Is 93% really an acceptable amount of the 'giant asteroids that could smash into Earth' to track?
Clearly, its a better number than, for example, 50%; and its great that NASA is doing any tracking; but this is an species level existential threat that's being talked about.
I'd really prefer to live in a world whereby a joint international effort (ideally; or just anyone) was tracking 99.9999% of such asteroids, as a matter of priority.
I think that the LHC, or the moon landings, were great projects - but shouldn't we do this, first?
Comments
Is 93% really an acceptable amount of the 'giant asteroids that could smash into Earth' to track?
Clearly, its a better number than, for example, 50%; and its great that NASA is doing any tracking; but this is an species level existential threat that's being talked about.
I'd really prefer to live in a world whereby a joint international effort (ideally; or just anyone) was tracking 99.9999% of such asteroids, as a matter of priority.
I think that the LHC, or the moon landings, were great projects - but shouldn't we do this, first?
The issue is how. It's the old 80/20 rule, although perhaps in this case it is more like the 93/07 rule.
We've got the "easy" ones, but we infer there are others we haven't detected. How do we detect them? Space is really really big.