-----Original Message-----
From:
LARRY KLAES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: europa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Thursday, 27 February 2003 3:14
Subject: Our long-term future
on Earth and beyond
My personal recommendation for a space-rock-threatens
to-wipe-out-Earth film is 1998's Deep Impact. While not
perfect, it was far more realistic in showing how a comet
could destroy humanity and our potential reaction to having
some advance notice of the news.
Of course Armageddon might resonate better with a public
that is not very discriminatory when it comes to science
accuracy in films - or bad acting and plotting:
But I heartily agree with Robert about the need to preserve
humanity in some form beyond Earth. With the way we are
going now, who needs a giant space rock to destroy us.
I don't care what the masses think of the idea. Their
thoughts are too narrowly focused in space and time to
see the big picture and know what is truly good for them.
If I worried about public opinion, I never would have
suggested Icepick or dealt with space all my life at all.
Columbia tears apart in space, Pioneer 10 stops transmitting
to Earth, and now Mister Rogers dies. You tell me these
aren't the signs of something bad coming (said only half
facetiously).
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From:
Gary McMurtry
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003
1:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Columbia analysis and
space exploration
Robert, et al.,
I am among the billions of
Earthlings that have not yet seen the movie
"Armageddon",
but I know from previews that it stars Bruce Willis and the
Space
Shuttle (I think). However, I know what you are referring to as
NEO
impacts are indeed nasty events, with devastating consequences
for our
civilization, or at least parts of it, depending on the size
and location
of the impact. I believe the small ones typically
hit Earth on the order
of every 100,000 years, on average. Big
ones, like the K-T Impactor, on
the order of every 30 million years
or so. Just look at a Geologic Time
Scale--about every Period
boundary has probably recorded a major impact
event, with sudden and
significant changes in the flora and fauna--the
boundary
catastrophies that Georges Cuvier first noted about 200 years
ago.
Anyway, as some of you who have seen the Discovery Channel
program "Mega
Tsunami" may know (co-starring Yours
Truly--blush), we also have "a little
problem" right here
on Earth, namely the flank collapse of oceanic island
volcanoes. They also occur on the order of every 100,000
years, on
average. We can predict where, but presently not
exactly when or how,
future collapses will occur. Like the NEO
threat, it has been difficult to
obtain sufficient funds to study
this problem, although the threat is
clearly there, and the
consequences severe.
Anyway, I tend to agree with the trend that
we will all look foolish
indeed, if once we establish the cure for
cancer or that bacterial life
flourishes and even octopuses swim in
the Europan Ocean, one day the sky
goes bright and suddenly our home
in Kansas is awash in seawater.
Gary
At 08:35 PM 2/26/2003
-0800, you wrote:
>(I wrote much of this first to Bruce
and John offlist,
>but I realized upon re-reading that it might
have general
>list significance.)
>
>I would tend to
agree with John that we may want to simply
>let the investigation
run its course.
>
>Unfortunately the news media seem to be
turning up revealing
>details.
>
>In Intense Debate,
Engineers Predicted Extent of Liftoff Damage
>Matthew L. Wald and
William J. Broad.
>NY Times, Feb. 27,
2003:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/national/nationalspecial/27SHUT.html?pagewanted=print
>
>To
NASA's credit, they are being very open and quick about
>revealing
details of internal discussions.
>
>But it would appear that
before the shuttles can fly again
>some significant refinement is
going to be required to both
>the external tank bipod attachment
as well as the wheel well
>areas. Not trivial
upgrades.
>
>(Yes, Bruce, I know you would probably like to
scratch the
>whole mess (shuttles, ISS, etc.) but being realistic,
I
>really doubt that is likely to occur.)
>
>To really
push that concept you (Bruce) need to present a really
>good
alternative to not "how do we explore the solar
system?"
>but "how do we save humanity?".
There are people who inherently
>grasp the priorities. The
"exploration" part is pointless without
>the
"saving" part.
>
>There are just *too* many people
that have seen Armageddon and
>the very best argument one could
make in the world (peer reviewed,
>signed and stamped by numerous
experts, etc.) doesn't carry *any*
>weight against Liv Tyler's
tears.
>
>It doesn't matter that the risks (to humanity) are
low, and perhaps
>going lower (cite many of Larry Klaes's recent
msgs). What matters
>is that every single human being knows
that if they end up on the wrong
>side of the dice roll that
everything that they have ever done,
>worked for, hoped for,
desired, etc. would be pointless.
>
>I'll freely admit that
probably billions of humans are not up
>to that level of awareness
(perhaps all those that haven't
>seen Armageddon) -- but they
would all appreciate the concept.
>Hope & desire seem likely
to be key aspects of what gets us
>out of bed in the
morning. Remove those (say through the discovery
>of an
incoming NEO that we cannot prevent) and it seems probable
>that
one destroys key aspects of humanity if not humanity
itself.
>
>Robert
>
>
>==
>You are
subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Project information and list (un)subscribe info:
http://klx.com/europa/
==
You are subscribed to the Europa
Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information
and list (un)subscribe info:
http://klx.com/europa/
