[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) Peer Review Committee



Hi Sirko:

Your right of cause, I had no right to say that "I doubt this process of
peer review will get another chance to be tested for another case of such a
close approach in any of their lifetimes. Astronomical bodies tend to move
on a rather large time scale as compared to people". This statement was
made in fustration because I think a peer review committee will serve no
purpose but to delay getting information out. I was thinking in probability
terms only also.

The future is unknown to any of us. A large impact to the Earth can come
tomorrow morning at 6:18 AM or 27 million years from tomorrow or when ever.
 From what we know of NEO's today the chance is better than 90% that we
will get no warning whatsoever or an impact or just a bright light a number
of seconds before (ala Duncan Steel).
The need to get more governments and resources devoted to this problem of
NEO's is because of this ignorance of the facts not because of iminent
danger of impact. 
One thing is for sure the Earth  has been, is being and will be impacted by
various size NEO's. I do feel that nothing of significant will be done to
address this problem until the human race is focused on a pending
catastrophe near term and your remarks kind of proves the truth of that
statement.

Someone recently ask me why should I be excited about impact from NEO's
when it is not likely to happen in my lifetime?  My answer was that people
tend to be effected in the way they think and act when they know
fundimental facts of life like where we come from and where we are going. 
Extinction and punctuated evolution has a way to concentrate the mind on
the true priorities of life.  

It's the urgent need to know rather than the urgent danger of impact.
Sirko, I hope this answer helps.

Victor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 Planetary nebula are actually dying stars,
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasadot gov/apod/astropix.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

----------
> From: Sirko Molau <molau@informatik.rwth-aachendot de>
> To: meteorobs@latrade.com
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Peer Review Committee
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 2:28 PM
> 
> Victor,
> 
> >  You know what they say about good and worth intentions and the road to
destruction
> > being paved by them (good intentions).  Personally I doubt this process
of
> > peer review will get another chance to be tested for another case of
such a
> > close approach in any of their lifetimes. Astronomical bodies tend to
move
> > on a rather large time scale as compared to people.<p>
> 
> how's that?
> Didn't you demand instantaneous actions (writing to governments, etc.),
> as the danger of impact was that big? :-)
> Sirko
> 
> --
>
************************************************************************** 
> *  Dipl.-Inform. Sirko Molau                  *                         
*
> *  RWTH Aachen, Lehrstuhl fuer Informatik VI  *                         
*
> *  Ahornstr. 55, D-52056 Aachen, Germany      *              __         
*
> *                                             *       " 2B v 2B "       
* 
> *  phone: +49-241-8021615                     *                         
*
> *  fax  : +49-241-8888219                     *             Shakespeare 
*
> *  email: molau@informatik.rwth-aachendot de     *                         
*
> *  www  : http://www.snafudot de/~smo            *                         
*
>
**************************************************************************
> 
>