dendriite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> The odds of being killed by an asteroid are greater that
> being struck by
> lightning or being killed in a plane crash. It sounds
> strange, but asteroids
> (like weapons of mass destruction) kill so many when a fall
> does occur, that
> it greatly increases the odds for a single individual.
But does it make more sense to invest heavily over the next 10 years on
an asteroid defense program versus investing lightly over the next 100
and spending the additional money on infrastructure or other research
avenues that will help the defense mechanism in the longer term?
The risk that an asteroid will sneak up on us within 2 years and wipe
out humanity is very low, but non-zero. So should we put 100% of the GDP
of the industrialized world into a defense program so that it's ready in
12 months? No, that would be silly - the risk over that time frame is
too low to mandate such a destructive course.
That's one reason I would put gobs more money into nanotech than space
research. If nanotech pays off (an admitted gamble) the benefits to
space travel are enormous; essentially send your design for a SSTO ship
to NanoKinkos and have them fab it overnight. If not, well, then we have
to do it the hard way and it will take several lifetimes to build up
enough infrastructure for Joe Schmoe to take the trip - but we tried.
Joshua
