Gregory Anderson repeats a long-time theme of this web site--that we have to broaden our discussion of space far beyond science, which is actually one of the poorest justifications for it. Jeff Foust reviews the Astronaut Farmer, and Taylor Dinerman rightfully mocks the recent call by some well meaning but naive former astronauts to make the UN responsible for asteroid protection. I was going to do one of these myself, because it just begs for ridicule, but I've been busy.

I think I'll have to see the Astronaut Farmer.

It will be interesting to watch what type of movies are made when people start making routine sub-orbital flights into space.

err...the myth continues to be propagated, unfortunately, due to some poor reporting by Irene "The Klotz" at Reuters. Those "well meaning but naive" former astronauts (and current astronauts...and cosmonauts) are not proposing that the UN be responsible for asteroid protection. They are simply proposing that the UN provide the decision matrix by which a "coalition of the willing", if you will, can decide how, if, and when a potential earth impacting 'roid should be dealt with.

they are simply proposing that the UN provide the decision matrix by which a "coalition of the willing", if you will, can decide how, if, and when a potential earth impacting 'roid should be dealt with.

Sorry, but I think that to even think that it could accomplish that is hopelessly naive. When it comes to saving the world, the last organization that you would want to have involved is the UN.

I'd like to back up Andy on this one. I saw Rusty Schweikart's presentation on this topic this past summer and their intention and purpose is to use the UN as a vehicle for establishing a multilateral treaty on this matter, not to hand over responsibility for asteroid protection to the UN.

There are many reasons for why it makes sense to have a treaty, the major being that, while asteroids potentially threaten all areas of the world, any particular asteroid would affect only a certain region. It's therefore desireble to have an agreement on who would take responsibility for deflection before one is detected to avoid issues arising in the event a collision do not initially appear to effect the major space-faring countries.

You also have the problem (and a more serious one, requiring international input), that once you begin to move an asteroid from its initially projected impact point, it increases risk to other countries who lie on "the path of risk." (which is the path of the asteroid impact as it traverses the face of the earth towards the limb). If the deflection attempt fails, you potentially have a new impact point somewhere else. The guys in that "somewhere else" may like to have a say in who does the deflection, how it is done, and who is responsible for the consequences of failure.

Again, the UN is not being asked "to save the world." A useful analogy might be the two Gulf wars: the UN and its decisions (resolutions) were used as the framework for sanctions and eventually war, but the UN was not the operative body in carrying out the mission(s).

oops, that last post was by me

> any particular asteroid would affect only a certain region.

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Ed

Size counts - in the relevant future (say, the next 200 years) we're much more likely to experience an event the size of 1-10 Tunguskas than an earth shattering, species-extincting, climate altering impact like that which killed the dinosaurs. Which means that when we eventually find these asteroids, they're much more likely to be local threats than global. Which is why we'd best be prepared to be able to decide what's worth diverting and how.

Size counts, indeed; the power law of asteroid size distribution is such that a 10x decrease in diameter results in a 200x increase in number. A Tunguska (or even quite a bit smaller) event in the wrong place could touch off a nuclear war, thereby quite effectively affecting the entire planet. Given the far greater abundances of smaller potential impactors, the real risk from asteroids is geopolitical.

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

The current theory is that they were killed not by the blast, but by the 'global cooling' that followed. Thanks to the valiant efforts of China, India, USA, and Australia, we're not going to have that problem.