[FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]

[E.P. Grondine]

Tom:

Yes, NASA performance has been pathetic, and it has only been the 
understanding and hard work of a few great AF imagery people that's saved 
NASA so far.

>All that will come from the Brown Amendment will be another NASA study and 
>another token program.

Well, maybe, but Griffin has screwed up big time this time. The study was 
done, but then...

While if it was me I would have fired Griffin, the House sub-committee 
chairman has stated publicly the committee's members desire to help him to 
improve NASA's performance in dealing with this hazard.

When I first started reporting on this hazard, Administrator Goldin told me 
that it wasn't NASA's job.   Goldin was under such heavy and undeserved 
attack on other issues that I certainly wasn't going to give him grief over 
his thinking on this one. At that time I did not understand fully how bad 
NASA's perfomance in dealing with this hazard had been, nor why that 
performance had been so bad.

On the other hand, Griffin has brought his own problems on himself, and his 
attempt to blow off the instructions of the Congress to deal with this 
hazard is just another one of them. My thinking is that Griffin may make his 
life easier if he takes a different tone - the Congress is not his enemy, 
but will work with him if he details his problems to them. Ther job of NASA 
Administrator is not in the Prune Book for no reason at all.

Another difference is that we now have the fragments of Comet Schwassmann 
Wachmann 3 on their way, along with Asteroid MN4. These things aren't 
imaginary.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas


>From: "Matula, Thomas L." <MATULAT at uhv.edu>
>To: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at hotmail.com>,<FPSPACE at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:16:59 -0500
>
>Ed,
>
>Yes we have been around about it and fifteen years ago I might have agree 
>with you on NASA. But seeing the capability the U.S. Air Force has to 
>address this issue and talking to the folks in blue who WANT to do it I see 
>them as the professionals nd NASA as the minor leagues. And working in 
>space policy these last 15 years I have seen how NASA lacks interest in any 
>mission not related to Mars. The only reason NASA was able to meet the 
>requirements of the Congressional mandate in 1995 of cataloging NEOs was 
>that the U.S. Air Force LINEAR program stepped in and did in two years what 
>NASA failed to do in ten.
>
>And I know Why Congress has asked NASA to try again. Its not because the 
>Congress folk think NASA is better qualified, only that it looks better to 
>the world if its a civilian program and not a military one. Which is why 
>the U.S. Air Force has been quietly helping NASA with programs like LINEAR.
>
>All that will come from the Brown Amendment will be another NASA study and 
>another token program.
>
>Tom
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of E.P. Grondine
>Sent: Sat 4/7/2007 10:01 PM
>To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
>
>Tom:
>
> >Time to break the cycle and send a message
>
>Yes indeed.
>
> >by giving the U.S. Air Force the job.
>
>Worden's performance with Clementime showed just how good the AF people 
>are.
>And when we need to use a nuclear charge to deal with one of these things,
>they'll be needed.  Note that that's WHEN, not if.
>
>But long ago I came to the conclusion that this just isn't a job for them.
>I've been through the reasons for this with you for some time now, and you
>can tell from the typos in my messages just how hard this is for me. (And
>the man's name is spelt Perminov, not Perimov.)
>
>But once again: No one else is going to depend upon the US AF for this,
>anymore than we would depend on the Russian AF or Chinese AF.
>
>As for the AF working on the Moon, I think that NASA has a little more
>experience in this. If you want the best system, and you do want the best
>system, that's what you need for it.
>
>Of course, one could always be cheap and go with a second best system to
>ensure mankind's continued existence.  But even I'm not that cheap.
>
> >[[[For that matter, you can call me cheap, but I can't see why NASA can't
> >turn
> >the MERs over to a commercial entity, who could charge the Mars nuts 
>VISAs
> >for their "fun". Let 'em enjoy Mars on their own dime, not mine, dammit.
> >Me,
> >I'll probably pick up a scond hand copy on VHS.]]]
> >
> >But it would probably go bust like most New Space/Alt.space ventures. 
>That
> >is why the Mars folks fight so hard for their "entitlements" from NASA to
> >support their Martian fanasties.
>
>Here's the plan. I saw where Paris Hilton shut down an internet operation
>that was selling that video
>of her ********.  So we just find their web masters, as they're now
>unemployed, and send them to JPL to put a credit card charge service in
>front of the MER site.
>
>Then the Mars folks pay for their own "fun".  Of course, NASA could still
>release snippets for free as teasers, just like the other folks do.
>
>E.P. Grondine
>Man and Impact in the Americas
>
> >From: "Matula, Thomas L." <MATULAT at uhv.edu>
> >To: "E.P. Grondine" 
><epgrondine at hotmail.com>,<FPSPACE at friends-partners.org>
> >Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
> >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:03:39 -0500
> >
> >Ed,
> >
> >The U.S. Air Force has been operating detection systems in space for
> >decades. Has NASA?
> >
> >And why not an unmanned U.S. Air Force run tracking station on the Moon?
> >Again they would easily have the capability for it.
> >
> >I do like this idea.
> >
> >
> >Yes, Congress has asked NASA again to do something about it, as it has
> >aksed NASA repeatly. And NASA will do a study, as it has give it to
> >Congress and go on its way with its Mars fixation.
> >
>
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of E.P. Grondine
> >Sent: Sat 4/7/2007 4:13 PM
> >To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> >Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
> >
> >Tom:
> >
> >The job of the US Air Force is to defend this country against military
> >threats, and they do a good job of it; I like to see them focused on that
> >job, and not have their attention taken off of it. True, the AF has an
> >operational need because the detonations of small impactors set off the
> >early warning systems something like 13 times a year, but...
> >
> >First off, finding an approaching comet with sufficient time to do
> >something
> >requires the earliest warning possible. Now this problem has been 
>analyzed
> >again and again, and the best system is based on the Moon; the next best
> >ones are also based in deep space.
> >
> >Now are you proposing an AF facility on the Moon? The AF operating
> >detection
> >instruments in deep space? I myself like the AF focused as it is now on
> >problems a little closer to home.
> >
> >Also, stopping one of these things from hitting is going to require
> >learning
> >a whole lot more about them.  NASA has already done some of this, and 
>done
> >it well, so it seems that they have some skills in this. I myself would
> >rather have the AF focusing its attention on stopping things coming from 
>a
> >little closer to home.
> >
> >As far as the budget goes, the AF has plenty to do right now with the 
>money
> >it is getting, and does a good job, while NASA wastes billions on "fun"
> >projects to satisfy a few Mars nuts.
> >
> >As fas as NASA "science" goes, NASA has always stiffed the scientists
> >trying
> >to track these things for us all.
> >
> >I agree with you that NASA has to change, and as a matter of fact the
> >Congress told the NASA Administrator in December of 2005 to change NASA.
> >Since then the NASA Administrator has told them he can't follow their
> >instructions. Now what do you think the Representatives and Senators 
>ought
> >to do next? They seem to want to help the Adminstrator change NASA. Call 
>me
> >an old grounch if you want, but I'd fire his *** on the spot.
> >
> >Now I always think seeing Mars is "fun",  but how about NASA takes care 
>of
> >some immediate real problems first? Asteroid 2004 MN4 will be back around
> >too nearby in 2029, while the fragments of Comet Schwassmann Wachmann 3 
>are
> >due in 2022.
> >
> >I really like your idea of simply flying another MER. That would leave
> >about
> >$1.2 billion to get
> >the Infra Red telescope up by 2017, in time to track those Schwassmann
> >Wachmann 3 fragments on that pass, and another launch to tag Asteroid 
>2004
> >MN4.
> >
> >Mars will still be there afterward.
> >
> >For that matter, you can call me cheap, but I can't see why NASA can't 
>turn
> >the MERs over to a commercial entity, who could charge the Mars nuts 
>VISAs
> >for their "fun". Let 'em enjoy Mars on their own dime, not mine, dammit.
> >Me,
> >I'll probably pick up a scond hand copy on VHS.
> >
> >Cao Knee Men,
> >E.P. Grondine
> >Man and Impact in the Americas
> >The cheap old grouch
> >
> > >From: "Matula, Thomas L." <MATULAT at uhv.edu>
> > >To: <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>, <FPSPACE at friends-partners.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
> > >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 12:07:30 -0500
> > >
> > >Jen,
> > >
> > >First, when I am talking about Near Earth Objects (NEO) I am talking
> >about
> > >both Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) and Short-Period Comets. The U.S. Air
> >Force
> > >using LINEAR also discovered 142 Comets in its first two years, more 
>then
> > >had been found in the decade before.
> > >
> > >Dealing with the threat from Comets, especially long term comets,
> >requires
> > >more then simply doing a survey. It requires constant vigilance. And
> >again,
> > >if you want someone to be vigilant watching for threats who is better
> > >qualified? A science agency like NASA where Scientists are always 
>looking
> > >for new discoveries or a organization like the U.S. Air Force who has
> >been
> > >patiently keeping a vigilance on threats from Earth, and the danger of
> > >space debris to spacecraft, for decades. Again I would go with the
> > >organization that has the culture and experience to do the mission.
> > >
> > >Also your model of what it would take for NEO deflection/mitigation 
>must
> >be
> > >out of Hollywood not the real world. DO you actually think astronauts 
>and
> > >manned missions would be used? That is the only way I see it costing 
>the
> > >high price you seem to think it would cost.
> > >
> > >In the real world, if the U.S. Air Force ran the NEO mitigation mission
> >it
> > >would be entirely unmanned. And the system would leverage economies of
> > >scale and existing technology to bring the program cost down to a level
> > >with other U.S. Air Force space programs.
> > >
> > >Only if you let NASA do it will the budget run off the scale.
> > >
> > >The reason is simple. NASA views robotic space missions as science
> >projects
> > >with everything designed new for the mission and only one or two
> >spacecraft
> > >actually built. Then you go start over for the next mission. This is 
>why
> > >NASA's space missions are so expensive! Each is custom made, from the
> > >instruments to the spacecraft. Guess how much this adds to doing
> >research?
> > >Imagine if instead of spending 1.7 billion to build a single new rover 
>to
> > >explore Mars NASA used that funding to send more copies of the
> > >Spirit/Opportunity rovers. You probably could place 10 of those on Mars
> >and
> > >learn far more then the single MSL provides, if its makes it to the
> >surface
> > >intact.
> > >
> > >But that is not the way of scientists who view each spacecraft mission 
>as
> >a
> > >science experiment with the opportunity to use new instruments to make
> > >different discoveries. That is why the scientists that control NASA
> >keeping
> > >killing the lunar research program. Because of the belief that since
> >humans
> > >sample a half dozen locations with technology that is primitive by
> >today's
> > >standards there is no more useful work to be done on the Moon. They 
>will
> > >probably abandon Mars the same way after the first human mission or 
>two.
> > >
> > >But this is not the way to run NEO mitigation missions. You want to do
> > >specific tasks with fall into the same range for each NOW mission. 
>Boring
> > >for scientist, but critical for success.  This is why NEO mitigation
> >should
> > >be seen as an engineering problem, not a one-off science experiment.
> > >
> > >In NEO missions you want standardization to reduce response time. You
> >want
> > >standardized reliable spacecraft. This was the basics of my paper on a
> >NEO
> > >Strategy that I referenced.
> > >
> > >Matula, Thomas L. (2002), "A Multi-Mission Strategy for NEO
> > >Deflection/Destruction" in the Proceedings of Space 2002: The 8th
> > >International Conference and Exposition on Engineering, Construction,
> > >Operations and Business in Space, eds., Bryan E. Laubacher, Stewart W.
> > >Johnson, Samuel E. Moskowitz, Philip J. Richter and David Klinger,
> > >Albuquerque, NM, March 17-21, 2002, p 289-293.
> > >
> > >The first thing you need to do, regardless of if it is a Long-term 
>Comet,
> > >Short-term Comet or NEA, is get on site information. This means getting 
>a
> > >survey spacecraft to it as fast as possible. This means a small craft 
>to
> > >allow high-delta V for a rapid intercept with a standard battery of
> > >reliable instruments to survey it (size, mass, composition, etc.). You
> >also
> > >want to have a series of small probes that would be used to plant
> > >seismographs on its surface to determine its sub-surface structure.  
>All
> > >information will need BEFORE developing your deflection mitigation
> > >strategy.
> > >
> > >So what you want to do is develop a standardized NEO Reconn craft.
> >Actually
> > >a standardized production run of craft, standing by reading to be
> >launched
> > >on short notice. And you want to test the prototype craft by actually
> > >surveying selected NEOs now so you know it will be reliable and provide
> >the
> > >data needed.
> > >
> > >Again who has experience managing such a multi-vehicle program? NASA
> >which
> > >builds and struggle to manage a single space telescope or the U.S. Air
> > >Force which has built and operated a series of space telescopes? Or an
> > >organized that has managed such multiple spacecraft for decades?
> > >
> > >Same for the second robotic spacecraft needed for NEO
> > >deflection/mitigation. Basically a "transport" spacecraft that would
> >carry
> > >whatever the defection/mitigation mission requires. From devices to
> >"paint"
> > >the NEO to pure "mass" as a gravity tug to explosive devices. Whatever
> > >computer modeling based on the data collected by the NEO Reconn Sat 
>shows
> > >would be most effective for THIS particular comet or asteroid. And 
>again,
> > >you need field tests to determine the impact of such strategies on
> > >different NEOs to verify the models on your computer.
> > >
> > >And since humans are not in the loop your costs would not be as much as 
>a
> > >human spaceflight program. Probably less NASA has spent on the Mars
> >Program
> > >in the last decade or two. But again you won't get NASA off its Mars
> > >fixation, so you give this mission to the U.S. Air Force which has the
> > >capability, resources and DESIRE to do such a mission.
> > >
> > >Again who are you gonna call when the world needs saving? An agency who
> > >regards that as part of its core mission of protecting the U.S.A. or an
> > >agency that would regard it as a distraction from its science studies 
>and
> > >search for Mars bacteria?
> > >
> > >Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Jens Kieffer-Olsen [mailto:dstdba at post4.tele.dk]
> > >Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 6:41 PM
> > >To: Matula, Thomas L.; FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> > >Subject: RE: NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
> > >
> > >
> > >  -----Original Message-----
> > >  From: Matula, Thomas L. [mailto:MATULAT at uhv.edu]
> > >  Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:45 PM
> > >
> > > > As for this statement.
> > > >
> > > > [[[Should deflection be required one day that task might
> > > >  of course be delegated to the Air Force. However, I
> > > >  don't see why NASA couldn't do it too. After all, they
> > > >  managed to get their act together in the sixties.]]]
> > > >
> > > > Do you really want to gamble the fate of the Earth on NASA
> > > > getting its act together? Or would you rather give it to an
> > > > organization that already has its act together.
> > > >
> > > > If your ship sinks at sea who are you gonna call? NOAA or the
> > > > Coast Guard/U.S. Navy?
> > > >
> > > > And of course it helps if your rescuers have been training
> > > > for the mission and have the correct equipment, equipment
> > > > that was developed based on decades of experience.  If we
> > > > don't practice moving NEOs around now it may well be too late
> > > > to learn the fine art of doing so once Earth is in the
> > > > cross-hairs of the next one.  That may makes for a good movie
> > > > but would likely turn into a disaster in real life.
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > >  First of all I think Goldin did an excellent job on a
> > >  reduced budget. In particular his perception of the
> > >  politics governing the cooperation with NASA's Russian
> > >  counterpart was without blemish. I don't at all buy the
> > >  b...s... criticism of ISS, and as far as shuttle goes
> > >  he and his successors had no choice but to make use of
> > >  the rule of thumb that you cannot jump off the back of
> > >  a tiger until it has become real tired.
> > >
> > >  On the crucial issue of whether it is justified to spend
> > >  the taxpayers' money practicing NEO deflection just for
> > >  the sake of it, the answer is plainly NO.
> > >
> > >  It is a recipe for bankruptcy to throw money after large-
> > >  scale but imaginary incidents when those smaller disasters
> > >  far more likely to happen are not being addressed. And as
> > >  Ed Grondine has repeatedly tried to communicate to you and
> > >  everyone else, comets fragments are not to be ruled out as
> > >  impactors. Just imagine the cost and futility of defining
> > >  some sort of comet-fragment-on-collision-course-with-Earth
> > >  scenario and then - just like Don Quixote - ride your fleet-
> > >  footed steed hundreds of millions of miles out there to
> > >  combat it. It beggars belief that such a bottomless drain
> > >  on the budget is being seriously proposed.
> > >
> > >  Refining PHO detection to the utmost our technology can
> > >  offer makes sense instead, since what we require most of
> > >  all in order to divert a PHO is TIME. Given enough time
> > >  it may even be possible to practice deflection on an
> > >  object SIMILAR to the impactor-to-be. That is the only
> > >  practicing mission that is cost-justified.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Jens Kieffer-Olsen
> > >Slagelse, Denmark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >FPSPACE mailing list
> > >FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> > >http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
> >http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FPSPACE mailing list
> >FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> >http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
>http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
om:

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as 
$771/month* 
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117