Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i found this article interesting.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/?p=153&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed& amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverMag+%28Discover+M
agazine%29&utm_content=Google+International#.USDxnqWPEtE

do you find the disparity in funding appropriate, or do you think funding should be reallocated? are the priorities correct here?

I think even without the fear of NEO impacts the defense budget is overinflated. But this kind of early detection (and, it is to be hoped with time, possible deflection) research should be under the umbrella of national defense.

I think if we cut 10 billion dollars from funding lasers, sonic cannons, and other scifi-esque weapons and reallocated that money to NASA's current detection efforts, we'd see some real results without really losing an edge over other militaries.

our lack of priority in asteroid defense could make earth the universal darwin awards winner

While the number of terrorist attacks that happens is low the number of destructive meteor impact is even lower.

i hope you're being felicitous

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i hope you're being felicitous

I absolutely consider my words felicitous.

hehe typos rule

well my phone's auto-correct may be on your side but not i.

"facetious"

Dangerous meteor impacts are vastly less common than terrorist attacks. The typical result of meteor impacts is also vastly lower than terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The typical result of meteor impacts is also vastly lower than terrorist attacks.

yes, terrorists have eradicated terrestrial life on a planetary scale more than meteors.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
yes, terrorists have eradicated terrestrial life on a planetary scale more than meteors.

No meteor has ever managed to wipe out humanity or its ancestors.
No meteor has managed to wipe out anything larger than a city block or so in the last 60 million years.

The problem with the argument that because a meteor might wipe us out and thus we should put effort into defending ourselves from it is that there are an endless number of ridiculously unlikely things that might wipe us out. If we accepted that argument we'd have to spend all of our money doing nothing but saving ourselves from things that aren't going to happen (and which we can do nothing about).

it has happened multiple times. to declare "since it hasn't happened in our own greatly marginalized scope of time, we're safe" is about as asinine as declaring america safe from islamist terrorism since there hasn't been a successful mass-killing of civilians in america for over 10 years.


well at least we have the ability to spot asteroids and stand a moderate chance of seeing the giant rock that could extinct us all...after which we can all watch as helpless as infants...praying for bruce willis to save us all.

No terrorist has ever caused this amount of damage in history:

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/761893.shtml

And as pointed out, this is just earth.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it has happened multiple times. to declare "since it hasn't happened in our own greatly marginalized scope of time, we're safe"

I didn't say that, though. I said that we can't use the fact that meteor impacts have arbitrarily large potential costs as a complete argument. There's simply no way of getting around the fact that civilization ending meteor impacts are ridiculously uncommon and that has to factor into how we allocate our resources to deal with them.

Should we also spend money finding ways to protect ourselves from the chance that we're in a simulation and God might have a power outage that destroys the universe? The result is actually worse than a civilization ending meteor impact (no chance of anyone surviving) but I'd bet you think its so unlikely we shouldn't spend a lot of money on saving ourselves from it. Its an extreme example, of course, but its purpose is simply to illustrate that probability is a factor.

We're much better off spending money on things that are vastly more common if slightly less disasterous (terrorism, crime in general, disease, almost any other kind of natural disaster).

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well at least we have the ability to spot asteroids and stand a moderate chance of seeing the giant rock that could extinct us all...after which we can all watch as helpless as infants...praying for bruce willis to save us all.

Which goes to the other part of my argument. If we can't defend ourselves from planet destroying events (likely) why should we pour money into looking for them? Its just security theater dressed up with scientific language.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And as pointed out, this is just earth.

I assume we're all living on Earth in which case meteor impacts on other planets are irrelevant to protecting people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't say that, though.


but its exactly what you are saying and continue to say.

you say the chances are slim and you are correct in saying that. ...but the chances are also slim that you will get pancreatic cancer. why bother with screening then?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos




Which goes to the other part of my argument. If we can't defend ourselves from planet destroying events (likely) why should we pour money into looking for them? Its just security theater dressed up with scientific language.



I assume we're all living on Earth in which case meteor impacts on other planets are irrelevant to protecting people.

No spending money on detection would allow people to relocate at times of projected strikes.

Not if you have an understanding of how the small and cosmically young surface area of the moon got it's scars or if you understand how the other bodies in our solar system affect directly the trajectories of debris that is in it or drifts into it.

Sym, I don't think anyone disagrees that terrorism is a more pressing and immediate concern than NEOs, but do you really think it's tens of thousands of times more important?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Sym, I don't think anyone disagrees that terrorism is a more pressing and immediate concern than NEOs, but do you really think it's tens of thousands of times more important?

First of all I could almost understand spending a few billion of asteroid countermeasures, that would be expensive, but the article us just about spending money to improve out ability the ability to stare at them helplessly. While that's useful I'd say we're already well within diminishing returns there.

Moreover if we discard unimaginably rare civilization ending meteors we can do absolutely nothing about this most recent meteor drives the point home pretty well. A meteor came down in a populated area and . . . broke some windows. We've had a number of impacts over the last hundred years that could have been dramatic and weren't. I think people tend to think "what if it hit here?" and forget that the vast majority of places an object might hit are not really going to affect humans.

From a cost-benefit standpoint we have two types events to spend money on between terrorism and meteors: One happens frequently around the world, often causes harm to people, and can be prevented. The second almost never happens, rarely harms people when it does, and can't be prevented.

I'd say yes, terrorism is worth spending thousands of times more on than near earth objects.

Secondly, Homeland Security does more than just "stop terrorism" so that budget figure is misleading if you're thinking of it as representing the amount of money spent on terrorism. Its not easy for me to estimate what fraction of their budget goes to that but its worth noting that in 2013 they asked for $6 billion in disaster relief funding. Were a deadly asteroid to be spotted headed for the US that disaster relief is the most relevant thing we have available. Knowing very roughly when and where it will hit is not all that helpful.

I was going to add a third point, that asteroid impacts are an international issue and are probably being searched for internationally, but that doesn't actually seem to be true (if you go to wikipedia they have graphs of NEO detection systems, all the named ones are part of NASA and the unnamed ones are very small). For whatever reason the world has decided to make asteroids an American problem. So the few million dollars that NASA spends on asteroid detection are effectively the whole world's budget for the issue, which might be a reason for concern. Certainly it means that we, as a species, can easily afford to do much better detecting NEOs.

Of course, those same graphs show that the new Catalina system is extremely effective, and we're not just finding new NEOs every year but we're finding more new NEOs every year.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
First of all I could almost understand spending a few billion of asteroid countermeasures, that would be expensive, but the article us just about spending money to improve out ability the ability to stare at them helplessly. While that's useful I'd say we're already well within diminishing returns there.

i agree that mere detection is silly if nothing is devoted to research on deviating dangerous asteroids from an impact course. the logical solution is to invest more in asteroid-defense along with detection. your ultimate solution of just saying "**** it" is purely asinine.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
your ultimate solution of just saying "**** it" is purely asinine.

Who said that was my ultimate solution was to do nothing? My point is that it makes a lot of sense to spend more money on Homeland Security than asteroid detection.

its clearly implied many times.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Which goes to the other part of my argument. If we can't defend ourselves from planet destroying events (likely) why should we pour money into looking for them? Its just security theater dressed up with scientific language.


investment in x & y is necessary

there is little/no investment in 'x'

solution: scrap 'y'

and you keep rehashing your speculation that another species-killing meteor is probably never going to happen.

i suspect pouring tea/coffee must be dangerous work for you.

the hyperbole of "pouring money into _____" implies waste, not just rapidity.

No, it implies an above average rate.

you're just being silly.

D-do you... know what the definition of "pour" is?

"I poured wine into my glass" does not imply that I'm wasting wine.

spelling out a shocked stutter is not only new and edgey, but helps to hammer-home your point.

1 a : to cause to flow in a stream
b : to dispense from a container <poured drinks for everyone>
2: to supply or produce freely or copiously <poured money into the project>
3: to give full expression to : vent <poured out his feelings>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour

None of those three definitions say anything about "wasting" a resource. So... Thank uou for proving my point?

when a government is depicted as "pouring money into" something, it certainly does imply waste. (to say the least. most often it implies blind and reckless stupidity in said waste)

Prove he was making an implication and not just speaking literally?

The literal definition of "to pour" is "to put into at a fast pace". Anything can be an implication, that's how the english language works, but in order for something to be an implication there has to be context to support it . In Sym's case, there's nothing to support the notion that he implied that putting money into meteor detection is a waste, especially when he's outright stated that he doesn't think the program should recieve no money at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

The problem with the argument that because a meteor might wipe us out and thus we should put effort into defending ourselves from it is that there are an endless number of ridiculously unlikely things that might wipe us out. If we accepted that argument we'd have to spend all of our money doing nothing but saving ourselves from things that aren't going to happen (and which we can do nothing about).

its painfully clear he's been implying waste.


Originally posted by Tzeentch._

The literal definition of "to pour" is "to put into at a fast pace". Anything can be an implication, that's how the english language works.

no, thats the single variant definition you cherry picked.

you're being so petty

:edit: maybe i should come back in 15 minutes, or are you done editing?

If 15 minutes would give you enough time to think of a credible point, feel free.

