Meteorite Explodes Over Russia Injures Hundreds

[LQB]

Yes, I'm not aware of any civilian/public effort at all other than maybe amateurs searching the skies. Even a network of ground-based telescopes (with sufficient sensitivity) would have a very low probability of detection due to the large spacial area of the search. A small network of satellites could do a great job though.

A simpler network for detecting meteors (and having statistics over the years) is possible. All it requires is modified radio equipment (because of the meteor-induced ionization in the atmosphere) and microcomputers. The military who want to keep the knowledge on atmospheric entries for themselves have unfortunately the means to sabotage such a project.

Yes, but what I'm referring to is detection/track/prediction weeks or months in advance.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Yes, I'm not aware of any civilian/public effort at all other than maybe amateurs searching the skies. Even a network of ground-based telescopes (with sufficient sensitivity) would have a very low probability of detection due to the large spacial area of the search. A small network of satellites could do a great job though.

A simpler network for detecting meteors (and having statistics over the years) is possible. All it requires is modified radio equipment (because of the meteor-induced ionization in the atmosphere) and microcomputers. The military who want to keep the knowledge on atmospheric entries for themselves have unfortunately the means to sabotage such a project.

Yes, but what I'm referring to is detection/track/prediction weeks or months in advance.

Apparently there are some civilian/non-profit efforts under way, but will they be too little too late? Having a satellite telescope orbiting Venus would've been great 10 years ago but will it do any good to launch it in 2017? Maybe the thing in Hawaii has potential to be operational sooner.


_http://en.rian.ru/science/20130220/179575140/Russian-Meteorite-Ignites-Funding-for-US-Asteroid-Detection-----.html

Russian Meteorite Ignites Funding for US Asteroid Detection
Topic: Hail of Meteorite Fragments Hits Russia

WASHINGTON, February 19 (By Sasha Horne for RIA Novosti) In the aftermath of Friday’s meteorite that crashed and injured more than a 1,000 people in Russia’s Chelyabinsk region, some private asteroid-detecting telescope projects in the United States have seen a surge in both interest and financial donations, a sign of renewed global concern about the dangers and unpredictability of space rocks hurtling into Earth.

“Over the weekend we have seen about 1,000 times more internet traffic than usual, which translated into tens of thousands of dollars in donations from across the world,” said Diane Murphy, spokeswoman for the B612 Foundation, a non-profit company that hopes to build and launch a privately funded infrared space telescope to track asteroids.

In the weeks prior to Friday’s meteorite that crashed to Earth in Russia, Murphy said the world’s attention was focused on the 150 foot (46 meter) 2012 DA14 asteroid, which on the same day passed roughly 17,200 miles (27,681 kilometers) within Earth and was detected a year ago by an amateur astronomer.

“But no one predicted the Russian meteor, and it hit,” said Murphy. “I think that really shocked people and made them realize, ‘this could have happened in my neighborhood’ and no one saw it coming,” she said.

In cooperation with NASA the B612 foundation is working to launch an infrared telescope into the orbit of Venus that would locate asteroids that have not yet been identified, some 20 to 50 years before any potential major impact with Earth.

“There are many, many, many more objects out there that need to be found,” former Apollo 9 astronaut and B612 co-founder Rusty Schweickart told RIA Novosti last week.

The telescope designed to “slingshot off of Venus” and back into solar orbit would give researchers a unique vantage point that could allow them to look back over the earth with the sun behind them, differing from ground telescopes that look directly into the sun and make spotting asteroids more difficult.

“In the first two weeks after our telescope launches, it will discover more asteroids than have been detected in history,” Murphy told RIA Novosti on Tuesday.

The B612 foundation’s telescope prototype has already been designed and is currently undergoing tests. The $450 million project is slated for completion in 2017, and is just one of at least half a dozen private ventures that are helping to propel space exploration and the tracking of asteroids.

"The Chelyabinsk meteorite was frightening and several hundred people were injured, but the damage was minor compared to what could occur with an object only slightly larger," said John Tonry, principal investigator for the Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (ATLAS), a University of Hawaii-based organization that is currently developing a series of small ground telescopes to track near Earth objects.

While the ATLAS project would not be capable of deflecting an approaching asteroid, with the help of a $5 million grant from NASA, it is intended to provide a warning system of impending impact.

Astronomers expect the system to be fully operational by the end of 2015.

“Such an object could kill thousands of people and devastate a city,” Tonry said in a statement on the ATLAS website. With ATLAS, he said, the system could offer a one-week warning for smaller asteroids and a three week lead time for larger ones.

 

[mkrnhr]

Yes, but what I'm referring to is detection/track/prediction weeks or months in advance.

Well, I think that this point is more of a philosophical question. I've seen lots of interventions on the internet where it is proposed to track asteroids and destroy them by missiles or laser beams or whatever (how a missile will react to the electric phenomena is another question). However, these phenomena are natural phenomena and nature out-smarts humans ;)
Observing patterns and acting accordingly is different from the temptation to try to control the universe, OSIT

 

[LQB]

Yes, but what I'm referring to is detection/track/prediction weeks or months in advance.

Well, I think that this point is more of a philosophical question. I've seen lots of interventions on the internet where it is proposed to track asteroids and destroy them by missiles or laser beams or whatever (how a missile will react to the electric phenomena is another question). However, these phenomena are natural phenomena and nature out-smarts humans ;)
Observing patterns and acting accordingly is different from the temptation to try to control the universe, OSIT

What is philosophical about detection/track/prediction? I'm not referring to a missile/laser system - just a satellite telescope system. A 2-3 satellite constellation could probably be launched in less than a year if given priority. All technology required is off the shelf and space qualified.

 

[Cosmos]

Thinking about the strong possibility that there were other civilisations arround in the past, some of whom were likely much more advanced then we are today, I find the thought that our current civilisation has even the slightest change against those comets a bit hard to believe and even comical.

When even those "higly advanced" civilisations couldn't handle those forces of nature (assuming that there were such civilisations in the past who also encountered catasthrophic comets wich they couldn't handle), than I find it a bit of a strech to assume that we can or could handle them now.

 

[LQB]

Thinking about the strong possibility that there were other civilisations arround in the past, some of whom were likely much more advanced then we are today, I find the thought that our current civilisation has even the slightest change against those comets a bit hard to believe and even comical.

When even those "higly advanced" civilisations couldn't handle those forces of nature (assuming that there were such civilisations in the past who also encountered catasthrophic comets wich they couldn't handle), than I find it a bit of a strech to assume that we can or could handle them now.

Yes, but keep in mind that there is a big difference between "observing" and "handling". If you can get an accurate prediction - even a week in advance - there is much you could do to lower a massive death/injury toll.

 

[mkrnhr]

What is philosophical about detection/track/prediction?

The mechanical universe point of view, causality, etc. Everything about how we interact with the universe can be viewed from the philosophical point-of-view, depending on how we define philosophy.

I'm not referring to a missile/laser system - just a satellite telescope system. A 2-3 satellite constellation could probably be launched in less than a year if given priority. All technology required is off the shelf and space qualified.

Maybe it could work to some extent, but it always has its limitations. In terms of long-time surveys, space-based instruments do no better than ground-based installations. But when the SHTF, they can warn the PTB people to go to their underground shelters or something, good for them. The usefulness of such a system for regular people is questionable. For regular people the problem is not mainly meteors per se as are plagues, genetic mutations, post-apocalyptic survival with psychopaths hordes and so on. So the thing is whom does it benefit since it is sufficient to watch the trends and predict statistically what might happen (as the ancients did), while these tracking systems base on the hypothesis that nothing is unpredictable (materialist reductionism <-- philosophy).

 

[LQB]

What is philosophical about detection/track/prediction?

The mechanical universe point of view, causality, etc. Everything about how we interact with the universe can be viewed from the philosophical point-of-view, depending on how we define philosophy.

Of course. I'm just addressing a fairly simple system of high probability of detection for advanced warning of Tunguska-like events.

I'm not referring to a missile/laser system - just a satellite telescope system. A 2-3 satellite constellation could probably be launched in less than a year if given priority. All technology required is off the shelf and space qualified.

Maybe it could work to some extent, but it always has its limitations. In terms of long-time surveys, space-based instruments do no better than ground-based installations.

