CFE - 30/8/2007 10:55 PMWith ESPA ruled out, it's becoming increasingly harder to justify the mission. Perhaps NASA will suggest flying it as a hitch-hiker on the first Ares V launch
CFE - 30/8/2007 9:55 PMWith ESPA ruled out, it's becoming increasingly harder to justify the mission. Perhaps NASA will suggest flying it as a hitch-hiker on the first Ares V launch
tnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?
Jim - 30/8/2007 9:00 PMQuoteCFE - 30/8/2007 10:55 PMWith ESPA ruled out, it's becoming increasingly harder to justify the mission. Perhaps NASA will suggest flying it as a hitch-hiker on the first Ares V launch First Ares V isn't LEO. Also that is more than 5 years aways
Phillip Huggan - 30/8/2007 5:11 PMThe mission was to observe earth's complete albedo for two years. Already built, but cancelled launch and operations. Mission was renamed DSCOVER: Deep Space Climate Observatory.
MKremer - 30/8/2007 11:58 PMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)b) mass - big-time extra wattage needs (large solar panels); ion engine hardware; gas plumbing; gas valves; valve pyros and wiring; extra instrumentation and control computer (and backup) plus additional power controllers; temperature/valve/engine/gas volume/gas flow sensors and the necessary power and sensor wiring for all of them; gas tank and hardware; xenon gas mass itself; additional necessary wiring not described in the above(what sounds simple, really isn't)
tnphysics - 31/8/2007 10:35 PMa) I meant that if the Falcon 9 was built, it could launch Trianab) An ion drive is lighter than TLI and LOI propellant.
CessnaDriver - 1/9/2007 12:54 AMPolitics created it, politics grounded it, only politics can save it. And last I heard a million bucks a year to store it. Donate it to a museum and be done with it.
MKremer - 31/8/2007 4:58 AMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)
meiza - 2/9/2007 9:15 AMAre you sure that the mission has little scientific value? Do you know some climatologist's perhaps a bit more expert opinion? Could it be actually useful, and has mostly experienced a political smear campaign? ("Goresat".)I don't know, just saying, people are so quick to say "it's just a stunt".
wingod - 2/9/2007 8:23 PMOriginally the mission only was going to have a camera to take pretty pictures of the Earth. After an outcry from the scientific community relative to the cost, the mission was redesigned to carry a pretty good set of sensors. However, there was never any competition of those sensors compared to other sensors desired by the community, and with the cost (it ended up at $275M dollars) it was not well regarded.
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 8:52 PMhttp://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/671 This news article mentions foreign launch options considered in 2002, is the question cost or politics? If cost, it may be launchable by another space agency, now! If politics, maybe in 2009? What does it cost to lift 3 tonnes to GEO on an Ariane, $10 000 000? Figure double that for L1 placement?!
GW_Simulations - 2/9/2007 12:07 PMQuoteMKremer - 31/8/2007 4:58 AMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)Well, seeing as it's not going to be launched anyway, it could be used as a test payload on F9 (Much like FalconSat-2 on the F1). If it gets there then great, if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter.
CFE - 3/9/2007 5:20 AMQuoteGW_Simulations - 2/9/2007 12:07 PMQuoteMKremer - 31/8/2007 4:58 AMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)Well, seeing as it's not going to be launched anyway, it could be used as a test payload on F9 (Much like FalconSat-2 on the F1). If it gets there then great, if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter.And put it through the machine shop roof?
CessnaDriver - 31/8/2007 10:54 PM Politics created it, politics grounded it, only politics can save it. And last I heard a million bucks a year to store it. Donate it to a museum and be done with it.
Wow, a space program created on a political basis!!??? Who could imagine that!? I guess if we are going to eliminate Triana because it was created for politics, then we should look at other programs that exist for political reasons, and eliminate them, as well.
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 9:02 PMQuotewingod - 2/9/2007 8:23 PMOriginally the mission only was going to have a camera to take pretty pictures of the Earth. After an outcry from the scientific community relative to the cost, the mission was redesigned to carry a pretty good set of sensors. However, there was never any competition of those sensors compared to other sensors desired by the community, and with the cost (it ended up at $275M dollars) it was not well regarded.This is from the point of view of using this mission's evolution as a blueprint to future blueprints. I don't think that is the point here. This money has already been spent. The cost to keep DSCOVER prepped is $1 million annually, not $275M. I'd say a good climate computer model is worth $100 billion, and it wouldn't surprise me if DSCOVER data could add 1/100-1/1000 the value of a refined climate model, if such coarse estimates mean anything. But all of these mission details aren't public (isn't a spy satellite) and the people in the loop probably can't cost the value of climate data very well...
meiza - 3/9/2007 7:21 AMCessnaDriver, why would Al Gore have to fund a satellite whose data and benefits would be enjoyed by all? I mean, sure, he could, but it's a faulty logic at the core.Most of the talk around this is really politically colored as well. Seems the scientific merits are not mentioned often by the opposers.
Danderman - 3/9/2007 8:13 AMQuoteCessnaDriver - 31/8/2007 10:54 PM Politics created it, politics grounded it, only politics can save it. And last I heard a million bucks a year to store it. Donate it to a museum and be done with it. Wow, a space program created on a political basis!!??? Who could imagine that!? I guess if we are going to eliminate Triana because it was created for politics, then we should look at other programs that exist for political reasons, and eliminate them, as well.
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,......
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 7:52 PMI take "GoreSat" as a complement. NASA should be renamed GoreSA, and its mission to "protect the home planet" reinstated.
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/671 This news article mentions foreign launch options considered in 2002, is the question cost or politics? If cost, it may be launchable by another space agency, now! If politics, maybe in 2009? What does it cost to lift 3 tonnes to GEO on an Ariane, $10 000 000? Figure double that for L1 placement?!
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PMIts purpose was to measure the Earth's complete albedo (from L1) for two years. This is a faculty that presently doesn't exist in designing climate models. Instead, a piece-meal incomplete composite of much closer observatories are used. Knowing the Earth's actual albedo will help uncover the rate of Global Warming; will have an influence on construction and engineering projects.
CessnaDriver - 3/9/2007 1:10 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,...... The Clinton admin was not exactly a champion of NASA. QUOTE]I was referring to Earth Observation programs that were cut by Bush. Nice to see the overall NASA budget rise in 2001-2002 though: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0502-aaas.html"Is that data so truly unique to Trianas abilities, that it cannot be arrived at with existing methods?" Yes, it is. I've a NASA list of proposed Lunar Base utilities and all the best ones are Earth Observation. Some proposals sound very similiar to what Triana would be capable of: just observing basic pan-Earth details. This 2000 task force agreed with the centention Triana is worthy: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200003081676.htmlAre the naysayers here really contradicting this task force?I don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites. NASA will be forced to make cuts in a decade (like almost every other USA department), it would be nice to set an early precedent to have another space agency fund this mission if it is cost-efficient.
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 4:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions.
NOAA currently operates 16 meteorological satellites in 3 separate constellations
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.
Jorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:42 AMQuoteJorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.I stand corrected. So, in your scheme of things, would building and running a Lunar Base qualify as a NASA endeavour, or should some organization similiar to the US Dept. of Geology be created? Honest question.
It would seem a little silly to have research dealing with Solar Forcing done by NASA, and cloud altitude by NOAA. What altititude does space begin?
Jorge - 4/9/2007 2:16 AMQuotePhillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:42 AMQuoteJorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.I stand corrected. So, in your scheme of things, would building and running a Lunar Base qualify as a NASA endeavour, or should some organization similiar to the US Dept. of Geology be created? Honest question.It's a fair question. Personally, I think NASA should build it but routine ops after that should be handed off to another entity in order to keep NASA focused on the cutting edge. The lunar equivalent of geology would be "selenology", right? The same question has arisen with regard to ISS. Prior to the Columbia accident, there was some discussion of NASA handing off the US segment of ISS to a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). And the current situation, in which Congress has declared the US segment of ISS a national laboratory, has raised the question of whether NASA should run the national laboratory or hand it off. Clearly, NASA has shown far more interest in the challenges of assembling ISS than operating it.QuoteIt would seem a little silly to have research dealing with Solar Forcing done by NASA, and cloud altitude by NOAA. What altititude does space begin?Shrug. There will always be a dividing line between NOAA and NASA, and some aspects of that line are going to be arbitrary and perhaps silly. But I think the dividing line I'm proposing is a lot less silly than where the line is currently drawn by historical and political accident ("weather" = NOAA, "climate" = NASA).
Seems the scientific merits are not mentioned often by the opposers.
Jim - 4/9/2007 6:34 AMQuoteJorge - 4/9/2007 2:16 AMQuotePhillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:42 AMQuoteJorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.I stand corrected. So, in your scheme of things, would building and running a Lunar Base qualify as a NASA endeavour, or should some organization similiar to the US Dept. of Geology be created? Honest question.It's a fair question. Personally, I think NASA should build it but routine ops after that should be handed off to another entity in order to keep NASA focused on the cutting edge. The lunar equivalent of geology would be "selenology", right? The same question has arisen with regard to ISS. Prior to the Columbia accident, there was some discussion of NASA handing off the US segment of ISS to a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). And the current situation, in which Congress has declared the US segment of ISS a national laboratory, has raised the question of whether NASA should run the national laboratory or hand it off. Clearly, NASA has shown far more interest in the challenges of assembling ISS than operating it.QuoteIt would seem a little silly to have research dealing with Solar Forcing done by NASA, and cloud altitude by NOAA. What altititude does space begin?Shrug. There will always be a dividing line between NOAA and NASA, and some aspects of that line are going to be arbitrary and perhaps silly. But I think the dividing line I'm proposing is a lot less silly than where the line is currently drawn by historical and political accident ("weather" = NOAA, "climate" = NASA).It is in the National Space Act for NASA to do research on the atmosphere.
The agreement with NOAA is NASA does R&D and NOAA does operational. So, when any instrument is proven to be operational, NOAA takes it over
There are plenty of other satellites with far more value than Triana that have suffered similar fates. Remember Teal Ruby? I don't see anybody clamoring to fly Teal Ruby. It didn't have friends in high places.
Are you sure that the mission has little scientific value? Do you know some climatologist's perhaps a bit more expert opinion?
Jorge - 4/9/2007 9:03 AMAnd as I have written, there is no inherent reason it should be that way. I am proposing a less arbitrary dividing line between the two agencies while you blindly restate the status quo without even defending it, really.
As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.It is a historical and political accident that NASA wound up with an Earth science program to begin with. After the Challenger accident the Ride Commission proposed a number of new space priorities for the US government, one of them being a Mission to Planet Earth. Ride being a former NASA astronaut, NASA got tasked with MtPE and its charter was changed to match. Had the proponent for MtPE been a NOAA bigwig, NOAA might have wound up with MtPE instead. MtPE is a much better fit for NOAA's charter since it is all about Earth's oceans and atmosphere.
And as I have written, that was an amendment driven by a historical and political accident. It can and should be rectified.
CessnaDriver - 3/9/2007 1:10 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,...... The Clinton admin was not exactly a champion of NASA. http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_nasa_graph.gif">
simonbp - 3/9/2007 1:26 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PMIts purpose was to measure the Earth's complete albedo (from L1) for two years. This is a faculty that presently doesn't exist in designing climate models. Instead, a piece-meal incomplete composite of much closer observatories are used. Knowing the Earth's actual albedo will help uncover the rate of Global Warming; will have an influence on construction and engineering projects.I'm gonna stop you right there: How on earth is that the best way to measure global albedo? If they really, actually wanted to get an albedo map, they'd have put a darn thermal imaging spectrometer on there, they're not hard to do! (In fact, there are three operating on Mars right now!) Instead, it's got a silly little cheap broadband radiometer; you can buy a space-qualified one of those for a thousand bucks, for goodness sakes!The answer is that this mission was never, ever driven by science. It was driven Al Gore pretending that he's a scientist (most of the actual climatologists I know want to strangle the guy), and the NRC being infested with the "anything that claims to study global warming must be good" disease. If you really wanted to study global albedo, you'd have three separate small spacecraft in GEO, separated by 60 degrees, each with a high-resolution thermal imaging spectrometer with a range from 40 to 0.4 microns (which gives you the full water, CO2, and aerosol sweep). Instead the "main instrument" is bloody big camera that takes a bunch of pretty pictures, which are somehow supposed to increase the public's awareness that Earth actually does exist... :frown:Short answer for the launch vehicle guys: Ain't no way this mission is ever gonna get enough money to launch...Simon
Jorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.It is a historical and political accident that NASA wound up with an Earth science program to begin with. After the Challenger accident the Ride Commission proposed a number of new space priorities for the US government, one of them being a Mission to Planet Earth. Ride being a former NASA astronaut, NASA got tasked with MtPE and its charter was changed to match. Had the proponent for MtPE been a NOAA bigwig, NOAA might have wound up with MtPE instead. MtPE is a much better fit for NOAA's charter since it is all about Earth's oceans and atmosphere.One of NASA's biggest problems is being stretched too thin by too many concurrent programs. It is time to refocus the agency on aeronautics and space.
meiza - 4/9/2007 10:23 AMThe whole NASA earth science gutting: it's weird since the global warming denialists have been clamoring for more observations since data is so inconsistent, but when such are proposed, they say they should not be done... (Or even keeping up the existing campaigns operating longer.)Not that it's definitely the case with Triana, it's hard to see beyond all the political flak.
Perhaps if the Clinton admin had not blundered so badly including the Russians into ISS so heavily thus causing massive cost over runs and delays, we would have more money for earth sciences.
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 11:26 AMTo me, job one for NASA is humans in space. Call me nuts.
meiza - 4/9/2007 8:23 AMThe whole NASA earth science gutting: it's weird since the global warming denialists have been clamoring for more observations since data is so inconsistent, but when such are proposed, they say they should not be done... (Or even keeping up the existing campaigns operating longer.)Not that it's definitely the case with Triana, it's hard to see beyond all the political flak.
Jim - 4/9/2007 8:32 AMQuoteCessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 11:26 AMTo me, job one for NASA is humans in space. Call me nuts. NutsIt is not NASA's #1 job
What is NASA most known for to the public? to history?
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 12:01 PMWhat is then?
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:28 PMI knew someone would eventually question GlobalWarming on this thread and claim CO2 doesn't function as a partial oneway mirror in the atmosphere, trapping outgoing infrared radiation and allowing incoming light to pass. Maybe some NASA funders believe this but I hope no one at NASA is that scientifically illiterate. I really don't want to feed the trolls because it might drown out genuine reasons for not launching DSCOVR. Obviously there are other NOAA or DOE or whatever agencies that would claim money could be better spent. Are there any existing and competing NASA Earth Observation Missions that are a better use of cash than launching DSCOVER, assuming a $200 000 000 remaining mission cost (my own probably crappy estimate; feel free to correct)?
Blackstar, that's why I put the there... but it would be nice to know more about that, maybe you can find a magazine where you can write an article about that? (Or a blog.)
Jim - 4/9/2007 9:50 AMQuoteCessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 12:01 PMWhat is then?Space science,Not just flying astronauts, which the shuttle only really does. There have been more unmanned spacecraft than manned in the last ten years and over all.
Blackstar - 4/9/2007 9:48 AMQuoteWhat is NASA most known for to the public? to history?Hubble.
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 2:14 PMQuoteJim - 4/9/2007 9:50 AMQuoteCessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 12:01 PMWhat is then?Space science,Not just flying astronauts, which the shuttle only really does. There have been more unmanned spacecraft than manned in the last ten years and over all.If that were true.....space science. I seriously doubt we would be flying any astronauts at all. Human exploration. Try that one. Sure, we use robots and other methods, only because people can't go for now. If people could we sure as hell would, and we will someday to many places.
But I seem to recall something happening in 1969 that impacted just slightly more. And redefined the human race with a single step.
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 9:28 AMI knew someone would eventually question GlobalWarming on this thread and claim CO2 doesn't function as a partial oneway mirror in the atmosphere, trapping outgoing infrared radiation and allowing incoming light to pass. Maybe some NASA funders believe this but I hope no one at NASA is that scientifically illiterate. I really don't want to feed the trolls because it might drown out genuine reasons for not launching DSCOVR. Obviously there are other NOAA or DOE or whatever agencies that would claim money could be better spent. Are there any existing and competing NASA Earth Observation Missions that are a better use of cash than launching DSCOVER, assuming a $200 000 000 remaining mission cost (my own probably crappy estimate; feel free to correct)?
Blackstar - 4/9/2007 11:21 AMQuoteBut I seem to recall something happening in 1969 that impacted just slightly more. And redefined the human race with a single step.You seem to be establishing dichotomies here, as if all of these subjects are either/or propositions.The reality is that NASA is funded for many different reasons, and gets its support from the public and the politicians (i.e. the people who write the checks) for many different reasons. There is no single thing that NASA does that is universally agreed as "the most important," as this thread proves. The fact that people disagree with you demonstrates that fact.
People disagreeing doesn't make it fact.
By the way, adaptive optics and software is catching up to Hubble fast. Check the recent Palomar observatory news.
Blackstar - 4/9/2007 12:40 PMI'm no expert on this, but find a professional astronomer and they''ll tell you that the best telescope _has_ to be in space because of these fundamental limitations. Atmosphere sucks.
Blackstar - 4/9/2007 12:34 PMQuotePeople disagreeing doesn't make it fact. Actually, this is one case where it does. You stated that human spaceflight is the "#1 job for NASA" and then added "What is NASA most known for to the public? to history?"People then replied. The fact that there is no universal agreement about what NASA is "most known for to the public" demonstrates that, well, there is no universal agreement. That means that it is your opinion that human spaceflight is the "#1 job for NASA."So the fact is that this is your opinion only, not proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt--or proven to the point where everybody shares the same opinion.
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 7:36 PM1. What does NASA spend most of it's money on?2. Ask any 10 year old what NASAs number one job is. 3. But at the end of day the whole point of exploring the frontier is to live there one day. 4. NASAs number one job is human spaceflight.
Shall we begin using the term "warm mongerers" label as well?
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 11:28 AMI knew someone would eventually question GlobalWarming on this thread and claim CO2 doesn't function as a partial oneway mirror in the atmosphere, trapping outgoing infrared radiation and allowing incoming light to pass. Maybe some NASA funders believe this but I hope no one at NASA is that scientifically illiterate. I really don't want to feed the trolls because it might drown out genuine reasons for not launching DSCOVR. Obviously there are other NOAA or DOE or whatever agencies that would claim money could be better spent. Are there any existing and competing NASA Earth Observation Missions that are a better use of cash than launching DSCOVER, assuming a $200 000 000 remaining mission cost (my own probably crappy estimate; feel free to correct)?
wingod - 4/9/2007 5:01 PMWhy don't you open a thread on this.
Jim - 4/9/2007 4:57 PM1. Not manned spaceflight2. not an expert opinion, which is the same as yours3. But not NASA's mandate. NASA's mandate is to keep the US on top4. No it is not, I should know I am a NASA civil servantNowhere in the following is a task for NASA to settle outer space
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 9:18 PM3. The nations that lead on the frontier dictate the course of human history. Human presence in space is obvious to that lead. China clearly knows this as well an seeks human presence as well.
Jim - 4/9/2007 6:25 PMQuoteCessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 9:18 PM3. The nations that lead on the frontier dictate the course of human history. Human presence in space is obvious to that lead. China clearly knows this as well an seeks human presence as well. Still doesn't make it NASA's job
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 9:30 PMQuoteJim - 4/9/2007 6:25 PMQuoteCessnaDriver - 4/9/2007 9:18 PM3. The nations that lead on the frontier dictate the course of human history. Human presence in space is obvious to that lead. China clearly knows this as well an seeks human presence as well. Still doesn't make it NASA's jobThen whose is it??Because it is going to happen.
There are certainly areas where space telescopes win. There are others where, dollar for dollar, ground telescopes win. If the billions that went into Hubble went into a giant ground based AO observatory, it would not have produced the same science as Hubble, but it certainly would have produced interesting results.
So 10 billion of NASAs 16.7 Billion budget goes to what?What is job number one?2. The above proves the obvious. It does not take an expert to see what NASA does with its funding. 3. The nations that lead on the frontier dictate the course of human history. Human presence in space is obvious to that lead. China clearly knows this as well an seeks human presence as well.
meiza - 5/9/2007 9:21 AMAfaik, simplified, during George H. W. Bush the earth science and climate research got lots of money precisely to measure and gain knowledge, and that money then was cut under Clinton and George W. Bush.
Blackstar - 5/9/2007 9:15 AMLook at it a different way and one could argue that "NASA's #1 job is engineering" or "NASA's #1 job is pork barrel politics."
My personal take on this is that, once Falcon 9 is operational (fingers crossed), the satellite should be launched, as is, on F9, at minimal cost to the taxpayer. I suspect that some sort Star 48 type upper stage would be required for the mission.
As for competing with Atlas, it looks like even 401 would be overkill for this mission so that would leave Delta II and F9 as likely options.
F9 would not require a kick stage or motor. Only Delta II would require it
Could Atlas actually be competitive with Delta II for a payload under 500 kg?
This is a high energy mission
As I posted on another thread on January 21:"GoreSat will be back soon"Looks like I was a prophet.Stand by for more crappy politically motivated 'projects'Live long and prosperMauro
Especially since it's built already so wouldn't cost that much to launch.
The Ukraine even offered to launch it for free
Quote from: madscientist197 on 03/03/2009 09:58 amThe Ukraine even offered to launch it for free ITAR strikes again...
Quote from: ugordan on 03/03/2009 10:20 amQuote from: madscientist197 on 03/03/2009 09:58 amThe Ukraine even offered to launch it for free ITAR strikes again...Surely ITAR wouldn't affect Ukranian rockets. Several US satellites have flown on Zenit.
By the way how valid is Triana as a platform with out the political clout? Would it be technically easier to send a new platform with a new system rather than launch as is/or upgraded? I remember hearing that Triana was nothing more than a political stunt for the VP at the time, however the source is probably biased so I am trying to separate the fact from the propaganda.
Quote from: GW_Simulations on 03/03/2009 12:33 pmQuote from: ugordan on 03/03/2009 10:20 amQuote from: madscientist197 on 03/03/2009 09:58 amThe Ukraine even offered to launch it for free ITAR strikes again...Surely ITAR wouldn't affect Ukranian rockets. Several US satellites have flown on Zenit.No, they flew on Sealaunch vehicles run by an American company. Boeing provides a payload unit which "masks" the spacecraft from the LV analytically
Quote from: Jim on 03/03/2009 12:42 pmQuote from: GW_Simulations on 03/03/2009 12:33 pmQuote from: ugordan on 03/03/2009 10:20 amQuote from: madscientist197 on 03/03/2009 09:58 amThe Ukraine even offered to launch it for free ITAR strikes again...Surely ITAR wouldn't affect Ukranian rockets. Several US satellites have flown on Zenit.No, they flew on Sealaunch vehicles run by an American company. Boeing provides a payload unit which "masks" the spacecraft from the LV analyticallyI seem to remember there was at least one commercial launch from Baikonur back in the late 90's. The one I remember was for Globalstar, and it failed.
.Unless you make it ride the first F9 then Spacex might launch it for free same goes with OCS's Taurus II.
I was never a Gore defender, but I always thought Triana was a great idea. The real time image of the planet from a distance might cause the most profound change in perspective since the Apollo 8 photo.
The real time image of the planet from a distance might cause the most profound change in perspective since the Apollo 8 photo.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/15dscovr/index.htmlStill playing with Triana. IMHO, this is a great payload for Falcon 9, if an upper stage is made available.
IMHO, this is a great payload for Falcon 9, if an upper stage is made available.
Also a great payload for those unsold Delta II's. And Delta II has an excellent track record.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 10/16/2009 04:55 pmAlso a great payload for those unsold Delta II's. And Delta II has an excellent track record. How many Delta IIs are left unsold?This is what I've seen in terms of the remaining missions:LV Mission Customer Site Date7320 WISE NASA JPL VAFB Dec-097420-10 COSMO-4 Italian Gov't VAFB Feb-107320 Aquarius NASA Goddard VAFB Sep-107920 NPP-Bridge NPOESS VAFB Jan-117920H Grail NASA JPL CCAFS Sep-11
No need for an upper stage.
No need for an upper stage. This satellite is ~ 700kg, way below Spitzer, which went all the way on the Delta second stage. Delta 7920 should be enough.Analyst
C3 needed for Lagrange is about zero. Spitzer was a little over 900kg on a 7920H. 700kg and a normal 7920 is enough.Analyst
Via Clark Lindsay, this tidbit from Businessweek:"The Air Force plans to bid out several launches, beginning with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite, scheduled for fiscal 2012, which begins on Oct. 1."http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228033785287.htm(Mods: Apologies if I screwed this up. I'm not too good at the whole embedding thing.)
Quote from: GClark on 05/06/2011 05:40 amVia Clark Lindsay, this tidbit from Businessweek:"The Air Force plans to bid out several launches, beginning with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite, scheduled for fiscal 2012, which begins on Oct. 1."http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228033785287.htm(Mods: Apologies if I screwed this up. I'm not too good at the whole embedding thing.)I thought NASA bought launch services for NOAA under NLS. How/why is the AF involved?
Again, via Clark, this:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/05/06/10.xml&headline=Triana%20Sat%20Eyed%20For%20Competitive%20Test%20LaunchRelevant quote:"The service is requesting $135 million in the fiscal 2012 budget, sent to Congress in February, to fund the competition for launching NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite, says Maj. Gen. John Hyten, director of space programs for the Air Force’s acquisition office...Though the satellite would provide scientific data to government users, it is not a critical payload; thus it is suitable for boost in a test launch that poses higher risk than other Pentagon launches."ymmv
I think the end of Delta II was in 2010.
May be I didn't made myself clear. I meant that it was clear in 2010 that it was completely uneconomical for Delta II to compete for 2012 mission against Atlas (due to the pad and overhead costs), much less with Falcon and/or Taurus II. There even was a GAO paper about that.
This still doesn't make sense to me. How can it be economical to launch one Falcon 9 per year (which is what will likely happen this year, if even one) but not to launch one or two Delta 2 rockets? How can it be economical to build a brand new launch complex and launch vehicle processing facility from scratch (for Taurus 2 in Virginia) but not to keep using an already-built, existing Delta 2 launch infrastructure?But, of course, this argument is long-decided, and not in Delta 2's favor.
To put a little finer point on it, Delta II infrastructure was last clean-sheeted in the 80s. It's been consolidated in the last few years with consideration to the launch rate. F9 and T2 have the benefit of having been clean-sheeted in the last few years. Infrastructure is much better optimized to current launch rate - and/or adaptable to greater throughput. If nothing else, Orbital's Launch Systems Group has figured out how to make a really low launch rate - if not optimized (a strong word) - at least doable.
SpaceX will use its Falcon 9 v1.1 to boost NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) in November 2014 and the Falcon 9 Heavy for launch of a Space Test Program satellite in September 2015, says Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, program executive officer for Air Force space programs.
SpaceX will apparently launch it in 2014 on an F9 v1.1:http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_05_2012_p0-524585.xmlQuoteSpaceX will use its Falcon 9 v1.1 to boost NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) in November 2014 and the Falcon 9 Heavy for launch of a Space Test Program satellite in September 2015, says Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, program executive officer for Air Force space programs.
Wow, is that a record for a cold storage spacecraft to actually be launched?
Sounds like we need a thread, satellites that where stored a very long time before launch. Where not DSP's also built in batches, then launched at a later date?