[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
re: (meteorobs) potentially hazardous objects (PHA's)
[Wayne's fortright response to Victor snipped]
> I will now deposit my $5.00
It was worth a lot more than that. Well said. If the eloquent Duncan
Steel can't convince the powers that be to fund the Australian
Spacewatch, a few letters from amateur astronomers isn't going to make
a lot of difference. That may sound defeatist, but the amateur
astronomy community doesn't carry many votes. Politicians may also
think we have a vested interest!
How much money did you apply for Wayne to hunt for NEOs? It surely
must be cheaper to have keen and experienced amateurs running than
employing professionals. I know of a 30-inch 'scope at my former
local astronomical society in rural East Anglia which could be used
(http://nas.hmsodot govdot uk/). However, the society failed to win funding
from the UK's National Lottery for the public understanding of science
to enhance the educational facilities at its Observatory. More
searching in the north would help, but the real loss is in the
southern hemisphere for the reasons Duncan explained.
I was wondering how much an automated telescope would cost to run, say
in South Africa at SAAO or one of the numerous observatories in Chile.
It must surely be peanuts compared to the cost of running a Gemini or
a 4-m class telescope. There needs to be international co-ordination
and co-operation to share the cost...
I hope we can take advantage of the forthcoming films to contact the
media and make the public conscious of the hazard. That's the route
to the politicians. It sounds like you're already doing that Wayne,
so there's no reason to be defensive. We need to distinguish the
facts from the fiction.
Malcolm
References: