…a lot more often than we’ve previously believed. I’m not sure, but I think that one of the reasons Ed Lu wrote the foreword to my book is that he shares my concern that our risk aversion will prevent us from mitigating the real risks.
33 thoughts on “Big Asteroids Hit Us”
Comments are closed.
When you consider how much ocean there is and how often Russian vehicle cameras are capturing these things it makes you wonder if the reason we don’t know the actual rate is it’s hard to count anything with your head in the sand.
Warning! Overly long w/ personal CV, or lack thereof, appended. Will understand deleting/editing comment.
Perhaps it’s the cynic in me, but the 612 Foundation, the group that’ll “announce” these facts on 4/22 (Earth Daze) is just another NGO trolling for $$’s. Of course the money they really want is that confiscated by Government. I’d have no problem with that if DoE used their support for commercial ventures in “renewable energy” to instead fund 612 ventures. Same goes for NASA “heavy lift” boondogle.
Ed Lu is a smart, dedicated guy, but everybody needs a paying job & the pre-announcement publicity seems totally “conspiracy exposed”, an accusation I find somewhat irrational. He should write a book (see “Safe is not an Option”).
Of course as a class of ’64 Bus. Adm. graduate, my experience is somewhat restricted: Subscribed to “AV Leak” from ‘7? to ’88; toured Rockwell Shuttle operation in ’76 (don’t ask); Shared 1st class seating with Lockheed SAMSO CEO on a flite from DC to SF in ’75 (he asked me to set up an appt. thru his Adm.Asst. but, as it was a red-eye & we’d liberally partaken of free booze, I never did. I regret. {further to what could’ve been, at baggage claim he asked me if his driver could give me a lift, unfortunately an old girlfriend was meeting me}). ’80, guest at Edwards AFB for jr. Officer engineering award, full tour & 2 nite RoN (airline speak).
Yes, far better to spend that money looking for bacteria on Mars, or SLS…
There have long been indicates the impact rate was much higher than scientists have claimed. John Lewis’ book – “Rain of Fire and Ice.” listed many instances of recorded impacts with lost of life.
But the best part is there is no downside to funding planetary defense, because the same NEOs that threaten the Earth also have the potential to transform the economy through the vast resources they would provide humanity.
I would like to fund science toward averting catastrophic asteroid strikes. But it’s all a matter of achieving political will towards an objective. (Interesting that you seem to agree that government CAN be useful, as long as it agrees with your particular interest). Personally, I’d be happy to cancel many useless Cold War armament programs to work toward something useful like this. Of course, the useless congress in the US would rather make sure that taxpayer dollars find their way to industries back at home. But since the audience here only supports corporate policy in favor of the defense industry, I’m afraid the only message you’re going to hear is “Suck on it, won’t happen.”
Interesting that you seem to agree that government CAN be useful, as long as it agrees with your particular interest
What a stupid comment. When have I ever said that government cannot be useful?
Once again, a strawman is the only argument a leftist can make, because the only way for them to win against an argument is when it’s an argument that no one made.
“… the only way …”
Oh, that’s a very broad claim. I’ll make a more specific claim: I can win an argument with you on the topic of Islam. Or on the topic of Israel. Or any topic beginning with the letters “is”. Want to argue about Istria? Isolationists? Isopathic isopropyl isocarboxazids? You name it. The ISS is the only topic I won’t bother with, because we agree on that one. Want to debate what the definition of is is?
“I’ll make a more specific claim: I can win an argument with you on the topic of Islam. ”
Crying racism isn’t winning an argument.
“But since the audience here only supports corporate policy in favor of the defense industry,”
The leftist position seems to be that we don’t need a military or that we have one so small all it can do is march in parades, that position is a non-starter for many people. Defense spending does eat up a lot of the budget, about 20% and that is a good number. A couple percent less wouldn’t end the military but where do the cuts end?
Usually defense cuts are urged in order to increase welfare spending, which already makes up almost 80% of the budget. I doubt that taking more money from the military will end poverty or provide health care to the elderly. Most of the money goes to the bureaucracy that manages the money and to Democrat party special interest groups (redundant).
But why do we have to cut the military and not other programs? Why should we believe that you think asteroid mitigation is an important problem if the only way you want to pay for it is by targeting things you don’t like? I mean, the topic could be providing free college tuition for everyone and you would say, sure if we get the money from the military. Or literally any other issue that requires spending. When you want to give up something important to you, like funneling government money to Democrat front groups, then we will know you think asteroid mitigation is important.
I have always found it interesting that leftists think they are proving some point by claiming that government can be useful. Is there no middle ground between, the government should run the Coast Guard, and, the government can run the nation’s health care on a doctor-by-doctor basis without making our nation’s health care worse? Isn’t it possible that the country is better off having a Coast Guard, and also worse off having federal regulatory control of the entire health care industry?
I have always found it interesting that leftists think they are proving some point by claiming that government can be useful. Is there no middle ground between, the government should run the Coast Guard, and, the government can run the nation’s health care on a doctor-by-doctor basis without making our nation’s health care worse?
Not to morons who have nothing but straw men.
Defense is the only legitimate use of government. It’s the only legitimate reason why governments are formed. Asteroids hit us randomly. No matter how long the time is between events, today it could happen without warning. Or with warning but not enough time for us to do anything about it.
But for asteroid defense government is a less robust option than a true spacefaring civilization. That should be the goal. A spacefaring civilization is not a government program… unless you’re a marxist that believes…
One can only hope that by the time colonization of Mars becomes practical that we will be beyond ownership of material things…
I still can’t believe somebody used that as an argument against colonists owning property!
[cue the Star Trek theme music]
If governments are the least effective at providing defense (they are) then aren’t we shooting ourselves in the foot by giving them a monopoly on it? (why, yes, we are.)
Ya got my vote, Trent. But you knew that. Fisk me baby!
Some here have commented in the past about how easy it would be to defend an outpost (on the moon I think it was.) I’d like to read more about that.
“If governments are the least effective at providing defense (they are) then aren’t we shooting ourselves in the foot by giving them a monopoly on it?”
They are the least effective….except all others. You can’ t have 50 independent armies of the United States. We’d lose. You can’t have 50 independent Navies of the US. We’d lose.
Defense is one of the few examples where the government inefficiencies, graft and corruption have to be tolerated (though minimized) because the alternative is even more inefficient ad will result in unspeakable failure.
Nothing prevents the states from contributing to a centrally controlled hierarchy. This may be referred to as the revolutionary army that got us started.
Military launch detection satellites such as DSP and SBIRS can track these objects as they enter the atmosphere. If anyone knows the actual rate of these objects hitting the atmosphere, it’d be the DoD.
The SkyWatch Network, a network of cameras pointed skyward to recognize fireballs in the sky and, by triangulation and other math, attempt to map their velocity, trajectory, and origin, is another good place to look, but it doesn’t cover the entire globe. I would imagine one could get a fairly accurate count combining the DoD information with that information and others, but I also think that we would probably still miss a significant number of atmospheric entries.
We’re close upon another encounter with a comet’s debris tail and the resulting “meteor shower”. Most of that debris is significantly smaller than the asteroids that we are concerned about, though.
There are multiple DSP satellites in operation. Together, they cover most of the Earth. There are two SBIRS GEO satellites and two SBIRS payloads in highly eliptical orbits (HEO) that cover the northern polar regions. If there is an area that isn’t covered very well, it’d be the southern polar region. From what I saw when looking at DSP displays, the sensor coverage extends a fair distance beyond the Earth’s surface so it’s possible most polar entries are detected as well. DSP has scanning sensors while SBIRS has staring sensors, so SBIRS will be better at detecting these short-lived events.
Zimmerman posted this over at behindtheblack, http://www.space.com/25559-asteroid-monitoring-nasa-military-red-tape.html
We have seismographs on the moon. What do they tell us about impacts? We need seismographs on mars.
Why?
Because knowing the impact rate on mars could be useful? It appears it is hit more frequently than its smaller size would suggest. In the case of earth which is hit daily by objects that burn up before they hit the ground it might be useful to compare that with mars thinner atmosphere? Basic data gathering to support science?
Ken, your wish is going to come true (if the schedule doesn’t slip) in September 2016.
Look at the last item on this list:
http://insight.jpl.nasa.gov/science.cfm
Because knowing the impact rate on mars could be useful? It appears it is hit more frequently than its smaller size would suggest. In the case of earth which is hit daily by objects that burn up before they hit the ground it might be useful to compare that with mars thinner atmosphere? Basic data gathering to support science?
Sorry, absent quantitative analysis, “being useful” is not a useful criterion for spending money on something. That, in general, is the problem with all your proposals for activities on Mars. There is in fact zero evidence that it is being “hit more frequently than its smaller size would suggest.” If you have any, please present it. Do you have some fantasy that the universe has it in for Mars, as opposed to the rest of the solar system? If so, tell us why.
Sorry, but just because “Ken Anthony likes it” is insufficient justification for others to spend their own hard-earned dollars on such endeavors.
Rand, I think Ken was just referring to the fact that Mars gets hit more than us because it is closer to the main belt. This topic doesn’t start with the letters “i” and “s”, so perhaps I’m wrong.
Ken,
We don’t need seismographs to determine the impact rate, or even the size of the impactors — we can figure it out using imaging from probes currently in Martian orbit, by inspecting new craters.
Two links:
2011:
http://redplanet.asu.edu/?p=597
“What emerges from their calculations is that the old scaling factor for Mars now looks a little too large. The impact rate for Mars is about 3.2 times that of the Moon, but the Mars cratering rate is only 1.2 to 1.4 times that of the Moon, when averaged for all sizes of crater. The difference occurs because the Moon and Mars have different gravities, and impacting objects on average hit them at different velocities.
As the team writes, “Mars experiences a high impact rate with respect to the Moon (about 3) due to its proximity to the main asteroid belt. In comparison, the Martian cratering ratio is reduced (between about 0.5 and 2.5) because the impact velocity on Mars is significantly lower than on the Moon, requiring larger (and hence less numerous) impactors to create a crater of a given size.”
2013:
http://uanews.org/story/ua-mars-camera-reveals-hundreds-of-impacts-each-year
“The results suggest Mars gets pummeled by space rocks less frequently than previously thought, as scientists relied on cratering rates of the moon for their estimates.”
By the way, the lack of a need for seismograph for impact studies is yet another reason why I wish Titan Mare Explorer had been selected instead of InSight. If we’re going to take your hard-earned money, at gunpoint(!), how would you rather the money get spent:
a) to determine the composition and structure of the Martian mantle, or
b) to sail the seas of Titan! Ahoy!
…because “Ken Anthony likes it”
I do not believe that is my criteria although I do admit to liking some of my ideas. Often you will note I’m asking a question of those I presume to be more knowledgeable than actually making some assertion.
Often I will read something in the past, store it in the dusty corner of my swiss cheese memory and it pops out later in some comment. I lack perfection but not curiosity.
Bob-1,
Looking at pictures is an imprecise way of determining timing.
The Apollo lunar seismography experiments were turned off September 30, 1977.
Here’s the ALSEP termination report, from April 1979:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20RP-1036.pdf
Since no one will click on a PDF, here’s the wikipedia summary, which I found interesting.
“The stations ran from deployment until they were turned off on 30 September 1977 due primarily to budgetary considerations. Additionally, by 1977 the power packs could not run both the transmitter and any other instrument, and the ALSEP control room was needed for the attempt to reactivate Skylab. ”
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Surface_Experiments_Package#List_of_experiments
We had seismographs on the Moon. NASA turned them off early in the 1980’s to save money.
Seismometry on the Moon might be a good idea, but there is a problem with extrapolating the number of impacts thus revealed to the number likely on Earth. I’m not sure whether anyone knows how much of a shield the Moon is for Earth against impactors; another unknown is how much difference the greater gravitational potential of Earth compared to the Moon makes.
I suppose both of these could be calculated. However, there is a third variable that seismometry wouldn’t help with at all. It concerns the chemical composition and physical strength of potential impactors. It doesn’t matter much to a Moon impact whether the object is an iceberg, a fluffy dirty snowball, a loosely-bound rubble pile or a solid chunk of iron. It does matter, a heck of a lot, to Earth impacts. A 20kt impactor that blows up 50 miles up probably isn’t going to do much; a similar amount of energy delivered to ground by a solid chunk of iron is going to do quite a lot. Potentially, anyway.
The Moon has a 4 billion year old impact record. We just need to go there to read it. We started in a few places with Apollo, but never went to the really interesting sites.