Slashdot Mirror


Keeper of the Objects

cEnTiBeE writes that this is "not about the Matrix," but rather about Near Earth Object tracking. "It's accomplished by a staff of 2.5 people watching to see when any 'vermin of the sky' plan to pay earth a visit. This piece titled Keeper of the Objects is in the August '03 issue of Scientific American."

144 comments

  1. Just in case by Mr+Teddy+Bear · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should get Ben Afleck and Bruce Willis and some nukes together. You know... in case we need to blow them up... or I mean... the astroid. :-P

    1. Re:Just in case by matlantis · · Score: 0, Troll

      If Ben Afleck is in, maby we can shoot Jlo into space as a last resort, im sure the gravity attributed to her booty would be substantial enough to veer the comet off its collision course

  2. How many people? by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 5, Funny
    It's accomplished by a staff of 2.5 people...

    2 and a half people? Cool. I wonder what the midget does.

    1. Re:How many people? by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 2, Troll
      What the midget does? He works 20 hour weeks - on account of it taking him about half the day to get to work due to the heightist society we live in!

      You insensitive clod, I AM A MIDGET!

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    2. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's accomplished by a staff of 2.5 people...

      They should outsource it to India, then they could afford 10 people hunting for space rocks that might otherwise kill all the US citizens in the unemployment lines.

    3. Re:How many people? by xihr · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, guys, fractional people arguments were old in 1985 ("2.3 children per couple").

    4. Re:How many people? by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      There is no midget. Just an extremely fat 2nd guy.

    5. Re:How many people? by LoneIguana · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's only half a person because they are trying to keep the thing running 24 hours a day. so the person is half a sleep. but really, the article dosn't say which is odd.

    6. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh, guys, fractional people arguments were old in 1985

      Sheesh, dude, calling jokes 'arguments' was old in 1957.

    7. Re:How many people? by GordoSlasher · · Score: 1

      It's not a midget. The third person watches the sky with only one eye.

    8. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference is "2.3" is an average. They came up with "2.5" for A SINGLE GROUP

    9. Re:How many people? by EverDense · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's accomplished by a staff of 2.5 people...

      2 and a half people? Cool. I wonder what the midget does.


      Fluffer?

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    10. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had five people on staff until the last meteor impact shifted them all right a bit.

    11. Re:How many people? by Ibby · · Score: 1

      I only have one eye you insensitive clod!

      (but I have a really nice disability pension...)

      --
      Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...
    12. Re:How many people? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      the article dosn't say which is odd.

      They're being polite to the eccentric.

    13. Re:How many people? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Didn't the fat guy eat the midget?

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    14. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want my baby back, baby back, baby back... riibs.

    15. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bart, Lisa and Maggie.

    16. Re:How many people? by niko9 · · Score: 1

      2 and a half people? Cool. I wonder what the midget does.

      Midget tossing as a new planetary defense? ;)

    17. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GET IN MAH BELLY!

    18. Re:How many people? by waitigetit · · Score: 0

      He's not a troll, he's a MIDGET WITH A TEMPER!

      --
      I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
    19. Re:How many people? by ibjhb · · Score: 0

      If he's a midget and only works 20 hours a week, wouldn't it be 2.25 people working??

    20. Re:How many people? by waitigetit · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that would result in 2. Bit shifting works for integers only.

      --
      I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
    21. Re:How many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be 5 midgets

    22. Re:How many people? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      I have only use of one eye, one hand, tinnitus in one ear and a degenerated disk in my neck causing limited use of my "good" arm.
      Because of computers, I can still work and, thus, am not eligible for "disability".

      Slacker!

    23. Re:How many people? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > 2 and a half people? Cool. I wonder what the midget does.

      I work 30 hours instead our company standard 40 hours so I always appear as 0.75 (or does this disqualify me from posting on Slashdot ?)

      Regards, Simon

  3. 2.5 people? by Exiler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which extra half do they use, and for WHAT?!

    --
    Banaaaana!
    1. Re:2.5 people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the whole scenario would make sense if one of them happened to be this guy! (not for the squeamish)

  4. Let's count together by PaulK · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's see...
    1....

    2....

    3...George! Watch out for that...(splat)...nevermind.

    2.5

  5. The scary asteroids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    The scary ones are where the scientists watch them for a week, and only see the size grow, with no apparent movement across the sky.

    1. Re:The scary asteroids. by antiquark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would mean the object was spiralling towards the earth, revolving around it at 1 revolution per day, with it's velocity slowing down (or the angle could change) as the circumference of it's orbit(ish) got smaller.

      It would have to be an powered craft of some sort.

      Just a thought.

    2. Re:The scary asteroids. by Jahf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Off-topic but ... Reminds me of a model rocket I launched once. Darned ejection charge didn't fire. It flew straight up ... and up ... and I was watching it from below going "wow". Then my brain clicked and said "it is getting bigger, MOVE". About 1/2 a second later it buried itself about 6" into the ground exactly where I was standing. I looked at the other camp counselor who was with me, she was dumbfounded, and we quietely herded the children (who were behind and under a protective barrier) off to the next activity. Always good to know that anyone can come close to winning a Darwin if they give themselves half a chance.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    3. Re:The scary asteroids. by strange_attract0r · · Score: 1

      Well, according to this guy NASA are hiding all the interesting ones from us ... the end is nigh!!

      --
      This sentence no verb
    4. Re:The scary asteroids. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Informative

      can you sum up what this loony claims? The web site is too painful to try to navigate...

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:The scary asteroids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to live in a cartoon world (and abandon the idea that thee earth rotates for a second)...and sheeshkabob

      that was fucking funny.

      sniff sniff.

      i need a hanky

    6. Re:The scary asteroids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Maxwell Smart] Missed a Darwin by that much. [/Maxwell Smart]

    7. Re:The scary asteroids. by waitigetit · · Score: 0

      let me guess: he's invented an unlimited source of clean energy, and NASA ignores him because they're controlled by the oil companies. Am I close?

      --
      I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
    8. Re:The scary asteroids. by kevlar · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Perpendicular movement with respect to the Earth is required to even detect these asteroids.

    9. Re:The scary asteroids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your point is taken (and well-informed), I'm pretty sure he was talking about an asteroid that was located directly above you, and still hurtling towards the earth. What you'd see is a giant rock growing bigger with no lateral movement.

    10. Re:The scary asteroids. by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to be scared : )

    11. Re:The scary asteroids. by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, the Lord Kelvin will protect us, if we just have faith. Huzzah for Kelvinmass!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. Re:The scary asteroids. by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Unfortunately, Perpendicular movement with respect to the Earth is required to even detect these asteroids.

      Only at ranges beyond the atmosphere. Er, oops.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    13. Re:The scary asteroids. by strange_attract0r · · Score: 1

      lol - basically that anything NASA tells is rubbish, that we're being kept in the dark about everything, that a comet passing within a million miles of us will kill us all, stuff like that ... I met a guy the other night who quit his job to look into this stuff, he's pretty convinced that the world will end soon! that's why I posted it because it reminded me of that conversation

      --
      This sentence no verb
    14. Re:The scary asteroids. by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      Hence, AFAIK, most space agencies launch their rockets/shuttles out over the sea !!

      Regard, Simon

  6. Short Staffed by PktLoss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only they got 1/10th of the budget of the hollywood films.

    There are only a few things that hollywood does get right with respect to science, and this in particular.

    1. We are presumably now at the first time in history that something could be done to avoid such a cataclysimic event.
    2. Early detection is the key, It is far easier to deflect something millions of miles away, than it is when it is 4 minutes from impact.

    I would place the protection of our planet from those things that would kill us all, as far more important than ensuring people didnt cheat on their taxes, and arn't sneaking booze in on the airplane, but, I dont choose where the tax dollars go... yet.

    1. Re:Short Staffed by Trelane,+the+Squire · · Score: 0

      True, but until humanity as a whole starts worrying about things like this that could affect us all, we're just showing how little we value ourselves.

    2. Re:Short Staffed by pphrdza · · Score: 1
      I'd place the protection of our planet far above infighting which undermines funding:

      "There's a lot of infighting in this business. Not everybody likes everybody," [Marsden] says.

      Can't help wondering what's going on when they only get $130K of a total $3.5 million funding from NASA for asteriod searches.

    3. Re:Short Staffed by Halcy0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems that things like this are like science fiction to many and are not taken seriously. This is a subject that should be taken more seriously and given some true thought. It shouldn't be left on the back burner until we find something of danger. Governments and people always miss where the true danger lies though, and focus too much on little things.

      --
      Mark Loeser
    4. Re:Short Staffed by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Maybe Bush could create the Department of Asteroid Terrorism Awareness, or DATA for short. :^)

    5. Re:Short Staffed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The ability to track Near Earth Objects means the ability to track MAN MADE Near Earth Objects. Like Military Satellites including weapons platforms.

      Guess what, the military don't like the idea of the civilian public they are "protecting" being able to do that.

    6. Re:Short Staffed by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      >It is far easier to deflect something millions of miles away, than it is when it is 4 minutes from impact.

      Not as dramatic though. Heck, we could shoot Pvt Jessica Lynch up there, and that would guarantee an intervention.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Short Staffed by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Maybe Bush could create the Department of Asteroid Terrorism Awareness, or DATA for short. :^)
      Then the conspiracy theorists could set up a rival organisation - LORE - Loonies Owning Reflective 'Eadgear
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Short Staffed by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > ... something millions of miles away, than it is when it is 4 minutes from impact.

      At 1/4 light speed that is nearly the same thing :-)

      Regard, Peter Pedant

  7. From what i heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting



    There are only 2 staff because the sacked the entire department previously, NASA begrudge handing over money to this project and has consistantly thought that the object tracking was not an important cause worthy of a whole research department (even though there are billions of objects that will cause serious damage to a sat if they are struck by it, then you have even more junk)

    maybe when one lands in washington will they take it a bit more serious

    1. Re:From what i heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well we have seen what budget constraints does to the space shuttle. Foam hit it and NASA knew about it.

    2. Re:From what i heard by eln · · Score: 1

      Why on earth is this moderated funny? Insightful maybe, but I don't think he was trying to be funny. The foam hitting the shuttle was a KNOWN PROBLEM and had been for YEARS, and yet nothing was done about it because it was deemed an "acceptable risk". Why was it deemed acceptable? Because it hadn't caused appreciable damage before. This is like driving drunk without a seat belt through a school zone every day and thinking you're safe because you haven't killed anyone yet.

      The lack of budget and the culture of "good enough" that it has fostered has devastated the space program. The space debris problem is another known issue that no one at NASA cares about because they don't have anough of a budget for even a small portion of what they would like to do, and since space debris hasn't actually leveled an entire city yet, it's an acceptable risk.

    3. Re:From what i heard by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      /sarcasm

      Yeah, Washington DC.

      There'd be a huge nationwide security alert.

      All military forces (those not in the gulf) on top alert.

      Then there'd be a standdown (hopefully) once they figured out what really happened.

      Then there'd be something akin to the Patriot Act, but directed toward easy access to space, and stopping it from happening again.

      Then.....

      ????

      DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT PROFIT, IT'D BE GOVERNMENT RUN.

      sigh

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:From what i heard by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It'll happen the first time a small one actually hits a city. There have been at least three small asteriod strikes that impacted Earth in the past 100 years with the energy equivalent of a nuclear weapon. All three happened to hit in unpopulated areas...

  8. the objects we need to worry about by atarione · · Score: 0

    ....are the ones we don't need these 2.5 people to tell us about i.e. THAT COMET IS SOOOO BIG..... I can see it with my naked eye....and oh yeah it is comming right at us!!!!!

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  9. Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...this program wasn't in place when CowboyNeal was approaching earth.

