Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, ajthefox said:

Now probably is a good time for armageddon. Maybe the universe just knows we've fu cked it

 

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Rumour has it that when it gets closer, they could ram it with a spaceship (unmanned, unlike Hollywood) that would give enough momentum to change its course.

 

6 hours ago, blabyboy said:

Why bother causing fragments that could potentially make the problem worse when could either paint it or attach a tether and let physics do the hard work for us 

 

On 03/04/2019 at 01:45, leicsmac said:

detection well in advance is the key aspect here, and in terms of the very big ones - the ones bigger than 1km in diameter, the ones that could cause global disaster - we've done pretty well on that score. There have been many different detection projects, and thanks to their ongoing efforts NASA had catalogued over 90% of them (887 found, around 50, perhaps, left to find) by 2011 - we know where they are, and (for the most part) where they will be in a decade, a century and anywhere in between. Of course, there's always that <10%, however.

 

Knowing their trajectories gives us the key element in this case, which is time. More time means not only more time to plan a mission, but also less effort needed to move a potential world-killer from hitting the Earth to narrowly missing - much easier to apply the same amount of force over a much longer time, after all. If we were to spot that one of these giant asteroids were going to pay us an intimate visit in, say, a decade, that would be ample time to plan, build and land a mission on or near that asteroid with years still to go (average mission planning time from design board to launch barring politics is around four years). At that distance and with that much time, you wouldn't even need a spectacular lazorrrr or nuke to get the job done - merely landing a probe with some mass on the side of the asteroid would affect its own mass and trajectory enough for it to miss Earth entirely - the change in mass would be negligible and so would the change in trajectory, but over that kind of distance it would mean a change big enough to fly right past us. If you wanted to be absolutely sure, you could equip the probe with an low-impulse ion thruster and fire that up, adding to the change in trajectory.

 

The above wouldn't be all that difficult to do (even perhaps numerous missions for the sake of redundancy) given adequate time.

 

Of course, if you don't find out that the asteroid is going to hit until, say, less than a year before it does, then you're into disaster movie territory - then you need a much bigger impulse to move it out of the way before it hits. Simply blowing it up wouldn't do unless you absolutely vapourised it or reduced it to bits small enough to burn up in the atmosphere - you break it up, you're still going to have thousands of smaller pieces on the same trajectory hitting Earth. So, again, moving it to the side is the solution, which would need either a landing with very high-impulse thrusters or, yes, nuclear detonation on the side, perhaps. But in that case, tbh the situation is pretty desperate anyway; rushed mission, untested tech and a variety of other factors push the odds of success right down. If it doesn't work...well, that's what those big nuclear shelters could be used for, and so at least humanity might not go out like the dinosaurs and be able to rebuild decades or whenever into the future.

 

I'm repeating myself but I can't state this enough; with this matter the key element is knowledge and time. The more of both we have, the much much better chance we stand.

 

Though this is five years old now, think most of it still applies as a primer on this topic.

[blabyboy]

That's handy. Msybe be careful of trusting the numbers as they're best guesses based on known detections?

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

That's handy. Msybe be careful of trusting the numbers as they're best guesses based on known detections?

Yeah, that's true, hence the margin of uncertainty given. And, again, smaller ones like the one discussed above and the Chelyabinsk asteroid that still could cause big local damage are much harder to spot and could well come at us with no warning at all.

 

I might do a deeper dive later and see if anything in particular has changed recently on this that I've missed.

[Trumpet]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Pretty sure it is of the ones we have had advance notice of.

 

But there's so many variables, chief among them the vast difference in possible damage between the lower and upper estimates of its size.

Would the composition of the asteroid make much of a difference? I’m guessing it would. Is this something we’re able to know in advance or is it a similar situation as lower and upper size estimates?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

Would the composition of the asteroid make much of a difference? I’m guessing it would. Is this something we’re able to know in advance or is it a similar situation as lower and upper size estimates?

It does make something of a difference, yes. Metallic ones are more dense than stony ones and so are more likely to hit the ground in one piece and be more damaging.

 

We can get a good idea of composition of asteroids based on the way they move (which gives us rough density figures), their albedo (how much sunlight they reflect), and knowing how far from Sol they originated (a little rough too, but broadly speaking we find more metallic ones nearer Sol).

 

Asteroid mining may still become the Next Big Thing in the world of tech, so having an idea of which ones to target for such things is of importance.

[blabyboy]

@leicsmac coming from behind the sun, and polar orbits are our weaknesses for spotting.

 

@Trumpet to an extent yes, heavy metal ore based asteroids have greater mass per volume and would stay together in a larger piece for longer. Although, it kinda depends on the size as well...over a certain size, it's pretty much game over anyway.

 

[blabyboy]

Been following the AMOC story for about a year now and it finally seems to be getting some attention in the mainstream.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo

[Robo61]

16 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

Been following the AMOC story for about a year now and it finally seems to be getting some attention in the mainstream.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo

This unprodictability is exactly why we should be putting all our effort and resources in avoiding climate change altogether,  rather than trying to predict how we need to mitigate its consequences. 

[blabyboy]

12 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

This unprodictability is exactly why we should be putting all our effort and resources in avoiding climate change altogether,  rather than trying to predict how we need to mitigate its consequences. 

I think we are way past that aspiration and with the great orange one's "Drill baby, drill!" attitude and China not really slowing down on production then it is better to consider adaptation and mitigation.

 

I know others will disagree, but a purist 'stop it all now' stance seems a bit King Canute-like in the face of the reality of what is happening now by other countries.

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

I think we are way past that aspiration and with the great orange one's "Drill baby, drill!" attitude and China not really slowing down on production then it is better to consider adaptation and mitigation.

 

I know others will disagree, but a purist 'stop it all now' stance seems a bit King Canute-like in the face of the reality of what is happening now by other countries.

It's possible that this is right, but if it is then the lives of billions of people are on the line no matter what, so before we're certain that's the case it might be a good idea to pursue prevention as well as planning for adaptation and mitigation.

[leicsmac]

And in other news, the "lab leak" theory is apparently in vogue at the White House again.

 

Pointless speculation unless one wants a nationalist stick to beat the Chinese with, of course (given that even if it were true such a thing would be uncontrollable the moment it left the door and it's foolhardy to think otherwise, and it screwed the Chinese as much as anyone else), but hey.

[Zear0]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And in other news, the "lab leak" theory is apparently in vogue at the White House again.

 

Pointless speculation unless one wants a nationalist stick to beat the Chinese with, of course (given that even if it were true such a thing would be uncontrollable the moment it left the door and it's foolhardy to think otherwise, and it screwed the Chinese as much as anyone else), but hey.

Not sure identifying the root cause of COVID is pointless.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure identifying the root cause of COVID is pointless.

You're right to pull me up for being a little blase and too succinct there.

 

From a scientific perspective, knowing the origins has its use because we can carry that knowledge forward for any possible future use.

 

However, I'm almost certain that the intent of the current US administration on this one is less than 1% scientific and more than 99% political, which I will happily make a stand on being pointless and simply a point to direct Yellow Peril bigotry from, for the reasons stated above and more.

[Zear0]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You're right to pull me up for being a little blase and too succinct there.

 

From a scientific perspective, knowing the origins has its use because we can carry that knowledge forward for any possible future use.

 

However, I'm almost certain that the intent of the current US administration on this one is less than 1% scientific and more than 99% political, which I will happily make a stand on being pointless and simply a point to direct Yellow Peril bigotry from, for the reasons stated above and more.

This administration and yellow peril? Noooo

[blabyboy]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's possible that this is right, but if it is then the lives of billions of people are on the line no matter what, so before we're certain that's the case it might be a good idea to pursue prevention as well as planning for adaptation and mitigation.

I disagree. I think you can take both approaches, lobby and educate where you can, but prepare now for coming changes - you still need to be around to continue lobbying in the future.

 

I think we'll need to 'weather the storm' for the next few decades at least, Trump policies will kick in... it'll then take time for them to be rescinded ( and that's assuming a Democrat gets in next term) so you have effectively lost a decade right there.. probably even longer the way they are stacking the science institutions at present. And that's not even considering the two highest populated countries at present.

 

You maintain your admirable refrain by all means, but I'll be more focused with getting people to that new future, whatever it may be and if we need to fudge it then I'm prepared to accept that.

 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

I disagree. I think you can take both approaches, lobby and educate where you can, but prepare now for coming changes - you still need to be around to continue lobbying in the future.

 

I think we'll need to 'weather the storm' for the next few decades at least, Trump policies will kick in... it'll then take time for them to be rescinded ( and that's assuming a Democrat gets in next term) so you have effectively lost a decade right there.. probably even longer the way they are stacking the science institutions at present. And that's not even considering the two highest populated countries at present.

 

You maintain your admirable refrain by all means, but I'll be more focused with getting people to that new future, whatever it may be and if we need to fudge it then I'm prepared to accept that.

 

I think that our positions on this aren't in fact that disparate - work for the best but prepare for the worst, because things have gotten to the point where no matter what we do there will be at least some consequences. A multipronged approach involving lobying, preparation, prevention and mitigation are all called for.

 

We really just don't want to get into a position where the bodies start piling up, because fudging things becomes much trickier then - there's panic, there's insularity and sometimes there's shooting.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn93797z2dpo

 

A really good look at the state of one area of government operations that has always been personally important to me and (IMO) vital to our continued survival.

 

Whether it's public, private or both, for the sake of $$$ or scientific discovery or both, let's get out there. Quickly.

 

NB. And don't be so foolhardy as to neglect Earth observation programs, too. We need to know how our planet is changing and how fast, because it is.

[Trumpet]

On 30/01/2025 at 22:11, Trumpet said:

Asteroid 2024 YR4 currently has about a 1/78 chance of hitting Earth in 2032. Must be the highest chance of something known that could do some serious damage, in recent times if not of all time?

 

https://neo.ssa.esa.int/risk-list

They now have it at 1/70.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Trumpet said:

They now have it at 1/70.

Hopefully they will be able to give clarity and if necessary take relevant action soon. Eight years is more than enough prep time, thankfully.

[leicsmac]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043

 

Science research related, not exactly good news.

The CDC has instructed its scientists to retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal, not merely its own internal periodicals, Inside Medicine has learned. The move aims to ensure that no "forbidden terms" appear in the work. The policy includes manuscripts that are in the revision stages at journal (but not officially accepted) and those already accepted for publication but not yet live.

In the order, CDC researchers were instructed to remove references to or mentions of a list of forbidden terms: "Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female," according to an email sent to CDC employees (see below)."

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043

 

Science research related, not exactly good news.

The CDC has instructed its scientists to retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal, not merely its own internal periodicals, Inside Medicine has learned. The move aims to ensure that no "forbidden terms" appear in the work. The policy includes manuscripts that are in the revision stages at journal (but not officially accepted) and those already accepted for publication but not yet live.

In the order, CDC researchers were instructed to remove references to or mentions of a list of forbidden terms: "Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female," according to an email sent to CDC employees (see below)."

What a crock of shite. 

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, The Bear said:

What a crock of shite. 

I wish that I could say that I was surprised and that it would just be this on the horizon...but sadly I can say neither as the first would be a lie and I'm pretty sure the second isn't true.

Edited 2 February by leicsmac

[Trumpet]

On 02/02/2025 at 16:28, Trumpet said:

They now have it at 1/70.

1/44

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

1/44

Well, at least they've revised the object diameter down to at most 90m which means there's most likely nothing of it will hit the ground; but the airburst alone would be enough to cause some nasty problems if it were in the wrong place.

[samlcfc]

On 02/02/2025 at 20:38, leicsmac said:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043

 

Science research related, not exactly good news.

The CDC has instructed its scientists to retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal, not merely its own internal periodicals, Inside Medicine has learned. The move aims to ensure that no "forbidden terms" appear in the work. The policy includes manuscripts that are in the revision stages at journal (but not officially accepted) and those already accepted for publication but not yet live.

In the order, CDC researchers were instructed to remove references to or mentions of a list of forbidden terms: "Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female," according to an email sent to CDC employees (see below)."

 

We're getting a pretty stark reminder that progress has to be actively defended, and reactionary forces can send things into reverse pretty quickly.

 

Beyond historic injustice, the contemporary transition from moralistic to scientific interpretation of these issues has opened so many doors for people receive dignified healthcare treatment. Really feel for those that will be most effected.