PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 111/2001 - 30 October 2001
================================
"Croddy said the threat of a virus wiping out the entire
human
species is simply not real. Even the most horrific virus outbreak
in history, the 1918 Spanish
Flu epidemic that killed between 20 million and 40 million
people,
including hundreds of thousands in the United States, eventually
stopped.
Experts say new strains of the influenza virus emerge every few
decades and catch the human immune system unprepared, but
prevention
measures and ever- evolving medical treatments overcome the
outbreaks.
"I'd be much more concerned about an asteroid hitting the
planet," Croddy
said. Croddy accused Hawking of speaking more from a religious,
apocalyptic view than from anything based on the facts of
science. "What he
said is more biblical than scientific," Croddy said.
Besides, he added,
"Earth's not such a bad place."
--Rob Britt, Space.com, 30 October 2001
(1) SURVIVAL OF THE ELITIST: BIOTERRORISM MAY SPUR SPACE COLONIES
Space.com, 30 October 2001
(2) MCNAUGHT & ASHER'S LEONID PREDICTIONS
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(3) DISCOVERY OF COMETS
Michael Oates <mike@ph.u-net.com>
(4) RADIATIVE FORCES ....
Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
(5) RISK FROM SUB-KM ASTEROIDS
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
=============
(1) SURVIVAL OF THE ELITIST: BIOTERRORISM MAY SPUR SPACE COLONIES
[insert] RE: CCNet 111/2001 - 30 October 2001
>From Rob Britt <rbritt@HQ.SPACE.com>
Hi Benny:
Unfortunately an older version of my bioterrorism/space colony
article was
published Tuesday morning. We updated it with the new version
moments later,
but you were so quick that you distributed the first one. The
updated
article contains an additional perspective from Freeman Dyson as
well as
slightly different details regarding the support for ARC by Rick
Tumlinson.
It should by noted that Tumlinson's Space Frontier Foundation has
decided
not to support ARC; instead, another organization run by
Tumlinson, called
FINDS, is discussing the idea with Burrows. FINDS issues grants
to support
ideas that further the notion of putting humans permanently in
space.
Dyson's comments do not alter the story, but they are worth
noting:
"I have great respect and admiration for Hawking, but like
everyone else he
sometimes talks nonsense," Dyson told SPACE.com. Humbly, he
added: "Of
course, I too could be wrong."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/colonize_now_011030-1.html
cheers,
rob
---------------------
Robert Roy Britt / Senior Science Writer / SPACE.com
rbritt@hq.space.com /
215-848-8381
Science Tuesday & Astronomy Headlines by Topic:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/headlines-1.html
Science & Astronomy News Briefs:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/science_briefs-1.html
---------------------[/insert]
>From Space.com, 30 October 2001
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/colonize_now_011030-1.html
By By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
Plans to save civilization from doom by sending people and
important
documents into space in a 21st Century Noah's Ark may get a boost
from
heightened fears of bioterrorism.
Psychologists, terrorism analysts and some space settlement
enthusiasts
interviewed by SPACE.com said fear is the wrong motivation for
any effort to
colonize the cosmos. But it might just work, others indicated, as
the
pie-in-the-sky dream of moving to another planet meets the
reality of
biological terrorism on this planet.
Expect to pay your way to survival, however, at least in the
short run.
The apocalyptic view that humans must leave Earth or perish was
raised Oct.
16 by the eminent physicist and author Stephen Hawking, who said
a
bio-engineered virus will wipe out the human species in this
millennium.
"The danger is that either by accident or design, we create
a virus that
destroys us," he told the Daily Telegraph in London.
Hawking is off base, according to several experts who accused him
of
ignoring science and speaking in language laced with religious
overtones.
One critic called his doomsday prediction "regrettable
hype."
Robert R. Butterworth, a psychologist versed in society-wide
crises, calls
the idea of leaving the planet "a 21st Century response to
an age-old
threat."
Butterworth recalls a similar sense of dread that developed late
in the last
century. "During the Cuban missile crisis the only reaction
was to dig down
and build fallout shelters in the face of a nuclear threat,"
he said. "Now
instead of digging down we're talking about flying out?"
To consider current threats as a motivation to leave the planet
means "we've
resigned ourselves to the fact that the bad guys are going to
win,"
Butterworth said. "That's not a very hopeful reason to do
anything."
Survival of the elitist
Yet Hawking's comments come at a time when plans are already
being discussed
to create a modern Noah's Ark to escape the planet and preserve
humanity.
Saving yourself or protecting your progeny, however, will not
come cheap.
One idea for an Ark is actually called ARC, for the Alliance to
Rescue
Civilization. And if it flies, everything from DNA to important
architectural drawings would make their way to the Moon, a
futuristic
spaceport, or some other safe haven. A select group of
individuals would go,
too, to maintain the monumental archive and to round out, with
live bodies,
what is billed as a way to save civilization no matter what
happens on
Earth.
It's the sort of scheme that since the dawn of the nuclear age
has driven
the desire to colonize space. Yet the desire has long been
scoffed at,
generating what proponents acknowledge as a significant societal
giggle
factor tied to the sci-fi images conjured by such an endeavor.
These
proponents have fought an uphill political and financial battle
to get the
notion of sending humans beyond Earth orbit back on NASA's
agenda.
They have yet to succeed. The space agency has no firm plans to
send
astronauts beyond the International Space Station.
So in recent years, many of the movement's most vocal supporters
have given
up on NASA. Private enterprise is the only hope, they say, and
the almighty
dollar will drive any serious effort to put people on the Moon,
Mars or
anywhere else.
Burrows' ARC
ARC is the brainchild of William E. Burrows, author of This New
Ocean: The
Story of the First Space Age, and several other books about
space, is also a
New York University journalism professor. He's been hatching the
concept for
more than a year.
"It's a deadly serious idea," Burrows said in a
telephone interview.
"It's not a time capsule," he explained, "but a
continuously fed system by
which we would in effect back up the planetary 'hard-drive'
system." It
would involve sequestering people, genetic codes, important
engineering and
historical documents, photographs and cultural items.
"Everything we can get
out of here."
Burrows is not counting on any governmental agency to support his
plan. Nor
does he expect the current threat of bioterrorism to compel
average citizens
to jump aboard, two-by-two.
"Space is an elite undertaking," he said. "Not
everyone came out to say
goodbye to Columbus. Most people want three square meals a day
and a roof
over their heads."
But Burrows' idea has caught the attention of the Space Frontier
Foundation,
which helped to privatize the Russian Mir space station for a
year before it
fell, by leasing it from Russia through MirCorp, which the
foundation funds.
The foundation also helped secure millionaire Dennis Tito's trip
to the
International Space Station after Mir came down. Now MirCorp has
plans to
launch a small, private space station.
"We are developing a possible project with [Burrows],"
said Rick Tumlinson,
director of the Space Frontier Foundation. Tumlinson told
SPACE.com last
week that the foundation and Burrows are discussing how to fund
the
necessary buildup for the ARC program, preliminary steps that
would, if
carried out, lead to eventually placing the first documents and
people on
the Moon or elsewhere in space.
No agreement has been reached.
"I see it as another rope by which we can pull ourselves off
of the shores
of Earth and outward," said Tumlinson. His philosophy for
achieving space
settlements is to pursue several lines of otherworldly
exploration and
travel, including space tourism, to plant the overall
possibilities more
firmly in humanity's consciousness -- and to put them squarely on
the
collective human to-do list.
"Going to space requires the cumulative effect of a lot of
desires and
activities," he said.
While Tumlinson's goal is to popularize space and to make it
accessible to
everyone, he acknowledges that money will largely control who
goes and who
stays in the near future.
"At first, the preponderance of people going into space are
going to have to
purchase their tickets," he said. "However, there are
mechanisms in our
society for regular people to get up there." He means game
shows and
lotteries, for which he said negotiations are in the works.
