B612 Foundation Loses Partnership With NASA; Asteroids Not a Significant Risk

StartsWithABang writes: Yes, asteroids might be humanity's undoing in the worst-case scenario. It's how the dinosaurs went down, and it could happen to us, too. The B612 foundation has been working to protect us by mapping and then learning to deflect potential threats to our planet, but their proposed mission needed $450 million, a goal they've fallen well short of. As a result, NASA has severed their partnership, which is a good thing for humanity: the risk assessment figures show that worrying about killer asteroids is largely a waste.

Comments

Black Swan

[gtall]

Yep, the chances of one getting us is small. On the other hand, if one does come, we'll look like foots just before we kiss our asses goodbye.

Re:Black Swan

[Anonymous Coward]

And we will look like bigger fools when the more mundane and much more likely problems hit us with our pants down because we were worrying about asteroids instead of putting our time, money and effort into pollution, climate change, lack of fresh water, lack of food (we are fishing our oceans dry of fish these days you know) etc.

That argument that "but what if the unlikely thing happens" is specious because it ignores the impact of expending energy on the highly unlikely event instead of expending energy on the much more likely events. There is only so much time, money and effort to go around - expending $450M (and the associated resources, time, people, etc) on likely threats is a much better investment than expending it on asteroids.

Re:Black Swan

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is good but I think you're missing one thing.

We're not otherwise spending the money fixing the world's most pressing problems. If asteroid detection comes out of NASA's budget, there will just be fewer astronauts going to space, and the like. What's the net value of human space exploration? Probably very low, possibly negative, although I guess maybe they need the spectacle in order to keep their funds flowing.

Re:Black Swan

[tomhath]

We're not otherwise spending the money fixing the world's most pressing problems

We (presumably you mean the United States) is indeed spending lots of money on world problems. If you rank the relative risk and potential consequences of things like over-population, genocide, disease, famine, extreme poverty, pollution, depletion of resources, etc, etc, versus the risk and consequences of an asteroid strike, it's easy to see why the money is better spent elsewhere.

Re:Black Swan

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is more that most dangerous near passes are first time observations, hitherto unknown asteroids with very long orbits (100+ years) and are usually only found a few months or even weeks before they would reach earth.

Hollywood aside there's really nothing we can do about those for many decades to come, it's too much like deflecting a cannonball with baseballs.

Re: Black Swan

[kenwd0elq]

Footfall, Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle.

http://www.amazon.com/Footfall...

I'm astonished that a Slashdot reader isn't familiar with that already.

The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

In a human's lifetime, the odds are unbelievably low, as in, almost nonexistent.

In the next 500 years? 1,000 years? A bit more, but still low.

However, while very low, if it were to happen, it makes everything else pointless and redundant. If we're wiped out, then our saving $450 million doesn't really matter much, now does it?

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in that case a-salt rifles would be more appropriate

Re:The odds are very low...

[Twinbee]

Careful, at this rate, we might have to put a price to a human life (or even the human race) which is not very PC.

Re: The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

And never mind that congress pisses away $450mm on useless shit all the time.

Re:The odds are very low...

[tomhath]

On the other hand, if it's big enough to wipe out life on Earth we wouldn't be able to stop it anyway.

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

Are you sure about that? 100% completely sure?

What if we had 50 years warning? Still sure?

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

The price of the human race is everything.

All of it. No amount of stuff or money is worth what the whole human race is worth.

That was easy, I need a Staples big red button. :)

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

Yea, I knew some snark would come along with that silly point.

Earth has been hit by multiple large rocks already, we know they exist, we can see them today, right now.

That makes it a real, if unlikely, threat. Space slugs are not a real threat.

Re:The odds are very low...

[mothlos]

People are notoriously bad at rationally assessing risk and this is a clear example of one common pattern. People are much more worried about uncommon, but catastrophic risks than they are about common, moderately costly risks. This is exacerbated by risks which reinforce an existing world-view.

It should then come as no surprise that people who believe we should be investing more in space technologies would have a distorted view of the risk posed by asteroid impacts.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know where 99% of the extinction event type asteroids are. We'll have plenty of warning.

Re:The odds are very low...

[tomhath]

Are you sure B612 could come up with something that would work on even a small asteroid? They didn't meet any of their project goals to date.

Re:The odds are very low...

[mrlinux11]

Well Aliens have never attacked, however this planet has been struck several times by Asteroids that can alter life as we know it. It is not a question of IF it is a question of WHEN it happens.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

If malevolent interstellar aliens attacked we in all likelihood wouldn't have a chance anyway. The energy and technological requirements for interstellar travel would likely make their defensive/offensive tech as far ahead of us as a modern naval battle group would be ahead of some revolutionary war army with muskets and cannons. Defending from an asteroid threat on the other hand is well within our technological & financial means, not saying we should bankrupt the country preparing for any long shot risk, but devoting a few billion a year towards mitigating, understand and possibly defending against that threat and other similar threats is far more intelligent than burning it on some of the pointless, wasteful things we currently do (wars, roads to no where, bureaucratic waste, defense contractors, etc).

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of people get cancer every year. That also alters life as you know it, and not just for the people with cancer. I've only been alive 30 years and my life now has been altered to the point of not being recognizable 4 times. All life is change, the better you can deal with this, the happier you will be. It's like the Americans paying hundreds of thousands of dollars and their children's inheritance to be kept alive for another 2 months.

Re:The odds are very low...

[KGIII]

Space slugs are not a real threat.

Sure... That's what they want us to think. Wait - are you one of them and trying to fool us into a false sense of security? I'm on to you!!!

On the internet, nobody knows you're a space slug.

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

Don't misunderstand...

I'm not afraid of terrorism or being attacked by sharks, etc.

I fully understand that I'm far more likely to be killed in my car, or by my bad eating habits, then any of those risks.

The issue with an asteroid is that if it is a big one, then it can end the entire human race. It is very, very, very, very, very unlikely, even within my great, great, great children's lifetime.

But if it happens, then everything else is meaningless. It is such a binary outcome that we should at least care a little bit about it. I don't lose sleep over it, but of all the things we spend money on, this should be one of them.

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

No, I'm not... maybe they aren't the people to be doing this... perhaps someone else should...

As far as what would work on an asteroid, even a very large one, there are multiple ideas on what could work. Depending on your time frame, everything from solar sails to long duration ion engines to nuclear weapons.

Simply painting it white might work, if you have 50 years notice, since it would affect the orbital path very slightly which works over time.

Re:The odds are very low...

[cyberchondriac]

Kang and Kodos beg to differ.

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

But please, do talk to us more about what threats are real and likely in our lifetimes.

You win a prize for being unable to read what was written, rather than reading what you wanted to read.

And you worked so hard to type all that out too!

Asteroids are a real threat, but they aren't at all likely in our lifetimes.

It's clear that you're a master of risk management.

I'm able to understand the difference between what might kill me, and what might kill all of us.

A billion people could die tomorrow, and that would be sad, but life would go on. We could have global thermonuclear war tomorrow and 6 billion people could die, and that would suck, but life would go on.

If a 10km long rock hits Earth tomorrow, it likely would wipe out all humans on the planet. Life would NOT go on (at least not our kind of life).

The risk is low, the penalty for missing it is off the charts.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that money is much better spent enforcing file sharing restrictions.

Re:The odds are very low...

[tomhath]

NASA is already watching all known asteroids that might be a threat. So don't worry, it isn't going to happen.

Re:The odds are very low...

[tuxgeek]

First .. the stupid: ..

"What if we had 50 years warning? Still sure?"
"We already know where 99% of the extinction event type asteroids are. We'll have plenty of warning."

Yea, right .. Then this

Re:The odds are very low...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

A far more likely problem is the inevitable idiot with a spare ion drive after humans start mining asteroids.

While still 50 years away minimum, deflection needed due to asshole is far more likely.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something tells me this wasn't an extinction level event.

Using the impact calculator, the only way I can get significant damage would be by using a solid iridium asteroid, impacting the Earth at 70 km/s and at a 90 degree entry point. But the damage would be very localized and only slight to no damage at 50 km from impact.

Here, run it yourself.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we spend orders of magnitude more on dealing with cancer than we do on the asteroid threat. That's a rational response to the difference in risk.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there's absolutely no chance of an *unknown* asteroid that might be a threat. They were gifted with the list of asteroids that are possible threats by an omniscient source. Right?

Re:The odds are very low...

[careysub]

There is also the problem with impactors we don't know about. NASA has a pretty good handle on the major potential impactors, true, but from the article you link to:

NASA has said that roughly 95 percent of the largest asteroids that could endanger Earth — space rocks at least 0.6 miles (1 km) wide — have been identified through these surveys.

95% is not 100% (or 99.9%), so there is some significant distance to go yet.

One problem though that asteroid charting projects will not help with this that ~20% of the potential threat comes from long period comets that we only see for the first time as they fall in past the outer planets, a matter of months, rather than years before they cross Earth's orbit. To deal with this threat we need to develop a good deflection technology, and ready launchable hardware, and plans to conduct an interception if a likely threat is detected. Some of these comets put the "dinosaur killer" to shame. The impactor that formed Chixulub Crater was only about 10 km wide. Comet Hale-Bopp that was only detected 20 months before it reached Earth's orbit in 1997 was 60 km wide, 200 times the mass of the "dinosaur killer". (If a threat is that big not even nuclear weapons can take it out, but there are many more comets that are smaller, yet still represent a major threat. It is possible that a Hale-Bopp sized comet might have caused Earth's greatest extinction event 252 million years ago.)

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

the risk assessment figures show that worrying about killer asteroids is largely a waste.

The solar system is now somewhat calmer place than just few decamillion years ago, thank Jupiter. Nevertheless, a smalsely plan for living and growing crops underground would be beneficial eventually, and a good practice for actual living in space or other planets.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

Asteroids are a real threat, but they aren't at all likely in our lifetimes.

So then why the fuck do ANY of us care? I mean that quite seriously. Do you think anybody except us humans give 2 wet squirts of shit about humanity's survival? If we all died at 5:18 pm EST this evening, the universe would carry on without a single tear shed. Nobody would care, because nobody would be around *to care.*

What makes "HUMANITY" so goddamned important that we must survive at all costs?

If you're arguing from a "LIFE IS SO VALUABLE!" standpoint, then there are FAR more pressing losses of life here on earth that you should be worried about before you worry about space rocks.

If you're arguing from a "BUT MY GIANT DICK MONUMENT MUST SURVIVE FOR MILLENNIA TO SHOW HOW COOL I WAS!" standpoint, guess what: sooner or later, shit's gonna end. The universe itself will cool, and die. So no matter HOW long we prolong the survival of the species, there is, eventually, a finite point we'll hit where there's no energy remaining to sustain life - and when that happens, so too, will your memory pass.

I'm able to understand the difference between what might kill me, and what might kill all of us.

So, again: if it's not going to happen in your lifetime, then why do you give a shit? Yes, our descendants may wail and gnash their teeth for a few months knowing of their impending doom, but in the end, they'll all be just as dead as if we'd diverted that rock, and a few more million generations had lived and died, and the universe either approaches heat death, or bounces back into a big-bang style contraction. There IS no option where humanity exists forever. Your choice, therefore, is this:
- Focus a lot of energy and resources on making life as good as possible for the people alive, here, now, today;
- Accept millions of years of suffering and anguish that didn't need to happen in the vain pursuit of a species-level immortality that doesn't and won't ever exist, at the cost of endless expenditure of time, energy, and resources.

And please, spare us the "it's only 450 million" speech - you and I both know that there's no such thing as a "finished" system when it comes to government and scientific spending. For my money, I prefer to live well, and die knowing I've lived well, than to allow suffering, and die knowing that I've only extended the duration of time in which others can and will suffer.

If a 10km long rock hits Earth tomorrow, it likely would wipe out all humans on the planet. Life would NOT go on (at least not our kind of life).

Granted that it would... what's your point? Again, what sort of backwards-ass manifest destiny philosophy do you have that says we can, must, and should infest every corner of the universe for its entire existence? Since nobody's left alive, there's nobody left to cry over your stupid ass. You're dead, you don't matter. Welcome to the universe, son - it's a cold place.

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are notoriously bad at rationally assessing risk and this is a clear example of one common pattern. People are much more worried about uncommon, but catastrophic risks than they are about common, moderately costly risks. This is exacerbated by risks which reinforce an existing world-view.

Wow Mothlos, you were doing so good there, you were one of the only ones that started to touch on the cause of some of our irrational behaviors that are detrimental to the survival of ourselves, our families and our species. This pattern, that you mention is more directly referred to as a cognitive bias.

You were doing so well and then you fell victim to what most of us who learn about cognitive biases tend to do.. Instead of using it as a source of insight you turn down the more common road of the unwashed masses, when you end with:

It should then come as no surprise that people who believe we should be investing more in space technologies would have a distorted view of the risk posed by asteroid impacts.

Instead of communicating an insightful idea about how we as humans blind ourselves, when the train is coming at us.. and instead when learning about cognitive biases we project it onto others .. and use it as a story about how stupid everyone else is. There is a name for this (other than Freudian Projection.) This is called Confirmation Bias..

It is ridiculous how we can be told directly what a reasonable and good and logical balance of risk assessment and risk management, based on sound logic and well documented mathematics and science and your response is akin to " Yep those idiots still believe the sky is falling!" or "Yes, those idiots do have a distorted view of the risks!"

Burying your head in the sand so when the asteroid comes, and having it hit you square where some say the good lord split you, might just be poetic justice. Such an event, if it happened would probably convince me that there was a god.. but then my question to god would be:

" Why do you create a universe where the large majority of the evidence around us says you don't exist, and then get pissed off that people like myself come to the conclusion you don't exist.. how can we be faulted for that?"

I will end by saying "I am a fan of man!"

Re:The odds are very low...

[war4peace]

How about saving 450M off military spending right now and do the damn Asteroid Research with it? Just sayin'.
450M can be saved by having each American donate 1.5 dollars once to research. One less cheap beer this month would pretty much cover it for two people.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

I would say the odds of us getting hit by a city-killer space-rock tomorrow is infinitely higher than of you ever putting together a reasoned justification for your own continued existence. Considering all the resources you are wasting, you should fix that.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

Which of these threats are real for human kind? Moron.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

make their defensive/offensive tech as far ahead of us as a modern naval battle group would be ahead of some revolutionary war army with muskets and cannons

I am going to disagree in a manner. An alien race with such technology would, compared to us, be like the US Army vs 12 sheep and a dog. We probably wouldn't even know they were attacking. In fact, the moronic stuff we see here, they probably already are. They have discovered a dino-killing asteroid heading our way, and now they are making sure we'll never see it coming.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

Nonsense. Deflecting an asteroid is trivial. This is why the guys at the B612 foundation changed focus from that task to the task of actually finding the city killers out there. We can't deflect if we can't detect.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

There is nothing to come up with. Seriously. The tech is, given enough resources, trivial. The B612 foundation solved that problem in the early 1970's - amazingly even before the foundation existed.

Re:The odds are very low...

[xevioso]

boooo

Re:The odds are very low...

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people died during the last asteroid impact?

How many people will die when the next asteroid will struck the earth?

The time in between these large asteroids exceeds the life expectancy of the human species. Maybe we will evolve to a more stupid species that can only look with awe at what old species achieved. Maybe we will evolve to super intelligent species that colonizes space.

The chance on getting hit by an asteroid are way too low to spend multiple trillions on an asteroid shield. You would be better of spending billions to build a space station that can be used as a port for further exploration of our solar system.

Maybe we will even master space exploration by taking these 'small' steps in such a way that when an asteroid is on its way to earth, it is just a matter of capturing it and bringing it in a orbit around earth, ready to be mined.

Re:The odds are very low...

[dryeo]

A 10 km rock hitting Earth tomorrow would not wipe out the human race. Assuming iron meteorite hitting at a 90 degree angle at 17 km a second in deep ocean is 1.45 x 108 MegaTons TNT. On the other side of the world the initial impact excepting the tsunami is hardly noticeable and even tsunami is only about 350 feet high.
Things would be bad with the majority of the human race dead but we're pretty resilient. The odds of any 10 km object hitting over the next year is about 200 million to one (actually less as there aren't as many around as there used to be).
Consider a big comet, 100 kms across made of ice, hitting at 90 degrees and 50 km/s, odds are one hasn't hit the Earth since initial formation. Energy is 1.63 x 1011 MegaTons TNT. You'd feel it on the other side of the world (in less then an hour), might even break windows. The shock wave (arriving about 12 hours later at 350 mph) will collapse most everything. There will be survivors, especially anyone in bomb shelters. Half an hour later the 1700 ft tsunami will arrive and wipe out everything remotely close to the coast. At this point there are still survivors and a chance that some will survive the following wild weather.
It takes a pretty good sized asteroid/comet hitting just right to wipe out humanity.
Numbers taken from the Earth impact calculator at http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/Imp...

Re:The odds are very low...

[NicknameUnavailable]

Couldn't we just make salt guns big enough to shoot down asteroids too?

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

2 points...

1. You're assuming that calculator is accurate... it is perhaps a good guess, but that doesn't mean it will be correct. The rock that hit Earth and killed the dinos likely did its worst damage via firestorm, but we can only really guess.

2. You're correctly that it is very, very, very unlikely. Really, really low chances... of course if it did hit, it would be bad beyond measure.

Re:The odds are very low...

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

What if giant alien slugs attack? We should probably spend the $450 million developing space-capable salt-guns, just in case.

Well, since a couple of tons of rock salt travelling at a couple of km/s in the opposite direction would do a number on an asteroid/comet as well, I'm all for that.

Dual use technology is just smart economics. So while we wait for the slugs (any day now) they could shore up our asteroid/comet defences.

Re:The odds are very low...

[dryeo]

The energy released is simple math, how the energy reacts with the Earth is an educated guess and there are a lot of variables
Too lazy to check as it's bedtime here, but if I remember correctly, oxygen levels were much higher in the age of dinosaurs, which would make a firestorm more likely. Also IIRC, the dinosaurs were on the way out at the time and the asteroid finished them off.
What is more likely is a small rock hitting. A 500m rock hitting in the middle of Europe would cause a lot of damage and likely screw up the worlds economy. Lots of similar scenarios. And a small rock is much more likely to hit and it is more likely we could do something about it. And of course while looking for small rocks, we'd likely spot a large one.

Re:The odds are very low...

[FlyHelicopters]

The energy released is simple math

You'd think so, but no, not really...

It depends on the real density of the object, what it hits, etc. And while you can computer model it, we don't have a lot of practical experience with it...

Just curious, but have you read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Could we survive that? Maybe, but not many of us. The dust would block out the sun and it would have stayed dark for years. The whole planet was covered in debris and dust. This was not a small impact.

It is interesting to note that if you put the details of that impact into the impact calculator, you don't get a response similar to what is written there. One of them is wrong.

My money is on the impact calculator being wrong, but I'm not an expert, so there we go.

---

TL;DR - it is amazingly unlikely to happen, but it would really, really suck if it did. Worse than WWIII would be.

So perhaps we should be sure it won't happen, rather than hope it won't.

Re:The odds are very low...

[david_thornley]

Deflecting an asteroid is anything but trivial. We really don't know the best way to do it. We can put a small amount of mass anywhere in the Solar System, but that's not really impressive compared to the task.

However, the more precisely we have plotted the city-killers, the better off we are. If we can predict an impact in 30 years, for example, we can avoid collision if we can nudge the rock just a very, very little. We can study the rock in detail and come up with a specific engineering plan. We can make a lot of progress in space technology, and build a special-purpose spaceship in orbit.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

Deflecting an asteroid is anything but trivial.

