[X] My Assistant

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

The Near-Earth Asteroid 99942 Apophis ( former designation 2004 MN4 ) was headline news again this week both in Newspapers & TV news. Observations pointed out that the Asteroid climbed a bit higher on the Torino impact hazard scale ( equivalent cosmic ‘Richter’ scale ) and could hit the Earth ( Southern Hemisphere ) on April 13, 2036 ( a Friday 13th I believe ).

Anyway, Apophis should pass between the Moon & Earth ( distance 250.000 KM ) in April 2029 … an amazing sight visible from Europe!
Interesting to know is the fact that European Space Agency ESA plans a mission to find out if an asteroid could be deflected from its course ( Don Quichote mission: Hidalgo is an impacter & Sancho is the observer probe ). American astronauts LU & LOVE wrote a paper in NATURE about a tug-rocket and NASA is making plans for a mission called ‘ The Son of Deep Impact ‘ … to be continued…



More on the Asteroid at:
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/mission_analysis/asteroid.htm


Philip

[dvandorn]

In re the "good vs. evil" issue -- I think that human nature is basically not to be more attracted to (always subjective) standards of either good OR evil. I think people, by and large, will always take the easiest of the paths they see available to them. If the easiest path is deemed evil, fear of punishment might keep them off of it -- for a while. Depends on how afraid you can make them.

People are also most likely to lose their fear of punishment for "evil" deeds when acting in groups. This "mob mentality" phenomenon (which, by the way, works into most forms of military training) is responsible for more "evil" deeds than individual actions could ever possibly hope to match.

Now, don't get me wrong -- people do hard things. They have done hard things throughout human history, and every day, people do hard things. But they usually do them because doing those hard things are the easiest ways they can think of to accomplish their goals. In fact, a lot of people make things much harder than necessary, simply because they don't see the easier paths as being available to them... or can't admit to believing that any easier path exists at all.

Oh, and as for Bruce's comment that the ability to change an asteroid's trajectory might doom the race rather than save it? I think he's 100% correct. How many military machines, at the brink of losing a war, have implemented scorched-earth policies? It's not only conceivable that a "sore loser" in a conflict would direct an asteroid into a collision course, it's predictable.

What would be a tremendous shame would be if the losing side of a deep-seated conflict (say, an aeons-old religious conflict) were to place an asteroid on a course that would result in an Earth impact some 200 to 300 years hence, and that the resolution of the conflict resulted in the loss of the ability to re-direct this doomsday weapon. A human civilization slowly climbing out of the abyss of such a cataclysmic war would be wiped out by the ghost of the madness they had finally left behind them...

-the other Doug