I’ve had a stroke and even have trouble typing,
Your suggestion about working the Executive, seems our of reach, as I am In Illinois now, as I have been since 2004..
You got any other ideas?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, either.

“Congress doesn’t say what constitutes a “potential hazard”.”

Do you think that getting that defined explicitly as 30 meter diameter objects would help, or would even more definitions that would have to be added so that NASA could not avoid responsibility, which is the intent.

Perhaps this years additional instructions have helped to clarify NASA’s responsibilities. If NASA needs more money to carry out these instructions, the Congress has asked NASA to tell them.

“It is interesting that Congress is concerned about hazards “to the Earth” rather than hazards to the nation. I’m not sure if the American taxpayer is particularly interested in protecting China or Iran from asteroid impacts. That’s foreign aid, no?”

While as Fukushima shows, having another country, region, or city blown off the face of the Earth is not in the US’s own interest, I definitely agree wih you that the US should not pick up the entire cost.

While Canada is paying an admirable share, clearly the members of other nation’s legislatures still remain to be educated about this hazard, legislation willo have to be enacted, and then executed.

“I’ll admit that NASA isn’t doing all that Congress might ask it to do, but Congress seems pretty happy with what they’re paying it to do.”

NASA’s PAO is staffed by the best around. Most people know about one keyhole for Apophis in 2029, but they don’t know about the other 2029 keyholes.

I expect that whoever represents the coastal regions, on either side of the aisle, will take a special interestr in legislation, as their constituents’ mpact risk is higher.

Also, Congress is mandating that the efforts of NASA “be directed to” these pursuits, and not necessarily accomplishing them. Yep, it’s about reading and understanding English.

You can bring it to court, but I don’t think you’d win. NASA is compliant. Now if 102(g) has specified that a NEO that could take out Roharbacher’s house should be detected and mitigated, that would be another thing.

It is interesting that Congress is concerned about hazards “to the Earth” rather than hazards to the nation. I’m not sure if the American taxpayer is particularly interested in protecting China or Iran from asteroid impacts. That’s foreign aid, no?

I’ll admit that NASA isn’t doing all that Congress might ask it to do, but Congress seems pretty happy with what they’re paying it to do. The Executive Branch can’t “carry out” something that Congress doesn’t want to pay for. It’s that simple. Bolden and Grunsfeld aren’t going to “budget” anything that Congress hasn’t said they would shell out money for. What, Grunsfeld is going to sell apples on the street to fund it? No, those apples are for JWST.

The point is not that more sensitive detection can’t be considered a good idea, but that those who pay for it don’t consider it to have more value than $20M/yr. Now, Congress is free to take that NEOO budget proposal number and bump up the appropriation for it, or just do an unfunded earmark to increase it. But they haven’t.

“102(g) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be directed to detecting, tracking, cataloguing, and characterizing near-Earth asteroids and comets in order to provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard of such near-Earth objects to the Earth”

DL – “NASA management doesn’t need to listen to it’s engineers at LaRC, nor do they have to listen to you. They need to listen to Congress and OSTP (or else they get fired).”

DL – “Certainly a space based IR telescope, ideally inside the orbit of the Earth, would be the optimal detection strategy.”

Actually, Langley’s CAPS is the optimal detection system. But JPL’s IR scope is a very necessary stop gap addition as well. Its up to Bolden and Grunsfeld to budget it, and have it operational by 2021 at the latest.

In regards to detection, 2 telescopes, both located in Hawaii, can’t provide adequate ground based coverage, no matter how powerful.

“Spend some time in DC and you’ll see how it works.”

hoo boy. I don’t what more you want – it looks to me like there already is an act of Congress. Its language is pretty plain, although it appears that some people have severe problems with either reading or understanding English.

I’ve had a stroke; and now you want me to see that the Executive Branch caries out an act of Congress?

It’s called LSST. Certainly a space based IR telescope, ideally inside the orbit of the Earth, would be the optimal detection strategy.

“Grunfeld and Bolden already have Congressional direction in regards to this. NASA management has not listened to its engineers at Langley.”

Please quote that direction you’re referring to, as in federal statute. I gave you all the “direction” they were given. NASA management doesn’t need to listen to it’s engineers at LaRC, nor do they have to listen to you. They need to listed to Congress and OSTP (or else they get fired). Spend some time in DC and you’ll see how it works. I think we can both agree that better detection is in the interest of humanity, but Congress and the Administration evidently don’t yet see the need. They pay the bills.

“NEO astonomers will not be riding in the bakc of the bus anymore.
Get used to it.”

Heh. The President has given NEO astronomers a remarkable opportunity, with some sort of a pledge to actually send humans to one. But you know, when that expedition occurs (assuming it actually does occur), you can bet that science will be riding in the back of the bus. Get used to it. That’s the paradigm that Mike Griffin imposed on human space flight for the agency, and it has never really changed. But at least the back of the bus gets there!

Yes, Hubble has a narrow field of view. That’s why we’ll need all of its obserrving time to find the other parts of 73P. After that’s done, then Cycle 19 will kick in.

As far as Cycle 19 goes right now, its irrelevant paper generated by astophycists.

NEO astonomers will not be riding in the bakc of the bus anymore.
Get used to it.

Ed Weiler was a great one for spending other agencies money.

You haven’t been following the recent “discussions” about the allocations of Pan Starrs observing time.

Regardless of Pan Starrs and LSSAT, SMD needs to budget in the space based infra red telescope

“NASA isn’t going to pull $100M out of some other project and plunk it in NEO detection without Congressional direction. If they did, there would be smoke coming out of Capitol Hill.”

“NASA and GrunsfI think Grunsfeld won’t give NEO detection and mitigation a second thought unless Congress, via Bolden, tells him to.”.

Grunfeld and Bolden already have Congressional direction in regards to this. NASA management has not listened to its engineers at Langley.

Better smoke coming out of Capitol Hill than smoke coming off of Capitol Hill.

As far as “mitigation” (interception) goes, there’s a lot you don’t know and don’t need to know, aside from the fact that NASA has deep space navigation technologies that no one else has. As far as short term rapid response mechanisms, Grunsfeld has 7 months to get them put into place.

BTW, your recent impact history is off, as are your impact frequency estimates.

and PS – thanks for making this so easy for me, as I don’t type all that well now, and this is difficult for me. Could you just tell us all where the missing parts of 73P are?

I have. But I’ll make it easy for you.

102(g) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be directed to detecting, tracking, cataloguing, and characterizing near-Earth asteroids and comets in order to provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard of such near-Earth objects to the Earth.

Now, that’s exactly what NEOO is doing. That’s also what LSST will be doing, when NSF builds it, which it will.That’s why we’re spending $20M/yr on NEOO. Because that’s what Congress wants to spend on doing this task. Now, Congress bases strategy on statistics, and they know full well that they can pick a state, any state (how about New Jersey!), and the 60m rock that hits the Earth (which it hasn’t done in a hundred years) almost certainly won’t hit that state. Beyond what NEOO is doing, the “potential hazard” that 102(g) refers to is very, very small.

Re your dream that NASA finally steps up to a particular plate, go talk to Congress. NASA isn’t going to pull $100M out of some other project and plunk it in NEO detection without Congressional direction. If they did, there would be smoke coming out of Capitol Hill.

I think Grunsfeld won’t give NEO detection and mitigation a second thought unless Congress, via Bolden, tells him to. He will probably be thinking some about which NEO we should put a footprint on, but unlikely which one will might its footprint on us.

Also, 102(g) has it right. While NASA has unique competence in detecting, tracking, cataloguing, and characterizing NEOs, I’d sure not want to entrust it to mitigate one, especially if time were short. There are other agencies that are far more capable of doing that. So when NEOO finds a rock headed our way, who are we going to ask to mitigate it? Have we made the investment to make sure they have the capability to do that?

Doesn’t sound like you know what you’re talking about, sorry. Hubble’s the wrong instrument for finding a NEO, since it has very fine angular resolution but small field of view. You need to know exactly where something is before you can point Hubble at it. For finding and tracking NEOs, you’ll want something with a very wide field of view, like LINEAR or Pan-Starrs.

Besides which: if you want Hubble time next month, you need to have applied about a year ago during the Cycle 19 call for proposals. And if your observations had been approved in that, you’d know that Hubble scheduling doesn’t have any notion of “highest observing time priority”. All approved observations will be executed sooner or later if at all technically possible, with the exact details of what gets scheduled first depending primarily on available observing windows and efficiency considerations rather than any ranked priority lists. Ground based telescopes often use ranked lists, since they need to have some way to determine what gets the best weather, but there’s no such concern for Hubble.

Don’t think I agree with that – he was on the research staff at Caltech before joining the astronaut corps, and that’s not exactly an easy gig to come by. Furthermore, I’ve worked with an astro prof (and current Macarthur genius fellow) who was a contemporary of his at Caltech, who told me that Grunsfeld had gotten a job offer for a MIT faculty spot at the same time he was offered an astronaut slot.

I think it would be very, very hard to find anyone with a better research track record who comes anywhere close to his hands-on experience in human spaceflight *and* NASA management. And fundamentally, this is a management post, not a research faculty job, so the fact that he’s been out of active research himself for the last 20 years while serving as an astronaut is not necessarily that relevant a factor.

The folks I know at Space Telescope all said great things about him as their deputy director – apparently he spearheaded a bunch of new initiatives, led some reorganizations, etc. Let’s hope he brings the same enthusiasm to shaking up things at SMD.