I ask you to prove that he's implying something (because apparently we should ignore what's actually been said in favor of some hidden meaning), and your response to this request to prove that he's implying something is to quote something he said and assert that he's implying something.

It's like me asking you to prove that 2+2=4, and you respond by saying that 2+2 clearly equals 4.

You can't be this dumb. Stop this.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
If 15 minutes would give you enough time to think of a credible point, feel free.

I ask you to prove that he's implying something (because apparently we should ignore what's actually been said in favor of some hidden meaning), and your response to this request to prove that he's implying something is to quote something he said and assert that he's implying something.

It's like me asking you to prove that 2+2=4, and you respond by saying that 2+2 clearly equals 4.

You can't be this dumb. Stop this.

lol ok champ. im not going pretend that i didn't expect you to resort to dodging and insults.

That's funny, I can't say I wasn't expecting you to drop the topic altogether and cry about how mean I am after I destroyed your argument.

i replied and you dodged with utter silliness. wait...i get it. you need the last word and i'm holding you up. go on then...

Because obviously, "he implied that putting money into the program was a waste of money" is proof that he implied that putting money into the program is a waste of money.

Despite the fact that he outright stated that he believes some money should go into the program.

i think if a survey was taken to gather people's opinions of priority the majority would even rank funding of manned mars missions above that of planetary defense.

perhaps we are really too moronic a species to survive.

I know, right?

I was talking to the polat bears last night. Their anti-world-ending-solar flare project is so much more well-funded than ours. And don't even get me started on their anti-man-made-zombie-virus program. God.

We could learn a lot about self-preservation from the polar bears.

right, you already parroted the "although it has happened multiple times it will never happen again" point.

also:


http://whyfiles.org/106asteroid/2.html

one, possibly 2 (recorded) impacts topping the destructive force of our most powerful hydrogen bombs. completely random in a span of 400 years.

oh no you're right. never gonna happen.

You don't think a solar flare or zombie virus could ever happen?

You're too moronic to live

Edit

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You don't think a solar flare or zombie virus could ever happen?

You're too moronic to live

your solution to addressing dangers is brilliant! maybe we should stop pouring money into fire-fighting since we might just as well die in a flood.

right i'm swung to your camp now. the presence of other dangers we may not have the power to evade negates the need to address the ones we have the potential power to evade.

speaking of "evade", nice job.
whats next? a squirting flower? "honk honk"?

I know its brilliant, that's why I said it. Duurrrr

I feel like more money and research would help defend us from terrorists..

I don't think all the money in the world though would prevent us from being bent over and plowed by space if an asteroid the size of Texas decides to broadside us.

Change its trajectory ever so slightly and it will pass right by Earth.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Change its trajectory ever so slightly and it will pass right by Earth.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/armageddon_blu-ray/large/large_armageddon_blu-ray12.jpg

The fact that only 3 million dollars a year gets put towards finding potentially devastating asteroids sledding their way towards earth is pretty amazing, and a bit scary.

Though honestly the argument is a bit of a false choice. There's no reason we can't adequately fight terrorists and search for asteroids that are hell bent on earthly destruction. Surely we can spare more than 3 million dollars a year without hamstringing our ability to kill evil muslims.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I know its brilliant, that's why I said it. Duurrrr

herp derp, etc.

are you going to totally pwn any other discussions by parroting the same fallacy and hurling insults?

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that only 3 million dollars a year gets put towards finding potentially devastating asteroids sledding their way towards earth is pretty amazing, and a bit scary.

That's the budget for one presidential weekend vacation.

its comical

Actually I probably undersold it. According to google, it cost about $180,000 per hour just to operate Air Force One.

budget for filming Armageddon: $140 million
deep impact: 80 million

lol

What's the point in wasting money on detection when the best idea they have for stopping any asteroid colliding with the earth is to paint 1 side of it white.

I wish I was joking.

http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/You-Can-Stop-An-Incoming-Asteroid-By-Pai/53919

With so little research done, are you surprised the best thing 'they've' come up with is a cheap paint job.

what would be so bad and/or ridiculous if the solution was that simple?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
what would be so bad and/or ridiculous if the solution was that simple?

If it would actually work and it's feasible to send Bruce Willis and crew out into space with some industrial paint sprayers, great.

I'm just skeptical, as don't asteroids tumble and spin all over as they're hurdling through space though?

can we really trust bruce willis to not paint giant penises on the asteroids?

Good call, if they're giant, he would undoubtedly be painting them black, which would give us the opposite desired effect.

Originally posted by Robtard
If it would actually work and it's feasible to send Bruce Willis and crew out into space with some industrial paint sprayers, great.

I'm just skeptical, as don't asteroids tumble and spin all over as they're hurdling through space though? Not when Bruce Willis is on one.