Everything has its limitations. The current SSN (space surveillance network) network of ground telescopes can be beat hands down with just 2 satellites at LEO making stereo measurements - and this in every category including sensitivity, probability of detection, track accuracy, search rate, revisit rate, etc. I know this because it was part of my job (pre-2009) to support Space Command with satellite architecture designs that would do this. Their mission was to keep track of all the space junk, but its just as easy to scan the outer reaches of space. The ground-based approach to this suffers terribly compared to even a small satellite constellation.

But when the SHTF, they can warn the PTB people to go to their underground shelters or something, good for them. The usefulness of such a system for regular people is questionable.

I agree. It would have to be a public-level program with very transparent reporting through the scientific community - otherwise it just becomes another military Intel system. I'm simply saying that it can be done technically, quickly, and for relatively low cost.

For regular people the problem is not mainly meteors per se as are plagues, genetic mutations, post-apocalyptic survival with psychopaths hordes and so on. So the thing is whom does it benefit since it is sufficient to watch the trends and predict statistically what might happen (as the ancients did), while these tracking systems base on the hypothesis that nothing is unpredictable (materialist reductionism <-- philosophy).

Yes, we know much about what these encounters may bring. In the case of Tunguska-like bodies, I don't think that "it is sufficient to watch the trends and predict statistically ", and I don't think the Russian folk (that suffered) would agree with that either. Is it possible to implement such a system so that it is truly useful to the people? I think it is - but that is certainly debatable - and may be very unlikely depending on how it is implemented and who controls the reporting.

 

[Laura]

The problem is, LQB, the types of bodies that appear to be the most common cause of damage and loss of life are small and dark, like the Tunguska object and this recent comet fragment. Ark read on a Russian site that the experts were saying that even if they had the ways and means of scanning the whole sky all the time - a prohibitively expensive proposition - this body, and others of its type, could only have been spotted something like two hours before impact IF at all.

If you will re-read all the comet series, you'll find that I looked into this problem pretty thoroughly and there are many papers written and collected into a book published by the Uni of Arizona, I believe, where the conclusion is, basically, that we really have no defense and they can't justify causing panics or making miscalculations. There's even a study done on the limits of liability and insurance in respect of comet destruction!

 

[LQB]

The problem is, LQB, the types of bodies that appear to be the most common cause of damage and loss of life are small and dark, like the Tunguska object and this recent comet fragment. Ark read on a Russian site that the experts were saying that even if they had the ways and means of scanning the whole sky all the time - a prohibitively expensive proposition - this body, and others of its type, could only have been spotted something like two hours before impact IF at all.

I designed satellite constellations (in conjunction with the optics experts) that could scan the volumetric sky and repeat it rapidly and it is not prohibitively expensive to do today (I had to cost-estimate them too - including launch). Even a large array of ground telescopes can't come anywhere near this capability. If I remember right, the size objects in earth orbit we were dealing with were golf ball sized at the longest ranges (with discounted reflectivity).

If the visual magnitude of these Tunguska-like objects (at range) is less than a golf ball at geosynch range, then that is indeed very small. You can increase your sensitivity with dwell so long as the object does not traverse the focal plane to rapidly. If an object is coming at you, it will appear still in the focal plane against an array of moving stars, so longer dwell results in better visual magnitude performance. I would be surprised if a Tunguska-like object could be that low (a difficult task even in a lab). But it would be nice to have an estimate of what visual magnitude at range would be expected from such a dark object.

If you will re-read all the comet series, you'll find that I looked into this problem pretty thoroughly and there are many papers written and collected into a book published by the Uni of Arizona, I believe, where the conclusion is, basically, that we really have no defense and they can't justify causing panics or making miscalculations. There's even a study done on the limits of liability and insurance in respect of comet destruction!

It is true - currently we have no defense. I'll look into it some more

 

[Yozilla]

I designed satellite constellations (in conjunction with the optics experts) that could scan the volumetric sky and repeat it rapidly and it is not prohibitively expensive to do today (I had to cost-estimate them too - including launch). Even a large array of ground telescopes can't come anywhere near this capability. If I remember right, the size objects in earth orbit we were dealing with were golf ball sized at the longest ranges (with discounted reflectivity).

