Didn't see any math in your post nor do I ever recall anything beyond +,-,/,X in your posts. Perhaps multiplication is complex math to you?

The whole point of my post and the article was to get additional funding for the additional sites. It should be quite obvious neither I nor Mr Tucker was proposing he fund the effort. Sometimes I really wonder what fraction of posts and links you read.

Your comment on the sky coverage is interesting. As I noted elsewhere the detection limit of 20.5 does seem like a high magnitude. If it depends on a moonless sky then the coverage would drop by a factor of 15, but still be a significant addition.

However, the higher magnitudes you sight are misleading. They apply to a lowered impactor size target compared to current search program targets. When you get around to reading MPC circulars someday you will see that current searches rely on much lower magnitude limits. A large scope or orbital scope is needed to do a <= 300m in 10 years search. The value of this program is in meeting current search targets sooner with greater reliability. More small impactors would be detected, but not at a rate sufficient to reduce the need for better professional programs.

Calling Tucker is a technician is as bad as calling him an astronomer. The fact that you don't differentiate accurately between a technician, engineer, or astronomer speaks volumes about either your technical expertise or the sloppiness of your response. No significant engineering is needed to copy a system. Tucker's system engineering appears to be a valuable contribution and now actual technicians and amatuer astonomers should be able to copy it. The value of serious amatuers is that they do work cheap.

At least your comments have been more relevant than expected.

Regards,
Mark