Heads Up NASA People: A Storm Is Coming
NASA should focus on Space related activities. It should only use facts they find about earth's atmosphere, not promote anything but space related activities. Greener activities and climate change studies should be done by the EPA, not NASA. NASA shouldn't promote ANYTHING not space related, not religion, not politics. It should be a non political agency.
was curious about this so I did a little digging:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Rainfall_Measuring_Missionhttp://www.space.com/34764-goes-r-satellite-tracks-lightning-and-more.htmlhttps://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/jcsda/documents/seminardocs/Goodman20100526/Goodman_20100526.pdfA lightning sensor launched in 1997 on TRMM, a joint NASA-JAXA LEO satellite. The correlation between storm activity and lightning activity was demonstrated based on TRMM data.So looks like roughly 20 years from first launch of prototype to full-scale deployment. (When the train -- in this case a major weather satellite upgrade - only leaves about once a decade, it's rough when you miss one..).
So looks like roughly 20 years from first launch of prototype to full-scale deployment. (When the train -- in this case a major weather satellite upgrade - only leaves about once a decade, it's rough when you miss one..).
The trend under the Obama administration was that Earth funding kept increasing at the expense of planetary science. There was some push back from Congress on this. I expect the trend to reverse under the new administration. I don't know if funding for Earth sciences needs to be equal to planetary science but I think that there were close to eacher other in the past and that they will be closer to each other in the President's upcoming budget.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/02/2017 02:48 pmThe trend under the Obama administration was that Earth funding kept increasing at the expense of planetary science. There was some push back from Congress on this. I expect the trend to reverse under the new administration. I don't know if funding for Earth sciences needs to be equal to planetary science but I think that there were close to eacher other in the past and that they will be closer to each other in the President's upcoming budget. It's true that NASA's spending on earth science rose during the Obama administration, but, adjusted for inflation, it never got back to the levels seen during early in the Bush II administration -- see the attached chart (which I'd love to see going further back in time, but it looks like I would have to spend some time extracting the data myself), which is taken from the attached GAO report.None of this answers the question as to what the appropriate level of earth-science funding is, but recent levels don't seem to be far out of line with pre-Bush II levels. I don't see any reason to believe that earth science has become less important since 2000.
Not a bad idea. Increase the EPA's budget to allow it to gain the necessary competencies to operate satellites, and pass legislation based on the EPA's findings on climate change, and other impacts to the environment.
climate change studies should be done by the EPA, not NASA.
Quote from: spacenut on 03/02/2017 09:15 pm climate change studies should be done by the EPA, not NASA. No, that is NASA's charter and NOAA's
Quote from: Jim on 03/03/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: spacenut on 03/02/2017 09:15 pm climate change studies should be done by the EPA, not NASA. No, that is NASA's charter and NOAA'sI was under the impression that NASA only obtains the data and doesn't actually do the climate change studying. At least that's what Bolden told Congressmen Palazzo, a couple of years ago.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/03/2017 05:57 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/03/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: spacenut on 03/02/2017 09:15 pm climate change studies should be done by the EPA, not NASA. No, that is NASA's charter and NOAA'sI was under the impression that NASA only obtains the data and doesn't actually do the climate change studying. At least that's what Bolden told Congressmen Palazzo, a couple of years ago. splitting hairs. You can't just collect data and not look at it
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/02/2017 02:39 pmI never said otherwise. But it went beyond that under the Obama Administration. NASA TV and the NASA website were promoting a greener environment. That is not their job in my opinion. Here's to hoping that they reverse the trend and promote a less-green environment. Who needs clean air, anyway?
I never said otherwise. But it went beyond that under the Obama Administration. NASA TV and the NASA website were promoting a greener environment. That is not their job in my opinion.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/01/2017 07:58 pmResearch and operational observations are different things. And there are good reasons to separate them.(snip)(snip)There are many good reasons to keep research programs and operational programs separate. One of them is that science needs the opportunity to chase down leads that go in odd directions. That's a cultural thing and a budget thing. But another reason is that operational programs--like weather satellites--are very important and urgent, and when they experience problems, they will immediately suck money away from "less urgent" programs. Thus, if you stuck the research programs and the operational programs in the same agency, you would always run the risk of starving the research.
Research and operational observations are different things. And there are good reasons to separate them.(snip)
But now... connect the dots a bit more..... If this is true for weather/nav satellites, isn't it true for launchers?
Republicans in Congress aren't against NASA collecting Earth science data, they just disagree on the analysis that is being done from it. So it matters to them what NASA is actually doing in respect of Earth science.