it was really funny to see that.

'News for nerds' no more

but there is a hint in submitter nickname, possibly he is just 10 years old

Your whole story is compromised by Trump move to make Mitt Romney to be a state secretary. Do you remember what Romney position on Russia?

No, he has a degree ( as he somewhere explained ), but rather likes b612 as a private company ( he is himself is not from government)

>Actually, the danger to a person being killed by an asteroid is not changed.

it changed - there are statistically only 6 asteroids out ~30 000 most big which could hit earth and do intersect earth orbit ( others just fly near - but not about to hit ).

Now we know that 95% 1km won't hit, this the probability that there are no dangerous 1 km asteroid now in collision course - is much higher. Then iff we know orbits of 100% of all 1 km asteroids - even if we don't have means to deflect them, but know that they are not on direct collision course they won't hit us ( but rather 30-100 meter asteroid will be among those 6 asteroids which are about to hit earth in foreseeable future ) - then probability to be killed by huge asteroid is 0 and only slight chance to be injured by small asteroid ( like those injured by Chelyabinsk asteroid ).

First, Scott does not mention, that most dangerous asteroids are found

>95% of 1 km size asteroids
>90% for 500 m size asteroids
~60-70% 300 m size asteroids

so yes, we know 1% of asteroids, but still - the danger now for a person to be killed by asteroid is more than 100 times less, than it was two decades ago

another problem with his video, that he omits to mention, that inner asteroids are either harmless, or if they intersect earth orbit - they could be tracked at dusk/dawn ( just like venus is visible - and venus is quite far from being able to hit earth, so closer asteroids and relatively big asteroids are easier to find )

then about finding inner asteroids with space crafts - it is not just B612 foundation, which deals with that , but there are other proposals

http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.0794... - which is really cheap ( though idea requires some more development )
or http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1501.0... neocam - the paper has a proof that it is somewhat more realistic than B612 proposal and is not less efficient.

Let's exercise how much it might cost to desalinate water

best current tech to desalinate water is about $0.5 per cubic meter

11 trillion gallons ~ 42 cubic km of water or 42 billion cubic meters

thus the sum required is 21 billion dollars.

given that there are reasons to think that cost might be reduced - the solution looks costly but hardly unmanageable

how? easy.

Build model and verify it with available data. There could be some errors, but not much. If model holds for 10 years of new asteroids found - it is good enough.

The report is saying that the current efforts and projected efforts will not be enough to meet the 90% goal by 2020 given that only 10% of the estimated target asteroids have been found.

this is pretty much known to everybody. Exactly only telescopes in space or LSST could perform task and they are scheduled to be launched in 20s - so after 2020

given that only 10% of the estimated target asteroids have been found.

the thing is that more than 70% of 300m asteroids are found, about 90% of 500m are found and 95% of 1km and larger are found, so 10% are more about most small asteroids ( and again there is no fault of NASA in that - there are just no money from congress to build LSST now )

Funding is one aspect; however, the report also asserts that even if the budget were increased significantly the current program's structure will probably not be efficient enough to take advantage of increases and recommends a change in management structure.

it does not depend on structure at all.
Either launch neocam satellite or build LSST - and structure could keep to work just fine. But any number of small telescopes won't make any difference

140 meters asteroid won't end humanity. As for 1 km asteroids they all will be found before 90% 140+ meters asteroids goal. Compare now 10% of all 140+ meter asteroids are known and 95% of all 1 km asteroids are known. So 90% 140+ asteroids mean 100% for all 300+ meters asteroids

then, there are papers which estimate when asteroids will be found by, for example Pan STARRS, say one Pan STARRS telescope will find 90% 200+ asteroids in 12 years. On another hand, even Large Synoptic Survey Telescope won't find 90% 140+ meters asteroids for 10 years, depending on mode of operation this might take 15-17 years, and LSST will cost about 500 million dollars. So basically speaking - there is no much room for 'programs' - either have another Pan STARRS somewhere in Chile or Australia ( will add 20% to speed of detection ) or build LSST or launch satellite. That is a program. Of cause, bunch of small telescopes might be useful, but in fact after finding all huge asteroids - they will be finding nothing. so again - only hot air from those who have very basic grasp of fact concerning asteroid tracking.

The report is really full of strange assertions. Say - currently Pan STARRS works full time to search for asteroids, but you won't find this fact in a report. Neither there is a mentions, that it is exactly lack of funds that only multi million private donation provided uninterrupted work of this project few years back. Of cause, someone could be blamed for that. But there is not even mention of that such lack of money, instead it is insisted that there so huge money are spent on search for asteroids. Then, they criticize allocation of funds to Space Surveillance Telescope in Australia. That is true, that there are no mentioned agreements, the trick is that all software for the telescope is developed by just the same team, which received grants from NASA and more - asteroid tracking will not even interference with operation of telescope while performing duties, so agreements might be not an issue after all, because nothing will change in operation of telescope to enable it to look for asteroids. And what is important - this telescope will be most powerful asteroid tracking telescope. So was it a good idea to spend money on it? I would say yes. For authors it is really no. so we have a situation that someone wants to show who is boss here. But unfortunately, those pretending to be bosses look more like idiots.

While it is quite speculative, but what if this effect makes father light sources to be more redshifted? Then observed accelerated expansion of the Universe might be explained by just interaction of photons with some matter while light travels, the more it travels, the more the shift and not because of relative speed of galactics

the news should be read with few facts in mind. first of all, it was Musk who sought the ban of russian engines ( earlier slashdot story http://science.slashdot.org/st... ), so it hurts some companies, but not US, SpaceX will benefit from this 'ban', Musk is happy. then look at gps facilities http://www.gps.gov/multimedia/... - there is no one GPS facility in Russia. So this are not about GPS, but about those businesses, which provided more correct positioning information for Russian customers. If Rogozin wants to harm russian customers, let it be, but it hardly will have any effect anywhere else. And take Japan with a project http://www.qzs.jp/en/ - currently much of what provide ground stations could be transferred to satellites. So, it is quite possible, that even won't harm russian customers, they will be offered to use more satellites. as for threats to block International Space station beyond 2020, this might bite, but still not much. Though there are reports, that currently there are a lot of customers for international space station services, still unmanned satellites could perform almost all of these services, and more cheap and that was true for almost all time when astronautics existed - piloted stations added quite few actual results except for public attention to space research. So combined: if russian go the way of sanctions the biggest harm will be for russian space program and russian customers of space services. For US any announced threats are of very minor importance. So let this Rogozin hit russian interests with his own hands.