Well, yes, but the question of what 0.5 $G buys in either case arises. I.e., suppose that amount of money buys a pretty complete assessment of asteroid risk that can be followed up with more $$ on prevention/ mitigation.You then have to figure out how the same amount of money can be spent on earthquake risk assessment and prevention/mitigation.In the case of earthquakes, we probably aren't going to prevent them any time soon, so does the 0.5 $G go into earthquake resistant construction in Haiti, Iran and other quaky places? And how much of the population gets protected for that amount of money?
Quote from: ChileVerde on 02/16/2013 12:55 amWell, yes, but the question of what 0.5 $G buys in either case arises. I.e., suppose that amount of money buys a pretty complete assessment of asteroid risk that can be followed up with more $$ on prevention/ mitigation.You then have to figure out how the same amount of money can be spent on earthquake risk assessment and prevention/mitigation.In the case of earthquakes, we probably aren't going to prevent them any time soon, so does the 0.5 $G go into earthquake resistant construction in Haiti, Iran and other quaky places? And how much of the population gets protected for that amount of money?It's not an easy calculation to make. But with space programs, the costs are immense compared to other things. It's easy to say "we should do this space thing" but forget that the money could have better value somewhere else.
And yet, we don't do it JUST because of an actuarial cost-benefit analysis. Very little of what NASA does would qualify, maybe some of the stuff in aeronautics.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/16/2013 01:57 amAnd yet, we don't do it JUST because of an actuarial cost-benefit analysis. Very little of what NASA does would qualify, maybe some of the stuff in aeronautics.Right. So what?If the result of this incident in Russia is to throw huge amounts of money at something, supposedly to protect human life, when that money could be much better spent on things that will have a real impact on protecting human life, then that would be a waste.
Not from my perspective, since I think the level of funding for NASA is already much too low for what we can afford.
Anybody seriously interested in the issue of searching for asteroids and what to do about deflecting them from hitting Earth can check out this study from 2010:http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12842Free download.
Deep Space Industries, a recently created space exploration company, said countries should be proactive in establishing "a sentry line of spacecraft circling the Earth to intercept and evaluate incoming threats.""The hundreds of people injured in northern Russia show it's time to take action and no longer be passive about these threats," said Rick Tumlinson, chairman of Deep Space Industries.
Let the hearings begin!http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283427-house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-asteroids-that-pose-a-potential-threat-to-earth
The estimated size of the object, prior to entering Earth's atmosphere, has been revised upward from 49 feet (15 meters) to 55 feet (17 meters), and its estimated mass has increased from 7,000 to 10,000 tons.
Metric tons. Ten thousand metric tons.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/news/asteroid20130215.html