Slashdot Mirror


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.

26 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Re:The odds are very low... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  3. Re:The odds are very low... by Twinbee · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  4. Stupid article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. Stupid Headline by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:The Last Darwin Award Will go to The Human Race by KGIII · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  7. Re:Just send the cosmonauts by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  8. Re:The odds are very low... by tomhath · · Score: 2

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

  9. Re:The odds are very low... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

    Are you sure about that? 100% completely sure?

    What if we had 50 years warning? Still sure?

  10. Risk Assessment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Risk Assessment by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Risk Assessment by CeasedCaring · · Score: 2

      Who did you think was throwing the asteroids?

  11. RISK vs CHANCE by duckintheface · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:RISK vs CHANCE by Zalbik · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:RISK vs CHANCE by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:RISK vs CHANCE by uncqual · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    4. Re:RISK vs CHANCE by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      - 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.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:RISK vs CHANCE by uncqual · · Score: 2

      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.)

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  12. Re:The odds are very low... by mothlos · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Not like we can stop an asteroid anyway by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  14. Re:NASA Cancels B612 Sentinel Agreement and Then P by thrillseeker · · Score: 2

    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...

  15. Re:The odds are very low... by KGIII · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. Re:The odds are very low... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  17. Re:Just send the cosmonauts by KGIII · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  18. Stupid assumptions by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    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.