reply to post by ArMaP
Aaaargh, I just wrote a long reply and lost the whole dang thing when I hit post. Of course, it was the one time I didn't save in word first. We
are having tornados here by the way so that explains the post blip. Here are the sloppy seconds...I'm sure I will forget something.
Back on topic to recreate this thing
ArMap and Vic,
During the many searches on this topic over the past week or so I came across an article on the NASA site that is relevant. I didn't post it at the
time because it wasn't a square enough peg to fit in the round hole we were discussing. Now it seems appropriate to dwell on it a moment as it has
been pinging around my mind since reading it.
Here is the general gist of this topic....
Symposium Article Link
NEO Impact Symposium & Secrecy Issues
Article Posted: February 25, 2003
A report from the AAAS symposium on the impact hazard and a discussion of a media flap about secrecy.
This news note deals with two related issues
(1) First is the report from an AAAS impact hazard symposium in Denver that marked the tenth anniversary of the Spaceguard Report and explored several
issues related to communications and societal interactions.
(2) The second part of this news note deals with a media flap that began when AAAS participant Geoffrey Sommer suggested that the government might
wish to keep the news of an impending impact secret. Understandably, this issue was picked up by many news media, some of which ignored the context
(such as that the other speakers at the AAAS symposium all asserted that such secrecy was neither desirable nor possible). We present both sides, and
let you reach your own conclusions.
Another reason I didn't post this was that there was some confusion in the reporting specifically regarding Geoffrey Sommer who made the comments
which led to this report. He was orginally quoted as an advisor to the administration from Rand but was, in fact, a grad student at the time. The
fallout from his comments though are interesting to note.
I would imagine that this experience is still very much a part of the collective memory of the NEO community. It is also suggested that while this
"pink elephant" in the room caused media flak....it may have its receptive ears in this administration. I don't believe that we will see this
discussed in an open NEO forum again, although it is a real consideration as acknowledged by other's there even while distancing themselves from the
Also in this article, I believe, it squarely confronts the myth of the panic excuse for secrecy in the event of a close shave or even an expected
catastrophic level event. It doesn't make it gone from the NEO community...just debunked. And all of this, I believe they would have thought about
during the past few months regarding 2007 TU24.
Just throwing this out for your consideration.
And lest we not forget...although hopefully we get a breather before one is close again....
(2008 BT2) 2008-Feb-02 0.1322 51.5 37 m - 83 m 1.83
(2007 TG8) 2008-Feb-04 0.1903 74.0 500 m - 1.1 km 12.70
(2008 BE) 2008-Feb-04 0.1874 72.9 75 m - 170 m 3.03
(2006 AX44) 2008-Feb-07 0.1596 62.1 27 m - 61 m 3.17
(2006 JY26) 2008-Feb-08 0.1129 43.9 5.7 m - 13 m 2.98
(2006 DU62) 2008-Feb-10 0.0553 21.5 640 m - 1.4 km 23.79
(2007 RV9) 2008-Feb-11 0.0776 30.2 240 m - 550 m 10.96
(2007 DA) 2008-Feb-12 0.0253 9.8 89 m - 200 m 18.41
162567 (2000 RW37) 2008-Feb-15 0.0719 28.0 300 m - 670 m 8.17
(2008 AE) 2008-Feb-16 0.1516 59.0 330 m - 750 m 6.44
(2007 DM8) 2008-Feb-16 0.1312 51.1 15 m - 33 m 8.26
(2005 EK70) 2008-Feb-18 0.1493 58.1 910 m - 2.0 km 15.18 ...........
the list goes on but I am out of room.
So, this ain't our first, or last, rodeo!
[edit on 29-
[edit on 29-1-2008 by DancedWithWolves]