination" of Darwin's theory.
While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about
evolution,
scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science
education. They
compare intelligent design to such "fringe" crazes as
astrology, noting that
intelligent design has never been presented in peer-reviewed
scientific
journals.
"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence
Lerner, professor
emeritus at California State University and author of a 2000
report from the
Fordham Foundation which showed that 19 of this country's states
were remiss
in how they taught evolution.
"Science is not a viewpoint," said Eugenie Scott.
"There's an objective
reality about science. If the Discovery Institute is really
interested in
convincing scientists that their reality is false, then they
would be
attending scientific meetings rather than selling their ideas in
the
marketplace of political ideas."
Most members of Ohio's scientific community have argued for an
"evolution-only" approach to science education.
"Intelligent design is not
based on scientific evidence," said Lynn E. Elfner, director
of the Ohio
Academy of Science. And Steven A. Edinger, a physiology
instructor at Ohio
University, commented: "I'm concerned that they've opened a
loophole to
allow intelligent design in."
Board members conceded that the vote was "political."
But, said Mike
Cochran, "if it's politics, this is in the best tradition of
politics
because it's a compromise."
Conspicuously absent from the debate was Republican Governor Bob
Taft, who
faces a close race this November against Democratic challenger
Timothy F.
Hagan. Though Taft has reportedly been working behind the scenes
for a
compromise, both sides have criticized him for refusing to take a
public
position.
Taft has reason to lay low. When the Kansas State Board of
Education voted
three years ago not to require public-school students to learn
about
Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory, Kansas became the
laughingstock
of the world. Newspapers as far away as South Africa mocked
America for
being backward and religiously fundamentalist, and editorialists
at Kansas's
own newspapers worried that businesses would refuse to locate
there because
students were so "poorly educated." In a
much-publicized Republican primary
that drew attention from such liberal groups as People for the
American Way
- which flew in Ed Asner to read from Inherit the Wind - three
board members
were voted out of office; and the newly elected
"moderate" board last year
voted to include both Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang in the
Kansas
science standards.
Whether Ohio will go the way of Kansas remains to be seen.
Copyright 2002, National Review Online
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------