Russian Astrologist Suing NASA

[Hitch]

This is might be old news, and I apologize if it is, but I just saw the article today. NASA plans to attempt to destroy a comet on July 4 this year. (Just to find out if they can.)

Russian "astrologist" (is that the same as astrologer?) Marina Bai has filed a lawsuit because, in her words:

“The actions of NASA infringe upon my system of spiritual and life values, in particular on the values of every element of creation, upon the unacceptability of barbarically interfering with the natural life of the universe, and the violation of the natural balance of the Universe.�

Here's the full article: http://mosnews.com/feature/2005/04/19/deepimpact.shtml

Edit: I'm sorry. This is the wrong forum. Perhaps a moderater will be kind enough to move it.

[Zep]

Here. Let me just fix the title of this thread.

Russian <strike>Astrologist</strike> Nutbag Suing NASA

[badnews]

I wish they put her on the spaceship as well...

[badnews]

Originally posted by Zep
Here. Let me just fix the title of this thread.

Russian <strike>Astrologist</strike> Nutbag Suing NASA

it's more like that...

Astrologist = Nutbag

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Hitch
Russian "astrologist" (is that the same as astrologer?) astrologist = astrologer = someone who predicts the future by the positions of the planets, Sun, and Moon

BJ

[chillzero]

...or does anyone else feel that it may be out of line anyway for someone to feel they have the right to just blow up bits of something that doesn't belong solely to them?

I'm not saying I agree with the astrologist, btw.

[BillyJoe]

cabby,

There may just be a practical purpose behind this venture.
One day the Earth may actually be threatened by a comet
or asteriod and it would be nice to know that it was possible
to blow it up or shift it off orbit.

BJ

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by cabby
...or does anyone else feel that it may be out of line anyway for someone to feel they have the right to just blow up bits of something that doesn't belong solely to them?


To whom else does it 'belong'? And what, if anything, does 'belong' mean in this context?

Our species depends on our ability to modify our environment after all.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by cabby
...or does anyone else feel that it may be out of line anyway for someone to feel they have the right to just blow up bits of something that doesn't belong solely to them?

I'm not saying I agree with the astrologist, btw.

The comet doesn't belong to anyone unless someone can stake a claim to it. I think it is a very, very cool idea for NASA to do this.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by ChrisH
To whom else does it 'belong'? And what, if anything, does 'belong' mean in this context?

Our species depends on our ability to modify our environment after all.


It wasn't created in the USA, was all I meant. It belongs to me (or you), just as much as to NASA, and I don't remember being asked my opinion. I don't think it belongs to anyone, so it doesn't give anyone the right to destroy it.

It just seems like outright vandalism to me.

So, some day in the future we might be threatened by a comet, and might need to know if we can maybe blow it up to save the planet.... I'm unconvinced that blowing up a random comet that happens to be there is actually going to provide a definitive answer anyway.

Also, are we certain that this comet carries absolutely nothing of any value - don't they sometimes find evidence of organisms on comets?

A piece about organsims on comets (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html)

It just smacks of "oh look, we found something... cool.. let's blow it up".

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by cabby
It wasn't created in the USA, was all I meant. It belongs to me (or you), just as much as to NASA, and I don't remember being asked my opinion. I don't think it belongs to anyone, so it doesn't give anyone the right to destroy it.

It just seems like outright vandalism to me.

So, some day in the future we might be threatened by a comet, and might need to know if we can maybe blow it up to save the planet.... I'm unconvinced that blowing up a random comet that happens to be there is actually going to provide a definitive answer anyway.

Also, are we certain that this comet carries absolutely nothing of any value - don't they sometimes find evidence of organisms on comets?

A piece about organsims on comets (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html)

It just smacks of "oh look, we found something... cool.. let's blow it up".

Nobody's going to be 'destroying' anything. They are simply going to smack into it hard enough to create a crater, which will allow them to retrieve samples of material from nearer to the core of the thing. It is unlikely to even affect its orbit in any way.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Nobody's going to be 'destroying' anything. They are simply going to smack into it hard enough to create a crater, which will allow them to retrieve samples of material from nearer to the core of the thing. It is unlikely to even affect its orbit in any way.

If that's how it turns out, that's great, I suppose. It doesn't seem from the article that they are completely certain of the effects and outcome though.

I just wanted to raise the point, about if something is floating about in space - who has the right to decide to do anything to it?

I'll step back down off my soapbox now, for a while. :D

[Timothy]

[Cross posting this to the three threads where it's being discussed]

Having intimate knowledge of the DI spacecraft and mission:

The purpose of the mission has nothing to do with "blowing it up", "knocking it off course" or anything of the like. The purpose is to examine for the first time the composition of cometary material, primarily original core material shielded by billions of years of melting and refreezing.

The DI Impactor will create a large crater in Tempel 1, while the Flyby will examine the ejected material with an array of optical sensors.

While the media has focused on several comments made early in the program to the effect that since we really don't know the density of a comet, DI *could* conceivably break it apart, most scientists working this issue are convinced that the impact will create a significant crater but nothing more.

I found most amusing the quote from the article "But Russian astrologist Marina Bai gave it a try, and, according to her lawyer Alexander Molokhov, it looks like she may just pull it off."

I don't know who's crazier, she or her lawyer.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by cabby
If that's how it turns out, that's great, I suppose. It doesn't seem from the article that they are completely certain of the effects and outcome though.

I just wanted to raise the point, about if something is floating about in space - who has the right to decide to do anything to it?

I'll step back down off my soapbox now, for a while. :D

Let me ask you this? You are walking along on the beach, and you see an exceptionally beautiful seashell. Do you pick it up and take it home with you, or would that be somehow unethical?

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Let me ask you this? You are walking along on the beach, and you see an exceptionally beautiful seashell. Do you pick it up and take it home with you, or would that be somehow unethical?

I see where you are going with this, but I don't think the scale is quite the same.
I may indeed take it home with me, but.... I am not going to break off a big chunk of the corner, and then leave it ruined on the beach.
Also, if I discovered something using it as a home, or to grow on, then I would leave it undisturbed.

[Darat]

Originally posted by cabby
If that's how it turns out, that's great, I suppose. It doesn't seem from the article that they are completely certain of the effects and outcome though.

I just wanted to raise the point, about if something is floating about in space - who has the right to decide to do anything to it?

...snip...


Whoever gets there first would seem to be a time honoured principle (of course tempered with the principle "I might not be the first but I've got a bigger and better army").


(Edited for words.)

[BillyJoe]

Gr8wight and Tim,

Thanks, I should have read the link first before posting.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Timothy
I don't know who's crazier, she or her lawyer. How about Portnov....
Bai is not the only astrologist worried about messing with the Universe.....Vladimir Portnov, a physicist and a professional astrologist [said:] “Of course, everyday people will feel the implications of destroying a comet.�

According to Portnov, even something as “minor� as comets play a role in creating humanity’s psychic environment. By wantonly destroying a comet, NASA will inevitably disrupt that environment — with the most likely result being mass anxiety.
BJ

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by cabby
I see where you are going with this, but I don't think the scale is quite the same.
I may indeed take it home with me, but.... I am not going to break off a big chunk of the corner, and then leave it ruined on the beach.
Also, if I discovered something using it as a home, or to grow on, then I would leave it undisturbed.

I respect your opinion but I must admit to having a very difficult time getting my arms around the logic of it. There doesn't appear to be any from my perspective. Clearly there is from yours.

BTW, while it hasn't exactly been proven beyond any and all doubt, it seems very, very unlikely that passing comets serve as hosts to any living organisms of any kind. It's just a big chuck of ice and dust. If it contains something different than that which observation and theory suggests, then it is not in our best interest to find out? That's appears to be what we are attempting to do.

Personally, I think we should try to blow it up, just for the 'cool' factor.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I respect your opinion but I must admit to having a very difficult time getting my arms around the logic of it. There doesn't appear to be any from my perspective. Clearly there is from yours.

BTW, while it hasn't exactly been proven beyond any and all doubt, it seems very, very unlikely that passing comets serve as hosts to any living organisms of any kind. It's just a big chuck of ice and dust. If it contains something different than that which observation and theory suggests, then it is not in our best interest to find out? That's appears to be what we are attempting to do.

Personally, I think we should try to blow it up, just for the 'cool' factor.

Well, it's always nice to have an opinion respected. :D Thanks.

As for the logic, well, my feelings are the opposite of your last sentence. I don't think it's cool to blow things up.
Thankfully, they are apparently not blowing it up - just drilling into it, kinda.

My reason for raising the issue at all was to question who gave NASA the right to be the ones to make any decision about it?

I don't believe comets host living organisms, and I'm not really very scientific, but I think that other organisms have been found on comets (like it says in the articule I linked to). This is where I felt the learning opportunity came in.

[Francois Tremblay]

The very assumption that things don't "belong" to us because they are in space is ridiculous. Why shouldn't we feel entitled to own a comet passing by our space ? Because the UN says it's not yours ? That's a non-argument.

[rwguinn]

Getting back to the topic of the thread...
One cannot help but wonder why these folks did not sue NASA or the Soviet (at the time) Space Agency, or ESA, or anyone else for discovering bodies within the solar system which were unknown untill these agencies intervened?
It would seem that all their previous calculations and predictions would have been rendered invalid by new discoveries. since they werent, this leads us to one of at least 2 conclusions:
1. Celestial bodies don't affect us unless we know that they actually exist; or
2. Celestial bodies don't affect us.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by cabby
Well, it's always nice to have an opinion respected. :D Thanks.

As for the logic, well, my feelings are the opposite of your last sentence. I don't think it's cool to blow things up.
Thankfully, they are apparently not blowing it up - just drilling into it, kinda.

My reason for raising the issue at all was to question who gave NASA the right to be the ones to make any decision about it?



Imagine that scientists discovered a medium to large asteroid to be on a trajectory to hit the earth and they could predict the exact location of the impact. Can you name any country on this planet that would not turn to NASA and say please help us? Given that every country would turn to NASA, then NASA has the right to blast holes in asteroids, to shoot lasers at asteroids and even to vaporize asteroids if it will help in their understanding of how to alter the orbits of Near Earth Objects.

[dann]

Originally posted by rwguinn
1. Celestial bodies don't affect us unless we know that they actually exist; or
2. Celestial bodies don't affect us.
Well, celestial bodies affect us every day - the sun, the moon ...
The rest of them, not much, and not the way astrologers think.

You affect a lot of stuff every day, the flower you pick, the chicken you eat, but why worry about somebody drilling a hole in some rock that nobody on Earth is able to see without the help of a very powerful telescope?
There's always reason to be suspicious of military involvement and interests in projects like these, but there's probably more reason to worry about the things that's already happening here on Earth.

[Maverick]

Vandalism? How is it vandalism? Perhaps it was vandalism when the astronauts were poking around for rocks and dust to bring home from the moon? Or when the Viking landers scraped up some samples from the Martian surface? Or perhaps when we're killing off and exploiting entire forests, or make species go extinct?

Humankind will reshape and use the Solar system much more in the future, to fit her needs and wishes. We always have had an impact on everything, always will. To do this for science doesn't seem like a bad thing.

[Ririon]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
The very assumption that things don't "belong" to us because they are in space is ridiculous. Why shouldn't we feel entitled to own a comet passing by our space ? Because the UN says it's not yours ? That's a non-argument.

What if the Chinese wanted to blast this asteroid into oblivion two weeks before the NASA probe got there? Just to see it go kaBOOM?

Is that a non-argument?

If we (as in earthlings) get this solar system colonization thing going, there will be a some good job opportunities for international law lawyers. Who gets the good titanium mine site on Mars? How will we deal with all the suckers who bought land on the Moon from the internet? Who owns the lunar south pole area?

Even earth orbit is potentially a problem. There is not infinite room in geostationary orbit. Lower down the sky is full of junk and all kinds of satellites. NORAD tracks all of it, but they can't deny Brazil or Sweden the right to put a whole lot more junk in this limited room.

I guess "because the UN says" is the only way to go. Except the good old, tried and true macchiavellian approach, of course.

Ririon

[Kopji]

Russia needs more US lawyers.