NEWS RELEASES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2007
Sandia Supercomputers Offer New Explanation of Tunguska Disaster:
Smaller asteroids may pose greater danger than previously believed
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The stunning amount of forest devastation at Tunguska a century ago in Siberia may have been caused by an asteroid only a fraction as large as previously published estimates, Sandia National Laboratories supercomputer simulations suggest.
“The asteroid that caused the extensive damage was much smaller than we had thought,” says Sandia principal investigator Mark Boslough of the impact that occurred June 30, 1908. “That such a small object can do this kind of destruction suggests that smaller asteroids are something to consider. Their smaller size indicates such collisions are not as improbable as we had believed.” Because smaller asteroids approach Earth statistically more frequently than larger ones, he says, “We should be making more efforts at detecting the smaller ones than we have till now.”INCINERATION POSSIBLE - Fine points of the "fireball" that might be expected from an asteroid exploding in Earth's atmosphere are indicated in a supercomputer simulation devised by a team led by Sandia researcher Mark Boslough. (Photo by Randy Montoya )
“Our understanding was oversimplified,” says Boslough, “We no longer have to make the same simplifying assumptions, because present-day supercomputers allow us to do things with high resolution in 3-D. Everything gets clearer as you look at things with more refined tools.”
Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory.
The new interpretation also accounts for the fact that winds were amplified above ridgelines where trees tended to be blown down, and that the forest at the time of the explosion, according to foresters, was not healthy. Thus previous scientific estimates had overstated the devastation caused by the asteroid, since topographic and ecologic factors contributing to the result had not been taken into account.
Movie 1
Movie 4
Movie 2
Movie 3
Movie 4
Movie 5
Movie 6
Movie 7
Movie 8
If Soros was a rightwing billionaire, his efforts and intervention in this matter would no doubt be scrutinized by the American media and held up as an egregious example of capitalism run amok and of undue Western interference in the affairs of another country.
But Soros is a primary funder of the American Left, and as such his activities get little scrutiny from a politically sympathetic American media. That's a shame. Because the shutdown of Gabriel Resources' mining project in Rosia Montana, Romania, means an immediate loss of hundreds of jobs and a long-term loss of perhaps thousands of jobs created at the mine and spillover economic growth in the impoverished region.
It also means that the existing shuttered mine, an open pit of environmental waste that continues to befoul the region, will not be cleaned up any time soon.
The people of the Rosia Montana region have witnessed the execution of their economic future. The fingerprints of George Soros are all over the gun, but the American media looks the other way.
"As we will hear from our witnesses, much progress has been made in detecting and cataloging the largest NEOs over the last decade. However--as we will also hear--much more remains to be done.
In particular, we need to survey potentially hazardous asteroids that are smaller than the ones cataloged to date, but which could do significant damage if they impact or explode above the Earth's surface near populated areas. That is why Congress directed NASA to "plan, develop, and implement" a NEO survey program for objects as small as 140 meters in size in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
As a result, I'm disappointed and concerned that NASA's report to Congress failed to provide a recommended option and budget plan for such a survey, as directed by the Act. In fact, the report says NASA has no plans to do anything beyond the current Spaceguard program at this time. (my emphasis-ed.)
Equally troubling, one of the NASA witnesses will testify that "NASA would be pleased to implement a more aggressive NEO program if so directed by the President and Congress,"--with the implication that Congress has not yet done so. I think Sec. 321 of the NASA Authorization Act, which I quoted earlier, is unambiguous--Congress has in fact directed NASA to "plan, develop, and implement" such a program. And we would hope that the President would send over a NASA budget request that reflects that congressional direction.
Today, I want to focus on where we go from here. Given the lack of a clear plan in NASA's report to Congress, I hope that our witnesses today will be able provide some guidance to this Committee on the best and most cost-effective path forward for meeting the goal of surveying NEOs down to 140 meters in size."
Fourth, surveying NEOs is just part of the task. If we find one that it is headed towards Earth, we will need to have good options for deflecting it. What priority should be given to developing deflection technologies versus NEO survey systems in the coming years?
According to Director Michael Griffin, NASA does not have the funds to carry out a more extensive program. There have been suggestions that NASA and the National Science Foundation should cooperate to fund the construction of a new ground-based telescope to perform tracking functions of Near Earth Objects and other astronomy surveys. I do not think we need to take on such a burden, as there is still a great deal of information to be gained by utilizing the unique capabilities of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. As the world's largest and most powerful radio telescope, the Arecibo Observatory is essential to monitoring and surveying Near Earth Objects. However, the National Science Foundation has threatened to close the Observatory in 2011 and NASA has so far been unwilling to assume funding of the radar required for tracking NEOs. Closing the Observatory will severely limit our ability to quickly and accurately refine the orbits of newly emerging threats, and reduce our monitoring capabilities.
This is why I have introduced HR 3737, which directs the National Science Foundation and NASA to work together to ensure continued full funding of the Arecibo Observatory and in particular, the radar. It is my recommendation that these agencies start working collaboratively and reconsider how they allocate their funding.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Feeney, the Arecibo Observatory's radar is the world's most powerful instrument for post-discovery characterization and orbital refinement of near Earth asteroids. The observations performed with the radar are critical for identifying asteroids that might be on a collision course with Earth. I respectfully urge the committee to consider continuing the important work performed by the Arecibo Observatory and consider, as well, HR 3737 as one potential solution to this challenge. The unique capabilities of radar are critically important as we work towards fulfilling the 2005 congressional mandate of detecting and characterizing 90% of near Earth Objects down to 140 meters in diameter.
"Since the program's inception in 1998, NASA has funded over $30M in NEO search efforts using funds from the Science Mission Directorate's Research and Analysis program. To date, these efforts have found the vast majority of the 724 one-kilometer Near Earth Asteroids and 64 Earth approaching comets now known, as well as the 4,128 known smaller NEOs. At the current discovery rate, we will have found about 50 more NEOs larger than one kilometer by the end of 2008, bringing us very close to achieving our 90% goal, measured against the current estimate of about 940 total one-kilometer objects. This work has retired the majority of the risk that Earth could be struck by a large asteroid in the foreseeable future."
No significant NEO detection efforts are currently conducted by the international community. Less than 2% of NEOs detected in the last ten years were found by systems other than those funded by NASA.
Currently, spacecraft missions do not contribute to the detection of NEOs. However, space missions do provide the most significant and detailed information on what we know about the character and composition of them. NASA Discovery missions such as the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR), Stardust, Deep Impact, and the Japanese Hyabusa mission have contributed important information to our understanding of the origin of comets and asteroids, providing insight on their evolution into the inner Solar System near the Earth, their structure and physical properties, and their composition. The recently launched Dawn mission will travel to the two largest objects in the Main Belt of Asteroids - Vesta and the dwarf planet Ceres. This area of the Solar System has been shown to be the region of origin for most of the objects that now are near Earth, and the Dawn mission will tell us many things about their nature. Other significant contributions by spacecraft include studies by the Hubble Space Telescope, Spitzer, Galileo, and other asteroid and comet flybys performed by several Solar System exploration missions.
Not only are these data important to the development of concepts to deal with any impact threat an NEO may pose, but they are also critical to an understanding of the nature NEOs for possible destinations and resources in our future exploration of the Solar System.
While NASA does not have any formal responsibility for the task of mitigation, scientific missions such as Deep Impact and the current Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres provide information that may be critical to planning an asteroid deflection. Likewise, many of the systems and technologies that are being developed for exploration missions are directly applicable to mitigation missions. These capabilities are the hallmarks of a robust, space-faring nation.
Will NASA's current NEO program satisfy the requirement established in Sec. 321(d)(1) of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, and if not, what is NASA's plan for satisfying that requirement?
Although the current systems funded by NASA are capable of detecting objects smaller than one kilometer in size, the objects must come significantly closer to the Earth than a one kilometer object needs to in order to be detected. It would take timescales much longer than 15 years to observe 90% of these objects with the systems we currently use.
As outlined in the report NASA submitted to Congress on March 7, 2007, pursuant to direction in section 321 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), the Agency recommended that the current survey program, funded at approximately $4M annually, be continued. In addition, NASA indicated that the Agency would look for opportunities using potential dual-use telescopes and spacecraft--and to partner with other agencies as feasible--to attempt to achieve the legislated goal within 15 years. Several alternatives as to how this might be accomplished were presented and analyzed in the March 7 report. However, due to current budget constraints, it is not possible for NASA to initiate a new program. The costs for the alternative programs ranged from $470M to in excess of $1.0B over 10 to 19 years, depending on how aggressive of a timeline would be pursued.
The current NASA NEO "Spaceguard Survey" program, without any augmentation, would not be able to satisfy the requirements outlined in section 321(d)(1) of the NASA Authorization Act for 2005. The requirements for the Spaceguard Survey program are to find only NEOs greater than 1 kilometer in diameter, and its funding is currently budgeted at $4.1 million per year. NASA estimates that the current program, if continued without major augmentation, would detect 14 percent of the 140 meters or larger potentially hazardous objects by the end of 2020. However, NASA is initiating plans to use other survey systems to increase the survey's detection sensitivity and rates. For example, NASA has begun providing funds to the Air Force Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS) project so that it will be capable of providing data on NEO detections after it starts operations on its first telescope in the next year. If the Air Force continues to fund this project to its intended four telescope configuration by 2010, this system alone could discover over 70 percent of the potentially hazardous objects larger than 140 meters by 2020.
NASA recommended that the existing "Spaceguard Survey" program continue as currently planned, and that NASA would also take advantage of opportunities using potential dual-use telescopes and spacecraft--and partner with other agencies as feasible--to make progress toward achieving the legislative goal of discovering 90 percent of all potentially hazardous objects 140 meters and greater.
NASA would be pleased to implement a more aggressive NEO program, if so directed by the President and Congress. However, given the constrained resources and strategic objectives the Agency has already been tasked with, NASA cannot place a new NEO program above current scientific and exploration missions.
As noted, the current NASA NEO goal is focused upon the discovery and tracking of objects one kilometer in diameter and larger. It is not realistic to expect the current survey program, with its modestly sized telescopes, to efficiently find the 140 meter-sized objects that are nearly 50 times fainter compared to a one kilometer-sized object at the same distance and with the same reflectivity. Because all PHAs do eventually come very close to the Earth, the current ongoing surveys could complete the goal outlined in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act but it would likely take over a century to do so. We cannot afford to wait that long.
In the report to Congress requested by the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, several options were outlined, both ground-based and space-based, that could meet the goal of finding 90% of the PHAs larger than 140 meters by the end of 2020. For example, a one-meter aperture infrared telescope in a heliocentric orbit near Venus could do the job three years early. Within this report, NASA noted that it did not have the resources to carry out a survey option that would meet the 2020 deadline set by the 2005 Act and that, in an attempt to achieve the legislative goal by the end of 2020, it would seek to continue the current survey programs and look for opportunities to use dual use telescope facilities and spacecraft along with partnering with other agencies as feasible.
What Should be Done in the Event of an identified NEO Threat? A number of existing technologies can deflect an Earth threatening asteroid - if there is time. The primary goal of the PHA survey programs is to discover them early and provide the necessary time. An asteroid that is predicted to hit Earth might require a change in its velocity of only 3 millimeters per second if this impulse were applied twenty years in advance of the impact. The key to a successful deflection is having sufficient time to carry it out, whether it is the slow, gentle drag of a gravity tractor or a more impulsive shove from an impacting spacecraft or explosive device. In either case, a verification process would be required to ensure the deflection maneuver was successful and to ensure the object's subsequent motion would not put it on yet another Earth impacting trajectory. While suitable deflection technologies exist, none of them can be effective if we are taken by surprise. It is the aggressive survey efforts and robust planetary radars that must ensure that the vast majority of potentially hazardous objects are discovered and tracked well in advance of any Earth threatening encounters. The first three steps in any asteroid mitigation process are: Find them early, find them early, and find them early!
I make my Pesto by blending fresh basil, garlic cloves, pine nuts, olive oil and season with lemon, salt and pepper.
We've been going back on the forth on the whole 2006 Houston Draft Day saga, as I still believe the guy on the left in this picture was the best pick, but these Texans fans are consistent in defending the pick and fully expect to see it redeemed. I fully expect to watch Lendale "Bowling Ball" White pick up some serious yards in this game as the Texans run defense is allowing ridiculous numbers. Let's hope all Vince has to do is hand the ball off to Lendale all day, as the last thing this team needs is for Vince to further injure his quad. Kudos to the Titans defense this year as they've played beyond anyones expectations. Should be a good game.
Saturn's Moon Iapetus is the Yin-and-Yang of the Solar System
Scientists on the Cassini mission to Saturn are poring through hundreds of images returned from the Sept. 10 flyby of Saturn's two-toned moon Iapetus. Pictures returned late Tuesday and early Wednesday show the moon's yin and yang -- a white hemisphere resembling snow, and the other as black as tar.
+ View News Release
+ View Flyby Page
+ More on Iapetus
You're going to have to explain to me how buying free trade coffee and eating less meat stands in the way of progress.
Also, I don't see you with malaria or starving.
Nobody expects someone who is bedridden to be concerned with polluting less. However, seems to me someone who reaps the benefits of capitalistic exploitation and whose country is a leader in gluttony and waste would do good to consider ways to make the situation better.
That means doing what's best for people and the planet (the only place in the vast universe with what we call life). The "hippies" don't have it all wrong, Tim.
-"Mine Your Own Business, a film produced by New Bera Media in association with the Moving Picture Institute, looks at the dark side of environmentalism. It talks to some of the world's poorest people about how western environmentalists are campaigning to keep them in poverty because they think their way of life is quaint. It is the first documentary to ask hard questions of the environmental movement. "Mine Your Own Business" goes beyond the voice of the foreign environmentalists that we so often hear in the media and meets those who will be most affected by these projects and the well-run campaigns against them.
"Mine Your Own Business" follows George, a 23-year-old unemployed miner from northern Romania whose life has been put on hold after an anti-mining campaign orchestrated by foreign environmentalists. George explains his hopes and dreams for the future - which are different from those prescribed for him by foreign environmentalists. He then travels to other impoverished communities in Madagascar and Chile who are also desperately waiting for large mining projects. George finds people similar to himself with similar hopes and dreams of a decent job and house and a decent education and better life for their children.
"Mine Your Own Business" will be hugely controversial as it makes us all think about the unintended consequences of blindly supporting environmentalist/anti-development campaigns across the globe. It is a challenge to the cosy consensus that allows westerners to deny progress to those who need it most.
Opponents of the mine claim that Rosia Montana residents agree with their stance. "Local opposition to the mine is strong and organized" says a statement signed by 80 environmental groups in January. In his letter, Mr. Soros cites a recent poll organized by some members of Romania's parliament that "found 90% of respondents rejecting the project." But the poll turns out to be an unscientific Internet survey, and one of the environmental groups Mr. Soros funds urged people outside Romania to participate in it. What is clear: Two-thirds of Rosia Montana's people have accepted Gabriel's voluntary offer to buy their homes at above market rates. Most will move four miles away to a less polluted area.
On the other side, Rosia Montana Mayor Virgil Narita supports the mine because it will create 700 permanent local jobs. He was re-elected with 80% of the vote this year. And in late 2004, the Council of Europe sent Eddie O'Hara, a British Labour Party member of the European Parliament, to Rosia Montana to file an official report. Opposition to the mine, he said, was "substantial," but it was "very much fueled by outside bodies, presumably well-meaning but possibly counterproductively. It seems in part at least exaggerated." Mr. O'Hara concluded the opposition "do not take account of modern mining techniques and in fact the Rosia Montana project will help to clear up existing pollution." He also warned that not allowing the mine "would remove any chance of local development for some time."
Perhaps local unemployed miner Gheorghe Lucian says it best: "People have no food to eat. . . . I know what I need--a job." Mr. Soros's Romanian Open Society Foundation is touting "alternative economic activities such as organic agriculture and eco-tourism," unrealistic at best. Stefania Simon, legal counsel for the anti-mine group Alburnus Maior, has no answer for Mr. Lucian. "Unemployment is a problem, but it will not be solved by mining," she told Britain's Guardian newspaper. Noting that Gabriel has only a 17-year lease to mine, she says, "This is a solution for the short term." But right now, even non-permanent jobs and any cleanup of the existing pollution looks like a good deal to people like Mr. Lucian.
"I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq. She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor. The thing that stood out about her, though, wasn't her strange uniform but the fact that nearly half her face was severely scarred. Or, rather, it had more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head. She was always alone, and I never saw her talk to anyone. Members of my platoon had seen her before but had never really acknowledged her. Then, on one especially crowded day in the chow hall, she sat down next to us.
We were already halfway through our meals when she arrived. After a minute or two of eating in silence, one of my friends stabbed his spoon violently into his pile of mashed potatoes and left it there.
"Man, I can't eat like this," he said.
"Like what?" I said. "Chow hall food getting to you?"
"No--with that f**king freak behind us!" he exclaimed, loud enough for not only her to hear us, but everyone at the surrounding tables. I looked over at the woman, and she was intently staring into each forkful of food before it entered her half-melted mouth.
"Are you kidding? I think she's f**king hot!" I blurted out.
"What?" said my friend, half-smiling.
"Yeah man," I continued. "I love chicks that have been intimate--with IEDs. It really turns me on--melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses ... ."
"You're crazy, man!" my friend said, doubling over with laughter. I took it as my cue to continue.
"In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? IED Babes.' We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles."
My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing. The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall, her half-finished tray of food nearly falling to the ground."
Beauchamp Investigation Concluded
After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been
"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"
The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.
Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID, in the absence of Major Kirk Luedeke, remarked that despite the high level of attention this case received in the American media, soldiers at the 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div, a "surge" Brigade, have not been distracted from their missions.
"University of Colorado Ethnic Studies Professor Ward Churchill was fired this week after the university's Board of Regents approved my recommendation to dismiss him for academic fraud.....The University of Colorado's reputation was called into question in the matter of Ward Churchill. His claim that he was singled out for his free speech is a smokescreen.
Controversy -- especially self-sought controversy -- doesn't immunize a faculty member from adhering to professional standards. If you are a responsible faculty member, you don't falsify research, you don't plagiarize the work of others, you don't fabricate historical events and you don't thumb your nose at the standards of the profession. More than 20 of Mr. Churchill's faculty peers from Colorado and other universities found that he committed those acts. That's what got him fired.
Even great universities have problems. Places with thousands of faculty and tens of thousands of mostly young students are not immune to trouble. But a university's reputation will only be strengthened when it works to ensure that it remains accountable to those it serves."
The strategy for race, as I’ve noted a hundred times, is to continue the work of demystifying the concept. The science we knew to be faulty after, say, 1936. But we’ve kept the program of “race” alive for various social reasons over the years — beginning with bigoted ones aimed at discriminating against blacks, and continuing on to those that now privilege certain protected “races” and identity groups over others, even as the decision on how we choose which “races” are in need of special dispensation seems random. Asians, for instance, aren’t granted minority status for purposes of race-based affirmative action — and yet the Chinese were used as indentured servants to build railroads. And the Japanese were in camps at about the same time that middle class blacks were beginning to thrive up north — and Jews were being shoved into ovens overseas......
My contention is — much like John Roberts’ — has been, for over a decaded now, that the way to end an overdetermination on race is, first, to get the government out of the business of (to borrow a certain professor’s formulation) “legitimizing” it.
It’s a hard habit to break, sure — particularly for those who might feel guilty about their successes. But as far as I’m concerned, it is the best strategy toward achieving a truly color-blind society, as well as one committed to the equality of the sexes (in terms of opportunity).
Again, nothing I’m proposing would do away with anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, what I’m calling for is an equal application of anti-discrimination laws — and for the Supreme Court to stop pretending that they are a set of philosopher kings who can decide how to shape social policy by lending credence to anti-liberal ideas like “diversity” as it is currently practiced.
It’s simple, really. Read the Constitution. Go from there.