Ultimately, in Tumlinson's view, free enterprise would bring the
cost of
space travel down so average citizens could get a new, totally
cosmic
address.
We're talking decades down the road, however, even by optimistic
estimates.
Meanwhile, Tumlinson said a silver lining could emerge from the
current
cloud of terrorism and anthrax scares that have raised fears
among
Americans.
"If this makes people think about mortality ... then in a
way this ugly,
terrible thing has done something good," he said. "If
we begin to put
mechanisms in place to insure the survival of civilization, then
there is a
rainbow in this storm."
Support for Hawking
Prominent author and astrophysicist J. Richard Gott III has been
arguing for
years that space colonization is important for the future
survival prospects
of the human race. The Princeton University professor embraced
Hawking's
words last week in an e-mail interview.
"We stay bound to Earth at our peril," Gott said.
Gott makes the case in his new book, Time Travel in Einstein's
Universe,
where he warns that the risk of developing technology to the
point that you
can colonize space also raises the possibility that the
technology will be
used for ill purposes, such as biological or nuclear warfare.
"So it was especially heartening to me to see that Stephen
Hawking has
embraced this idea as well," Gott said. His reasoning
extends beyond
Hawking's narrow focus on viruses:
"Whatever may eventually cause the human race to go extinct
may well be
something unanticipated -- for it would be, by definition, a
cataclysm the
likes of which we had not experienced before," Gott said.
While he stopped just short of saying that current bioterrorism
efforts
could fuel a stronger desire in society for space settlement,
Gott said it
could have an effect. "The current situation has perhaps
made us more keenly
aware of the dangers we face staying confined on the Earth where
disasters,
either natural or of our own making, may do us in."
Are we doomed?
Many scientists argue that there is no need to worry about the
mortality of
civilization right now. Eric Croddy is an expert on chemical and
biological
weapons at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Croddy said the
threat of a virus wiping out the entire human species is simply
not real.
Even the most horrific virus outbreak in history, the 1918
Spanish Flu
epidemic that killed between 20 million and 40 million people,
including
hundreds of thousands in the United States, eventually stopped.
Experts say new strains of the influenza virus emerge every few
decades and
catch the human immune system unprepared, but prevention measures
and
ever-evolving medical treatments overcome the outbreaks.
"I'd be much more concerned about an asteroid hitting the
planet," Croddy
said.
Croddy accused Hawking of speaking more from a religious,
apocalyptic view
than from anything based on the facts of science.
"What he said is more biblical than scientific," Croddy
said. Besides, he
added, "Earth's not such a bad place."
Most space colonization enthusiasts share this planet with
Croddy, as well
as his view of it. But whether stated or not, the desire to
ensure survival
has always permeated their plans.
Asteroids, in fact, frequently top the list of reasons to flee.
Ample
evidence suggests that many species -- including dinosaurs --
have perished
as the result of colossal impacts in the past.
Most top asteroid researchers -- inside and outside NASA, on or
off the
space settlement bandwagon, recognize that sooner or later
another large
space rock will hit Earth, triggering a global catastrophe that
could place
human life in the balance. It probably won't happen for thousands
of years,
maybe 300,000, but it could happen tomorrow.
Stephen Hawking has broken no new ground in suggesting fear as a
motivating
factor for intelligent beings to develop an exit strategy.
Fear, in fact, has a long history of pushing humans to new
frontiers. Cold
War worries, more than anything else, put Neil Armstrong on the
Moon. Fear
of British rule and religious oppression helped to create the
United States.
And fear mixed with opportunity drove early humans to leave
Africa, settle
new lands, then later to migrate away from advancing glaciers.
Other reasons to go
But fear is just one factor that could push earthlings to the
next frontier.
Pure profit potential and the lure of scientific discoveries may
prove to be
the more productive enticements.
"I feel we should not go into space out of fear, either fear
of asteroids,
nuclear war, worldwide epidemics, pollution or industrial
collapse," said
Bruce Mackenzie, a member of the board of directors of the
National Space
Society.
"Those are all valid reasons, but they are not good
long-term motivations,"
said Mackenzie, who stressed that he speaks for himself and not
the
organization. "I prefer positive motivations, such as the
almost unlimited
resources offered by asteroids, moons and other planets."
Whether opportunity or fear will eventually push us off the pale
blue dot
that has been home to hominids for more than a million years, no
one is
going anywhere anytime soon. At least not on a permanent basis.
Even the Space Frontier Foundation's Tumlinson, arguably the most
energetic
and productive proponent of space settlement, expects the whole
process to
take a generation. Sure, the first tourist has already flown.
Others may
soon follow. Mars could conceivably be visited in a decade or
two.
But Tumlinson's ultimate goal is to have people calling space
their home --
forcing FedEx to add rockets to its fleet of planes and trucks.
And he hopes
to live to see it happen, in 35 to 40 years.
Similar goals were voiced with great confidence 40 years ago, of
course. But
Tumlinson thinks the mechanisms are now in place to make it a
reality. NASA
has done its job, punching open the near frontier, he says. Now
it's time
for the space agency to get out of the way. Private enterprise,
say
Tumlinson and many of the other true believers, is poised to take
over the
quest to the Moon and beyond.
"It's no longer pie in the sky," says Tumlinson.
Copyright 2001, Space.com
============
(2) MCNAUGHT & ASHER'S LEONID PREDICTIONS
>From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny
Space.com has just posted an update to Rob Britt's article about
the
forthcoming Leonids event:
Leonid Meteor Shower:Prediction Revised for November Event
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/leonids_2001.html
Here are McNaught and Asher's new predictions for the peak rates
(note that
the peak may last less than one hour). All time are for Nov. 18,
2001. This
chart is updated as of Oct. 30, 2001:
Where When
Meteors
North & Central America
4:55 a.m.
EST
800 per hour
Australia; East
Asia 17:24
UT
2,000 per hour
Western Australia; East,
Southeast & Central Asia 18:13
UT
8,000 per hour
regards
Michael Paine
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(3) DISCOVERY OF COMETS
>From Michael Oates <mike@ph.u-net.com>
Benny,
It's news articles like this one (COMET'S DEATH DIVE CAPTURED BY
SATELLITE,
CNN, 26 October 2001)
that really annoys me. How can they say "the satellite has
spotted more than
365 comets" and "...most prolific comet finder in the
history of astronomy"
when it did nothing of the sort. The spacecraft and it's
instruments
recorded images, and that's all, it is the person who inspects
the images who discovers the comets.
I can say this with some authority, as I have discovered over one
third of
all the comets in SOHO images totalling 132 comets. What the
article also
conveniently omits is that the comet referred to, was discovered
by amateur
astronomers XingMing Zhou and Xavier Leprette. I not sure yet who
will be
getting credit for it's discovery. In fact most of the comets
have been
discovered by amateurs, myself included.
It is almost as if they are too ashamed to admit that amateurs
are finding
more than the professionals!
Michael Oates
===============
(4) RADIATIVE FORCES ....
>From Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
Dear John,
In your analysis (CCNet 29 Oct. 2001), you appear, unfortunately,
not to
have taken into account the fact that objects radiate energy at a
rate that
is strongly dependant upon their temperature. This is the
Stefan-Boltzmann
law:
F = A epsilon sigma T^4
F = emitted flux (Watts)
A = surface area involved (m^2)
epsilon = emissivity (composition and structure dependant,
value from 0 to 1)
sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67 x 10^-8 (SI units)
T = temperature in Kelvins
In your scenario you have the meteoroid being non-isothermal so
as to have
heat being conducted from one side (sunlit) to the other. Thus
one side is
higher T, hence that side emits more radiation, in the contrary
sense to
that idea you describe.
The reality of the situation will depend upon the meteoroidal
conductivity,
or more particularly what is termed its thermal inertia. For
details see my
paper in MNRAS, volume 228, 1-17 (1987). We may expect small
meteoroids to
be *very* poor conductors of heat.
In addition, the reality is that like everything else in the
universe,
meteoroids spin. In fact the general rule is that objects spin at
a rate
limited by their strength (i.e. they spin at just below the rate
at which
they'd fly apart). For small objects the strength is set by
cohesive forces.
For larger objects (like galaxies) its gravity. A few objects may
spin
slowly, but most spin as fast as they can
Hope this all helps,
Duncan Steel
===========
(5) RISK FROM SUB-KM ASTEROIDS
>From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
The items circulated by David Morrison on 26 October discuss the
risk from
asteroids of different sizes. An estimate of this risk came out
of my use of
John Lewis's Hazards software, reported in the Space.com story
"SIMULATING
ARMAGEDDON ON YOUR PC: ASTEROID IMPACTS WITH EARTH"
http://www.space.com/science/solarsystem/asteroid_software_000110.html
More details are at http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/sta1046.htm
This involved a monte carlo simulation of one million years and
recording
the worst impact in each of 10,000 centuries. This tends to
underestimate
the smaller impacts (since more than one impact may occur in a
century) but
will give a useful ballpark estimate. Subject to this
precaution the cumulative number of fatalities per year tended to
double for
each step up in asteroid size. For example sub-200m fatalities
averaged 570
per year whereas those in the 200-499m range averaged 530
per year.
Similarly, sub-km impactors averaged 1600 per year whereas
those in the 1-2km range averaged 2500 per year.
Beyond 2km impactor diameter the risks become more chaotic
because the
average interval between events is similar to the length of the
simulation.
By chance (!) with my simulation a 2km diameter long-period comet
struck the
Earth, causing billions of fatalities and added about
3000 fatalities per year to the overall figures. Ultimately these
deadly
objects cannot be ignored by mankind but, for now, it does seem
appropriate
that they assume lower priority in the search efforts.
I should add that John Lewis's program was designed primarily for
simualting
the effect of small impacts over timescales of 1000s of years. In
using it
to cover millions of years and 1km+ impactors, I made some
additions to the
program to estimate global deaths from the severe
environmental effects of such impacts. These estimates are pretty
shaky but
that may not matter too much when we are talking about a 2km
comet.
If anything, these simulations suggest that the smaller NEOs are
less of a
hazard, in terms of average annual fatalities, than Al Harris's
assumption
that the risk is about the same for each size group.
The other side of the coin is the chance that Spaceguard will
detect an
object before impact. The CCNet posting of 20 April 1999 included
my rough
estimate of these figures, based on the "completeness"
estimates of the 1992
Spacegaurd report (assuming the full Spaceguard program is
in operation). Repeating that table and adding the simulation
results:
Diameter Chance in Completeness Chance of
Average
(m) 50 yrs after
10yrs detection* Annual
1 in... 1
in... Fatalities
50
2
0.5%
400 240
100
20
2%
1,000 230
200
100
20%
500 530
500
800
50%
1,600 616
1,000 2,000
90%
2,222 2500
* Chance of a detected object impacting in next 50 years
Notice that the odds of detection are roughly the same for each
size group.
What changes is the number "slipping through the net".
As I have said
before, one problem with promoting Spaceguard is that, for the
smaller NEOs,
there will always remain a fairly high risk of a surprise impact.
Al Harris
suggests that we have a better then even chance of discovering
the next
"Tunguska" before it finds us. My calculation has been
done on a different
basis, since it only covers the decade long "initial"
Spaceguard search (on
which the completeness estimates were made). Also Al Harris notes
that an
Earth-impactor is more likely to buzz the Earth several times
before
impacting (possibly decades later) and it is during these close
approaches
that detection becomes much more likely.
Finally, it was pleasing to see the comment that a southern
hemisphere
search telescope, although "not an absolute
requirement", would go a long
way toward filling gaps [resulting from having all the search
telescopes in
the northern hemisphere]. I hope that the incoming Australian
Federal
Government will look more seriously at this issue (we have an
election in
less than two weeks).
regards
Michael Paine
http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/spacegd.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.