Slashdot Mirror
NASA Inspector General Lobs Big Rocks At Agency's Asteroid Hunting Program
coondoggie writes Lack of money, management structure and staff are hampering NASA's ability to effectively identify and track comets, meteorites and asteroids that might threaten Earth. The space agency's Inspector General, Paul Martin, issued a scathing report this week that said while NASA's Near Earth Object program has done substantial work in identifying the sometimes massive rocks hurtling around the planet it is substantially behind in its goal of cataloging 90% of those 140 meters in diameter by 2020, among other issues.
Bigger than an asteroid? Because it came to me first, like this to you!
Breaking up is hard to do.
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.
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.
Clearing 90% of an extremely rare but potentially apocalyptic event.
"We're happy to report that, with this program, of all the meteorites that would destroy Earth in the next century, only one in ten will end humanity."
Very interesting !
It's how Slashdot sold out and turned from news for nerds to flamebait headlines designed to attract idiots and increase advertising revenue.
Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling me that we're not going to be putting a man on Mars in 2035.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
One asteroid strikes onto any major US city and they'll restart everything and allocate all the money!
since they have already impacted the Earth and done their damage. You want to track meteoroids which are still in space and may be susceptible to intervention.
Cataloging for purpose of collision prevention (of spacecraft and planet) is all well and good. But perhaps the added motivation of profit will be required. Eventually we will get up there and start mining those things. i'd like to see this happen sooner than later. Why mine rare resource from the earth, and damage planet in the process, when we have all those rich rocks floating around in space. We'll need cleaner method to reach and return from orbit, but there are numerous methods already proposed. It seems we lack will, but perhaps mostly we just favor war too much to invest in these things.
currently Pan STARRS works full time to search for asteroids, but you won't find this fact in a report.
But that's not the assertion the report makes. The report does not say that there are no programs and people working on the problem. 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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is not who is developing the software or how effective it is. The problem is the SST will be in Australia's hands and no agreement is in place for time on the telescope. While the future administrators might be friendly to the NEO program, there are no guaranteed time allocation (in writing). The criticism is that NASA should not have granted the money without some sort of formal agreement or plan for after the transfer. Just like any contract: get it in writing.
And what is important - this telescope will be most powerful asteroid tracking telescope.
Which makes it even more important that NASA get some sort of agreement about how much time the NEO program will get. It's not like powerful telescopes are easily obtained at your local grocery store.
So was it a good idea to spend money on it? I would say yes. For authors it is really no.
That's not what the authors are saying. They are not saying the money should not have been spent. They are saying that NASA made a terrible deal because they essentially gave money away with little assurances that they get anything in return. It's not like NASA is just swimming in excess money. NASA's budget is always under pressure to do more with less.
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.
No we have an inspector general doing their job: oversight.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Lack of money, management structure and staff are hampering NASA's ability to effectively identify and track comets, meteorites and asteroids that might threaten Earth"
Oh god, who cares? If it's going to hit it's going to hit, end of story. It hasn't happened since we knew what asteroids were, and it didn't happen for the millions of years where we didn't, so it appears knowing one way or the other has no bearing on the outcome.
What a waste of time and effort. Trust me, if there's a big one and it's going to hit, you'll know. It will be the ever-brightening dot in the sky that doesn't seem to move day to day.
If the usa would curb corruption we'd find all sorts of monies with which to do a great many useful things. Climate Change research being something critical. The drought in California alone being something which has significant global impact right now. We must know how this changing weather will impact our ability to farm food and obtain fresh water, ++. Nothing political about that. The political side of climate change does not change the facts of its occurrence.
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
More money for NASA in general. All NASA programs are suffering across the board. Lack of funding is why we haven't had a human leave near earth orbit in 45 years.
Try to bring funders' attention to the destructive element of Near-Erth Objects.
Maybe even the A-challenged NSA and their apologists then might become interested in slushing some of the NSA's allotment
to the amount of 52 billion (52,000,000,000) dollars towards this NASA program.
Proving it exists or researching adaptability are not the purview of NASA.
NASA has tools to monitor climate. That is all i would want NASA to do, monitor.