A few more thoughts and encouragement

[Rick Baldridge]

 

A few have commented on the apparent lack of "formal" NASA response to this Google Groups site.  I have a few comments ----

 

Keep in mind that the LCROSS Mission was a "Fast Track, Low Cost" add-on to the original LRO Mission, due primarily to a change in the launch vehicle from a Delta II to a much larger Atlas V.  Things had to be done fast, cheap and maybe even "different" to get the job done.

 

LRO as the primary mission payload dictates most (if not all) of the mission timing.  The LCROSS impact on the North or South Pole of the Moon is based on the launch date / time, again based on needs of the LRO payload.  While the LCROSS mission would likely prefer the South Pole of the Moon for its plethora of targets, the North Pole still has many Hydrogen-rich areas based on Lunar Prospector data.  Either pole will work, and the information gathered by this group is useful no matter what.  I like what Kurt said in essence -- regardless of the outcome of this data, it has sparked considerable interest in the little-explored polar regions of the Moon, and you all are providing some VERY cutting-edge information on the extreme regions of the Moon as viewed from Earth.  Makes you feel a little like Perry, Byrd, Amundsen and Scott, doesn't it?  ; - )

 

Most involved directly with this mission, like Principal Investigator Tony Colaprete and Public Outreach Coordinator Brian Day are EXTREMELY busy, and cannot comment directly to every single post to this Google-Group.  Moderators like Paul and I are non-NASA personnel and do this work for the love of the hobby, knowing full well that amateurs like all of us can contribute a great deal to a mission such as this.  We will help where we can.

 

Make no mistake -- this "informal" site has provided much used information to the LCROSS Team already, even if you do not know it.  Several new techniques for using "Guide Craters" on the moon that can position a spectroscopic slit of a 3-meter-class telescope to within 0.5 arc seconds of the impact target area on the limb of the moon resulted in part to contributions to this site. 

 

As a matter of fact, this site has proved so useful, it is possibly breaking new ground in providing a forum that is inexpensive, quick and not bogged down in bureaucratic "red tape".  Normal NASA channels that provide VERIFIED information to the public are very accurate and meticulous (for good reason) but at the same time, excruciatingly slow.  If done the "old way", this site would likely not even have been set up, except by those advanced amateurs who really are into this "hobby". 

 

I learned much about this affect during the Shuttle Columbia tragedy.  For a time, NASA seemed unable if not unwilling to get information to the public.  For the first few months after the tragedy, the amateur community using reports, video tapes and photographs of Columbia's demise published on the Internet seemed to know more about what was going on than NASA did.  (Several Columbia eyewitnesses are members of this site as well.)  But there was MUCH speculation and mis-information.  I have to admit that even though I too was frustrated by the apparent slowness of NASA to give the public something, they did it right in the long run when the final CAIB Report came out.  Those on the "inside", myself being one that became included because of the data I provided, were VERY impressed by the way NASA did their investigation -- gather the facts, assess the data, and THEN publish the information.  That's the way it is, like it or not.

 

This Google-site has been EXCEPTIONAL!  Formal or no, it has precipitated an interest in space flight and amateur contributions to the sciences that will not go unnoticed.  Keep up the good work!

 

 

 

Rick Baldridge

 

 

[cano...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 5, 6:52 pm, "Rick Baldridge" <rickbaldri...@comcast.net> wrote:
> A few have commented on the apparent lack of "formal" NASA response to this Google Groups site.  

> I have a few comments ---- Most involved directly with this mission, like Principal Investigator Tony Colaprete and

> Public Outreach Coordinator Brian Day are EXTREMELY busy, and cannot comment directly to every single post to
> this Google-Group.  Moderators like Paul and I are non-NASA personnel and do this work for the love of the hobby,
> knowing full well that amateurs like all of us can contribute a great deal to a mission such as this.  We will help where

> we can. <snip> As a matter of fact, this site has proved so useful, it is possibly breaking new ground in providing a
> forum that is inexpensive, quick and not bogged down in bureaucratic "red tape".  <snip remainder>. - Rick Baldridge

Rick, I sincerely appreciate your comments. I can see you will be a
good, experienced moderator. A couple of points: No one has
suggested that the principal investigators and Brian be here every day
reviewing posts. The only suggestion that has been made - and I'm the
guy who made the suggestion - was that an intern somewhere in NASA
Ames take a few questions filtered through a moderator such as
yourself at an interval of two weeks. No one has or is suggesting
that the group be used as some type of inside access to the LCROSS
Team.

Since, as you say, the online group method is a new way for NASA to
relate to the public, let me pass on a couple of lessons learned over
the past to months from the amateur viewpoint. These are not
complaints, they are just observations about what did and did not
work. The observations I am making below are typical in the relations
between an organization that informally asks help from the outside
community in its efforts.

1) With respect to the Jan. 2 solicitation by NASA for amateurs to
take images, people set up telescopes during cold weather northern
winter weather. Hawaii was clouded out on satellite images. Emails
sent from this group to the moderator to see if the session had been
called off were dead-lettered and were never responded to or
acknowledged.

2) We spent a couple of weeks here discussing where in the heck
"Crater A" was and finding "Crater F". Tony C. did eventually did
have some time, well-appreciated, stopped in and provided a correction
that Crater "A" was just a region, not a crater, the floor of Nansen
F.

In conclusion, NASA posted a notice on their website asking me to take
out my expensive scope (expensive to me at least) and take some
pictures. I'm happy to give back to the community and do that. But
as a basic quid pro quo of human communication, I expect if I get
stuck or need some more information to do what you ask me to do,
someone in the organization will take the time to provide a little
more guidance. This is just a common sense matter. IMHO, having a
NASA Ames intern (or somebody else) fielding a couple of questions
every two weeks filtered through you to resolve any sticking points is
minimally time invasive.

Everyone understands the investigator's time is valuable and they are
concentrating on getting ready for launch. Everybody understands the
investigator's right to maintain in-process results private and NASA's
desire to keep control of dissemination of its information. We are
fans of the program and want to see the launch go through and
appreciate the overriding necessity of NASA scientists staying focused
on that priority. But my time has economic value too and am also a
busy person.

Again, this is not a complaint. File it away in the "Lessons Learned"
folder for the next observing campaign. I consider it an initial
teething problem inevitable in using this internet media and that, in
a sense, the group itself is an experiment. The group seems to be
functioning well during this start up period. I'm know I'm happy.
Everybody seems to get along reasonably well and are enjoying
themselves. We have a good moderater, you, overseeing things.

If as moderator, you feel this post is out-of-line, please feel free
to killfile it.

Respectfully, Kurt

[Rick Baldridge]

Good observations. Good lessons learned, Kurt. We can all be honest here.

I also believe there were some initial teething problems. This situation is
very new to both sides. There's still much to learn on how this approach
could best benefit both NASA and the public for future missions where the
public can play an important role.

I'm very excited about this mission, mostly because even the experts don't
know quite what to expect regarding the brightness or plume size. Remember
Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Jupiter in 1994? I don't think ANYONE thought there
would be those huge darks spots on Jupiter, or that they would last so long.

All we can do is be prepared. The video information by Derek and others
will certainly be a good approach to recording this event. Fairly
short-exposure CCD imaging with SBIG-type cameras will be just as valuable,
and magnitude data would be more quantitative with that approach. There are
lots of possibilities. We each have our own areas of expertise to add to
the already excellent contributions.



Rick