Print 48 comment(s) - last by NaughtyGeek.. on Mar 15 at 9:36 AM

The U.S. space organization does not have the monetary resources to track all of the flying objects that could pose a threat to Earth

Even though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is able to detect and monitor most asteroids that are close enough in case of potential impact with Earth, the U.S. space organization lacks the proper funding to get it done within the deadline that Congress imposed in 2005.  Specifically, Congress wants NASA to detect 90% of the near-Earth objects (NEO) range from 140 meters in diameter up to more than a kilometer and a half.

The NASA report speculates there are around 20,000 asteroids and other flying objects that are currently in orbit somewhat close to the Earth.  But financial constraints will not allow NASA to detect, monitor, catalog and characterize all of the NEOs like Congress requested two years ago -- it is more likely that NASA will have to focus only on the flying objects that pose a real threat to Earth.

To accomplish the plan enacted by Congress by 2020 would force NASA to use ground-based telescopes that are used by other research and space agencies; the likely creation of a dedicated observatory designed specifically for tracking NEOs; and NASA to launch a space craft that would monitor a safety cushion around the Earth.  The report estimates that all of these projects would cost more than $1 billion, which is a high price that NASA cannot afford.

The Pan-STARRS telescope in Hawaii is one tool that is being used by three UK universities to help locate possible Earth-threatening asteroids.  The powerful telescope is able to detect objects from 300m in diameter, which is large enough to have a strong impact on the Earth.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Sad
By masher2 on 3/14/2007 10:29:41 AM , Rating: -1
> "Even if you and these scientists you talk about ended up being right and global warming is in fact not being caused by man....would you really want risk it?"

Sure. Because the "risk" is far smaller than environmentalists portray. The earth was warmer during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) than it is today...and by all accounts, the planet was more habitable and comfortable than it is today.

Dont put any stock in the nonsense about global catastrophe from global warming. All the evidence suggests a mild increase in hurricane intensity (but a mild decrease in hurricane frequency), a sea level rise equating to ~20 inches per century (1/5 of an inch per year), and slight changes to rainfall which will result in some areas being slightly drier and some slightly wetter. Couple that with more moderate temperatures and longer growing seasons, and you've very likely got a net win for humanity. The worst-case isn't a disaster, its a simple process of adapting to change.

Add to that the fact that, if the global warming advocates are correct, that a few small lifestyle changes will not halt the warming, or even significantly slow it down. No, if they're right, then the only way to prevent it is to return to a 19th century emissions level...which means eliminating the vast majority of our modern lifestyle.

Luckily, more and more evidence suggests that humans are not responsible for the majority of global warming though...and that, even if we are, said warming is unlikely to be a serious problem.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki