NASA charts on increase in discoveries of Near Earth Objects

[Mr. Premise]

Here is a link:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/stats.html

They have charts and stuff.

 

[rs]

There are two possible contributions to this increase as shown in the graph:

1) there is an absolute increase in the numbers
2) if you look harder you see more.

It might clarify to know more about the various search mechanisms. It seems that each "thing" follows a bell curve, where after a while "they" get really good at finding NEOs with this particular thing, then it tapers off as the thing finds all that it is going to.

Presumably each thing has its own suite of capabilities and limitations, which is why NASA has multiple projects.

 

[Charles]

It might clarify to know more about the various search mechanisms. It seems that each "thing" follows a bell curve, where after a while "they" get really good at finding NEOs with this particular thing, and then it tapers off as the thing finds all that it is going to

Simply amazing was the first thought that occurred to me !! Good find.

Presumably each thing has its own suite of capabilities and limitations, which is why NASA has multiple projects

Yes, that could indeed be one of the conclusions. That each method to search for NEO's has it's own niche to cover. As all is becoming charted within a certain niche the hits for new finds taper off. That new search methods still seem to tap into new finds with an upcoming "bell curve" ("the numbers are often close to zero"), only shows how so many more niches are to be chartered.
So there IS an entire bunch up there and that, at least, forces us to re-evaluate certain things. However, it still leaves us clueless as to your original conclusion that there could be two possible contributions to the rise of charted NEO's.

1) there is an absolute increase in the numbers
2) if you look harder you see more

Thanks

 

[rs]

OK, I'm rs (lower case) not James. :)

My point was not to draw the obvious conclusion: "The Cs predict a rapid ramp-up of objects in near earth orbit and here it is in NASA's data" but instead pose the point that we need more data and to unwrap this onion to see what is really there. Like a lot of things, there can be more than one reasonable explanation and often the reasonable explanations are not mutually exclusive. So what is my conclusion? "I don't have enough data to interpret that graph."

Or it could very well be simply "The Cs predict a rapid ramp-up of objects in near earth orbit and here it is in NASA's data".

I don't want to speak for Donald, but if pressed my guess would be that he was at least alluding to the conclusion in the previous paragraph.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Speaking for me, I was definitely alluding to the C's statement, but I would say that I put it up for discussion more than that I saw it as proof of what the C's said, because I don't know enough about these subjects to evaluate NASA's data but I knew other people might shed some light. I strongly agree that we shouldn't take confirmation too easily of what we already suspect, but should be just as sceptical as we would for opposing evidence.

I thought the charts were useful in any case. And, if I had known we could paste pictures here I would have. How do you do it? Can I just paste a picture in this window or is there some code involved?

Don

OK, I'm rs (lower case) not James. :)

My point was not to draw the obvious conclusion: "The Cs predict a rapid ramp-up of objects in near earth orbit and here it is in NASA's data" but instead pose the point that we need more data and to unwrap this onion to see what is really there. Like a lot of things, there can be more than one reasonable explanation and often the reasonable explanations are not mutually exclusive. So what is my conclusion? "I don't have enough data to interpret that graph."

Or it could very well be simply "The Cs predict a rapid ramp-up of objects in near earth orbit and here it is in NASA's data".

I don't want to speak for Donald, but if pressed my guess would be that he was at least alluding to the conclusion in the previous paragraph.

 

[rs]

And, if I had known we could paste pictures here I would have. How do you do it? Can I just paste a picture in this window or is there some code involved?

Its easy. I put an "

" tag in the posting and just copied the link from NASA. Of course the " " quote marks are not required but I cannot figure out how else to quote the tag itself...

Go to the NASA link, hover over the graph, right mouse and select "copy image location" (assuming you have Firefox, there is probably something similar in IE) and paste to the post entry dialog.

 

[whitecoast]

The link is broken. Does anyone know another place I can find the information presented?

 

[Palinurus]

Hi whitecoast,

I found this link: _http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/ Have a look over there... this one works!