From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: comet approaching?
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:32:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

Graham Knopp writes:

>> Should something be done about the situation?  Well, the astronomers have
>> done their job by calculating probabilities to the best of our limited
>> knowledge.  Now it's up to politicians to decide priorities.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	I heartly disagree.  We may be only astronomers, but all
>	scientists are human and moral (immoral?) creatures, and 
>	must not avoid making judgements concerning what research
>	is done and  what is done with the knowledge we obtain.
>
>	It is this perception of science as amoral that has created
>	a multitude of problems, and is undoubtedly partially responsible
>	for the cold war arms race.  Or at least the refusal to take
>	responsibility for one's actions is at fault.
>
>	Besides, I would rather not trust a politician with my money.
> 
>	Specifically, I believe such an asteroid impact defense system
>	is at present a poor expenditure.  We have larger and
>	more pressing problems to deal with.

When I said that it was up to the politicians to decide priorities, I
meant that they are the ones who vote on appropriations bills.  Astronomers
cannot decide for themselves what to spend money on, at least not on this
level.  We can lobby, but ultimately it is the politicians who will make
the decision.  The only way to circumvent the politicians is to rely on
private sources of funding, and we're unlikely to find that much private
money available.

Your last paragraph doesn't address the whole issue.  There are two different
parts to the matter.  The first deals with finding objects in Earth
approaching orbits.  The second deals with the defensive system needed if
an object is found to be on a collision course.  The first part is
relatively inexpensive; the second is not.  The asteroid specialists have
taken the position that only the first part be carried out at this time.  If
no object is found to be on a collision course, then the second part becomes
irrelevant.  If, on the other hand, an object is found to be on a collision
course, then I would imagine that there would be global agreement that a
defensive system be implemented in time to remove the threat.  The only
problem is that astronomers cannot guarantee 100 percent completeness in
any search for objects in Earth approaching orbits; a specific problem
involves long period comets.  As a result, the weapons specialists feel 
that a system must be in place to deal with objects for which there is
little advance warning.  The probability of having too little advance
warning to develop a defensive system after the discovery is very small,
of course, but not non-zero.  Is it large enough to worry about (make that
large enough to justify funding)?  You obviously don't think so, and most
astronomers feel the same way, but ultimately the decision won't be made
by astronomers.  It is the politicians who decide the priority.  So you can
either lobby or run for office, if you want to have some influence on the
decision.
Newsgroups: sci.astro