[FPSPACE] U.S.A.F. NEO Study[Scanned by MAIL]

[E.P. Grondine]

Tom:

I am quite pleased with the decision of the Congress. The Congress undertook 
that decision after very careful consideration. I know you disagree with 
their decision; many Mars nuts do as well,  because they want NASA focused 
solely on manned flight to Mars.

I am not pleased with Griffin's response to the instructions of the 
Congress.

As I'm not likely to change your mind, and you're not likely to change mine, 
I suppose we should give the others here a break.

Cao Knee Men
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] U.S.A.F. NEO Study[Scanned by MAIL]
>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:59:01 -0500
>
>Ed
>
>I know. The CAPS study leveraged off the U.S. Air Force one.
>
>And I also know from working the problem on the ASCE mitigation committee 
>and organizing conference sessions on it since the late 1990's that NASA 
>just does not have the culture or management structure to successfully 
>implement it.
>
>BTW I have just been asked to organized another ASCE conference session on 
>it for Space2008 in Los Angeles next year. I will post details for you as 
>they develop.
>
>And I know how you feel about what Congress is doing. However I also know 
>there are many in Congress who also realize that NASA is not really the 
>agency but are too worried about how the U.S would appear in foreign policy 
>to give it to the U.S. Air Force directly. But that is why they also look 
>the other way as the U.S. Air Force works the issue as part of its training 
>and R&D activities.
>
>And the reality is that ITAR would kill any international work NASA might 
>want to do since the technology does have a direct transfer to pure 
>military applications.
>
>So let's just end this debate as you will not sell me that NASA would do a 
>creditable job on it. NASA is good for exploring Mars or sending astronauts 
>to ISS but not for space commerce or planetary defense. A very different 
>mindset is needed to make it work.
>
>But I for one do worry less because of what the U.S. Air Force is doing out 
>of the spotlight to help protect the Earth from NEO's while NASA postures 
>on it in front of Congress and scientists.
>
>Tom
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of E.P. Grondine
>Sent: Mon 4/9/2007 11:48 AM
>To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] U.S.A.F. NEO Study[Scanned by MAIL]
>
>Tom:
>
> >Remember the study was from 1996. Its simply a demonstration of what the
> >U.S. Air Force could have done if given the job then.
>
>Yeah, and NASA's CAPS study was from the year 2000.
>
>Tom, I have stated my reasons for thinking this is a job for NASA, and
>stated them multiple times.
>I suppose that repeating them again and again for you was good exercize for
>my left hand, but again and again and again and again?
>
> >Think about it. DO you want to keep tilting at windmills in the hope NASA
> >will do something, or just turn the U.S. Air Force loose on it?
>
>Tom, the Congress has already decided whose job it is: NASA's.  Clearly,
>NASA needs to coordinate with the AF.  If Griffin can't do that, then they
>should put someone who can in the job.
>
>Cao Knee Men,
>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] U.S.A.F. NEO Study[Scanned by MAIL]
> >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:52:36 -0500
> >
> >Ed,
> >
> >Remember the study was from 1996. Its simply a demonstration of what the
> >U.S. Air Force could have done if given the job then.
> >
> >And quite honestly I really don't care if Russia ro China or even ESA 
>wish
> >to depend ont he U.S. Air Force for protecting Earth. They are free to go
> >their own way if they wish. The more the better I say. My interest is in
> >seeing the most capable organization working to save the Earth.
> >
> >Yes I know about that Air Burst and remember are knowledge is thanks to
> >U.S. Air Force satellites that already monitor the Earth 24/7. As a 
>result
> >the U.S. Air Force, not NASA, knew in almost real time it was a NEO
> >striking the atmosphere.
> >
> >Indeed, most if not all of what we know about the rate these objects are
> >currently hitting the Earth is thanks to the monitoring system that U.S.
> >Air Force runs 100%. Including several large air bursts over the ocean 
>that
> >no one was around to see. That is why the U.S. Air Force is so interested
> >in doing the mission. Why they "bootleg" funds for projects like LINEAR 
>and
> >Clementine under the excuse of training and R&D while NASA does little 
>not
> >directly ordered by Congress.  LINEAR was done as "part" of a R&D project
> >to test automated software for locating and tracking pace debris in Earth
> >orbit.
> >
> >Unlike NASA the U.S. Air Force recognize the threat because they see the
> >smaller ones hitting every year and so they are working to counter it 
>even
> >without a Congressional mandate to do so. Imagine what they could do if
> >they got the green light NASA has gotten. Remember their total space 
>budget
> >is as large if not larger then NASA. And they have no fixation on Mars or
> >human spaceflight to distract them from doing what is needed.
> >
> >Think about it. DO you want to keep tilting at windmills in the hope NASA
> >will do something, or just turn the U.S. Air Force loose on it?
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of E.P. Grondine
> >Sent: Sun 4/8/2007 9:11 PM
> >To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> >Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] U.S.A.F. NEO Study[Scanned by MAIL]
> >
> >Tom:
> >
> >Thanks for the link, but China and Russia still will not depend upon the 
>US
> >AF for warning of impactors.
> >
> >Lewis's work on recent fatal impacts has long since been superced by the
> >work of others, and the impact hazard is now known to be far worse than
> >presented in this study.
> >
> >I'm also really pretty aware of exactly how pathetic NASA management's
> >response to this hazard has been.
> >
> >As far as the AF's "scenarios" goes, the real world is always much more
> >complex than any we can imagine, and it often works in very unexpected
> >ways.
> >We may end up in a scenario of "Halfs and Half-wits", wherin some half 
>wits
> >in the US want to turn this over to the AF, so that NASA can remain 
>focused
> >on manned Mars flight. Of course, you yourself are not one of them.
> >
> >I siill prefer the Langley team's Comet and Asteroid Protection System
> >(CAPS), as it is more capable than the AF's proposed system. It appears
> >that
> >China's analysts came to the same conclusion.
> >
> >Take a moment to consider also that since this AF study we had a small
> >impact occur at a time of tension between India and Pakistan. There was 
>no
> >way to inform their launch officers, and I don't even know if they're 
>aware
> >of the problem.
> >
> >I see Yeomans and Johnson et al duplicated the AF's study of an IR
> >telescope
> >in Venus orbit.
> >
> >I would like to say more, but then Administrator Griffin's responses 
>pretty
> >much say it all.
> >
> >Cao Knee Men,
> >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: [FPSPACE] U.S.A.F. NEO Study
> > >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:58:12 -0500
> > >
> > >Hi Ed,
> > >
> > >Happy Easter! I hope it has been a good one for you.
> > >
> > >Yes NASA's response has been pathetic, more so then you realize..
> > >
> > >I am not sure if you a familiar with this 1996 USAF study on Planetary
> > >Defense so I have provided a link to it.
> > >
> > >Basically in 1996 while NASA under Goldin was focusing on Mars and 
>doing
> > >its best to ignore any directives from Congress on NEOs the U.S. Air
> >Force
> > >did a study on how to create an organization structure and strategy for
> > >Planetary Defense. Below is a link to it.
> > >
> > 
> >http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c16/v3c16-1.htm#Contents
> > >
> > >Planetary Defense:
> > >Catastrophic Health Insurance for Planet Earth
> > >
> > >Note it focus on creating a command and control structure for 
>responding
> >to
> > >threats from the entire range of impactors from NEA to long period 
>comets
> > >and rogue asteroids from the main belt.
> > >
> > >Chapter two documents examples of recorded impact events that caused 
>loss
> > >of life, including over 10,000 in one event recorded in Chinese 
>records.
> > >
> > >The three tier detection system the study proposed included space based
> > >optical, infrared and radar in leveraging off of existing U.S. Air 
>Force
> > >systems. This system would include elements in solar orbit at the
> >distance
> > >of Venus to search for objects within the Earth's orbit, at Earth's L3, 
>4
> > >and 5 points and beyond Mars. The system beyond Mars would watch for 
>long
> > >period comets and rogue asteroids from main belt impacts. The U.S. Air
> > >Force would manage these assets just as it does current space based
> >sensor
> > >systems.
> > >
> > >Note the U.S. Air Force was proposing a complete detection and
> >surveillance
> > >system, multiple satellite constellations with built in redundancy, one
> > >that would detect and track ANYTHING that moved in the solar system or
> > >entered it to guard against ALL threats, not just one or two satellites
> >as
> > >NASA wants to do.
> > >
> > >It was to be leveraged off the technology and experience the U.S. Air
> >Force
> > >already has operating a similar system to track debris in Earth orbit.
> >The
> > >proposed system would extend that tracking system from Earth Orbit to
> > >beyond the orbit of Jupiter.
> > >
> > >Basically if anything was headed towards Earth the U.S. Air Force would
> > >know about it soon enough and deal with it.
> > >
> > >The mitigation systems proposed for study/development went beyond 
>nuclear
> > >devices to include Solar Sails and gravity tugs.
> > >
> > >Now imagine if Congress had just given the U.S.A.F. the green light and
> > >funded it instead of forcing for NASA to do something it dosen't want 
>to
> > >do?
> > >
> > >This USAF infrastructure is what Congress should be pushing now if its
> > >serious about NEOs instead of letting NASA just continue to study the
> >issue
> > >into obscurity.
> > >
> > >Again if you want a real defense against impactors the U.S. Air Force,
> >NOT
> > >NASA, is the agency to give the job to. And the system prposed in this
> > >study is the way to do it.
> > >
> > >Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of E.P. Grondine
> > >Sent: Sun 4/8/2007 4:54 PM
> > >To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> > >Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] NASA and NEOs[Scanned by MAIL]
> > >
> > >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
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Mortgage refinance is Hot. *Terms. Get a 5.375%* fix rate. Check savings
> >https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2bbb&disc=y&vers=925&s=4056&p=5117
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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

_________________________________________________________________
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John.  Enter to win today. 
http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline