APP - Report: NASA can't keep up with killer asteroids

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
talk about stupid

By SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON - NASA is charged with spotting most of the asteroids that pose a threat to Earth but doesn't have the money to complete the job, a federal report says.
That's because even though Congress assigned the space agency that mission four years ago, it never gave NASA the money to build the necessary telescopes, according to the report released Wednesday by the National Academy of Sciences.
Specifically, the mission calls for NASA, by the year 2020, to locate 90 percent of the potentially deadly rocks hurtling through space. The agency says it's been able to complete about one-third of its assignment with the current telescope system.
NASA estimates that there are about 20,000 asteroids and comets in our solar system that are potential threats. They are larger than 460 feet in diameter - slightly smaller than the Superdome in New Orleans. So far, scientists know where about 6,000 of these objects are.
Rocks between 460 feet and 3,280 feet in diameter can devastate an entire region, said Lindley Johnson, NASA's manager of the near-Earth objects program. Objects bigger than that are even more threatening, of course.
Just last month astronomers were surprised when an object of unknown size and origin bashed into Jupiter and created an Earth-sized bruise that is still spreading. Jupiter does get slammed more often than Earth because of its immense gravity, enormous size and location.
Disaster movies like "Armageddon" and near misses in previous years may have scared people and alerted them to the threat. But when it comes to monitoring, the academy concluded "there has been relatively little effort by the U.S. government."
And the United States is practically the only government doing anything at all, the report found.
"It shows we have a problem we're not addressing," said Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, an advocacy group.
NASA calculated that to spot the asteroids as required by law would mean spending about $800 million between now and 2020, either with a new ground-based telescope or a space observation system, Johnson said. If NASA got only $300 million it could find most asteroids bigger than 1,000 feet across, he said.
But so far NASA has gotten neither sum.
It may never get the money, said John Logsdon, a space policy professor at George Washington University.
"The program is a little bit of a lame duck," Logsdon said. There is not a big enough group pushing for the money, he said.
At the moment, NASA has identified about five near-Earth objects that pose better than a 1-in-a-million risk of hitting Earth and being big enough to cause serious damage, Johnson said. That number changes from time to time, as new asteroids are added and old ones are removed as information is gathered on their orbits.
The space rocks astronomers are keeping a closest eye on are a 430-foot diameter object that has a 1-in-3,000 chance of hitting Earth in 2048 and a much-talked about asteroid, Apophis, which is twice that size and has a one-in-43,000 chance of hitting in 2036, 2037 or 2069.
Last month, NASA started a new Web site for the public to learn about threatening near-Earth objects.
---
On the Net:
NASA's near-Earth object site: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch
 
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.
 
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.
However National Defense is one of the enumerated powers of a Federal Government, and your argument is fallacious. Do you know the history of national park creation?
 
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.

Make a nonprofit space coop to compete with the private X-Prize space people.
 
However National Defense is one of the enumerated powers of a Federal Government, and your argument is fallacious. Do you know the history of national park creation?

Is NASA administered from the pentagon?

Why can't we use the same logical leap to say healthcare is a national security issue?
 
Is NASA administered from the pentagon?

Why can't we use the same logical leap to say healthcare is a national security issue?
You might, but you must tie it in as the SCOTUS did upon creation of the first national parks. However convoluted the argument, National Parks were deemed a portion of that power. And protecting the nation from and through espionage as well as from non-human threats from space is not a stretch into National Security.
 
You might, but you must tie it in as the SCOTUS did upon creation of the first national parks. However convoluted the argument, National Parks were deemed a portion of that power. And protecting the nation from and through espionage as well as from non-human threats from space is not a stretch into National Security.

One could make the case that having your citizenry alive is more directly related to national security than national parks are.
 
One could make the case that having your citizenry alive is more directly related to national security than national parks are.
One could, I suspect that when this goes before the SCOTUS they may even do that. However I think the argument could be made that is why we pay for the health insurance of the military, giving some incentive for enlistment.

It's at least as convoluted and confused as the National Park ruling.

However NASA is directly an issue of National Security, hidden not at all. One may argue that the research they do might not fit, but certainly the satellites they service and put into orbit that are directly run by the military are directly national security.
 
One could, I suspect that when this goes before the SCOTUS they may even do that. However I think the argument could be made that is why we pay for the health insurance of the military, giving some incentive for enlistment.

It's at least as convoluted and confused as the National Park ruling.

However NASA is directly an issue of National Security, hidden not at all. One may argue that the research they do might not fit, but certainly the satellites they service and put into orbit that are directly run by the military are directly national security.

NASA isn't strictly about national security anything. Sending probes to Mars surely falls outside of the national security umbrella. Launching satellites is something the military could do if they wished, and it would be administered from the Pentagon if that's what it was truly about.
 
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded.
 
NASA isn't strictly about national security anything. Sending probes to Mars surely falls outside of the national security umbrella. Launching satellites is something the military could do if they wished, and it would be administered from the Pentagon if that's what it was truly about.
As I said, one could argue that the research they do might be out of that directive (I think they'd be wrong, advances in the technology we use is a national security issue), but the reality is NASA itself is very obviously a use of National Security, one of the enumerated rights of the Feds...
 
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded.
The question is which of the enumerated powers it falls under. If you can, however convolutedly, get the SCOTUS to agree with you then you would be correct. However it is a stretch to put it under national security.

They are tasked with the General Welfare, but they are given specific powers to fulfill that task all other powers are either rights of the states or of the individual. The individual is guaranteed more rights in Amendment 9, but the government doesn't get magical powers in any of the Amendments, and Amendment 10 is pretty clear.
 
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.

Putting aside the fact that numerous conservatives have historically criticized NASA as a massive waste of money and an unconstitutional departure from the enumerated powers of the federal government, I must express shock if your view of NASA is not tongue-in-cheek. Liberals have traditionally been supportive of NASA, with only the most die-hard economic leftists making an argument that the money would be better spent to feed the homeless, clothe the needy, make larger tomatos, etc.
 
Putting aside the fact that numerous conservatives have historically criticized NASA as a massive waste of money and an unconstitutional departure from the enumerated powers of the federal government, I must express shock if your view of NASA is not tongue-in-cheek. Liberals have traditionally been supportive of NASA, with only the most die-hard economic leftists making an argument that the money would be better spent to feed the homeless, clothe the needy, make larger tomatos, etc.
It is difficult to ignore that other nations build spy satellites, as well as spy-killers, other types of weaponized satellites, and even non-human threats from space, all of these make it clearly a part of national security. Even the research can be used as cover to release satellites, to add military capability. It would be foolish to ignore any threats from space, human or natural.
 
It is difficult to ignore that other nations build spy satellites, as well as spy-killers, other types of weaponized satellites, and even non-human threats from space, make it clearly a part of national security.

If you say so. That is your opinion, and it is one not shared by myself or numerous other conservatives.

How can you have any credibility to criticize the illegal expansion of the federal government's original powers if you selectively pick and choose what to be outraged about?

Is funding NASA a good idea in terms of national security and technology investment? Probably. But that's not the point. It is not a legitimate function of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution.
 
If you say so. That is your opinion, and it is one not shared by myself or numerous other conservatives.

How can you have any credibility to criticize the illegal expansion of the federal government's original powers if you selectively pick and choose what to be outraged about?

Is funding NASA a good idea in terms of national security and technology investment? Probably. But that's not the point. It is not a legitimate function of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution.
Something as direct as this doesn't even compare to "other" expansion. And of course it is my opinion. It would be foolish to ignore threats from space, especially human threats. National Security is definitely one of the original powers outlined in the constitution.
 
Agree to disagree. I respect your position even if it isn't consistent.
How could it possibly not be consistent? National Security is one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. It's silly to continue to pretend that it isn't or that it is "inconsistent" to state so.
 
It is an unintended expansion of that power in the way that the Eisenhower interstate system was. Both have pretty inarguably turned out well for America, but that does not negate the fact that these were not roles that the Founding Fathers proscribed for the federal government. They are at best distant cousins of national security.
 
I would think that the general welfare cause allowed the interstate system?

It would have great military usage during an invasion, but that was definitely just a afterthought to the massive domestic benefits of the system.
 
Back
Top