When I
explain the asteroid impact issue to my therapist and tell her I walk around
with a feeling of impending doom, she tells me to join a support group. The
First Step is admitting you’re powerless …
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of LARRY
KLAES
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003
10:11 AM
To: europa
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.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/di.html
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:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armageddon.html
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.
http://www.longnow.org/
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/