  10. Mmm, delicious hamburgers by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dude! Look at the picture! It's Dave Thomas!

    1. Re:Mmm, delicious hamburgers by sharkey · · Score: 1
      It's Dave Thomas!

      Take off, eh. I'll take a burger and a beer, eh.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Mmm, delicious hamburgers by somethingwicked · · Score: 1

      And he has a HUGE 50ft army man peeking over a wall spying on him...

      --

      ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    3. Re:Mmm, delicious hamburgers by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is the only space-based hamburger related object we need to worry about.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  11. McDonald's comparison by xihr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember, the total number of people involved in watching the skies for potential Earth impactors is fewer than the staff of one shift of a modest McDonald's restaurant.

    1. Re:McDonald's comparison by Zebbers · · Score: 2, Funny

      i really wouldnt trust the entire staff of the entire chain of McDonald's restaurants to protect us....

      McCrater anyone?

    2. Re:McDonald's comparison by femto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seems fair, since the population is much more likely to die from the food in McDonalds than from an asteroid strike.

    3. Re:McDonald's comparison by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      one shift of a modest McDonald's restaurant

      Is there such a thing as a modest McDonald's? "Try our fries, they're okay."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  12. that just means by Trelane,+the+Squire · · Score: 0

    he can swing it quicker

  13. Re:Joy by russ_allegro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually there is a lot more than 2.5 watching the skies. The Minor Planet Center takes data from amatuers as well as their own automated telescope. It is true that the MPC keeps and processes the data. Although ametuers are known from time to time to do their own orbital calculations.

  14. Forgive me by Trelane,+the+Squire · · Score: 0

    I just saw how nasty this could be taken. I did not mean it that way. I apologize

  15. Pardon the question, but.. by Gherald · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems like business as usual for astronomy.. why does it merit a story?

    1. Re:Pardon the question, but.. by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This seems like business as usual for astronomy.. why does it merit a story?

      Because as long as we have all our eggs in one basket, the people who watch the hail falling around our basket should get some recognition?

      When Earth is just another of the human planets then it will be more reasonable for its news coverage to only appear in the Obituaries section.

    2. Re:Pardon the question, but.. by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Because when the planet killer starts to light up the sky, in the few remaining seconds/minutes/hours/days/months of our life, we can say "Why oh why didn't we give some more money to these guys instead of paying $70 billion so that Haliburton could build some more oil pipelines?"

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  16. this guy should run for president... by ravenousbugblatter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "we have to do more than the dinosaurs."

    I'm glad this guy has a good grasp on the subject, since most people don't seem to realize asteroids probably represent the most immediate threat of extinction to the human species. He should exaggerate a few more threats, so that someone actually starts contributing money to finding out ways to prevent the impact of an asteroid. All current /.ers will be dead by the time a big asteroid probably hits, but we should still have a plan.

    1. Re:this guy should run for president... by ParallelJoe · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure it represents "the most immediate threat of extinction to the human species" given that there are a whole lot of baddies that seem hell bent on sending humanity to /dev/null. But it IS a certainty in the long run unless we develop the technology to prevent it.

      Wouldn't it be nice if more people worried about asteroids slamming into earth than stealing others peoples land (settlers) or killing the totally innocent (Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade) An external threat could do wonders to bring people together.

    2. Re:this guy should run for president... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      At least there are a lot of "crazy scientists" working on it.

      (from the perspective of a lot of the government, and a large majority of the people, that's what it looks like).

      The real question is: Will all this work be remembered when it happens (it will, Tunguska, etc)???

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:this guy should run for president... by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would guess those with enough money already have their own plans.

      I can't afford a nuclear bunker so I'll make do with a tinfoil hat and my "duck n cover" leaflet.

    4. Re:this guy should run for president... by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Although this is a significant threat (worth spending more money than we do on), the larger immediate threat to the human species is the human species itself...

      We seem to be smarter than the dinosaurs were. We've developed nuclear weapons, a functional understanding of genetics (biological weapons) and are working on nano-technology. Any one of these, if used maliciously, could end the species.

    5. Re:this guy should run for president... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      An external threat could do wonders to bring people together.
      Pah. I'm sure half of the loons would believe it was Allah's will, half would think it heralded the second coming, and the other half just don't count.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:this guy should run for president... by executebusiness.com · · Score: 1

      Yeah we should likely invest in a big program to protect the planet... like a giant shield emitter.

      Okay so I play too much Moo3.... :P

  17. The keeper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isnt the Wizard the keeper. ... Everything inherits from obj 0, but the Wizard is commonly the owner of everything (usually obj 2 or 3). Now of course there are other objects that can do things to ya, like when u logoff, put you into limbo...

    MOO!

  18. Dinosaurs lived for 160 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Or something like that, anyway.

    It's going to be a helluva lot harder to do more than that.

  19. Re:A credit to astrology by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    That's funny. I don't think you'll find a single astronomer or astrophysicist who would agree. So are we not to listen to astronomers?

  20. people :| by atari2600 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We see them :) yeah we see them

    Observer1: How many people do you see there?
    Observer2: 2.5
    Observer1: I think i see almost three - what do you mean 2.5?
    Observer2: Yeah i see 2.5 - Saddam, Uday and Qusay - one of them has his head in another's ass
    Observer1: Oh!

    1. Re:people :| by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but How the fuck is this "Funny"?
      You Americans never think about any lives but your own.
      This was uncalled for... AGAIN!

    2. Re:people :| by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You non-Americans, always classifying others. Sheesh!

  21. Re:A credit to astrology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft and computers are ONE. Do not listen to people who say otherwise.

    Resistance is futile.

  22. Besides USA by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could someone please enlighten me? I hear a lot about NASA and how our budget for monitoring dangerous objects has been way too low.

    Are other countries partaking in this? I know we're not the only ones with a space program, and I've BEEN to observatories across the globe. Yet in all of these stories, I never read about a comparison between us and, let's say, France.

    Are there any other countries that make it a point to monitor the skies for this stuff? How do their budgets compare to ours? I'm not saying "Go USA," I'm actually curious.

    Seriously, any information would be appreciated.

    1. Re:Besides USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, just to bore everyone with more news from Australia: Not us.

      Our ever-so-enlightened-and technically-aware government killed all funding for this kind of thing. Plus, one of our optical telescopes, Mt Stromlo, recently burned down (at least its going to be rebuilt).

      Unfortunately, ours was the only program of its type in the southern hemisphere (according to the press; I hope that's not true though).

      Keep watching the skies...you never know when you might need to duck.

    2. Re:Besides USA by Melibeus · · Score: 1

      Australia used have such a program until the government cut the budget. So we had better hope that any planet killer doesn't approach from the south, unless South Africa or Argentina have a spaceguard project.

    3. Re:Besides USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if those bastard other countries don't help us, we'll go the bargain basement route and at least spot the comet in time to deflect into the mediterranean.

      or soviet russia, where the comet deflects you (rim shot)

    4. Re:Besides USA by NickFitz · · Score: 1

      There's a Liberal Democrat MP here in the UK who has been trying, on behalf of his party, to interest the powers that be in showing some concern over this matter.

      Unfortunately, the fact that his name is Lembit Opik means that in the Palace of Westminster, Fleet Street and BBC Television Centre, he is usually referred to as "Anagram".

      As he's the only person going on about this, all serious debate is lost in the laughter surrounding his nickname.

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    5. Re:Besides USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We at India have this ... http://www.spaceguardindia.com
      Although I have to admit it is very new and nothing significant has been done till now ...but it is definitely a good step for a country with a population of more than a billion.

    6. Re:Besides USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we in ze France are spending ze heuuuge budget on ridiculing Americen. Oh, meaning of course monitoring ze sky.

      Shall be shortly prepairing an massive paper showing America doing little spending on monitoring sky, and doing it ze ass backwards as well.

      Please tell ze president Bush he not be upset by ze paper and bombe Paris or we shall unleash oure elitetrained squad of mimes on him.

    7. Re:Besides USA by 56ker · · Score: 0

      Joking about his name aside - I seem to remember him mentioning Spaceguard when asked about what the UK was doing on the subject.

    8. Re:Besides USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ObSimpons:

      "Let's burn the Observatory to make sure this never happens again!"

    9. Re:Besides USA by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Basically, No. There is some work being done; but, usually under the auspices of other projects... (no official funding)

      once a smaller object hits a major city, people will become interested. There have been at least two or three in the past century (that we know of) which impacted with the force of a (smaller) nuclear weapon. All struck in uninhabited areas...

    10. Re:Besides USA by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      A special thanks to everyone that responded.

      It's a little worry-some that the world doesn't take this threat too seriously. One would think that we'd pool our resources and make more of a collaborative effort across the globe to prevent such a catastrophe. I'm not saying each country spend ludicrous amounts of money, but maybe set up an observation post with a couple of people

      Like another poster said, it'll probably take a populated area getting hit to make us realize the importance of such monitoring.

    11. Re:Besides USA by Alsee · · Score: 1

      let's say, France

      If we detected an asteroid on a collision course France would say that's evidence the inspection process is working and we should continue inspections rather than use force.

      To avoid getting flamed I'll make a second joke with an opposite spin:

      let's say, England

      If the US claims it has secret evidence that the asteroid is planning to hit Earth England will be right there at America's side to help liberate any oil it might have.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  23. Actual Frequency of Impact by thelandp · · Score: 5, Informative
    There's a relationship between asteroid size and predicted frequency of impact.

    10m - every 1-5 years

    100m - every 1000 years

    1km - every 100,000 years

    The Tunguska blast of 1908 was a roughly 100m asteroid, hitting land.
    If it had been an ocean impact, it would have produced significant tsunamis.
    On the remote chance it had landed right on top of a large city, then the city would be completely gone.

    A 1km asteroid would wipe out a moderate US state, or create tsunamis that travel to most of the globe. Either way it would affect the climate due to dust clouds.

    The observational population census for Earth crossing objects is only complete for objects in the 8-kilometre diameter range (such as 1627 Ivor) or larger. The detection completeness for 1 kilometre range is estimated to be in the region of 12%.

    (further reading is here)

    Maybe it's worthwhile upping the budget so we can track all of them down to 1km ?

    --

    -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
    1. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by bravehamster · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Tunguska blast of 1908 was a roughly 100m asteroid, hitting land.

      Kinda a' nitpick, but the Tunguska object didn't hit land, it was an air-burst. That's the reason there isn't a huge crater there now. It flattened all the trees for hundreds of square miles, but in the very center of the blast, no crater. Stumped a bunch of scientists for a good long while. Air-burst detonations have a larger area of immediate effect (i.e. flattened by the blast wave), but their global effect is less than ones that actually impact. Either way you get lots of knocked over trees and some pretty sunsets.

      --
      ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    2. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm interested, if it didn't hit land what is thought to have caused it to explode, the sudden friction from our atmosphere?

    3. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by nusuth · · Score: 1
      Monitoring sounds like a good idea but if you can't do anything about it, it is kind of useless.

      The first step should be determining whether those "frequency of impact by size" numbers are accurate and what the distribution of of impacts are - in terms of frequency and mass. One doesn't need to monitor all (dangerous) sizes for this estimate.

      The second thing should be deciding whether the estimated risk merit development of technology to deflect asteroids.

      Only after the technology is developed it makes sense to monitor all dangerous sizes. We are not at this stage yet.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    4. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Careful now. How about talking in terms of the probability of an impact tomorrow (hint: it's the same as the probability of an impact on any given day, including on a day when another rock drops), not in terms of the duration between impacts. Politicians are easily confused, especially around budget time, and might very well think that we're safe for the next X years.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Recent analysis shows that the smaller ( 250m) silicate based (rocky) asteriods will airburst. It would have to be pretty damn big to survive hitting the surface. Iron asteriods will almost always survive to impact. Fortunately, the iron asteriods are the minority.

    6. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Now I'm interested, if it didn't hit land what is thought to have caused it to explode, the sudden friction from our atmosphere?

      Judging by the lack of debris that has been recovered from the site, it was most probably a chunk of ice that disintegrated during its deceleration through the upper atmosphere.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    7. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by mikerich · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Tunguska blast of 1908 was a roughly 100m asteroid, hitting land.

      It was at most 50 metres across and made largely of ice, it would never have made it to the surface.

      If it had been an ocean impact, it would have produced significant tsunamis.

      At 15 megatonnes it wouldn't have raised much more than a ripple. The US exploded larger bombs at sea level.

      The rest of your point is well taken though, although you left out one bit. Would Dubya, Putin or our little poodle in the UK wait to confirm the source of an explosion that took out one of their cities before launching a nuclear attack against their evil guy of the week?

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    8. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A 1km asteroid would wipe out a moderate US state,

      Seems a waste. Is there any way we could steer it towards one of the more fundamentalist ones?
    9. Re:Actual Frequency of Impact by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You know how if you belly flop into the water from 100 feet up it's almost like hitting concrete? Well slamming into the atmosphere at 20,000 miles per hour is almost like hitting concrete too.

      A 150 MPH hurricane wind can snap a tree. A 20,000 MPH "wind" of rushing through the atmosphere can sometimes shatter a rock. The forces are enormous.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  24. Want To See Where They All Are? by szyzyg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Check out my NEO map from my astronomer days (before this whole interweb thing stole me away)
    http://szyzyg.arm.ac.uk/~spm/

    It works off the same data and basically plots all the positions every day.

    1. Re:Want To See Where They All Are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow your webpage keeps track of 2.5 people every day?

  25. mistake? by vikrant · · Score: 1

    i thought that there are 3.5 people working. 3 full time and 1 'Kyle Smalley' part time.

    vikrant narang
    ---
    In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
    -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos

  26. is there anything grid computing can help with? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean i'd rather cpu cycles to stopping our total annhilation over seti any day of the week.

  27. No, we really need... by aldousd666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum; together they can use a mac powerbook to write a virus that affects even alien asteroid computers, and then use it to spy on the asteroid's built-in doomsday clock. When the asteroid's internal macintosh powered countdown reaches almost zero (of course it's measured in seconds) we then can sick Afleck and Willis on it with a tactical nuke. The world is safe! And we don't need to involve any other Neo's at all. (That would just be ridiculous)

    --
    Speak for yourself.
  28. Re:Joy by joebeone · · Score: 3, Informative

    As an astronomer, I can say with confidence that those 2.5 people probably do a lot more of technological babysitting than actual not-enough-time-in-the-day work... objects are found by computer software that compare image residuals (subtractions of images separated by a day or two)... fast moving things are closer to earth and may warrant follow-up with a larger 'scope.

  29. Whoo Hoo! by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    A dead G.W. and more money for science in one fell swoop. That will be a happy day.

  30. The http://www.costofwar.com/ by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    (In Iraq, that is) is approaching $70 billion as I type. How much are we spending on finding, let alone planning to deal with, the real Weapon of Mass Destruction that the cosmos will - not might, will - lob at us sooner or later?

    I'm just picturing Stacey Implants on Fox whooping and flashing her brights because we've assassinated Saddam bin Laden's great grandkids and Saved Civilization Yet Again, just as the planet killer is nuzzling it's way inside lunar orbit. Shudder.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  31. Oblig. Simpsons quote by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    Homer> "What's everyone so worked up about? So there's a comet, big deal. It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head."

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  32. Beep Beep! by jacksonai · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you almost did a Wiley Coyote. Did you have the little umbrella.

    --
    Like Sweepstakes? Try out my service @ http://www.yourpowersweeps.com -- Free 21 day trial, no cc needed.