If the visual magnitude of these Tunguska-like objects (at range) is less than a golf ball at geosynch range, then that is indeed very small. You can increase your sensitivity with dwell so long as the object does not traverse the focal plane to rapidly. If an object is coming at you, it will appear still in the focal plane against an array of moving stars, so longer dwell results in better visual magnitude performance. I would be surprised if a Tunguska-like object could be that low (a difficult task even in a lab). But it would be nice to have an estimate of what visual magnitude at range would be expected from such a dark object.
...
It is true - currently we have no defense. I'll look into it some more

As total zero-id i find your observations and attitude quite striking LQB... Maybe you could design certain method/concept based on your ideas/knowledge and apply for this competition:

Roscosmos, Russia’s national space agency, announced a competition to develop an automated system that would warn of dangerous situations happening in space near Earth.

The agency will be accepting applications until March 26. Results of the competition will be announced in April. The winner will receive a contract for 86 million rubles (US$2.8 million) to develop the system.

Russian scientists have presented an operable national defense program against threats from outer space that can be built within 10 years’ time.

The system will consist of a network of robotic telescopes monitoring space around our planet, some of them delivered to orbit, others operating from the surface.

The program specifies that destruction of an asteroid in emergency cases could be performed by a rocket with a powerful megaton-class thermonuclear warhead. If the threat is detected early, more advanced means of changing an asteroid’s orbit may be considered.

The program is said to cost 58 billion rubles (over $1.9 billion).

Quote from:
_http://rt.com/news/meteor-attack-not-expected-284/

Yozilla D'monster

 

[sitting]

It is true - currently we have no defense. I'll look into it some more

I would amend that to "currently we have no defense...that's published in the public domain".

It's really hard to know what the Black Budget boys have been up to. But the transcripts over the years have given glimpses of literally "out of this world" technology behind the scenes. And once, the C's said "state of the art" stuff is presently thousands of years in advance of what is known. That's pretty far out. Granted it might be so compartmentalized that only a small group is aware and has access.

This comet threat I have to assume, is well understood by secret groups. And their preparations (to save themselves) have been lengthy and extensive. One would think they need fairly accurate time of impact estimates (plus location) or they will miss entry to their underground bases.

Not to be forgotten are the non-impact dangers. What McCanney calls "action at a distance". The big comets, with their electrical plus gravitational effect (on a non-impact but close passage) can net us catastrophic results on planet wide scale. Like Venus event. My guess is they know all about these...and they will be keeping their mouths shut.

PS McCanney made a strange remark regarding this recent Russian event. He said approach velocity of this object, while impressive, was actually unusually slow when viewed in outer space terms. He thought the object was man made.

I have no way of interpreting this remark, other than to flag it for others to examine. I did think it was a weird comment.

 

[dant]

...
Russian scientists have presented an operable national defense program
against threats from outer space that can be built within 10 years’ time.
...

Do you think we have 10 years when the graph presented
in one of the post/threads [somewhere] shows an [almost]
exponential growth of asteroids/bolides/comets/meteors?

 

[LQB]

As total zero-id i find your observations and attitude quite striking LQB... Maybe you could design certain method/concept based on your ideas/knowledge and apply for this competition:

Well Yozilla, I'm only describing work that I did in the past. And I know its well beyond the common knowledge out there - which is why I posted it.

Interesting Russian Space proposal - notice they suggest the (ridiculous) requirement to destroy the object. I assume that is the ground element. What we found was that there was no viable ground sensor worth the cost of playing in the satellite mix (except as a transition element).

I'm sure that US Space Command and other agencies are ramping up studies as we speak.

 

[Palinurus]

This comet threat I have to assume, is well understood by secret groups. And their preparations (to save themselves) have been lengthy and extensive. One would think they need fairly accurate time of impact estimates (plus location) or they will miss entry to their underground bases.

From what little I've read about the rumors of those bases, I've understood that those in the know have at all times to be within traveling distance to the nearest entry point of the underground or underwater transportation system which supposedly links all these bases world wide. Once there, they're safe (they think).