Technically it is trivial. It will have a significant cost, but compared to losing a major city, the cost is going to be trivial. We can deflect very large masses at a cost significantly below the cost of the Iraq war. In some cases, as someone pointed out, "painting it white" could be sufficient. The only important factor is detection. Given enough time we can move just about anything that is likely to impact us. The easiest wold be to increase (or perhaps decrease) the objects orbital velocity a tiny amount. Putting a somewhat dense object in front of the asteroid moving at a slightly higher velocity is probably the easiest way to do it.

We really don't know the best way to do it.

We have one or two alternatives, but increasing orbital velocity is probably the easiest. Solar sail. A "rocket" with some weight "pulling" it by just staying in front of it. There are a few good alternatives. Anything involving nukes is probably dumb.

Re:The odds are very low...

[delt0r]

We will be wiped out one way or another. Humanity or post humans will not survive as a species forever no matter what. If that makes life meaningless then well life *is* meaningless. Deal with it.

Re:The odds are very low...

[david_thornley]

I maintain that it it not currently trivial, and that if we find we need to do it we're going to find problems we haven't considered. It's definitely doable, but even technically it's non-trivial.

As far as nukes go, why would they be dumb? They're the most compact energy we've got, and if we can put even some of the force into nudging an asteroid that might work. Maybe it can blast some of the surface off for use as reaction mass for the rock. That's probably the technically easiest way, if it works.

It may make the asteroid slightly radioactive in a spot, but it doesn't matter if the thing misses, and it doesn't matter if the thing hits.

Re:The odds are very low...

[terjeber]

technically it's non-trivial

As they say - rocket science isn't exactly rocket science...it's easy bordering on trivial, but might be a tad expensive.

As far as nukes go, why would they be dumb?

Generally because blowing the blasted thing up isn't really going to help much. However, your question shows you have not read up on this stuff. You should. A tug is far easier, and has far less unknown side-effects.

Re:The odds are very low...

[david_thornley]

Every time I look at rocket science, it seems to be simple. Every time I look at rocket engineering, it seems to get really hairy.

Yeah, I should read up more on this stuff. It's interesting, and apparently my previous reading is now out of date.

Republicans are so short-sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't believe in dinosaurs so they don't believe an asteroid kill them. It's logical given their intentionally wrong starting point of an invisible man that orders them around.

Re: Republicans are so short-sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

They want us to die, and this is a very effective way of doing so.

Re: Republicans are so short-sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

They woul rather end humanity than allow minorities to continue living.

Re:Republicans are so short-sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

> invisible man that orders them around.

And why are they not in prison or a mental hospital for that? Any normal person that said an invisible man was ordering them around would be, but when an xian says that, they are respected in the USA. They are respected. No, they are insane. They are mentally ill, and we need to protect the public.

Re: Republicans are so short-sighted

[KGIII]

Ah rubycodez... Your secret is out. Also, you should stop replying to yourself, it looks silly and nobody actually gives you any credibility. I suppose that's not enough to break through your mental illness but I feel better for having done the socially responsible thing. Seriously, we care. Go get help. I don't mind paying taxes to help you out. In fact, I hope you get good mental health care. I really don't mind paying my share to help pay for it.

Re:Republicans are so short-sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't believe in dinosaurs so they don't believe an asteroid kill them. It's logical given their intentionally wrong starting point of an invisible man that orders them around.

You missed the point I think, about Republicans, They don't take orders from the invisible guy, they just say they do so they can swindle money from those who do believe in the invisible guy. You'll also notice Republicans have a habit of doing something stupid, embarrassing or downright evil, and then turn around and make their argument or defense or soundbite all about that thing those Democrats did that was so stupid, embarrassing or downright evil... referring to the thing they did and that there is public news coverage of them doing and saying.. and those invisible sky god true believers eat it up despite being privy to this happening again and again and again and again!

Most Republicans claim to be religious because they believe that it wins them political points. They do not walk the walk or talk the talk, and if the bible is true, Jesus would look at most Republicans as being hypocrites not those who do unto others as they would have done unto them. I would move that Jesus would be on his iPhone texting god to send another flood or an asteroid or a zombie apocalypse or some such world cleansing thing.

Somehow the Pope convinced John Boehner it would be in his political best interest to resign.. I bet it was something along the lines of, "You know, whether you get Obamacare overturned or not, you basically have no future, but by all means, do what you will."

Why are you paying for life insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the same question. You will never be fit from it.

This project is the same I guess NASA has Bruce Willis on speed dial just in case.

Re:Why are you paying for life insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the same question. You will never be fit from it.

No, you dipshit - I'm paying for insurance so that my family isn't left penniless and homeless in the case of my untimely demise. It's not for me, it never has been for me - it's a way of looking out for my wife and children in the event of a relatively "likely" possibility - that I'll die or be incapable of earning money to provide for my family before they reach a point where they're able to provide for themselves. That's why you pay for life insurance - and if you're paying for life insurance for any other reason (and any other type of insurance other than term life insurance), then you're a fucking moron who enjoys pissing his money away.

This is not insurance - this is a stupid waste of money. I don't buy insurance based on "what if... green men from Mars attack and destroy the world at some point?" If you do, then great - feel free to keep throwing your money away on this shit. But please put MY tax money towards more important, and useful, projects.

Re: Why are you paying for life insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dipshit" the same goes here too. We spend now for our kids and kids are secure.

Re: Why are you paying for life insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you dipshit, the same doesn't go here. Insurance is a way of spreading the impact (cost) of a risk over a group - some of whom will be impacted, and some of whom will not.

If we're talking "extinction," then there is no way of insuring against that. We can all agree that the likelihood of a "killer" asteroid is very, very low. So, let's agree that it's not likely to happen for... 30,000 years - just to put some bounds on the discussion.

Now, given that: what do you think the likelihood is that, in 30,000 years:
1) Humanity still exists;
2) The tech we invented today is still in service;
3) The tech we invented today is still the best possible solution to an imminent asteroid strike;
4) Anything we've done today will matter;

We are talking about time intervals not of 100 years, we're talking about intervals of thousands of years - several times longer than the *entirety* of recorded human history. Refresh our memory -- when's the last time you thanked your great-great-great-great-great^100 grandfather for leaving you that sharp rock to fend off the predations of the lions on the African savannah?

What you're talking about is buying insurance for yourself today so that your descendants 1500 generations from now won't have to support themselves after you die. That is DUMB. That is POINTLESS.

Re: Why are you paying for life insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dipshit". Boy are you poor at math and risk management. But thank you for your lecture that supports full what I was saying. Please keep thinking you are correct. It helps to have consitiancy in life,

We never learn from our mistakes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The dinosaurs made the same decision and look what happened to them.

Re:We never learn from our mistakes...

[dryeo]

The dinosaurs made the same decision and look what happened to them.

Survived for a couple of hundred of million years?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Waste?

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to the moon was a waste, but look at how much the effort has given back to humanity.

Re:Waste?

[thinkwaitfast]

How much did the soviet moon effort given back to humanity?

Re:Waste?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see... It gave us the first artificial satellite. The further development of that technology has given us back quite a bit in the time since.

Or are you going to pretend that, absent the 'space race', we'd have spent the time and money developing the technology needed to launch weather and communications satellites into orbit, and the technology needed to communicate with and control them?

Stupid article.

[Anonymous Coward]

450 million is chump change for the knowledge that we need to eliminate a 1 in 100,000 risk for the entire planet. One single subway line for one US city costs upwards of a billion dollars.

The project was cancelled because NASA is underfunded, not because it's not worthy of funding.

Stupid Headline

[mbone]

B612 lost their Space Act Agreement because they were missing their deadlines and because they weren't talking to NASA about it. I had several people at NASA tell me that they were frustrated about the lack of communication from B612 about their problems. It was only a matter of time before the SAA agreement was canceled.

Re:Stupid Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

They should set up a Kickstarter.

Re:Stupid Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem I see is the lack of transparency on NASA's part. That's right. FUCK YOU nasa shills. Even if the threat was real, It's not, does anyone think for one second that Nasa, b612 {whatever] or the govt really gives a damn about anybody but themselves? Say whay you want but worrying about the sky falling and pretending some traitorous fucks at nasa or in our govt canceled this due to lack of funds is even more absurd.It was cancelled for the same reason the govt has now stopped asking for support in naming terrorists. IE, money talks, not bs, and they have been feeding us so many lies and bs and it's fucking obvious at this point. Fuck you nasa and your "be scared of the sky" utter horseshit. You cunts should be panhandling along with the idiots who pretend like they work for a living.

NASA Cancels B612 Sentinel Agreement and Then Pick

[Anonymous Coward]

B612's spacecraft is suspiciously similar to a JPL spacecraft. Hmm....

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/09/nasa-cancels-b6.html

Talk about the worst summary imaginable

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate on asteroid detection all you want, call it a waste of time and money if you must, but the partnership drop is actually due to a recent asteroid detection proposal accepted by NASA for consideration called NEOcam.

NASA policy as laid forth in the institution's founding charter, the Space Act, is to avoid competing with private institutions using public money (their baby, JPL).

Re:Talk about the worst summary imaginable

[mbone]

Hate on asteroid detection all you want, call it a waste of time and money if you must, but the partnership drop is actually due to a recent asteroid detection proposal accepted by NASA for consideration called NEOcam.

NASA policy as laid forth in the institution's founding charter, the Space Act, is to avoid competing with private institutions using public money (their baby, JPL).

No, I don't think so. Amy Mainzer's NEOCAM proposal has been in play for several years now, NASA has very broad authority about space act agreements, and the particular SAA with B612 was a no-exchange of funds trade of DSN support for a first cut on asteroid data. If B612 had flown, it might have made the JPL proposal overtaken by events, but that would have made the Discovery program officers happy (by freeing up time and money for the other candidates). I don't thin that the SAA was canceled as JPL protectionism.

Re: Talk about the worst summary imaginable

[Anonymous Coward]

Mainzer rocks. She is not only a respected research scientist, she makes short, informative slideshows too!

The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race

[AbsoluteXyro]

Myopia will be our species' downfall. The sad thing is, we will have known better. The universe has given us plenty warning, many truths stare us down, but short term profit and willful ignorance will blind us to the bitter end. I wonder how many intelligent (by human standards) species across the universe have been wiped out similarly?

Re:The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race

[Anonymous Coward]

And what good would knowing even do us at this point? We don't have an explosive that could stop it, nor any way to deliver it. We can't build a big ship and go set up shop on Mars.

Re:The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race

[Anonymous Coward]

If they know far enough in advance that an asteroid will intersect Earth's orbit there are multiple methods (untested as yet, but how can you test without funding?) to nudge it the little bit that is required: painting one side, gravitational influence, shooting lasers to vaporize material off of the asteroid, mass driver to throw rocks off of the asteroid, etc.

Re:The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race

[fropenn]

I think we've shown conclusively that we know exactly what to do: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

Re:The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race

[KGIII]

From the looks of things it's not like they're just giving up. It looks like they're giving up because this group isn't meeting goals, being open, and because there are other options that are capable of doing those things. I don't even think they're being miserly - or myopic - but are just going with an alternative because this group of people appear to be complete and utter failures. Perhaps someone else can opine but that's what I've gathered.

Re:The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is still running their Near-Earth Objects program.
Also big asteroids are easy to spot decade in advance; which means plenty of time to pull together a mission.

Earth's atmosphere takes care of smaller asteroids.

So aside from some alien civilization deciding to throw space rocks at us we are fine.

Re:Just send the cosmonauts

[paiute]

Blanche, Dorothy, Sophia, and Rose can save the day should an asteroid ever threaten humanity again.

I had a double-take there for a sec, as those were names of four of our chickens. I imagined a snippet of several hens flying off to save humanity.

I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

If an asteroid does get too close, we'll fly F-35s into it until we blow it up. $450 million will buy what, three of those things?

Risk Assessment

[Anonymous Coward]

We humans are incredibly bad at dealing with a low CHANCE of really really bad things happening. The problem is that, as shown in the discussions here, the idea of RISK is misunderstood. There is a CHANCE of something happening, yes. But that is not the same as the RISK of something happening. The RISK is the CHANCE multiplied by some metric of how bad the thing is. It is RISK that should guide policy, not the CHANCE. (I'm capitalizing these to indicate they are mathematical variables) . When it comes to nuclear plant meltdowns or asteroid collisions, people tend to look only at the CHANCE of it happening in their own lifetime. I that is low, the RISK is forgotten. The problem with this thinking is that eventually a species that guides policy this way will become extinct. If we are the "thinking species" it's high time we got on with some serious thinking. CHANCE X "DEGREE OF BADNESS" = RISK

Re:Risk Assessment

[tripleevenfall]

Sure, there's always a risk of being hit by an asteroid, but what about the saucers? Those are much harder to avoid and they shoot back.

Re:Risk Assessment

[CeasedCaring]

Who did you think was throwing the asteroids?

Re:Risk Assessment

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your assessment of the risk is (incredibly small) x (infinity). I agree.

Re:Risk Assessment

[Applehu Akbar]

Consider the fact that every single solar system body that does not have an erosive atmosphere or recent melting is plastered with easily visible impact craters. On Earth, it is not hard to look beneath the erosion to find the same geologic record of sudden contact. I live near a big one, and elsewhere there are some nice recent examples, like February 2013.

Re: Risk Assessment

[echnaton192]

Mod parent more up. Exactly this. It is basic project management. If the danger is "seize to exist", you'll need to avoid that danger, even if the chance is low. Insurance, for instance. You are nat supposed to accept that risk.

Look it up, even his equation is basic project management.

We have the means to avoid this

Re: Risk Assessment

[david_thornley]

Humans are tough and ingenious. We'll live through an extinction level event. Heck, we appear to be one. It would take something far more than the typical dinosaur killer to take us out. There's no reason to think a hit hard enough to wipe out humanity is at all likely in the next fifty million years. There are a lot of things that are much more likely to kill us in the next fifty million years, most of them caused by us.

I don't stop doing things just because they may kill me. For example, I drive ten miles to work and back daily, which has a far greater chance of killing me than some rock from outer space.

Re:Risk Assessment

[kenwd0elq]

The "chance" is perhaps one in 15,000 per year (but we can't be sure, since it's pretty rare; the Barringer Meteor Crater, the Younger Dryas, Tunguska, Chelyabinsk are examples within the last 100,000 years) but the level of damage can be anywhere from "ouch!" to "civilization-ending". So I think it's not worth getting panicked about, but definitely something to work on the long-range plans for. The risk is low, but non-zero.

huge waste?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching for a rock heading to destroy our planet such that we can try to prepare and strategize in advance is a huge waste.... Oh I would love to understand your basis for establishing value..

Re:huge waste?

[chilenexus]

The further ahead we detect such things, the less effort it will take to solve the problem. A 1% course change when it's inside the Earth's orbit won't do anything to help, but that 1% course change when it's still out past Mars would be all the change needed to save us.

Re:huge waste?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love for you to understand your basis for establishing value...

RISK vs CHANCE

[duckintheface]

We humans are incredibly bad at dealing with a low CHANCE of really really bad things happening. The problem is that, as shown in the discussions here, the idea of RISK is misunderstood. There is a CHANCE of something happening, yes. But that is not the same as the RISK of something happening. The RISK is the CHANCE multiplied by some metric of how bad the thing is. It is RISK that should guide policy, not the CHANCE. (I'm capitalizing these to indicate they are mathematical variables) . When it comes to nuclear plant meltdowns or asteroid collisions, people tend to look only at the CHANCE of it happening in their own lifetime. I that is low, the RISK is forgotten. The problem with this thinking is that eventually a species that guides policy this way will become extinct. If we are the "thinking species" it's high time we got on with some serious thinking. CHANCE X "DEGREE OF BADNESS" = RISK

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[fyngyrz]

See, but here's the thing. While the CHANCE is low, the DEGREE OF BADNESS of an asteroid or comet impact is infinite. As in, extinction.

As CHANCE is non-zero, the RISK is infinite as well.

Therefore, we should be taking steps.

But hey, we have brown people to bomb.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[duckintheface]

I agree with absolutely everything you said.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[KGIII]

There are others who are willing to accept risks and are aware, also, of the probabilities. Yes, an asteroid might harm us in very meaningful ways. The RISK (as you so eloquently state it) is acceptable, at this time, as we've more important things to resolve. It would, indeed, appear that bombing little brown men is one of them and while I don't agree with that directly I do think there's plenty of other things to worry about before worrying about a big rock making us go the way of the dinosaur. Like, how about, getting off this rock in the first place? Doing so meaningfully would mean we'd not even have to worry about living somewhere else - we'd be able to live long-term in our new environment. That would negate the risks of the big rock making us go dead.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Zalbik]

See, but here's the thing. While the CHANCE is low, the DEGREE OF BADNESS of an asteroid or comet impact is infinite. As in, extinction.

As CHANCE is non-zero, the RISK is infinite as well.

Therefore, we should be taking steps.

If you follow that logic, then we also MUST take steps against:
- Global warming
- Killer viruses
- Rogue black holes
- Rogue artificial intelligence
- Aliens
- Gamma ray bursts
- Giant solar flares
- Magnetic field reversal
- Supervolcanoes
- Biotech disaster
- Nanotechnology
- Particle accelerator chain reaction
- Divine intervention
- etc.

We cannot take action against everything that could possibly destroy us, so we take action based on the CHANCE of those things happening. We have decided that "Killer Asteroids" should be moved down the list as the chance of one occurring is very small.

And no, the DEGREE OF BADNESS is not "infinite". If you think that, you misunderstand how big "infinity" is. Don't use concepts that don't apply.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. Stop with your hysterical quasi-religious doomsday scenarios already. There isn't a damn thing we can do about such an event.

Did you put titanium shingles on your roof? No? Then why are you asking the rest of us to go along with your space doom delusions?

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

>
No, we don't. That was the point of my post. There is no "degree of badness" worse than an asteroid strike. Maybe you are equating "important" with RISK. Ok, but I really don't see how you get there. As pointed out above, when the "degree of badness" is infinite, a finite CHANCE results in an infinite RISK. Asteroid strikes that would have destroyed not only human civilization but the human species have occurred multiple times in the past. There is a 100% CHANCE that this will happen again. So it's only a matter of when, not if.

And while it is true that the odds of it happening today are quite low, there is no reason it could not happen today or in the near future. When you are gambling everything you have and are, it's a fool's bet.

I agree that we should be trying to get off world. I strongly support colonizing Mars right now, mostly for the purpose of escaping the eventual asteroid. And yes, that certainly counts as "doing something" in the parlance of the article.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

See, but here's the thing. While the CHANCE is low, the DEGREE OF BADNESS of an asteroid or comet impact is infinite. As in, extinction.

As CHANCE is non-zero, the RISK is infinite as well.

Therefore, we should be taking steps.

If you follow that logic, then we also MUST take steps against:
- Global warming
- Killer viruses
- Rogue black holes
- Rogue artificial intelligence
- Aliens
- Gamma ray bursts
- Giant solar flares
- Magnetic field reversal
- Supervolcanoes
- Biotech disaster
- Nanotechnology
- Particle accelerator chain reaction
- Divine intervention
- etc.

We cannot take action against everything that could possibly destroy us, so we take action based on the CHANCE of those things happening. We have decided that "Killer Asteroids" should be moved down the list as the chance of one occurring is very small.

And no, the DEGREE OF BADNESS is not "infinite". If you think that, you misunderstand how big "infinity" is. Don't use concepts that don't apply.

And you don't use strawmen. Divine intervention is not a legal worry, as there is no god. But you forgot to mention Vacuum Decay.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[jfengel]

The notion of "risk" kind of breaks down for extreme events like that. In one sense it's not unreasonable to put the model value of your own life at "infinity", since for you at least the entire universe literally comes to an end.

That would be just a quaint little artifact leading to the usual paradoxes that come when you arbitrarily set infinities, but it actually matters for more realistic risk assessments like health care and safety standards. You end up asking questions like "how much is a human life worth, in dollar terms?" and needing actual answers. The answers are always upsetting to people, no matter how high they are.

In my opinion it means that the whole notion of risk assessment becomes dicey when it comes to death. We want objective answers, to match the real objective dollars being spent, on something that's fundamentally subjective. "Infinity" is clearly not a good answer in that context, since those infinities always lead to absurdities, but I'd bet it's the most common answer people would give. Getting people to agree on some other, more useful answer is always fraught.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[lgw]

Divine intervention is not a legal worry, as there is no god

You seem very sure of yourself, but what if He's just hiding? Sure, the odds of that seem small - quite small. But are they higher or lower than the chance of an asteroid strike? Even if the odds are "infinitesimal" we're multiplying by infinity here, right? Ahh, Pascal's wager - everything old is new again.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget it, you have a better chance of getting logic from a naked homeless guy yelling at clouds than from a Space Nutter.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[KGIII]

Maybe YOU do not but some of us do, in fact, understand the consequences and the probabilities and can associate a risk level accordingly. Thus my solution of getting off this rock in a meaningful manner. I suspect my poor writing skills are to blame for your confusion.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

See, but here's the thing. While the CHANCE is low, the DEGREE OF BADNESS of an asteroid or comet impact is infinite. As in, extinction.

As CHANCE is non-zero, the RISK is infinite as well.

Therefore, we should be taking steps.

If you follow that logic, then we also MUST take steps against:
- Global warming

Agreed. We have both the evidence of the danger with a measure of its likelihood *and* the means to combat the danger.
Unfortunately, we have an obstinate group of politicians who think anything less immediate than 'now' means there is no danger.

- Killer viruses

We *do* take measures to protect from killer viruses.

- Rogue black holes

Until we can manage both self-sustaining colonies off world, *and* travel outside of our solar system (at the very least), we don't have the *means* to do anything about that danger.

- Rogue artificial intelligence

We don't even have the means to create *actual* artificial intelligence yet. Therefore, the chance of such a thing 'going rogue' is zero.

- Aliens

So far, there is zero evidence of the existence of aliens. If you think various governments around the world don't have plans, on at least a high level, to deal with them should the need ever actually arise, you'd be sadly mistaken, though. (Those plans, strangely enough, look a *lot* like the plans for being invaded by a world superpower's army.)

- Gamma ray bursts

See 'Rogue black holes'...

- Giant solar flares
- Magnetic field reversal
- Supervolcanoes
- Biotech disaster

We actually *have* plans in place to deal with those. Their effectiveness remains to be seen, but that's an issue when dealing with *any* risk for the first time.

- Nanotechnology

Until/unless the nanotechnology is self-replicating (something we aren't even close to managing yet, even if it *is* possible), you're talking about a plan to deal with microscopically small particles. We already have air filters.

- Particle accelerator chain reaction

The plan for this one is simple. Pull the plug. It'll destroy the accelerator, but it'll also kill the energy source for whatever 'chain reaction' scenario you're imagining.

- Divine intervention

We have the same plan for 'divine intervention' that we use to ensure the invisible teapot in orbit out past Mars doesn't kill us all.
Again... No evidence that any such thing even *exists*, much less actively (or passively) poses a threat of any sort.

- etc.

We cannot take action against everything that could possibly destroy us, so we take action based on the CHANCE of those things happening. We have decided that "Killer Asteroids" should be moved down the list as the chance of one occurring is very small.

And no, the DEGREE OF BADNESS is not "infinite". If you think that, you misunderstand how big "infinity" is. Don't use concepts that don't apply.

An extinction level event, such as a large asteroid hitting Earth does have 'infinite' degree of badness for the human race. When you're discussing threats to human lives, there is literally no threat with a greater possible 'degree of badness' than wiping the entire human race from the galaxy. It is effectively an infinite degree of badness.

Re: RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are zero as there is no proof or reason to think that there is a god. Asteroids? Yes we have proof of those.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[uncqual]

One has to weigh the cost of preventing something from happening vs. the benefit of preventing it.

Humans will obviously become extinct on Earth at some point. We are a young species and we adapt slowly. It takes us over 10 years to reach sexual maturity, we have few births per woman/year, each member of the species requires substantial resources which severely limits the number of humans that can be on the Earth at any one point in time. This all leaves comparatively few opportunities for genetic alterations as opposed to, say, cockroaches. To make matters worse (although, as civilization declines, this will no longer happen so it's a temporary impediment), we interfere with natural selection via medical procedures and social programs so resources are consumed on "survival of the weakest" rather than on "promoting the strongest".

So, it's only useful to consider the chances of a catastrophic asteroid strike before we become extinct via other mechanisms. An asteroid strike 100 million years from now is completely irrelevant to humans as there will be no humans to experience it (or to maintain the infrastructure to prevent it). More adaptable species will survive it anyway.

Not as relevant to this specific case, but to be considered in discussions about extinction of the human species in general. Extinction of the human species is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen to humans (esp. since it's going to happen anyway). If the cost of delaying human extinction by N years is so high that all humans live in substantially less "comfort" for the remaining M years of human existence and N << M, it's likely incurring the cost of delaying extinction makes no sense (esp. to someone whose lifespan is much, much less than M or N).

Its analogous to, hypothetically, offering a healthy 30 year old two options. The first option is eating a distasteful, but extremely healthy, calorie restricted diet which will leave them feeling weak all the time but they will live, on the average, to be 87 years old. The second option is to eat pretty much whatever they want to enjoy and maintain a caloric count that does not interfere with their daily life or motivation or pleasure but they will live, on the average, to be only 86.75 years. A rational person would, I think, choose to live in comfort for their remaining 56.75 years rather than to live another three months but at the cost of being in discomfort and too weak to do much for their remaining 57 years.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[fyngyrz]

You are so, so silly. Those "terrorist groups" are a near zero threat to us. The risk -- the chance multiplied by the badness -- is just about zero.

Your problem is that you base your reasoning on nonsensical hysteria built on the baseless rhetoric instead of fact.

As for the rest... well, the answer there is clear, and it's my fault for not being specific enough: Brown people with natural resources we covet. The others (like Africa and Bangladesh) we just let stew in their own juices. Iran, them... we're could start bombing any day.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[fyngyrz]

- Global warming - working on it, although it's just moderate quality speculation
- Killer viruses - working on it, very much so
- Rogue black holes - no way to design a recourse
- Rogue artificial intelligence - not a defined problem yet, no way to design a recourse
- Aliens - not a defined problem, not even known to ever present one, no way to design a recourse
- Gamma ray bursts - can't be fixed with any practical tech means we know of or can imagine
- Giant solar flares - for some values of "giant", already addressed in many ways. Otherwise, can't be addressed
- Magnetic field reversal - can't be addressed
- Supervolcanoes - can't be addressed
- Biotech disaster - we have done quite a bit to mitigate this, and can do more if something actually happens
- Nanotechnology - not a defined problem, no way to design a recourse
- Particle accelerator chain reaction -- not a defined or even known problem, no way to design a recourse
- Divine intervention - superstitious bullshit
- etc. - keep trying, silly person

Asteroids and comets on the other hand: Do happen. Have happened. Will happen again. Can be addressed. And SHOULD BE.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[fyngyrz]

Space Nutter == people who think expansion into space should be ignored

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[fyngyrz]

Science. Technology.

You should really learn about these things before you proclaim what we can, or cannot, to.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Extinction of the human species is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen to humans (esp. since it's going to happen anyway)..

The saddest thing I've read today. These defeatist feelings are pure poison and do nothing to ameliorate human condition. They can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will prevail!

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[war4peace]

Let's see:
- Global Warming: High chance, high risk, slow action. Will happen over generations (5+).
- Killer viruses (I assume you added bacteria as well): Low chance, low risk, slow or fast action. I'd bump it down significantly.
- Rogue black holes: frankly they fall into the same category as asteroids (celestials dangerous to us)
- Rogue artificial intelligence: Pah-lease. That's coming after global warming takes care of all of us :)
- Aliens: I'd lump them into "celestials dangerous to us".
- Gamma Ray Bursts: Low chance, extreme risk, unknown probability and no way to avoid. I'd plaster the "shit happens" tag on it and pray shit doesn't happen. It's the most we can do.
- Giant solar flares: Medium chance, medium risk, no way to avoid. See "Gamma Ray Bursts".
- Magnetic field reversal: "Still, there is no evidence that a weakened magnetic field would result in a doomsday for Earth. During past polarity flips there were no mass extinctions or evidence of radiation damage." (source: http://www.scientificamerican....). High chance, low risk, it's not a Mass Extinction Event. Also, we can do nothing about it.
- Supervolcanoes: Medium chance (it WILL happen), high risk, fast action. If the year without a summer tells us something, it tells us it would be bad. Bumped up, deserves funding.
- Biotech disaster: lumped together with Killer viruses.
- Nanotechnology: are we getting that far? Maybe. Deserves funding.
- Particle accelerator chain reaction: wasn't this scientifically dismantled many times over?
- Divine Intervention: "God Help Us All!" is all the funding this deserves.

Re: RISK vs CHANCE

[lgw]

Odds are zero as there is no proof or reason to think that there is a god. Asteroids? Yes we have proof of those.

We had no proof or reason to think that there was dark matter, until a few decades ago. Turns out it's most of the matter in the universe. Funny how things turn out. That's the point of Pascal's wager after all: even if the odds are "nearly 0 - as sure as we can really be of anything that it's 0", when you multiply that by infinity you still get infinity.

The flaw in Pascal's wager is more subtle than that - think a bit more about it.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[uncqual]

I'm just being realistic.

In my view, it's extremely likely that there are many intelligent "species" (by some definition of species/life) who are "superior" (obviously a subjective evaluation) to humans elsewhere in the universe. Although, there's no realistic chance that humans living today (or perhaps ever) will encounter them because the search space is so large and it's entirely possible that those species see no reason to look for us. Humans, as a species, are very important on Earth (from a selfish standpoint as well as because we are the apex species on Earth with the unique ability to consciously make measurable, albeit modest in a geological scale, alterations to the Earth). However, I think humans, as a species or as an individual, are very likely insignificant in the universe as a whole.

Seriously, does anyone believe that humans will be around in 100 billion years or that they are likely to disappear in the next 10,000 years (over 300 generations from now)? In fact, I am much more interested in spending resources to ameliorate the human condition today and in the next few hundred years -- even if it were to slightly increase the risk of accelerating the extinction of the species (since that's going to happen anyway). For example, my goal isn't to create as many humans as possible if they are to live an uncomfortable life -- better to have 1 billion content and fulfilled people on Earth than 10 billion unhappy, starving, non-productive, and unfulfilled people on the planet.

(As you probably could guess, I'm an atheist so I don't attach any scientific importance to conflicting fairy tales promoted by various religions.)

Re: RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely scenario if we don't kill ourselves in the short term: humankind will evolve to better suit the rigors of space and exo-planets (probably artificially, through gene manipulation and cyber prosthesis), and homo sapiens as we know it ceases to exist (i.e. extinct).

Whatever.

Re: RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Identify which threats are possible to mitigate, the steps necessary to do so, and work down from there?

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Applehu Akbar]

"Extinction of the human species is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen to humans"

Are you from the continent that has come to hate science and engineering, or from the continent that is about to be plowed under by a tsunami of jihadist scum?

Fortunately, there are still lots of Asians, and they have other plans.

Re: RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

We had no proof or reason to think that there was dark matter, until a few decades ago.

Then at some point a couple of decades ago we neededa reason to explain the apparent inconsistencies in observed stellar velocities. But we still don't need a reason for any god. Pascal was a poor scientific blind man from yesteryear. Few things he said still hold water today. Pascal Wager is just a funny thought. Your argument is flawed.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[penguinoid]

Look at it this way. You can compare the odds of God acting to the odds of finding an exception to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Just because no one has ever observed a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy, doesn't mean that the entire thing couldn't be totally invalid tomorrow, or that tomorrow God comes out of hiding.

Difference is, we've been looking for a violation of the Law of Conversation of Energy for far far less time than we've been looking for God, so we're statistically more likely to find that.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[uncqual]

Neither.

I'm just someone who understands something about science, including evolution, and who isn't blinded by a notion that I'm somehow special because some book (choose one from the religious institution of your choice) purports to claim that humans are somehow unique from ants, spiders, beavers, sea gulls, sloths, lizards and the like in some way beyond simple differentiating attributes that evolution has yielded. And, I'm intelligent enough to be completely comfortable and unalarmed by that reality.

If humans think it will somehow benefit the universe (perhaps because of a belief that Earth is only celestial body in the universe that has any form of meaningful life?) to preserve life beyond the natural extinction of humans on Earth, it probably makes little sense to send humans out to distant reaches of the solar system, let alone beyond. It likely makes much more sense to spread a diverse selection of "lower" forms (single celled probably) of life to as many celestial bodies throughout the universe as often as we can. Then, hope that evolution causes a species to survive, prosper and advance just as happened on Earth. Humans are fragile and require complex and expensive support systems in foreign environments. Society is also unwilling to put humans at great risk in such endeavors and that adds immensely to the cost. Single celled life forms share none of these problems. Humans evolve so slowly that they will require complex support systems for, probably, many hundreds of thousands of years or more before they could hope to evolve to live w/o such support systems - and it's likely that would never happen as those systems would eventually fail or the few humans who could be supported by them would die for other reasons such as an epidemic.

Single celled organisms are much better equipped to evolve quickly and adapt to the surrounding environment and, in the process, eventually end up with self sustaining life (perhaps beyond current human intelligence) at distant locations in the universe (although, that probably already exists -- in which case the whole discussion is a waste of time as our efforts are not needed in this endeavour).

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

God is not hiding and She lives on the Houba de Strooperlaan, nr 36, third floor in Brussels. And She just doesn't care anymore. She just does some binge-watching of Ancient Aliens, reruns of Friends, and the daily German soap Sturm Der Liebe. Of course she tapes them and forwards as soon as adverts are shown. Maybe she will intervene when an asteroid is about to hit the earth, but she feels less and less likely to do so with the low quality of TV shows and the too high frequency of adverts.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[Applehu Akbar]

The universe doesn't care about us. We care about us. And since the good book that I thump is The origin of Species, I have every reason to believe that we will adapt to new environments as we simultaneously modify the environment to suit ourselves. Because single-celled organism cannot think, they have no ability to modify their environment in a planned way. The modifications they can make might be very large (rise of the cyanobacteria, for example) but they are unwitting. Humans have the potential, if we choose to use it, to modify in a controlled manner.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[uncqual]

I don't recall The Origin of Species speculating much about how humans can modify the environment to compensate for their very limited ability to evolve quickly and how long that strategy would be viable. As I recall, it focused on organisms evolving to adapt to the environment rather than some select organisms figuring out how to change the environment to adapt to that organism's feeble evolutionary abilities.

My money is on single celled organisms being around long after humans are gone no matter how we attempt to delay or prevent that outcome. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to collect on that bet (if I'm right, by definition neither I nor any heirs will be around to collect and neither the person I made the bet with or their heirs will be around to pay off).

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[lgw]

Meh, we found so many holes in the Law of Conversation of Energy 100 years or so ago, we had to completely redefine it to include "mass" as a kind of energy. I bet we do that again, one day - broaden the definition to maintain something being conserved. (Also, did you know there is no conservation of energy in General Relativity? Strange but true.)

More fun: an act of divine intervention could conserve energy; it would just require a statistically unlikely sequence of events. Plenty of energy coming from the Sun to power all sorts of wild effects, and the Sun itself is a chaotic system that sometimes bursts energy in amazing ways.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[dryeo]

There seems to be a lot of people on here who equate expanding into space with colonizing the new world and seem to think that in the near future we'll have a self-sustaining colony on Mars, the Moon and/or on the asteroids.
Seems pretty nutty to me.
Now the idea that we should explore and learn isn't a bad idea

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[strikethree]

You seem very sure of yourself, but what if He's just hiding?

How big is his penis and why does he even have one? Are galaxies his sperm that he shot out into the universal womb?

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[tehcyder]

But then all theoretically possible extinction events have an infinite DEGREE OF BADNESS, and so they all carry an equal infinite RISK.

How do you decide which to spend money on?

In reality, the odds of an asteroid hitting us are relatively much higher than the sun suddenly exploding tomorrow, so you would have to base yor decision on the CHANCE and not worry about the (equally infinite) RISK.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[kenwd0elq]

The mitigation plan for most of these terrible events is "be somewhere else when it happens". Some humans need to leave the Earth and live elsewhere as the ultimate insurance plan against mega-disasters. Mars. The Moon. Space habitats in the Asteroid Belt. Ceres, or Ganymede, or Titan, or all of these.

Re:RISK vs CHANCE

[lucien86]

uncqual, I think you are being too pessimistic. ".. human extinction is inevitable .. " No it definitely isn't."
Now just doing extrapolations into the next 30 to 100 years its quite possible to develop Von Neumann machine technology and embryonic seed technology to the point where we can build Von Neumann Seed probes. One probe builds another and on and on, and then they set out and travel to the stars, and where they find an appropriate location they then build an artificial biosphere and seed humans. We will spread out to the stars...

Von Neumann Seed probes require about six critical technologies -
- Von Neumann manufacturing loop, probably either huge or microscopic in scale..
- Strong AI self aware sentient machines..
- Space mining..
- STL rocket drive..
- DNA code to life seed technology or long term biological storage and seed technology..
- Artificial Bio-system technology..

What is inevitable is that eventually we will virtually destroy the biosphere here, and very probably that the Earth will die. The Earth is single and finite, the number of stars and planets out there is virtually infinite..

Not like we can stop an asteroid anyway

[RubberDogBone]

So one program to find giant space rocks has ended. There are others.

But in any case, we don't have the ability at the moment to DO anything about it even if we found a rock heading for us. We'd probably need several decades to get our act together, and we have a terrible track record about responding to things like aging sewers where we can pay somebody minimum wage to fix it, versus tens of years of heavy spending (way beyond 450 mill) to come up with a way to stop the asteroid. I don't think humanity is capable of working together in the way it would need to happen.

Re:Not like we can stop an asteroid anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we'd have to get pretty lucky to 1) detect an asteroid on a collision course; 2) detect the asteroid in time to do anything about it; 3) get an asteroid that isn't too massive, or traveling too fast to affect; and 4) develop technology that would alter the course of the asteroid, or destroy it. Imagine that we detected an asteroid going to collide with us within a couple of years, and that we had no hope of changing our fate. I really don't want to think about the societal breakdown that would happen across the globe if that knowledge became known.

Re:Not like we can stop an asteroid anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

So one program to find giant space rocks has ended. There are others.

But in any case, we don't have the ability at the moment to DO anything about it even if we found a rock heading for us.

Yes, we have some ability, and we could make it. It wouldn't be easy, and surely not for everybody. But it is possible to protect at least a group of humans from an asteroid impact [well underground, away from ground zero].

Re:Not like we can stop an asteroid anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.

Not to mention the problem with unavoidable existential threats: If the world is going to end and you can't do anything about it, what's the point of worrying about it?

If we do detect a space rock that's going to be a problem the mass and energy scales involved are well outside the capability of the entirety of humanity in the foreseeable future.

It's like worrying about a GRB that will bake one side of the planet in seconds and strip the atmosphere off the other side at the same time. Completely fucked no matter what.

Re:Not like we can stop an asteroid anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Asteroids that come near earth are already tracked by NASA's near-earth objects program.
We usually know on average 5-20 years earlier if some bigger rock is going to pass "near" earth, because they are easy to spot.
I think that would be plenty of time to formulate appropriate response (probably mount some thrusters on it and boost it to move periapsis above earth's atmosphere making it into a harmless flyby)

Re: The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Rac

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldnt take much to alter an asteroid's course to miss Earth if you knew it was coming a decade or two out. A few white paint bombs would do it. Sunlight and the yarkovsky effect would do the rest.

Re:NASA Cancels B612 Sentinel Agreement and Then P

[thrillseeker]

NASA's Office of the Inspector General is fairly disappointed with NASA's progress in NEO detection (much less amelioration) https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/re...

Rusty Schweickart tells me there are an estimated one-million asteroids of 45-ish meters which is Tunguska size http://www.asteroidday.org/ast...

The B612 group has done a poor job of keeping the community (and apparently NASA) informed of their progress and challenges. Perhaps a more transparent effort would work - even showing lack of progress would be progress here. They have indeed struggled with engagement - they only have 600 followers on G+ for example https://plus.google.com/+B612f...

Don't forget monologuing!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Asteroids Not a Significant Risk

Somewhere in a secret lair a supervillain is reading this and ROFL. He will bang his harsh mistress Ms. Moon tonight.

foolish analysis; extinction is DIFFERENT

[FalseModesty]

The odds of any one person being killed? 1 in 70 million.

But that's an absurd way to measure it. An extinction asteroid not only kills everybody on Earth, it kills ALL FUTURE PEOPLE. That is an unbounded number, but it's easily in the hundreds of billions.

Why can't mapping asteroids be done from earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some technical reason that we can't map asteroids from earth based observations? It seem like that should cost a LOT less than sending an infrared space telescope to Venus.

Risk assessment in article absurd

[grimJester]

One species-ending strike every 100M years and

So with all of this taken into account, what are your odds of dying in an asteroid strike in any given year? About 1-in-70,000,000.

So all-in-all I can assume I personally die from an asteroid strike about three times in 200M years while ignoring that the entire human species is wiped out twice.

And if I wanted the US Department of Transportation to handle this, based on personal risk to individual US citizens alone, they could spend about $30M a year on asteroid prevention.

The article sucks. It just says the risk is low and makes no attempt to compare the risk or the cost to anything else.

And tomorrow's headline

[BluPhenix316]

Incoming Asteroid, we done screwed up....

Ah good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hate having to worry about another Great Dying style extinction event because having a group of people trained to handle the situation and able to circumvent stop-all-money-for-humans-forever is less profitable than existing.

Re:Just send the cosmonauts

[KGIII]

That. Is. Awesome.

It really is. Did you have the chickens before the "Happy Monday from the Golden Girls" guy came around? (They've gone missing, I kind of miss them. I looked forward to their posts wishing me a happy day.) If you did then it must have been almost as strange when they popped in.

Either way, that's an excellent choice of names for your critters. A group of chickens followed the path from my neighbor's house (which is actually quite a ways away but she and he both do some work for me) and have opted to live at my house. After having witnessed the chickens in action, I've generally concluded that there must have been some sort of political divide and one team of chickens opted to move out and set up a new community.

At one point I set out to send them home but it turns out that herding chickens is impossible. I don't actually know where they're coming from but the number increases from time to time and they're not like brand new chickens but fully grown things. I can only assume that they tell tales of the group that have wandered away and split from the commune and these new chickens are those sent to find them (and aren't returning) or are those who are also disenfranchised with the other community.

My conclusion is that one group must be, in fact, a tyranny and the oppressed are seeking a new life elsewhere. I also conclude that the freedom loving chickens must be mine because the migration appears to only happen one way. What right-minded chicken would willfully subject themselves to tyranny, obviously. The thing is, I never fed them or invited them and they don't actually appear to have any reason to be here except that now I have them fed. They're also fond of my garden and I don't mind them eating bugs but they've also eaten a few plants along the way. Well, I assume they ate some. They certainly pecked them to death.

So, another oddity is that I've since had guests who say, "Oh, you have chickens?" Which is a pretty dumb question, I guess. Really, I don't. I tell them that I don't have chickens and that they just kind of chose to live here and they don't belong to me. When I left home to go on my journey I was up to six chickens. I have no idea how many chickens I have now. I'm not sure what the neighbors will do when they run out of chickens but I presume they'll buy more and I'll end up with more chickens.

What they SHOULD do is find the evil tyrant that's leading their chickens and eat them. That would end their migration and ensure the freedom loving fowl that have sought refuge in my domain could return to their motherland. A constitution might also be a good idea. I don't mind the chickens, I don't normally eat many eggs either, so it's okay that they live here but I'm sure they must want to return and live among their friends instead of having to run away in the middle of the night to live in a distant land.

They also don't like the house I built them. They prefer to live under the overhang on my woodshed. I'm pretty sure they're communists. I'm okay with that but I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I end up with a yard full of chickens and the society collapses. I'm told that they're probably not good eating. They're also speedy bastards when they want to be. And nosy. I often leave my door open and more than one has wandered into the house.

I'm kind of hoping that there's no drama between the groups. I don't know if chickens go to war or anything (or anything at all about chickens really) but I do know a war would be bad. I'd have commando chickens and I guess that might be interesting.

NSA vs NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious. We finally are at the point where we have the technology (read computer storage and power) to not only find but track the ~100 trillion objects that make up all possible asteroids/comets in our solar system but actually do something about an actual object that would strike, and we can't afford it because of the cost and the risk. Meanwhile, we're happily spending massive amounts of technology (read computer storage and power) through the NSA over the risk of terrorism which, oddly enough, doesn't have the "species killer" aspect to it and the personal risk is on the same order (asteroids, 1 in 70,000,000; terrorism, of 1 in 20,000,000). Yet there's no constitutional crisis for tracking asteroids. There's very little risk of false positives resulting in torture or other acts of inhumanity.

Yes, yes, we obviously should wait a few thousand years to do something about the risk of asteroids. Because, you know, if I were out in a field and someone with a chaingun was sweeping across the area, I'd definitely stand around a few seconds (the cosmic equivalent of "a few thousand years") and do nothing because the odds of any single bullet killing me are so low. And it's just too much effort to act compared to, well, apparently anything.

Re:NSA vs NASA

[careysub]

You make an interesting and valid point about U.S. spending on domestic surveillance because terrorism. But you overstate the risk of terrorism.

Since 2001 there have been on average 5 terrorism deaths in the United States per year, and annual rate of 1 in 60 million, and it is a hazard with no potential for fatalities of more than a few thousand people (the deadliest attack since 2001 killed 13 people). Yet this is deemed dangerous enough that billions are spent annually on domestic spying.

Re:NSA vs NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yea. You do realize that like asteroid strikes, terrorism effects more than the US, right? The risk in the US of terrorism is small and why the NSA's activities are especially preposterous, but the overall risk of terrorism in the world isn't quite so small. Yet the US's goal is clearly to monitor near everyone on Earth (and fight them "over there" which makes the US at least on its word (if not in its act) terrorism police of the world). So, be it the 7.3 Billion people or the 100 trillion space rocks, I choose the space rocks.

Come on NASA - Congress - shortsighted!

[aisnota]

NASA, of course someone was unprepared to defend a budget for this.

But Congressional parties should be very worried. They may not even get time to bail into their own bunker let alone the rest of us in the cheap seats.

Watch the ApolloDividend in Tweet Space...

Asteroids Attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if they combine the threat of Asteroids + Aliens attack, then they would get their 450 million!

Tragic....Isn't this sort of like saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

the odds of dying in a plane are insignificant, so we might as well not install seatbelts or air masks??

Re:Tragic....Isn't this sort of like saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

the odds of dying in a plane are insignificant, so we might as well not install seatbelts or air masks??

Well, these things are meant to make you not die.

Nobody mentions...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact we are lamenting over a lost NASA contract by a company that could not be bothered to come up with an original name rather than lifting the name from "the Little Prince". I would only take this company less seriously if it were called "Super Grover" or some such juvenile thing!

Stupid assumptions

[DerekLyons]

The project was cancelled because NASA is underfunded, not because it's not worthy of funding.

No, the project was cancelled because the B612 Foundation failed to uphold it's end of the contract - they've routinely failed to meet deadlines and to make the reports they're contractually obligated to do.

Now we know why the US is in trouble

[terjeber]

I am amazed that people simply do not understand the difference between, as other have pointed out, risk and chance.

The cost of fixing the problem the B612 foundation are trying to fix is close to zero. A few hundred million is close enough to zero to be discarded entirely. The potential upside - saving a major city from an impact is enormous. Are there anyone at NASA who are not morons?

sigh... who lets these people in here?

[Thud457]

Excuse me sir, can you spare a minute so I can explain to you about the GIANT SPACE GOAT that is coming to eat the planet?
We need a crash program to build a space ark so our celebrities like Snooki & Kanye can escape destruction.
Mars One is valiant first effort...

Re:Just send the cosmonauts

[Anonymous Coward]

amazing story, truly

Except for

[Anonymous Coward]

When we get hit and we will get hit it is only a matter of when.
The one threat to humanity we could actually prevent we failed to do.

It is alright go take pictures of moons.

Re:Just send the cosmonauts

[KGIII]

Four of them escaped the clutches of the evil tyrannical chicken at the neighbor's house and sought asylum at my house. One of them must have been an asshole because my dog chased it into the woods and it has never been seen again - he doesn't mind the rest of them. Since then three more have arrived - each separately. I am at a loss to explain how they know to come to my house, why they moved in, or why they've never returned.

I didn't feed them at first but they stayed long enough so that I felt compelled to ensure they were kept alive. I don't want to be taken in front of the UN for failing to provide for asylum seekers and committing a chickenside.

I don't know much about chickens but, as near as I can tell, every one that's at the house is a female. I've yet to have a rooster come. The neighbor's only have one rooster and he's definitely not the cock of the walk. No, he's a cowardly little braggart who talks a big talk but then runs and hides behind the hens who then treat him like the sissy he is. I can't say that I understand the social dynamics in chickendom but he is definitely not the reason that the hens have left and expatriated to the CCCR (Communist Chicken Coop Rebels).

They arrived in late spring, not too long after the snow was melted from the woods. I've questioned my neighbors who tell me that I'm quite welcome to keep them, which is how they got the house that they don't live in. There are an amazing number of chicken house plans online. I am not sure why, it appears chickens don't like them. I appreciated the style and put the labor (and money) into building them the house. At best they sit atop it and shit over the eves. It even has lights in it to give them some heat during the winter, I'm assuming they will be there in the winter as they've showed no inclination to return to their motherland.

I do have one other theory but it's a bit of a stretch. They could be troublemaker chickens (they did kill some plants and didn't show a single sign of remorse) and the neighbor just might have some unknown chicken herding skill and used that to send them to live at my house. They say this isn't so and I'm inclined to believe them but it is a possibility. They've never lied to me, that I know of, but they did get rid of some plant-murdering chickens.

Again, I don't know much of anything about chickens - just the little I've learned from Google. They do seem to have some sort of 'pecking order' (pardon the pun) and are constantly socializing. I must assume there's cliques within this hierarchy but I'd need to study more chickens to come to any conclusions. When I question the original guardians of the chickens they don't give much insight and wonder why I'm so curious about the ways of the fowl. I've made some casual observations of their remaining chickens (still a greater number than those who've exited) and I do not understand the social dynamics in play. They seem like stupider chickens than those who populate my lawn.

I didn't even realize that chickens had much of anything going on in their heads. I figured they just hung around being chickens but they do seem to have a dynamic social life and a structured hierarchy. I've not given them names because I like to give things descriptive names and these names would mostly consist of vulgarities. "Chicken that Shat on my Car" and "Bastard Bird Get out of my Way" are not, in fact, acceptable chicken names. As they are refugees and seeking to be free from tyranny it's not acceptable for me to heap my scorn on them - even if one shit on the seat of my tractor.

Anyhow, they're far more interesting than I'd have expected. I do, at times, enjoy their limited company - they're great vocalists but not great conversationalists. They also don't crow at dawn or anything - they'll do that at any time. Well, cluck and screech I guess, crowing hasn't really been actually accomplished. They were probably afraid to speak out in their old country so aren't yet quite acclimated to having the freedom of speech.

I've thought abo

Re:Just send the cosmonauts

[KGIII]

Hmm... I need to get a life. I didn't actually preview and then I saw how long that post was. Well, have a novel about David's Life With Chickens.

Crowd fund it

[existentialvoid1061]

Use Kickstarter or another crowd funding to make it work. 450 mil is a bit steep though.

Re:Crowd fund it

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Use Kickstarter or another crowd funding to make it work. 450 mil is a bit steep though.

Been there, done that. Despite two month of press releases and a reasonable well-documented deliverable (plans for HAIV mission payload vehicle), a panel of international experts willing to donate their own time, a mere $200,000 target to help with other expenses, even a Slashdot article to promote it, should I even mention cool items (the shoulder patches arrived today)...

Only 187 human beings (2 were me) from planet Earth put in a grand total of $8,834 towards their $200k goal.
May we now have a moment of silence to consider this.

[... ... ... ...]
[Hissssssss...... BANG!]

What a mess. Glowing iridescent rings of exposed mantle like the hollow eye sockets of a ghost. Each one the eye of a hurricane of steam and worse things. Now if this was your planet, you would be feeling unpleasant tingles working up and down your spine right now just to look at them. Or even to hear me describe them. If there are no tingles you haven't given it enough thought. Thousand-foot tsunamis towards the coasts (it's an ocean impact). Molten fragments are setting prairie and forest ablaze a thousand miles away. When it burns out night will fall early. The next Winter will last dozens of years. It is merciful when dark clouds roll over everything at the end. Final curtain.

Good thing we took that 'statistical cost-benefit analysis' approach to heart. Makes it easier to bear.
If survival would be ZERO, cost-benefit analysis is as pointless as dividing by ZERO.

Re:Crowd fund it

[TheRealHocusLocus]

[CORRECTED LINK to ARTICLE, 150 comments]
Ask Slashdot: Best Payloads For Asteroid Diverter/Killer Mission?

TheRealHocusLocus writes:

The Emergency Asteroid Defence Project has launched a crowdfunded IndieGoGo campaign to help produce a set of working blueprints for a two-stage HAIV, or Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle. This HAIV paper (PDF) describes the use of a leading kinetic impactor to make a crater --- a following nuclear warhead would detonate in the crater for maximum energy transfer. The plans would be available for philanthropists to bring to prototype stage, while your friendly local nuclear weapon state supplies the warhead. This may be a best-fit solution. But just ask Morgan Freeman: these strategies could fail. What --- if any --- backup strategy could be integrated into an HAIV mission as a fail-safe in case the primary fails? Here is a review of strategies (some fanciful, few deployable) if we have to divert an asteroid with very short lead time. A gentle landing on the object may not be feasible, and we must rely on things that push hard or go boom. For example: detonating nearby to ablate surface materials and create recoil in the direction we wish to nudge. Also, with multiple warheads and precise timing, would it be possible to create a "shaped" nuclear explosion in space?

Condensing the article and sentiment behind it

[TheRealHocusLocus]

"[extinction 50% of species events] Every 100,000,000 years or so on average..."
NOPE. They happen when your odds come up.
"we know city-killer events happen at least every few millennia..."
NOPE. They happen when your odds come up.
"Tunguska-level events... may happen as frequently as once per century..."
NOPE. They happen when your odds come up.
"City-killer asteroids...will be incredibly rare: only occurring once every 100,000 years or so."
NOPE. Hey I thought you said 'every few millennia'! But NOPE. They happen when your odds come up.
"Species-ending strikes...all human life on Earth...every 100,000,000 years or so
Shucks I thought we'd be in the top 50%.
Anyway, NOPE. They happen when your odds come up.

There's a reason that not everyone likes to gamble. None of us should want to gamble with these risks.
They invoke morality in the form of responsibility to one's children.
Once you learn of an existential risk it is immoral to deny it exists.
Immoral to take one single step back from a position of being able to better deal with the risk.
Waiting is not a step forward. Because time is passing, it is a step back.
Waiting is gambling.

There might be many here who'd toss a million-to-one die for some immediate benefit vs. the off-chance of their own death.
(But truly) how many of those people would toss that million-to-one die if the payoff was theirs but the death would be their child?
How many might boast they could do so with no hesitation... but then... back out at the last moment? (It's okay)
That's one toss. How about once a day, or year?
It's happening. By reading and knowing about this risk you are playing the game right now. It's real.

These arguments that attempt to make existential risks subject to sports-book rules, frankly, make me want to puke from anger! Part of me is wondering, why aren't we throwing stones at these people, jeering at them?

We've known that the sky could be dangerous for hundreds, if not thousands of years. We've had space travel for 50.
Does NASA have anything better to do than get rockets into space again?
Better to do than delivering science payloads to comets and other bodies?
Better than ensuring the standard rocket could accommodate heavier. say, an asteroid countermeasures package?
Better than refining systems and procedures so launches could occur with as little as several weeks' notice?

Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article's author starts with "we may get some very smart, very famous people arguing counter to this, but even smart people fall prey to a common human fallacy: risk estimation when the odds are low but the consequences are great" and then proceeds to explain that it's pointless to have an asteroid tracking and protection plan because even a species-ending asteroid is really just the equivalent of 100 people dying per year.

Yeah, 7 billion people dying in one day and then no one dying for the next 70 million years (because there's no one left!) is exactly the same as 100 people dying per year, right? /facepalm

Or maybe it was just his way to slip himself into the "very smart and famous people". Who the fuck writes something like "I have won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for my blog" in their bio anyway?

It's Forbes, should have guessed.

PHB

[cwsumner]

It sounds like the risk assesment was done by a bunch of Pointy Haired Bosses.

But that's not why NASA fired them...

The Chixulub impact didn't DEFINITELY kill dinos.

[RockDoctor]

Leaving aside the point I've used as a signature below for some years, it is not an entirely settled point amongst geolgists that the Chixulub impact was what did the dinosaurs (well, some of them) in.

Within the geological profession, there is no dispute that the Chixulub impact happened, or that it was a pretty bad day, and started a pretty bed few millennia.

Whether it was what actually "did" for the dinosaurs is a more challenged question. There was a serious environment-degrading long term terrestrial event happening over the same time period - the Deccan "Large Igneous Province", a.k.a. the "Deccan traps" (which also outcrop in South Africa), which also had serious, long-lasting environmental effects. With the limitations of the geological record, it isn't clear if the dinosaurs died out at the time of the Chixulub impact, or at a later (or even earlier) time. field work continues to try to relate the two events, but currently the best dating is that the Deccan had been going for half a million years before Chixulub, and continued for another half-million or so after ; exactly when in this time period the dinosaurs died out isn't at all clear. (Incidentally, this kills, stone dead, the trope that the Chixulub impact triggered the Deccan. Interesting idea, but the energetics never worked, despite the hours of puff that it has been given on TV.)

It remains possible that the Deccan was well on the way to killing off the dinosaurs when along came the Chixulub impactor and did the remaining few percent of stragglers. Or, that the more evolutionarily flexible dinosaurs were surviving OK while the giants were dieing out, but Chixulub's effects just increased the rate of change beyond what the (non-avian) dinosaurs could handle.

It is worth remembering that there have been many major impactors that have not been associated with mass extinctions, whereas the only LIP larger than the Deccan was coincident with the biggest mass extinction of them all - the Permo-Triassic extinction. That is suggestive.

Remember Chelyabinsk!

[RockDoctor]

Even relatively small impactors can do a tremendous amount of damage. something the size of a bus injured hundreds of people a little over a year ago in Chelyabinsk. Something the size of the Meteor Crater impactor would cause millions of casualties today. Say, most of the military casualties of World War 2 happening in a matter of minutes in a couple of adjoining countries.

Meteor impacts are as much a hazard today as yesterday.