Imagine an agency/company has been set up to track meteors (shooting stars) in pursuit of profit. I need to provide a motivation to upgrade their sensors + equipment over and over again — pouring money into the process for promise of a bigger reward.
Conventional logic might say: larger meteors are more valuable (recoverable?) but those are the brightest and easiest to spot. I need to lay the opposite incentives, harder-to-track meteors being more valuable. This doesn't need to be hard science, but the more plausible the better.
So far my ideas include:
If recovering meteors is the prize - bigger is better. So:
- Brighter meteors are ones burning up more. Some meteors are made of more durable materials and burn less, landing with more material intact.
- Tracking the flightpath is key to recovery. Bigger (more valuable) meteors leave a longer path, and that needs bigger telescopes / wider fields of view to fully track. E.g. the company is losing out on all the bright paths it can't follow fully.
If information is the prize:
- Tracking more meteors (and dimmer ones) gives more info, about X. Perhaps smaller meteors are better indicators of valuable asteroids in orbit, etc.
Any other ideas?