UK astronomers are to join a search for Earth-threatening asteroids measuring less than 1km (0.6 miles) across.

Researchers from three universities have signed an agreement to use one of the world's most advanced telescopes - the Pan-Starrs observatory in Hawaii.

Pan-Starrs, sited on the island of Maui, is equipped with a huge digital camera.

While searching for near-Earth asteroids, it will build up the most detailed image yet of the Universe.

This will enable astronomers to investigate small Solar System objects and search for exploding stars, to produce three-dimensional maps of galaxies and dark matter, to measure the properties of dark energy and to investigate how galaxies have evolved.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42180000/jpg/_42180027_ps1_panstarrs_203.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6034285.stm

I thought they already found one heading this way a few years ago?

My book Dark Visitor has a cosmic disaster as its central idea. The cross-section for Earth to be hit by a meteor is extremely small compared to the cross-section of the entire solar system. A small black hole (a solar mass or so) need only pass thru or near the solar system to slightly disturb the orbit of Earth. Very little is change in Earth’s orbit is required to throw Earth into a PERMANENT Ice age, as it is already “balanced on the edge” of one.

There is reason to believe, as I have discussed here and at web site under my name, that there may be more of these small black holes than all the stars that have ever existed in the history of the universe. I my opinion, the danger to life on Earth may be greater due to a small black hole passing near or thru the solar system than a smaller solar system mass actually hitting the Earth; however, a small solar system mass hitting Earth will probably kill millions before the passing black hole terminates all life on Earth.

But look on the bright side: It is not necessary to worry about the sun going out in a few billion years. Unfortunately, the approach of a small black hole can not be detected.* A small Black Hole may be coming towards solar system now, as my book assumes.

Following is abstract from:
www.lpi.usra.edu/books/AsteroidsIII/pdf/3037.pdf
You can read all for free. - It is good review of the search problem and methods.

The discovery of the potentially hazardous near-Earth asteroid (NEA) component of the minor-planet population has been enhanced by better detecting and computing technology. A government mandate to quantify the terrestrial impact hazard and to detect 90% of all NEAs larger than 1 km can be realistically addressed. The characteristics, capabilities, and strategies of
the major search programs illustrate the challenges and solutions toward meeting the Spaceguard goal. This chapter reviews the historical context of early asteroid detection and of the current and anticipated search programs. It describes the search systems and discusses challenges in maximizing the NEA detection rate.

Following is from:
www.pibburns.com/catastro/impacts.htm
Also a free read, which focuses more on the effects of Earth being hit, but has some on detection etc. More than 100 good links on aspects of this subject (but none recognizing the cosmic disaster I suggested in first paragraph.)

Earth's atmosphere is ineffective in preventing ground impact damage for stony meteorites greater than 200 meters (about 650 feet) in diameter. For iron meteorites that impact at greater than 20 km/sec (12.5 mi/sec), the critical diameter is about 40-60 meters (130-200 feet). Stony bodies greater than 60 meters and less than 200 meters can cause significant airburst damage as at Tunguska.

…An asteroid of sufficient size to raise a tsunami with an average height of 100 meters along the entire coast of the ocean strikes once every few thousand years on average. Stony bodies less than 200 meters in diameter do not produce tsunamis, while those larger than 200 meters can produce catastrophic tsunamis. Water waves generated by such an impactor are two-dimensional disturbances that fall off in height only inversely with distance from the point of impact. The average runup in height of a tsunami as it reaches the continental shelf is more than an order of magnitude. An impact anywhere in the Atlantic of a stony asteroid more than 400m (1,300 feet) in diameter would devastate coasts on both sides of the ocean. Tsunami runups would exceed 60m (200 feet).
------------------------------------------------
*Small black holes, obviously do not reflect sunlight. They are not large enough to collect interstellar gas in quantities large enough for the atoms of it to make collisions (and optical radiation) before disappearing inside the event horizon (no “mini-quasar” radiation). They will not produce detectable gravitational lensing, until very close and probably not even then because their angular rate of passing in front of the background star is too high. (A “shot noise” problem, even if some telescope were looking at the star when black hole “zipped in front” of it.) First warning mankind would have is the slight perturbation of orbits of the most distant objects orbiting the sun. - Perhaps a year’s warning before the heavy continuous heavy snow begins to fall as the still warm oceans make ice miles thick on land.

Thats what we need: War on Terror Asteroid style. I'm surprised no one picked that up, everyone should be looking at feeds of asteroids in space instead of war in Iraq. This poses an immediate and more deadly threat. IMO.

There's nothing better than orbit telescopes rather than ground telescopes. Nothing compares to Chandra and Hubble.

There's nothing better than orbit telescopes rather than ground telescopes. Nothing compares to Chandra and Hubble.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2583591.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2583591.html

any way u go, space telescopes offer much more clarity and focus, and can see much more objects, and farther objects than ground telescopes because ground telescopes have to gaze through the atmosphere...which distorts data tremendeously. I am really having doubts this telescope will be most powerfull of its kind. Combining data with ground and satellite telescope as well as gravitational lenses on other hand looks promising.

any way u go, space telescopes offer much more clarity and focus, and can see much more objects, and farther objects than ground telescopes because ground telescopes have to gaze through the atmosphere...which distorts data tremendeously. I am really having doubts this telescope will be most powerfull of its kind. Combining data with ground and satellite telescope as well as gravitational lenses on other hand looks promising.

The link to that telescope did refute your claim. That is all.

I am a retired physicist, with only the knowledge one might expect of one, not special expertize about telescopes, but most of the recent posts here,MHO, fail to understand the merits and needs of seach for asteroid daangers. First there are wave front correction means available that permit the Earth based telescope to get sharp images and they cost a lot less than putting a much smaller telescope in orbit. The main advantage of an orbiting telescope is the limited transparency band pass of the Earth's atmosphere.

The type of telescope one wants to search for asteroid is a wide field of view telescope and to make one of then even a meter in aperature diameter is a real challenge. More roughly meter diameter wide field of view telescopes is the need for this job, not great diameters (looking into deep space to work on cosmological problems using data from near the begining of time) or satelite telescopes doing the UV and far IR work only they can do.

Try to understand the problem before commenting on it.

any way u go, space telescopes offer much more clarity and focus, and can see much more objects, and farther objects than ground telescopes because ground telescopes have to gaze through the atmosphere...which distorts data tremendeously. This would have been true fifteen years ago. You really need to stay up to date on these things. Active optics, with automatic feedback correcting for atmospheric distortion, permit better quality from ground scopes than can be achieved with Hubble.

This would have been true fifteen years ago. You really need to stay up to date on these things. Active optics, with automatic feedback correcting for atmospheric distortion, permit better quality from ground scopes than can be achieved with Hubble.

well then why bother with hubble at all?

well then why bother with hubble at all?Read post 9 again for answer. I also mentioned "wave front correction" (active optics) in it but did not make as strong a claim. - Certainly that approach can get a very good image with much greater apperature and much lower cost, but we still need satellite observations for reasons also given in post 9.

well then why bother with hubble at all?We didn't have the technology when Hubble was being designed to achieve today with ground based 'scopes. See also Billy T's remarks.