Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Hardware & Flown Items
  OIG: NASA's management of moon rocks

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   OIG: NASA's management of moon rocks
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-09-2011 01:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) release
NASA's Management of Moon Rocks and Other Astromaterials Loaned for Research, Education, and Public Display

NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin released Thursday (Dec. 8) an audit examining NASA's controls over loans of moon rocks and other astromaterials to researchers, exhibitors, and educators.

NASA's collection of astromaterials includes approximately 140,000 lunar samples, 18,000 meteorite samples and about 5,000 solar wind, comet, and cosmic dust samples. These samples constitute a rare and limited resource and serve an important role for research and education.

As of March 2011, NASA had more than 26,000 samples on loan.

NASA has experienced loss and theft of astromaterials since lunar samples were first returned by Apollo missions in 1969, including 18 lunar samples lost by a researcher in 2010 and 218 meteorite and lunar samples stolen from a researcher at Johnson Space Center in Houston in 2002. These latter samples were later recovered.

According to NASA records, 517 loaned samples have been lost or stolen between 1970 and June 2010.

The Office of Inspector General audit found that NASA lacks sufficient controls over its loans of moon rocks and other astromaterials, which increases the risk that these unique resources may be lost.

Download the full report: NASA's Management of Moon Rocks and Other Astromaterials Loaned for Research, Education, and Public Display (PDF)
Specifically, we found that NASA records were inaccurate, and that researchers could not account for all samples loaned to them and held samples for extended periods without performing research or returning the samples to NASA. In addition, although NASA recently improved controls over loans to educators, we identified additional opportunities for the Agency to strengthen its practices and update its policies for these loans.

Using NASA records, the OIG performed an inventory of samples on loan to 59 of the 377 researchers in the United States (this group represented 16 percent of U.S. researchers with loaned materials and 23 percent of all NASA astromaterial samples on loan as of early 2011.) In examining this group of 59 researchers, we found that:

  • Eleven of the 59 researchers (19 percent) could not account for all samples NASA records indicated had been loaned to them or possessed samples that, according to NASA records, had been destroyed or loaned to other individuals.

  • NASA records included hundreds of samples that no longer exist as well as loans to 12 researchers who had died, retired, or relocated, in some cases without NASA's knowledge and without returning samples.

  • NASA officials did not ensure that loaned research samples were efficiently used. For example, the OIG learned of one researcher who still had lunar samples he had borrowed 35 years ago on which he had never conducted research.
To improve controls over its loans of these precious materials to researchers, the OIG recommended that NASA: (1) establish detailed procedures for safeguarding loaned materials; (2) require loan agreements for all types of materials and strengthen the agreements currently in use; and (3) establish procedures for tracking retention periods and ensuring that researchers timely use and promptly return loaned samples.

We also recommended that NASA evaluate practices for ensuring inventory procedures are effectively implemented and consistently followed and strengthen its inventory verification process.

To improve controls over loans for education and display purposes, we recommended that NASA establish an effective tracking system and annual inventory requirements for long-term loans; review all long-term loan agreements to identify expired agreements and either renew the agreements or recall the exhibits; and review and update all relevant policies.

NASA concurred with our recommendations and promised to take corrective action.

Greggy_D
Member

Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 12-09-2011 07:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Greggy_D   Click Here to Email Greggy_D     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Specifically, we found that NASA records were inaccurate...
This is the exact point many of us were trying to make in the Ed Mitchell camera lawsuit.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-09-2011 07:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My read is the IG's conclusions are exclusive to processes in place for curation of astromaterials, not NASA as a whole. I dont think one can extrapolate these findings to the Mitchell case since we have not reviewed the relevant government records pertaining to that investigation.

spaced out
Member

Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-09-2011 09:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaced out   Click Here to Email spaced out     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
...the OIG learned of one researcher who still had lunar samples he had borrowed 35 years ago on which he had never conducted research.
It's nice to know one of those priceless sample disks may have been used as a paperweight on some academic's desk for 35 years.

JasonB
Member

Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 12-09-2011 11:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JasonB   Click Here to Email JasonB     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Guess I should have applied to NASA as some sort of "academic" and asked for a "loan" on a moon rock. Even I could do more research than nothing in 35 years simply by looking at it every once in awhile. Nice to hear that a lot of them were "lost" and supposedly destroyed ones were kept while no one paid attention to what was going on. At least they got that invaluable camera back from Mitchell though (sarcasm).

MadSci
Member

Posts: 226
From: Maryland, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 12-09-2011 05:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MadSci     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA records included hundreds of samples that no longer exist as well as loans to 12 researchers who had died, retired, or relocated, in some cases without NASA's knowledge and without returning samples.
I'd like to see their new agreement that requires NASA's permission before dying and (hopefully) relocating to heaven.

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-09-2011 07:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Procedure for securing samples?

How about a little something called a "deposit" — one hefty enough to guarantee the "researchers" will want to utilize the sample, promptly, then return it for their refund?

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-09-2011 07:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's a "bond."

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-09-2011 08:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bond, deposit (I'm in the rental business, therefore the bias), whatever; the "guarantees" required 'til now certainly have been inadequate.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-09-2011 09:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...one hefty enough to guarantee the "researchers" will want to utilize the sample, promptly, then return it for their refund?
Such an idea, while well-intentioned, could negatively impact the very reason NASA is providing samples for study and display. I can think of several concerns:
  1. It would create an artificial financial bias — only those able to afford the "hefty" collateral would be able to study or display the samples.

  2. It could result in researchers' studies being rushed by administrators eager to reclaim the collateral, negatively impacting the validity of the science being conducted.

  3. It wouldn't serve as a motivation for those institutions wealthy enough to afford losing the "hefty" collateral and could be perceived as the "price tag" for taking ownership of the samples.

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 12-09-2011 09:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting thread. I attended a talk today whose authors were tasked with confirming that a fragment of rock was a piece of an asteroid that landed in Maine in the 1800's (visible confirmation). They made thin sections on the small sample, trying not to destroy the sample, and did Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) analysis. A well known mineralogist kept asking "why not grind it up and do X-ray diffraction (the best way to determine if the sample was actually a piece of the meteorite)". Perhaps these scientists could not resist doing what was necessary to answer the question.

AusSpace
Member

Posts: 25
From: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 2010

posted 12-10-2011 04:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AusSpace   Click Here to Email AusSpace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
X-ray diffraction is very good at determining the elemental composition of minerals, but it isn't used as the primary form of meteorite classification because it doesn't tell us anything about the physical structure.

There are four meteorites that fell in Maine in the 1800's; Nobleborough (eucrite), Andover (L6), Searsmont (H5) and Castine (L6). Thin sections allow the classifier to assess different aspects such as whether or not the stone has chondrules, metal content and distribution, degree of chondrule alteration, shock products and weathering. Elementally, an L3 will be the same as an L6, so X-ray diffraction could not tell the two apart.

So, say that hypothetically there's a chance an alleged Castine specimen might have been switched with a cheaper, more common L meteorite. A scientist trying to classify the specimen would first look at the chondrules on a thin section. An L6 has experienced very intense heating during it's formation, almost to the point of melting, but not quite. The chondrules in an L6 are quite deformed, sometimes to the point that they might be heard to make out against the surrounding matrix. If the thin section has perfectly formed chondrules, then its an L3 and you know your specimen is not Castine.

X-ray diffraction would only come in to play later on in the process for situations such as trying to distinguish Castine and Andover, both L6's (but only if other characteristics like shock where the same). It would be used to look at ratios like the percentage of nickel to iron in the metal, but only after thin section.

Personally I don't think the rate of loss is all too unacceptable, especially when you consider the shear magnitude of knowledge gained compared the amount of lunar material lost in the process, which is probably not much more than ten grams at most. I think the foremost priority was science and a more draconian administration would have diminish that.

This was also during a time when many thought it was only a matter of time before we went back for more. That's not to say there's no lessons to learn and there shouldn't be changes, especially now it looks like it will be a long time before we bring more back. I wonder what more material by weight has been lost to, science or missing goodwill/Apollo 11 rock and dust displays?

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-10-2011 11:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
First, it doesn't sound like there's much really to worry about here in any scenario; from just the numbers given above, a rudimentary extrapolation yields a "loss rate" of supply of lunar material by NASA of 10,000 years...seems pretty safe to assume we'd be returning to the moon before all supply is exhausted.

As to the requirement of the posting of bonds for getting a sample to do research with, of course there are difficulties such as those Robert mentioned, but each of these can easily be dealt with, admistratively. Obviously, NOT requiring such bonds is a major factor in having too many samples going "lost" over the last 3 decades.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-10-2011 05:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
collectSPACE
NASA missing moon rocks, meteorites and other astromaterials, report finds

A missing moon rock educational display has led federal investigators to finding that NASA has lost track of over 500 extraterrestrial material samples over the past 40 years, a new report finds.

In the report released Thursday (Dec. 8), NASA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that the space agency "lacks sufficient controls over its loans of moon rocks and other astromaterials, which increases the risk that these unique resources may be lost."

Tykeanaut
Member

Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 12-11-2011 05:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tykeanaut   Click Here to Email Tykeanaut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We've got a fair sized chunk from the Apollo 15 mission sitting in the Science Museum in London. While it's great to see there ain't a lot of examination of it going on by geologists. (I assume this has now been done?)

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-11-2011 12:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
While it's great to see there ain't a lot of examination of it going on by geologists.
There are two categories of lunar sample loans: research and education/public outreach. The Apollo 15 sample at the London Science Museum falls into the latter and is one of 94 moon rocks currently on long-term long to museums around the world.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement