Gregg Easterbrook presents a classic example of preventive journalism in The Atlantic.  It turns out that the threat from comets and asteroids that could strike the earth is far greater than is generally reported.  Large rocks from space have been responsible for massive climate disruption and species extinction in the past, and scientists have expanded estimates of the number of space rocks that could seriously threaten life on earth from 240 to 740 in just the last decade.

As far as understanding government’s response, Easterbrook’s reporting shows that the science sometimes known as struthiology (the study of ostriches) may be more relevant than astrophysics.  NASA is avoiding the save-the-world mission of identifying potential threats from comets and asteroids in favor of sending more astronauts to the moon.  Easterbrook’s reporting includes this paradigmatic example of government leadership from NASA’s administrator Michael Griffin:

"After the presentation, NASA’s administrator, Michael Griffin, came into the room. I asked him why there had been no discussion of space rocks. He said, “We don’t make up our goals. Congress has not instructed us to provide Earth defense. I administer the policy set by Congress and the White House, and that policy calls for a focus on return to the moon. Congress and the White House do not ask me what I think.” I asked what NASA’s priorities would be if he did set the goals. “The same. Our priorities are correct now,” he answered. “We are on the right path. We need to go back to the moon. We don’t need a near-Earth-objects program.” In a public address about a month later, Griffin said that the moon-base plan was “the finest policy framework for United States civil space activities that I have seen in 40 years.”

Putting people on the moon accomplishes little in terms of scientific progress, moves us no closer to a mission to Mars (which most see as the next threshhold in space travel), and will cost "hundreds of billions of dollars."  Of course, it puts more astronauts into space and fends off a potential challenge for space supremacy from China.  NASA administrator Griffin calls this a way to avoid a "shift in national prestige" toward China.  But as Easterbrook notes,

Wouldn’t shifting NASA’s focus away from wasting money on the moon and toward something of clear benefit for the entire world—identifying and deflecting dangerous space objects—be a surer route to enhancing national prestige?

More important, wouldn’t it be the best way to lay to rest fears about a dangerous asteroid or comet striking the earth — fears that will only grow after articles like Easterbrook’s begin to circulate? Scientists now estimate that a space rock only 30 meters across caused a 1908 explosion in Siberia that obliterated hundreds of square miles.  Such a blast would completely destroy New York, London, Paris, Beijing, Moscow, or any other major world capital.  As we look around us in the anniversary year of that destructive asteroid, we may come to understand that facing this threat may put other threats — including the man-made ones — into proper perspective.

Ned Hodgman

Comment RSS - Trackback URI