C C Net 2002 A P R18


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

C C Net 2002 A P R18

  1. 1. PLEASE NOTE: • Information circulated on the cambridge-conference network is for scholarly use only. The attached text may not be reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the copyright holder. * CCNet ESSAY, 18 April 2002 -------------------------- DREADNOUGHTS, DREADNAUTS & EXCALIBUR-II: SPECIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR OPTIMAL DETECTION OF MAXIMALLY HAZARDOUS NEOs By Drake A. Mitchell, PlanetaryDefence@Netscape.Net "The search strategy should evolve synergistically as knowledge of the NEO population accrues." -- Edward Bowell, Karri Muinonen, 1994, in "Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids" I: THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PARADIGM: FLAIL Current efforts to detect potentially hazardous NEOs depend on ground-based optical telescopes to sample regions of space, primarily cones extending from the Earth towards the Main Belt. These efforts to find asteroids and comets in the many orbits of concern rely on the fact that these NEOs appear to these telescopes to be most brightly illuminated at solar-opposition from the Earth, i.e. in the antisolar direction of the night sky. Thus a searchlight-like zone slowly swings along with the Earth in its perennial orbit of the Sun. This data-collection strategy has yielded an optimization for search-cost and viable political compromise, in the form of the goal proposed to and then mandated by the U.S. Congress, i.e. for NASA to detect 90% of NEOs 1 km and larger within the ten-year period ending in 2008. This strategy, however, does not appear to be globally optimal when time parameters, hazard metrics, true costs, best effort, and alternate strategies are taken into account. We are the inheritors of bad news: God apparently does play dice, terribly sorry about that; but the bad news really must all be collected, and the sooner the better, chin up, chop-chop! The best features of these current survey efforts have been twofold: their inexpensive, highly-probable useful warning for the largest asteroidal
  2. 2. objects; and the consciousness-raising effects on the world population, thanks to the more distinguished of the many discoveries. It is currently estimated that nearly all "extinction-level" NEAs, those with H<15.5 (diameter >2-5km), have been detected [1] - hurrah! However, even with the inclusion of the other known NEOs that are 1km and larger, a rather large ~82% of the risk from "global killers" remains [2]. Worse, according to the results of the latest NEO population model of Morbidelli, Jedicke, and Bottke, the existing program to arrive at the 2008 goal does indeed appear to be doomed, and the best that can be achieved by then - even with an enhanced LINEAR survey focused only on the most hazardous NEOs - would be about 60-70% completion [3]. The beneficial detection feature of the current telescopic surveys degrades rapidly for the vastly more numerous NEAs with diameters near and below the poorly understood threshold for catastrophic global effects [4]. One of the greatest liabilities of the current strategic regime is that known indicators of greatest hazard potential have been so badly neglected that valuable time and strategic focus have been lost. The underutilized leverage of these indicators leaves Earth vulnerable to a tragic loss of warning for the next several predestined NEO impactors, should these predictable and avoidable impact events occur within the next few decades of greatest risk - whether they are "global killers" or of a smaller size that could devastate either civilization or truly Pythonesque "vast tracts of land." So what are the prospects for better strategies? Also included in Morbidelli et al's assessment, the proposed dual-mission NEO/Dark Matter 8m-class Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) familiar to CCNet, which would reach 24th magnitude within 20-second exposures, could be expected to be dramatically more effective than LINEAR [3], especially for smaller NEOs (~90% of 300m NEOs in 10yrs), though probably not towards achieving the 2008 goal on time. Furthermore, despite the heroically artistic attempts to justify this wondrous ground-based telescope by pointing out the disadvantageous limits on integration times for smaller telescopes, and the unprecedented telemetry bandwidth that would be required for a comparable space-based telescope, these arguments appear to suffer from a conflation of the two missions: Dark Matter science could benefit from the unique capability on the ground, and Planetary Defence could indeed benefit from the capacity, but it is not yet clear that the LSST would necessarily offer performance superior to alternate NEO detection technology [5]. Indeed, Morbidelli et al find that a dedicated satellite near Mercury's orbit could be more effective towards the standing 2008 goal, although as is shown in this essay it may be possible to trump even this option. SwRI's SWUIS ultraviolet telescope, with 30 times the field-of-view of the Hubble, demonstrated utility for observing targets inside the Earth's orbit: it delivered 400,000 post-perihelion images of Comet Hale-Bopp onboard
  3. 3. STS-85 (Aug97) when the comet was lost to other telescopes because of the Sun, and it searched for Vulcanoid asteroids within Mercury's orbit onboard STS-93 (Jul99) [6]. A third flight was planned for the side-hatch window-mounted telescope's spectrograph. Deployment onboard the ISS is an unverified theoretical possibility that could both educate and occupy forthcoming celebrity space tourists in need of baby-sitting. This could also raise consciousness on the ground about the urgency of space-based detection of "blind spot" NEOs, and perhaps even increase sales of astronomy paraphernalia to the swelling ranks of amateurs. More promising than SWUIS, Canada's proposed Near-Earth Space Surveillance (NESS) dual-mission micro-satellite builds on its Microvariability and Oscillations of Stars (MOST) imaging telescope for stellar photometry, the latter due for launch in 2003. The NESS telescope would reach 19th magnitude within 600- second tracking exposures in a 50kg package in "dawn/dusk" sun-synchronous orbit, detecting the neglected asteroids and comets that are problematic from the ground due to the Earth's several blind-spots [22] to within Mercury's 0.387 AU orbit (20-45 degrees to the Sun) and also collecting follow-up astrometry, and possibly polarimetry and eight-color photometry [7]. Additionally it will demonstrate the tracking of higher Earth-orbit satellites for NORAD, all for ~$5M with shared launch, a possible historically unprecedented price-point in the aerospace industry. Even more promising is the work by Tedesco, Muinonen, Price and Egan that NESS is based on, which showed from the Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) that Earth-orbit observations to 8th magnitude in the infra-red could detect 500m NEOs close to the Sun (25 degrees) out to 2 AU, which if performed just twice a month could find 90% of >500m Atens in 5 years [8]. This standard is better than the currently proposed performance of the Bepi-Columbo optical telescope, which would reach 18th magnitude within ingenious 48-second orbital-synchronous charge-shifted exposures while in polar-orbit about Mercury, aiming to detect >80% of Atens above an unspecified size-limit. Images analyzed onboard would generate point-source telemetry, leaving moving-object detection of potential NEOs to ground-based processing. This could start within 6 years after the proposed launch in 2009, assuming that it takes as long to get there as the currently NEO-useless MESSENGER (two launch windows in 2004, ~5 year low-delta-V transit), and that the telescope is finally included in the reference payload for the next iteration of design exercises [9]. To summarize, LSST, SWUIS, NESS, MSX, and Bepi-Columbo each represent progress in varying degrees. They are all trailblazing increases in telescopic capacity and flexibility. They demonstrate the crucial advantages of space-based NEO observation and/or the ability to target troublesome subpopulations of the NEO hazard. They are all therefore consistent with a greater application of the indicators of greatest NEO hazard potential.
  4. 4. However, none of them represents an attempt at maximal application of these indicators, and as such all of them are products of a suboptimal strategic regime. Therefore, while a decision to reconfigure and enhance the MESSENGER mission is imperative in the current paradigm, it could also be a suboptimal deployment of resources in a new one. II: BUILDING BLOCKS FOR A NEW STRATEGIC PARADIGM: M.O.I.D.'S & MANIFOLDS One key parameter that indicates maximal hazard potential, i.e. a first-order component of NEO threat, is the Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance, MOID, with the Earth. The Earth-MOID of NEOs is an easily determined, relatively stable parameter that changes as an object's orbit changes. It can be initially computed from a one-week arc of optical observations. While this can be done more accurately and one to three orders of magnitude faster, currently available radar assets offer a range limited to Lunar Distances. Abrupt changes in MOID due to close approaches with massive bodies are a fairly rare eventuality on human timescales for the vast majority of NEAs. The Spaceguard Survey Report assumed that most MOIDs will not change by more than a flat 10 Lunar Distances over a few centuries [10]. Still, 1953 EA Quetzalcoatl's perihelion is reported to have changed by "a whopping 7%" in only 60 years due to Jupiter [11], which substantially perturbs NEOs that approach within a 1 AU radius and also has several powerful resonances by itself and in conjunction with 3+body interactions with Mars and Saturn. This Quetzalcoatl data point is even more unnerving when it is compared to the current analytical understanding of this Alinda-class of NEOs in rapidly changing orbits. While "synergic resonances" and "supercrossers" are mentioned in Milani's lucid discussion of Alindas, the time-scales examined in typical solar system integrator experiments are almost geologic, and in the face of decadal-scale transitions share the same consternation that geology suffered in the previous century with regard to the severity of the impact hazard: the shortest time-scale indicated for "rapid" transitions is "a few hundred years", and typically ten millennia [12]. The heavens run amok, damn truly sorry. CCNet participants may recall that the Minor Planet Center's Brian Marsden examined in depth the MOID variations of 1997 X-Ray Foxtrot 11 in his classic discourse [13]. Romania's Berinde presents an analysis of the MOID of 1999 Alpha November 10 with his underappreciated SolSyIn integrator software package (far more interesting than a SETI screen-saver for the PC). Assuming no Earth eccentricity, he shows how the MOID may decrease by an order of magnitude to less than 1 LD within 500 years, while its semimajor axis decreases by more than 1% in the same period, about half of that by
  5. 5. 2050 [14]. He also indicates the object's Lyapunov time of 20-30 years, which means that its motions past a few centuries into the future will remain behind a quasiperpetual fog of chaos, rendering it and similar NEOs a rather interesting bunch; apparently we are somewhat lucky with 1950 District Attorney's 2880 A.D. horizon. Pisa's Bonnano presents an analytical treatment of stealthy MOID variances and applies it to specific NEOs [15]. Ross is building on the truly revolutionary work on manifolds by a Caltech/JPL astrodynamics team, by aiming to investigate the instabilities of typical NEO resonances within the context of an almost surreal labyrinth of enormous mobile tunnels, which permeate the solar system in a gargantuan network that has nodes at the Lagrangian points of massive bodies [16]. Paffenroth's open ODE software on Sourceforge [17] demonstrates how this mathematical paradigm is on the verge of revolutionizing at least four decades of work on NEOs, as it is already doing with libration-point space mission design. Ross will be presenting at the University of Warwick's year-long Geometric Mechanics Symposium while storming the UK and Germany for the next month [18]. Not to be outdone, a celestial mechanics group at the University of Vienna has published investigations on orbital resonances in an outstanding series of books [19], and even a NATO conference recognized the importance of relativistic effects in Marchal's investigation of Einstein's General Relativity applied directly to the context of NEOs (recall Mercury's precession) [20]. Also noteworthy is the CELMEC series of European conferences [21]. At Los Alamos Richard Feynman is said to have described Hans Bethe as a battleship at full steam. Some of the most impressive battleships were known as Dreadnoughts, and we hope that our world's scholars can rise to such a standard, converging, nay aligning, into an unprecedented astrodynamical armada, with artillery pointed in the right directions. Given the pathetic straits of American academia in the last few decades, we can perhaps hope for an increase in scholarships "across the pond" and elsewhere (just ask Christopher J. Lucas, "Crisis in the Academy: Rethinking Higher Education in America"; for the hardcore disbelievers, dig out an old copy of Ernest Boyer's "Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate", which spoon-feeds the ABC's for PhDs and other typical victims of stove-pipe thinking). III: A NEW STRATEGIC PARADIGM: TOROIDS MOIDs and manifolds represent a potential strategic "end run" around many difficult obstacles. This is true in spite of the variations in MOID over decades and centuries to which NEOs are generally subject, and the computationally intensive manifold algorithms. Bamberga, in the darkest,
  6. 6. low-albedo C-class of carbonaceous chondrites, has an albedo of less than 0.05. Also, NEOs in various zones can be badly illuminated for ground-based observations due to poor angles of solar phase or elongation. Thus low albedos and poor illumination merely compound the difficulties with NEOs in orbits with higher angles of inclination and/or greater osculating distances from the Earth. Then we must factor in the many blind spots [22], which also include a lunar zone and a region of galactic latitudes that provides background obscuration due to the high stellar density of our home, the Milky Way [23], which may compound the well-known blind-spot for objects with low apparent motion, perhaps especially for the fraction of NECs that might be KBOs. Additionally, ~16% of NEA's are binary/pairs [24], and perhaps ~50% could be rubble-piles [25], both of which are difficult to detect and even more problematic for defencive strategies. Not to be discounted are the intolerably long completion times of ground-based surveys, which will take decades to get near 99.99% for the "global killers" and 99.9999% for the ~300m "continent busters" even with the LSST, and the already painful bottlenecks from the increasing surge in NEO detections. In spite of this medusan heap of doo-doo, the only potentially hazardous NEOs are the ones with low MOIDs now and in the future. A low value for Earth-MOID is necessary but not sufficient for high hazard potential, because some NEOs are in protective resonances, e.g. orbits in Kozai secular or Toro mean-motion resonances [26], even if these resonances are subject to variability and instability. A long time ago, about half of known PHAs were found to be in these "presonances" [27]. Therefore a strategy designed to focus on the detection of NEOs with only the lowest values of Earth-MOID would efficiently eradicate the vast majority of the current risk exposure that derives from NEAs. Such a strategy could potentially perform much faster than any of the existing or currently proposed schemes of ground-based or space-based telescopes, with a resulting benefit that likewise would not substantially erode for many decades if not centuries. In the parlance of the old Admiralty, back when "shipshape" meant something, it may be time to "change tack." What this species of new search strategy would mean in practice is a short-duration intense-coverage methodology for sampling the relatively minuscule region of space that is determined by a thin torus surrounding the Earth's orbit. The radius of this torus around the Earth's orbit could be 0.05 AU, the present distance for designating an NEA as a Potentially Hazardous Asteroid (PHA), or larger, or smaller. Allowing for Earth's 0.0167 orbital eccentricity, an effective lower-limit for the radius of a perfect torus would be about 0.0134 AU. But this is an arbitrary standard; in astrodynamical practice, a toroidal region that follows the actual curve of Earth's orbit would be substantially equivalent. The main point is that instead of flailing after widely uncooperative targets with ever-more powerful artillery within the enormous spherical volume inside Jupiter's
  7. 7. orbit, say ~600 cubic AU's, we focus instead on say the PHA-radius torus, which has a neat volume of 0.05 cubic AU. This gives us a volumetric leverage factor of at least 10,000. But does this stick in practice? According to the most recent estimates, about 1% of NEOs have an MOID smaller than 1 LD, 0.00256 AU; this would amount to 245 of the newly estimated 24,500 NEOs larger than H<22 (diameter >110-240m), of which about 6 are estimated to have an MOID smaller than the Earth's radius [28]. True, this lower estimate of smaller NEOs is news in itself, and good news at that. However, we must conservatively presume that these six statistically predestined impactors are not in presonances, and that they do not have properties favorable for their detection, e.g. could be highly-inclined long-period under-the-radar 900m, 450m, or 275m carbonaceous Alindas that approach from the dayside Southern Hemisphere in effortless synchrony with the annual seasons of monsoons, typhoons, Sydney hail, McMurdo blizzards, or increased solar flares in a fashion reminiscent of the Coral Sea in WWII [29]. Regarding cycles of sun spots, solar flares, and pulsating expansions of the atmosphere, note that these appear to correlate with a variable ~5% lag in Jupiter's primarily Saturn-modulated perihelion every ~11.86 years (Jupiter's eccentricity is almost three times the Earth's), which should be verifiable in Earth climatological data [30]; we dare current global warming scientists to quantify their components of variance that are Earth-exogeneous. We should also consider the implication that this "hexapocalypse" may only be a starting lineup that rotates every 50-year inning in an ubermatch of cosmic cricket. Why? Not just due to MOID-drift, but also because contrary to some unfathomable "professional" opinions, there has been no announcement of an even temporary suspension of Murphy's Law; isn't it completely irresponsible to assume that the hexapocalyptic roster of PHAs doesn't need to be vetted yesterday? The trespassing traversals of virtually all of the most threatening NEAs, and even some SPCs, all with an MOID within our maximally hazardous toroid ('hazmaroid'?), could in principle be detected within the governing upper limit of one-half of Jupiter's orbital period, nominally 6 years, a dramatically short, very reasonable duration. In other words, all of these most-hazardous low-MOID NEAs have been slipping across the borders of Earth's Donut of Danger mostly undetected at least once every 6 years, just waiting to eat all our future lunches. About 40% of NEOs have orbital periods less than 2 years, 65% <3 yrs, and 88% <4 yrs [31]. Therefore it appears that a donut-based strategy has highly attractive features, but again, does it stick? Consider as well another question: which would you rather have, 70% of all NEAs >1km by 2008, or 90% of all the hazardous NEAs >100m by 2008 and 99% by 2010? Or is this a false choice, in that the synergy of both options may be economically justified?
  8. 8. IV: APPLICATION OF A NEW STRATEGIC PARADIGM A sampling methodology based on this strategy could be implemented quickly and cheaply with relatively short-lived space-based technology that would benefit from a mass-production economy of scale. The total cost of such a program, including microsatellites, launches, and operations, could easily be only a few percent of the total cumulative cost over just the next century of the annualized economic damage represented by the total exposure to the NEO hazard, which "century cost" is currently estimated to be roughly $150B [4]. Almost any sizeable endeavor requires a substantial up-front investment, and in the case of the NEO hazard the returns should generally last the millennium. Virtually irrelevant by any rational measure of other large government programs or largely underestimated government waste, is the cost for proof-of-concept missions like NESS, a veritable hazard-focused drop in the Hubble barrel of luxury. What is sorely needed is a practicing economist to build upon the partial accounting and to quantify the comparative hazard analysis (nuclear safety standards) that was presented in the United Kingdom's NEO Task Force Report of 2000. This observer nominates Molly Macauley, senior fellow and "space economist" at WDC's Resources for the Future, to whip off some simple figures of merit for the field [32]. Inexpensive, "disposable" small satellite technology is already in hand, and merely needs to be deployed as a "necklaced perimeter tripwire" somewhat inside the Earth's orbit, with a sufficient number of units in overlapping ranges to achieve the desired 6-years of quasi-simultaneous coverage all along the Earth's orbit(because the drift rates are relatively small, coverage could be phased in with minor penalty). 10 identical satellites would each have to observe a ~36-degree tube-segment of the Maximally Hazardous Torus, at least 0.628 AU in width. Alternatively, 100 identical smaller satellites would each only have to observe a ~3.6-degree tube-segment, at least 0.0628 AU in width, and could do so from an orbit closer to the Earth's, an important improvement for minimizing delta-V requirements. The optimal number of satellites is a somewhat complex function of the robust semiconductor sensor technologies, economies of scale, novel engineering design solutions (e.g. a superior methodology for post-detection follow-up observations, and a capacity for a wide distribution of NEO angular rates of motion), and the minimum size object to be detected. A potential bonus solution is the possibility of detecting the toroidal 1% of low-MOID small iron NEAs, which are hazardous below 20m in diameter [33] ; just consider the implications of Tedesco et al's results, which are much better than older non-IR estimates of the distribution of detectable range by NEO size (0.05 albedo): 125m within 0.25 AU at VM=22 [34], 100m within 0.1 AU at VM=18 [35], and 10m within 0.01 AU at VM=20
  9. 9. [36]. Residual hazard potentials, e.g. second-order components of the NEO threat deriving from perturbations from close-approaches with planets and minor planets, nongravitational perturbations (outgassing, Yarkovsky, MHD), relativistic effects, resonance transitions, synergic resonances, supercrossers, collisional and tidal-disruption fragmentation events, periodicities in the NEO flux, and the inherent limits on forecasting various orbits far into the future due to the mathematically chaotic nature of the orbits in our solar system (Wisdom & Sussman [37]), can all be addressed by the careful monitoring of NEOs in categories with well-defined parameters. The proposed strategic application could offer additional continuing benefit if the effective lifetime of even a few of the deployed satellites was greater than the nominal span of 6 years, e.g. for comet detection [22] and preliminary NEO recons. Nevertheless, a revolutionary strategy for the detection of the remaining poorly-determined NEO threat-fraction represented by the LPCs continues to represent a significant challenge [38], and remains in the domain of Sir Clarke's original Excalibur proposal [39], perhaps with an apo-ecliptic Kuiper-belt variation that could still be Sol-disk mediated. For the uninitiated, it may serve to recall the standard specified by Niven and Pournelle in "The Mote in God's Eye": worthy civilizations might be the ones that can rake up the debris in their front yard, the remains of the ancient solar hurricane that was the birth of their home. V: CONCLUSION MOIDs and manifold-based algorithms constitute a new paradigm that offers an opportunity of potential strategic transcendence; Planetary Defence may be able to rise above the technical complications plaguing current efforts. Strategic applications of this new "toroidal" paradigm appear to meet practical tests and to offer compelling performance metrics. An application is specified that is basically the difference between calling for artillery fire on very wide-ranging targets, and having perfectly placed snipers; just ask any United States Marine Corps Force Recon sniper [40]. Alternatively, this application can be viewed as laying a sparse, cheap, and disposable line of high-performance "space buoys" along the large circle that is the path of the Earth in her perpetual orbit about the Sun. Upon brief historical study, it is amazing how bureaucracies can melt like butter upon such events as the signing of Presidential Executive Orders [41]. What is key is verifying and developing a proposal such as has been outlined here, to the point that it meets the approval of ranking officers exemplified by General Worden. The NEO gauntlet may now primarily be political, and infinitely easier to run in 2002 than it was before 1998; the
  10. 10. end of considerable interfactional strife is within reach, if the bug-a-boo spectre haunting space-based NEO activities can be blown away. Time appears to be ample for an interdisciplinary team to coalesce before the upcoming conferences in the Fall. From green-light, no substantive reasons are seen by this observer to preclude first launch within 12 months of RDT&E, provided that a decent Quality Assurance program is included from incept date, perhaps 01Jan03. Any weaker goal would be disgraceful to our species; we may yet deserve a Darwinian verdict, Nature's shrug. [1] Bottke, Morbidelli, Jedicke, Petit, Levison, Michel, Metcalfe, "Debiased Orbital and Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Near-Earth Objects" p.38 http://www.obs-nice.fr/michel/Debiased_NEO.pdf [2] Morbidelli et al, November 2001: "We estimate that the Earth should undergo a 1000 megatons collision every 64,000 years. The NEOs discovered so far carry only 18% of this collision probability." http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v33n3/dps2001/134.htm [3] http://www.astropa.unipa.it/Asteroids2001/Abstracts/Posters/morbidelli.doc [4] http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc012602.html [5] http://www.lssto.org/lssto/index.htm http://wwwrc.obs-azur.fr/schmidt/general/NEOsurvey.html http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032601.html http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022801.html http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022301.html http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc052500.html [6] http://www.boulder.swri.edu/swuis/sts93/ [7] http://www.dynacon.ca/ness_paper_2000.pdf http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc101600.html http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc083000.html [8] http://world.std.com/~terra/DPS98/ http://www.astropa.unipa.it/Asteroids2001/Abstracts/Posters/egan.doc Tedesco, E. F., Muinonen, Karri, Price, S. D.: Space-based infrared near-Earth asteroid survey simulation. Planetary and space science 48 (2000): p. 801-816 http://www.helsinki.fi/~muinonen/Public/IRSBSS.pdf [9] http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/br/br165/BEPI.pdf [10] http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/reports/spaceguard/sg_5.html [11] http://www.meteors.com/cgibin/cometlinear/wwwboard/messages/234.html [12] http://copernico.dm.unipi.it/~milani/maratea/node6.html [13] http://freespace.virgin.net/british.interplanetary/marsden.pdf http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc071999.html [14] http://math.ubbcluj.ro/~sberinde/solsyin/examples.html [15] http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00230/bibs/0360001/2300411/sma ll.htm
  11. 11. [16] "Potential Earth-impacting asteroids may utilize the dynamical channels as a pathway to Earth from nearby, seemingly harmless heliocentric orbits which are in resonance with the Earth. The same dynamics which allows us to construct libration point space missions such as the Genesis Discovery Mission, which is on a natural Earth collision orbit, is also the dynamics that could bring unexpected Earth impactors." p.23 http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~shane/papers/report.pdf [17] http://www.cds.caltech.edu/conferences/2002/smd/talks/paffenroth.pdf [18] http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/~mark/symposium/ [19] http://www.astro.univie.ac.at/~dvorak/download/books/book6.html [20] http://www.maths.gcal.ac.uk/natoconf/program.html [21] http://www.mat.uniroma2.it/celmec/abstracts3.html [22] http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032502.html [23] http://www.llnl.gov/planetary/pdfs/Detection/03-Harris.pdf [24] http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/bottke/Abstracts/binary_abs.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/double_asteroids_020411.html [25] http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pub/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1843.pdf [26] http://copernico.dm.unipi.it/~milani/maratea/maratea.html [27] In 1994 about half of known PHA's were in resonances; Gehrels et al, "Hazards due to Comets & Asteroids", p. 179. [28] Op cit, Bottke et al, p.41. [29] http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/0641.html [30] http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Jupiter.html [31] As of 05Apr02, out of 1,841 known NEAs, better than 99.5% have orbital periods of less than 6 years. This is due to Jupiter's powerful 2:1 resonance. Only 9 known NEAs have orbital periods greater than 6 years, and all of these are less than 9 years. Of the 28 known NECs, 10 SPCs (36%) have orbital periods less than 6 years, 18 (64%) less than 12 years. N.B.: the population of known NEOs suffers from several flavors of bias. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_elem [32] http://rff.org/about_rff/web_bios/macauley.htm See "NEOs; Rapporteur", p.15 in: http://www2.aiaa.org/international/content/PDF/ISCW-6_report.pdf [33] http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v33n3/dps2001/538.htm [34] Gehrels et al, "Hazards due to Comets & Asteroids", p. 157. [35] http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/images/figIV-3-3.GIF [36] http://www.astro.rug.nl/~vermaas/initiative2.html [37]"Chaotic Evolution of the Solar System,'' Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom, Science, 257, 3 July 1992 http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~gjs/gjs.html [38] http://www.boulder.swri.edu/clark/neowp.html [39] http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce031902.html [40] Perhaps John "Goldi-Locks" Bartlett, USMC (Ret.), Gulf War Veteran, who was at the very tip of "the tip of the spear." [41] http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/direct.htm
  12. 12. -------------------------------------------------------------------- CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser < b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk >. Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this network. CCCMENU CCC for 2002 The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia.