On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:27 -0500 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vorl Bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote: > > And when was the one before that? > > > > No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The > population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics > are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there are > and how soon the next one will hit. We already know that the next one that hits will almost certainly be far in the future. We know that because there are no records, as far as I know, of hits before the Tunguska rock; and lower population or not, there would have been records if the rocks had hit frequently enough for us to be worrying about a 'next' occurrence. > > > Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on spaceguard' to > > prevent something that will almost certainly never happen? > > > > 1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out. See above. > > 2. It will cost billions but not trillions. > > 3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is worth > it for that reason alone. You don't have to spend billions on something that is not going to happen in order to benefit science; spend it on better batteries, better solar panels, even this 'lenr' stuff.
