SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I happened upon a couple stories that, though factually accurate, prey on people's inability to comprehend big numbers so as to paint things to be far more dangerous than they really are. Can you say "click bait sensationalism!" Further, being forewarned of what might soon be in the public zeitgeist, we can be prepared to dispel the fears and encourage a state of reasonableness.
NASA Asteroid Tracker: 2,133-Foot Hazardous NEO Is Headed Towards Earth:
NASA is closely monitoring a potentially hazardous asteroid that is expected to dangerously approach Earth a month from now. According to the agency's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS), the approaching asteroid is almost twice as big as the Empire State Building.
The asteroid has been identified by CNEOS as 467317 (2000 QW7). According to the agency's database, the asteroid is currently traveling at a speed of around 14,400 miles per hour. It has an estimated diameter of around 2,133 feet. Given its size, the space rock is almost as big as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, which is known as the tallest manmade structure in the world.
According to CNEOS, 467317 (2000 QW7) is expected to fly close to Earth on Sept. 14 at 7:54 pm EDT. During its approach, the asteroid will be about 0.03564 astronomical units or around 3.3 million miles from the planet's center.
The other story is NASA Detects Planet-Killer Asteroid That Might Hit Earth Next Year:
NASA has detected that one of the largest known potentially hazardous asteroids will approach Earth less than a year from now. Depending on several factors in space, the approaching planet-killer asteroid could end up on a path straight to Earth.
The approaching asteroid has been identified by the space agency as 1998 OR2. It was first discovered on June 30, 1987, and is known to frequently approach the orbits of Earth and Jupiter. It was classified as an Amor asteroid, which means its orbit covers both the Sun and Earth.
As indicated by NASA's asteroid tracking department, which is known as the Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS), 1998 OR2 has an estimated diameter of 13,500 feet. Given its size, the asteroid is longer than the National Mall in Washington D.C., which stretches from the Capitol Building to the Lincoln Memorial.
According to CNEOS, 1998 OR2 will fly past Earth on April 29, 2020, at 5:56 am EDT. During its approach, the asteroid will be about 0.04205 astronomical units or around 3.9 million miles from the planet's center.
The stories then go on to describe potential perturbations that could affect the orbit and possibly cause an impact with Earth. One is a "gravitational keyhole" ... "a region in space that's heavily affected by the gravitational pull of a nearby large object such as planets". The other is the Yarkovsky effect which is basically asymmetric heating of a rotating body in space which causes a slight deflection to the asteroid's orbit.
Obligatory quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe by Douglas Adams:
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
For the sake of comparison, assume the largest of the mentioned asteroids was shrunk to the size of a US 1 cent piece (aka penny) 19.05mm diameter which is about the same size as a 5 euro cent coin (€0.05) 21.25 mm. For ease of calculation we'll just round that to 20 mm.
How would the sizes of — and closest approach to — the Earth-Moon system compare?
If the larger of two asteroids (long axis of 620 meters) were shrunk to a ~20 mm cent, then the Moon would be just over 100 meters across, the Earth would be just over 400 meters in diameter, the Moon would be nearly 13 km away from the Earth, and the nearest approach of one of the asteroids would be... nearly 180 km away.
Put another way, at this scale, the football-field-sized Moon would be nearly 8 miles away from the 4-football-field-sized Earth, and the nearest approach of one of the cent-sized asteroid would be... about 100 miles away.
In other words, "Nothing to see here; move along!"
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday August 30 2019, @06:54PM (4 children)
Yes, this may be one of the possible answers to the question - we have to push our progres and take chances because a rock might find us before we are safe. What can we sacrifice to achieve this goal? That's the question that needs an answer.
Can we kill people for this? What about the environment? How about genocide? Is it ok to kill half the humanity to save the other half? Are the people who do this heroes or villains?
Currently humanity has, to put it mildly, questionable answers. Humanity is simply kicking it down the road and hopes for the best. Hope is never a good strategy.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 30 2019, @07:19PM (3 children)
I don't think it will be so difficult that we need to talk about sacrifices.
Nowhere in the solar system is very Earth-like, so you'll want to send humans to other star systems. We'll want spacecraft that can accelerate up to 0.1c, cruise, and brake.
You don't have to send many humans. You probably want to send some living adults, kept alive with anti-aging and semi-stasis. Requiring life support does increase the size, mass, and complexity of the ship.
Enough advanced robotics and components will be shipped to be able to start minor industrial activity (metallurgy, etc.) and keep settlers alive. They will be able to print drugs with a kit that shrinks a pharma factory to the size of a desktop, and so on.
Instead of sending thousands of people, you could send a handful and have them use data storage, computers, embryo synthesizers, and artificial wombs to start making lots more humans than they could manage to the old-fashioned way. Send 10 people to an Earth-like world, and you could eventually reach a population of billions far from Earth, a good backup. Repeat until even a nearby supernova would not be able to significantly affect all planets with humans.
Sacrifices. It's not like we need a Project Orion spacecraft that launches from the ground and spreads nuclear fallout everywhere. The environmental impact of something like frequent Starship trips to Mars can be nullified by capturing carbon dioxide and turning it into methane fuel. If we are landing on Earth-like exoplanets, we may be disrupting existing life forms. Hopefully, our next-next-next-gen telescopes will allow us to figure out if there is 1.) microbial activity, 2.) vegetation, and 3.) intelligent life before we choose to travel there, allowing us to manage our impact accordingly.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday August 30 2019, @07:43PM (2 children)
What you describe is perhaps true, but what about the incoming rock next year? In theory we should estimate loss, multiply by probability, and come up with a number. Then we should spend that number on measures. Do you think an average human with a beer in front of a tv would appreciate it without military shooting his buddies?
But let's assume the rock is harmless and take your scenario. Same human with beer would never vote for it anyway. I doubt that businessmen are better. Should we install a totalitarian regime to force them? Would such a regime even work?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 30 2019, @08:07PM (1 child)
I think we have gotten lucky enough to avoid a severe collision within the next few hundred years (based on the calculated trajectories of known near-Earth asteroids). So the questions are moot.
But if we did need to launch a Bruce Willis deflection mission within the next decade, I think it could be done, and without the input of beer Americans. Consider that the American taxpayer is already funding the overpriced SLS mess to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, which may be the order of magnitude needed to launch a special deflection mission. Joe 24pack has never heard of SLS or cannot recall. The same pork contractors building SLS would happily take on their new role as saviors of the planet, getting the same amount of funding as before. It's also possible to siphon some military funding. The Air Force is already invested in tracking NEOs and has studied deflection of NEOs. The Space Force is likely to take on that role if it gets created. It may even be necessary to politically justify its existence.
Interstellar asteroids may be a slightly bigger risk since by the time we discover one, it could be too late to stop it. Maybe some alien civilization in the universe got unlucky enough to be wiped out by a large interstellar asteroid or even a rogue planet.
The biggest risk to life is probably still war. These hypersonic missiles look pretty spicy.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday August 30 2019, @10:48PM
The way I see it, our system needs an enemy to sell difficult times to the voters. We also do need nuclear engines, hyper-sonic rockets, patriots ready to sacrifice their lives, and generally to get rid of excess capacity somehow. "Russians are coming" idea does not fill adequate to me as well as climate scare which could be fixed either direction with just a few billion bucks.
Space rocks and alien invaders are way better propaganda targets. They are also better for the overall peace on the planet. Why can't they switch? Our cultural and intellectual and political leaders I mean. Do we really have to wait till the whole generations of politicians die out? Why can't they fucking do something? Anything. The only thing they can do, it seems, is to call Trump an idiot.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.