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.
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.
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
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
How on earth (pun intended) can you know that you've found 10% or 95% of anything that you don't know the full set of?
Note also that most of these efforts looks at the plane of the solar system, what about extra-planar objects? Granted, most of those are comets, but then again, comets can be big too.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
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.
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
Figure out how you're scanning for things, and the probabilities of finding things if they're there. Then keep track of what you find, and watch the numbers of new things you find. From that, you should come up with an estimate as to how many things are findable by whatever technique you're using. For example, if you were checking fish in a lake by scooping up quantities at random, marking them somehow, and counting the unmarked ones, over time you'd get fewer and fewer unmarked, and you could use that to estimate fish population.
Of course, all this can tell you is about how many things are findable by the techniques you're using. If you're just scanning around the Ecliptic, you're not getting an estimation for how many things are in a different orbit.
I don't know if they're using this technique, but it is possible.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes