That NASA Near Earth Object (NEO) study for Congress continues to spark heated debate.

A high-level meeting about the report lasted nearly two-and-a-half hours yesterday, June 18, at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The face-to-face face-off involved the space agency’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, as well as former astronauts, Russell Schweickart and Tom Jones, as well as planetary scientist and asteroid specialist, Clark Chapman.

NASA was represented by about a dozen individuals, including several technical specialists that took part in the NEO assessment.

In a communique to me about the get-together, Chapman rates the NASA meeting as a “sad day” for those hoping to move constructively toward systematic thought on how best to deal with the potential hazard of a dangerous space rock smacking into Earth.

“From my perspective, the meeting was very disappointing,” Chapman notes. Former Apollo astronaut, Schweickart, had previously tagged the NASA report “flawed” as you can read here at:

One particular area of contention, among several issues, is NASA’s backing for standoff nuclear deflection of a NEO, with the space agency report viewing it as an effective way to thwart an incoming asteroid with Earth’s name on it.

That approach is deemed a very poor idea in almost all cases, Chapman relates.

Turns out, however, the NASA NEO study group had received secret input that can’t be discussed, making the nuclear option doable, the NASA report relates, for deflecting even the smallest NEOs.

Chapman reports that it appears the NASA NEO study was reviewed by the White House and other federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Energy.

At the meeting, it was acknowledged that several bone of contention issues brought up about the NEO report by Schweickart and Chapman did deserve future study. However, those responsible for the report argued that these were not “mistakes”.

Chapman was invited by a NASA executive at the meeting to submit his recommended modifications to the report with the promise that the red-lined document would be given to NASA chief, Mike Griffin.

Griffin had earlier promised Chapman that if consensus were reached at the meeting about serious errors in the NEO report to Congress, then the study would be modified to set the record straight.

In the post-meeting view of Chapman, there are serious matters about the NASA NEO appraisal that urgently deserve study and modification to better reflect “technical realities as they are now understood.”

Excuses such as “we didn’t think we were charged to study that” or that “we didn’t realize that until after the report was completed”, Chapman relates, doesn’t allow NASA to play duck and cover from important aspects of the study.

“I think it is a shame that the American space agency, looked upon for its expertise around the world, should treat this global issue in such a shoddy fashion,” Chapman says.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 19th, 2007 at 2:48 am and is filed under Space & Astronomy, Technology, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.