Experts Call on Senate for Support for Near-Earth Object Search

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Search Support
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the need for increased support and funding for the tracking of near-Earth objects (NEOs), particularly smaller asteroids that pose a significant threat to Earth. Participants reflect on the historical context of asteroid threats, the urgency of current measures, and the implications of potential impacts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that while tracking larger NEOs is progressing, there is a critical need to focus on smaller objects, which are more frequent and could cause significant damage if they impact Earth.
  • Others argue that the perceived urgency for action on asteroid threats may not be justified, as the risk has remained consistent over decades, and the current capability to protect against impacts is a new development.
  • One participant notes that the cost of collision avoidance measures may far exceed the cost of detection measures, raising questions about resource allocation.
  • Another participant references the 2003 Siberian meteor event, suggesting that there is a tendency to downplay real threats and that more transparency is needed regarding NEO detection and response efforts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the urgency and necessity of increased funding for NEO tracking. While there is acknowledgment of the risks posed by smaller asteroids, opinions vary on the historical context and the motivations behind current calls for action.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the effectiveness of current detection systems for smaller NEOs and the implications of potential impacts on societal structures. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about risk perception and political motivation.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
Despite progress in tracking dangerous near-Earth asteroids that could wipe out humanity if headed our way, there is still a long way to go to safeguard the human race, engineers, scientists and astronauts told a Senate committee Wednesday.

Astronomers have a good handle on the number of potential devastating near Earth objects (NEOs), asteroids and other objects more than one kilometer in diameter with orbits that swing by our planet. The impact threat from those objects is rare, occurring once every 100,000 years or so.

But more support is needed to track smaller objects, on the order of 100 meters wide, which are more common and could strike the planet every 1,000 years, scientists said during a hearing on NEOs before the Senate's Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space.

"The impact of a 100-meter asteroid on Earth would cause significant damage," said Lindley Johnson, program manager of NASA's Near Earth Objects Observation Program to track the large objects. "And our systems are just not designed to find the small ones." [continued]

http://space.com/news/neo_hearing_040408.html
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The problem is that of expressing urgency. The truth is, the threat of asteroid collisions and so on have always been with us, and the risk of such an impact is no different from 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago. What has changed recently to justify making such steps now? The difference is that we now have the potential capability of protecting ourselves from such impacts, but that is not a very good motivator for political backing.
 
Less likely that a modest sized rock would inadvertently start World War III, more likely that it would initiate a global depression and (possibly) start a new Dark Age. It's curious that the cost of any realistic "collision avoidance" measures would be far, far, far greater than the cost of "detect 99.9% of possible NEOs within 5 years" measures.

Also missing: serious discussion of what it would take to detect potentially harmful 100+m diameter comets, whether from the EKB, Oort cloud, or interstellar space.
 
A Reaction To The 2003 Siberian "Meteor"

I think that this is the "typical" US reaction to a real and very threatening situation. The Admin spills a "half-truth", and deflects the attention from the reality of what's really going on.
US Spaceguard was very worried after the "Second Tunguska", which occurred in 2003. They detected the detonation, but not the incoming "object".
The Russians spilt the story, the Americans ignored it (I can only find a couple of articles in the mainstream even admitting it occurred!).
Look to the "Siberian Installation" and Europa S8 in Antarctica, for further developments.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K