|
|
"Aidan Karley" <doIlookDAFTenoughTOpost@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message
news:VA.00000ca7.4d0fe2ae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <LA1Mf.7438$vC4.3242@clgrps12>, Bruce Inkster wrote:
>
> [SL-9 boilerplate]
> > there is no telling when, the technology is new to us.
> >
> Actually, since there's a reasonably well characterised
> size-number distribution for the main asteroid belt, and little reason
> to anticipate that the distribution will be substantially different in
> the Earth-crossing range of orbits, then it should be quite possible to
> crunch the statistics to give us an estimate. But that's certainly
> beyond my maths. I was wondering if anyone else had actually heard an
> estimate from somewhere.
> The task is certainly do-able, but whether it's worth putting
> much effort to (as opposed to just going out and searching for more)
> I'd doubt.
Your claim assumes a lot. In fact, far too much for two basic
reasons:
1. Scientific arrogance. Relative to the age of our solar system
we've been keeping records of interplanetary bodies for an
infinitesimally small period of time. We can be arrogant and
claim we have handles on the Oort cloud and asteroid belt,
when and how often they're perturbed and by which other
bodies, etc etc. But the fact is we simply don't and won't
anytime soon.
2. The solar system itself is hurtling around the galaxy at a
high rate of speed, and not all objects in the galaxy orbit the
center at the same speed or in the same direction. We may
very well and at any time run into a swarm of comets,
asteroids or other galactic material that has never been seen
before by man and will never be seen again.
These two facts add up to near complete uncertainty about
the frequency of major impacts.
|
|