backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Dec 16 at 9:12 AM


NASA's WISE spacecraft (Click to enlarge)
NASA committed $320M to the WISE project

Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) represent an extinction level threat to the entire human race. The odds are extremely low that an undetected asteroid or comet will strike the Earth and cause catastrophic damage, but given a long enough period of time anything can happen. It has been hypothesized that a large asteroid impacted the Earth 65 million years ago and led to the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.

NEOs with diameters of less than 10m are typically destroyed in the upper atmosphere, but 50m NEOs can cause massive damage like the Tunguska Event in 1908. A 1km sized NEO is projected to strike the Earth every 500,000 years, while NEOs larger than 5km hit every ten million years.

The possibility of global devastation galvanized the U.S. Congress into action in 2005, mandating NASA to detect 90% of the NEOs ranging from 140m and above by 2020. There are an estimated 20,000 asteroids and comets that have orbits close to Earth, and only 6000 of them have been found so far.

The problem is that many asteroids and comets don't reflect a lot of light, making them hard to detect using conventional telescopes. NASA plans to address this with the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), which will scan the entire sky in infrared light. Asteroids and comets emit infrared energy, and WISE is not only expected to detect thousands of them, but also provide data on their size, shape, and composition.

WISE is designed to detect the infrared glow of hundreds of millions of objects besides asteroids and comets. It will detect new galaxies, stars, and brown dwarfs, creating a vast catalog of millions of images. These will be used to find new targets for the Spitzer Space Telescope and the Herschel Space Observatory, two other observation missions which focus on specific infrared objects for study.

The closest known star is Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf star approximately 4.2 light-years away. Some astronomers have theorized that a failed star may lie much closer to our Solar System. Known as brown dwarfs, these objects have insufficient mass to create or maintain a nuclear fusion reaction.

Infrared technology has progressed significantly since the 1983 launch of WISE's predecessor, the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. NASA says that WISE’s sensitivity is hundreds of times greater, and will enable it to detect around 400 new NEOs by scanning four different infrared wavelengths.

WISE will detect four distinct bands of mid-infrared light with wavelengths of 3.4, 4.6, 12 and 22 microns. The only existing whole-sky survey with a wavelength of between 3 and 10 microns is from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), which operated in 1989. Results from that mission led to the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics during 2006.

The primary instrument onboard WISE is a 40cm (16-inch) telescope connected to four separate infrared detectors. Each detector has a resolution of 1,032,256 pixels, much improved over the Infrared Astronomical Satellite’s total of 62 pixels. These instruments are kept cool within a tank filled with frozen hydrogen in order to prevent heat contamination during observations. Images are transmitted back to Earth via Ku-band frequencies at a rate of 100 Mb/s.

WISE was launched successfully today into a polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California using a Delta II rocket, with an altitude of 525 km (326 miles). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is managing the mission, and is responsible for all ground operations that track and control the spacecraft. NASA is investing approximately $320 million for the whole project, including design, development, launching, and operations.

The WISE mission is only expected to last for ten months, after which it will run out of its liquid hydrogen coolant. The completed WISE catalog will be released in 2012, and NASA expects to be studying that data for decades.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By SeniorMoment on 12/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By vanionBB on 12/14/2009 7:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike global warming science which is sketchy at best, predicting objects in motion in space is very accurate. I think it would be hard to argue against doing something to stop an impact, but it is a good thing that we retained Bruce Willis or we would be doomed!

Seriously, you think the Democrats will have the majority when this thing finds something. It will take years to actually find anything. Anyone could be in charge by then! It will be the Democrats trying to filibuster the Republicans by then.

Your final statement about Bush is ridiculous.

Cheers!


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By Solandri on 12/14/2009 7:58:23 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, his rant gives good insight into the debate about global warming.

If you consider global warming on its own, it certainly seems to make sense to err on the safe side. Assume it's man-made and invest trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions. If you're right, you saved mankind. If you're wrong, you slow down our economic progress a bit. Easy decision, right?

Now consider asteroid impacts. Same thing there. If it detects a future collision, you save mankind. If it doesn't, you've only spent a few billion on the program. Easy decision, right?

Now consider all possible threats to the future of mankind. Plague, defense against alien invasion, nearby gamma-ray burst, etc. All of them could potentially wipe out mankind. If you choose to err on the safe side on all of them, you end up with a cumulative cost which far exceeds the world's GDP.

You cannot eliminate all risk, and you cannot make decisions based on assuming that any unknown risk is infinitely bad. You have to assign some realistic number to that risk and make a decision based on that.


By jc2436 on 12/14/2009 8:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
Remember the fiasco of the Mars lander ? It was found that half of the team was calculating using the metric system and the other half was using miles. Who much did that cost the taxpayers ?
Unless you can indisputably show the effect it will have then Congress is likely to put "save the world" projects in with the "highway to nowhere" projects.


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By heartland on 12/14/2009 10:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Solandri,

I'm probably spoiling the fun since I would like to keep things factual and non-specatcular, but indulge me for just a moment...

1. Exactly WHAT "alien invasion" is it that you are concerned about? Can you share your knowledge of an alien population with us?

2. Plague has not destroyed the planet. Why do you think it might do so? Should we give up the efforts of medical science to prevent this because it MIGHT not work?

3. Gamma-ray burst (or a more likely coronal mass ejection from the Sun) might kill many, or all of us, but it's something we can't defend against at the moment.

An asteroid striking the Earth is a threat that can be addressed and defeated . Of course there are things that we can't forsee (alien invasion???) but if we see a threat and we can address it (asteroid impact) isn't it wise to try? Your attitude seems to be to just collectivly throw up or hands and let fate have its way with us, i.e. if we can't stop one threat, then we can't stop any of them. Do you seriously assign an equal chance to an alien invasion as you would to an asteroid impact???

It seems to me that we should address the threats that are most likely. I would like to hear your comments of the odds of an alien invasion vs. asteriod impact and why it is that since we might not be able to defeat one of them we should give-up on defeating the other?


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By Solandri on 12/14/2009 10:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Exactly WHAT "alien invasion" is it that you are concerned about? Can you share your knowledge of an alien population with us?

2. Plague has not destroyed the planet. Why do you think it might do so? Should we give up the efforts of medical science to prevent this because it MIGHT not work?

3. Gamma-ray burst (or a more likely coronal mass ejection from the Sun) might kill many, or all of us, but it's something we can't defend against at the moment.

See, you're assigning real non-infinite risk values to all of those. Like you should be doing.

quote:
Do you seriously assign an equal chance to an alien invasion as you would to an asteroid impact???

Of course I don't. But anyone who claims that because "the consequences if we're wrong and don't fund this thing are so dire that we must err on the safe side," is doing exactly that - equating the chances by setting the risk assessment to infinity. The logic seems to make sense if you consider only one unknown, after all its cost probably accounts for only a fraction of what you can afford. But it completely falls apart once you consider the potentially infinite unknowns in the universe. Add up the costs to prevent all of them and they far exceed what you can afford to do.

I'm not arguing against funding something for which we've evaluated the risk. I'm arguing against the logic that something should be funded simply because the consequences could destroy the human race if we don't.


By heartland on 12/15/2009 9:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
Some threats, at least those we can do something about, are more dire than others. The most popular at the moment seems to be global warming. Both sides of the aisle have so distorted this issue that it's hard for even one trained in the atmospheric sciences (me) to sort it all out. Whether we take a fast-track approach to "sovling it" or not, one thing I'm sure of is that its not the sort of threat that is going to bring life on the planet to it's knees in short order. The changes that global warming may cause may be dramatic, but they won't be "all at once".

One thing I don't think anyone doubts is that IF a good sized asteroid hits Earth that the destruction will be immediate and catastrophic. This won't be a matter of sea levels raising over a period of several years or of slowly shifting ecological patters. If an asteroid hits (the astronomer in me wants to say WHEN it hits, but no need to get dramatic) it's going to hurt, and it's going to hurt right away. It's also something that can likely be prevented given enough warning (again, that is part of what WISE is all about) and the expense of funds that will be trivial in comparison to the baby steps we are taking against global warming. Maybe global warming can destroy the human race, and maybe the plague can too. Personally, I've no doubt that a large asteroid hit WILL do so, and that money and time spent in seeing to it while we have the luxury of time. The longer we wait to solve a problem the more it costs as a rule. I think this is a risk we could get ahead of that isn't a budget-buster. And I think we would thank ourselves some day if we did.


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By mindless1 on 12/14/2009 11:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
1. The alien invasion that has lobbed a cloaked asteroid towards us because they deem it favorable to have an empty planet to pillage.

3. No, sorry but we can't currently defeat an asteroid except possibly one of very small size. Think in terms of how many trips it's taken just to get the ISS together, that a bomb that weight or size may not be effective enough against larger asteroids.


By heartland on 12/15/2009 8:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
mindless1...

1. The two most promising methods of deflecting an asteriod are the "gravity-tractor", and landing a "rocket engine" of sorts (a very low impuse engine) on the threat to gradually change its orbit over a long period of time. That is why the WISE satellite and other early detection methods (which can be done at a fraction of the cost of keeping the ISS uselessly orbiting Earth) are so important.

2. We are more likely to be hit by a smaller asteroid than a large one simply because there are more smaller ones out there. A smaller one will be easier to deflect. A smaller one will also be less catastrophic if it were to hit...but is it not worth the effort to stop just because it might kill only 10 million people instead of 10 billion?

3. I'm not sure why you draw a link between how long it takes to put together the ISS and an asteroid deflection mission. They are two entirly pieces of equipment designed to do two completly different things.

4. Nobody other than Bruce Willis fans are thinking that bombing an asteroid would be anything but a waste of a good bomb. They are a great way for us to kill each other, but turning a big asteroid into several smaller asteroids that are still going to hit us at the same time is not a plan that will make us safer. Far better to divert that asteroid and avoid any collision at all.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2009 7:33:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Assume it's man-made and invest trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions. If you're right, you saved mankind. If you're wrong, you slow down our economic progress a bit. Easy decision, right?


Global Warming is absolutely man-made.

Man made up the numbers to support it. Man made up the hoax computer models to prove it. And man made up the science that supposedly backs it. Man made up the peer review process to push through global warming and also deny other men with evidence to the contrary. Man also made up "Carbon credits" and got crazy rich pushing a man made lie on everyone else.

Yup, it's man-made. It's been man made every step of the way.


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By Martinelli on 12/15/2009 1:24:02 AM , Rating: 3
"Unlike global warming science which is sketchy at best", Are you nuts? you may choose to deny humankind's role in global warming, a position that too has been discredited, but to deny it all together places you with the dinosaurs. The evidence for climate change on a global scale is irrefutable. I cannot believe you have even glanced at the evidence without coming to this conclusion.


By ebakke on 12/15/2009 9:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think he was disagreeing that the world's temperatures change. I think he was saying that scientific efforts to determine/understand the causes (note that I did not say the "things it correlates with") are sketchy at best.


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By omnicronx on 12/15/2009 11:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unlike global warming science which is sketchy at best, predicting objects in motion in space is very accurate.
While I don't agree with the original poster, and the rest of your post is right on, this statement is VERY incorrect. While tracking something with a large mass like a planet is quite easy, it is not easy to track something small like an asteroid that could impact earth. For example look at the asteroid that is suppose to come very close to earth in 2029. Its going to come close enough that year that the earths gravitational pull will change it direction enough to possibly make it come even closer to us in 2035. Even since its discovery we have lost it several times, estimates of how close it will come have gone up and down and we still really anyone's guess how close it will come to earth. Tracking an object in the sky is no easy task, you can't just assume everything has a perfect elliptical orbit and is not affected by the gravity of other large masses.


RE: Can Congress act to prevent extinction?
By vanionBB on 12/15/2009 1:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
I grant you that we are not able to predict whether Apophis is going to hit us or miss us. They are able to keep tabs on where it is and they can predict its path within a known margin of error. We can lose direct contact with it and still know "where" it is, it has mass, it is being acted on by known bodies, with all the information we have now, Newton could track it.

That said, this picture from Wikipedia of Apophis in 2029 scares the hell out of me. I think the Mayans may be off by a decade and change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apophis_pass.svg


By MrPoletski on 12/16/2009 9:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
anything can be predicted within a 'known margin of error'.

I know that the next major meteor impact (barring intervention) on earth will be in 10,000 years (plus or minus 50 trillion years).


Cheap project!
By rttrek on 12/14/2009 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 4
At $320 I'll take a dozen!

Or should that be $320M?




RE: Cheap project!
By vanionBB on 12/14/2009 5:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of the cost is the retainer agreement with Bruce Willis.


RE: Cheap project!
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
Of course
By ilnot1 on 12/14/2009 6:27:34 PM , Rating: 1
That sounds just like the US Congress, "Let's only find 90 percent of potential planet killers!".




RE: Of course
By mainsi on 12/14/2009 9:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
Pragmatically speaking, why find any? If we find that one of these "NEO's" is going to strike earth and cause mass extinction, I'd rather it be sudden and unexpected (or at least that's my philosophy). Given the state of space technology to date it is extremely remote that we'd be able to do anything to prevent a collision and even more remote that we'd be successful!


RE: Of course
By heartland on 12/14/2009 10:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
mainsi,

Why "give up" so easily? We are not that far away from being able to defeat this threat, which is the only PREVENTABLE one that can threaten the entire planet. We spend so much money on so many useless things, yet here is one that is possible and (depending on your view of humanity) worth doing.

Of course you are entitled to your philosoply, but take a look here for some more info if interested. It may not be as hopeless as you think...

http://www.b612foundation.org/about/welcome.html


WISE Spacecraft
By Galactic Cat on 12/14/2009 11:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
Is speed of light constant, and if so why. Remember that:
A man who sits on wall with mouth wide open, wait long time before wild goose fly in.




Senior Moment comments
By owlafaye on 12/14/09, Rating: 0
goods
By aklfueoi on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki