Author Topic: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread  (Read 66084 times)

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« on: 08/31/2007 12:11 am »
The 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.

It is a 3 tonne payload to be lifted to the Lagrange point L1.  Was scheduled to be lifted by a Shuttle Orbiter (initially aboard the ill-fated Columbia Mission).  My question is if anyone knows if another lift means is available, or if this thing is Shuttle or bust.  The Shuttle can lift up to 50 tonnes to orbit, but I don't know anything about lifting payloads to L1.  NASA has cut this mission, but if another lift vehicle exists I don't see why someone else can't resurrect it.  The scientific value of the mission is as essential now as it was in 1999.
Need an estimate of the Mission's lift cost and two year operating cost.  $200 million has already been spent to build the satellite observatory.  Is there an 8 or 9 figure mission cost still remaining?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #1 on: 08/31/2007 01:13 am »
My, guess - figure its previous total budget request, multiply by 2 (maybe even 2.5 for transition to an EELV launch), then wait 18-24 months after mission/budget approval for the actual launch.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #2 on: 08/31/2007 01:25 am »
The science is just as marginal now as it was in 1999.  A Delta II could launch it.  More than 150M to refurb, launch and operate.  Maybe even 200M

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #3 on: 08/31/2007 02:08 am »
Launching Triana doesn't make much sense if you have to shell out hundreds of megabucks to put it on orbit.  It might make sense if it got a "free" ride on an EELV (ESPA ring) or the shuttle (using the excess payload capacity on a mission such as STS-107.)  Then again, I don't understand how Triana would have gotten from LEO to L1.  I don't suppose an IUS would have been used.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #4 on: 08/31/2007 02:18 am »
It was a STAR-37 or 48 on the IRIS cradle

Too big for ESPA ring

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #5 on: 08/31/2007 02:55 am »
With 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 :)
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #6 on: 08/31/2007 03:00 am »
Quote
CFE - 30/8/2007  10:55 PM

With 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

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #7 on: 08/31/2007 03:16 am »
Quote
CFE - 30/8/2007  9:55 PM

With 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 :)

Would the possibility of an Ariane-V launch be in the cards, or are they restricted to U.S. gov't launchers?

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #8 on: 08/31/2007 03:22 am »
A Falcon 9 could launch it.
Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #9 on: 08/31/2007 03:58 am »
Quote
tnphysics - 30/8/2007  10:22 PM

a) 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)

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #10 on: 08/31/2007 06:35 am »
Quote
Jim - 30/8/2007  9:00 PM

Quote
CFE - 30/8/2007  10:55 PM

With 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

This is what we refer to as a "joke."  It doesn't merit a serious response.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #11 on: 08/31/2007 03:32 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 30/8/2007  5:11 PM

The 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.

Ah! You mean GoreSat! Scientifically, it's sorta interesting, but not really a significant leap over the global albedo data available from the weather sat network. Eventually, someone will win a Explorer-class AO to pull it out of cold storage, probably switch out a few instruments, and fly it. But that might take a while (lots of higher-priority earth science to get funded first).

Simon ;)

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #12 on: 09/01/2007 02:35 am »
Quote
MKremer - 30/8/2007  11:58 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 30/8/2007  10:22 PM

a) 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)

a) I meant that if the Falcon 9 was built, it could launch Triana

b) An ion drive is lighter than TLI and LOI propellant.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #13 on: 09/01/2007 02:44 am »
Quote
tnphysics - 31/8/2007  10:35 PM

a) I meant that if the Falcon 9 was built, it could launch Triana

b) An ion drive is lighter than TLI and LOI propellant.

a.  If and so what .  So could a Proton, Ariane, Long March

b,  Again, so what.  it isn't going to get Triana a launch vehicle

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #14 on: 09/01/2007 05:54 am »
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.


Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #15 on: 09/01/2007 06:33 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 1/9/2007  12:54 AM

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.


The next election will decide it.  Perhaps President H. Clinton will green-light the project and put Al Gore in charge of the thing somehow.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #16 on: 09/01/2007 10:31 pm »

 Raving politics, never at rest—as this poor earth’s pale history runs,—  
What is it all but a trouble of ants in the gleam of a million million of suns? -Tennyson

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #17 on: 09/02/2007 03:14 am »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 1/9/2007  12:54 AM

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.


The thing that had to do more than anything with it dying is that the instruments on the spacecraft and the mission were never competed.  It was the Vice President's toy and the science community was not happy that a lot of money was spent on this (the original budget was $75M that bloated to $275M) with no peer review (it did get a post facto review but that just made the problem worse).


Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #18 on: 09/02/2007 04:28 am »
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.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #19 on: 09/02/2007 02:15 pm »
Are 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".

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1414
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #20 on: 09/02/2007 04:40 pm »
I'm "just" a meteorologist, but from the discussions that went on in the weather community when this first was proposed - it serves no meaningful purpose.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #21 on: 09/02/2007 06:05 pm »
I've seen one climatologist showing interest but I don't know how much in depth cost/benefit analysis was done in that opinion...

Offline William Graham

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #22 on: 09/02/2007 06:07 pm »
Quote
MKremer - 31/8/2007  4:58 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 30/8/2007  10:22 PM

a) 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.

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #23 on: 09/03/2007 12:52 am »
Its 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.  If a coastal city is to be deluged in 80 years it might make sense to build a new mega-hotel on the shoreline, but if the foundations would be flooded in 40 years, maybe the profit margin won't be there to build it.  If the Earth's albedo is larger than expected, the regions of Australia and sub-Saharan Africa will have a few more years to plan before they must import grains and desalination equipment.  Basically, a higher albedo would (should) lower global interest rates.

I'm not saying Triana would uncover the exact rate of warming, but to categorically dismiss this kind of research is false.  I was under the impression the satellite was already constructed?  I 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?!

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #24 on: 09/03/2007 01:23 am »
Quote
meiza - 2/9/2007  9:15 AM

Are 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".

Originally 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.

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #25 on: 09/03/2007 02:02 am »
Quote
wingod - 2/9/2007  8:23 PM
Originally 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...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #26 on: 09/03/2007 03:16 am »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007  8:52 PM

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?!


There is more money that needs to be spent.
The spacecraft needs mods for an ELV.  Another space agency is not going to launch it for free.  

And I believe the spacecraft is not being stored as flight ready.  It is in many pieces

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #27 on: 09/03/2007 04:20 am »
Quote
GW_Simulations - 2/9/2007  12:07 PM

Quote
MKremer - 31/8/2007  4:58 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 30/8/2007  10:22 PM

a) 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? :)
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #28 on: 09/03/2007 06:12 am »
Maybe fans of Goresat should take up a collection if they think it is a critical mission.
Now there is a radical idea. Gore himself makes quite a bit of money doesn't he?
Maybe his carbon credit company can generate some revenue to launch it.

Gore himself doesn't seem very interested in this mission anymore.
I think that says a lot in more ways then one.


Offline William Graham

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #29 on: 09/03/2007 07:57 am »
Quote
CFE - 3/9/2007  5:20 AM

Quote
GW_Simulations - 2/9/2007  12:07 PM

Quote
MKremer - 31/8/2007  4:58 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 30/8/2007  10:22 PM

a) 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? :)

Which is better than leaving it in storage. At least it has a chance.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #30 on: 09/03/2007 02:21 pm »
CessnaDriver, 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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #31 on: 09/03/2007 03:13 pm »

Quote
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.

 

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  

 


Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #32 on: 09/03/2007 04:13 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007  9:02 PM

Quote
wingod - 2/9/2007  8:23 PM
Originally 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...

Then why don't  you propose that the next time that there is a mission solicitation?  That is the correct process.  I doubt very seriously that storing Triana in the nitrogen storage at GSFC costs that much money.



Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #33 on: 09/03/2007 05:17 pm »
Quote
meiza - 3/9/2007  7:21 AM

CessnaDriver, 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.

A more important question.....
And why should the taxpayer fund it further?

Enjoyed by all? being....... who?

IF the data was so incredibly compelling to have, than the mission would have been about that from the beginning.

Is that data so truly unique to Trianas abilities, that it cannot be arrived at with existing methods?

Again, Gore conceived it, if it is so important, why isnt he championing it?
He certainly is very well connected to people with a LOT of moneys.
His party now controls the purse strings.

I think it is a very logical and sensible question.

I think we all know the answer why he walked away from it.

The answer to the question, what is holding back Triana?

AL Gore.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #34 on: 09/03/2007 05:20 pm »
Quote
Danderman - 3/9/2007  8:13 AM

Quote
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.

 

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  

 


Clearly, some are more political then others.
Hence a million dollar a year storage fee on an ill conceived satellite that will likely never see orbit.
Chump change I know when compared to other dead end projects we all know of.
But at least some lessons were learned by industry working on some of those.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #35 on: 09/03/2007 06:10 pm »
Quote
Phillip 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">

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #36 on: 09/03/2007 06:17 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007  7:52 PM

I take "GoreSat" as a complement.  NASA should be renamed GoreSA, and its mission to "protect the home planet" reinstated.  

I strongly disagree. NASA's mission should be about aeronautics and space. GoreSAT is all about oceans and atmospheres. Transfer it, and all the other Earth science programs, to NOAA where it belongs.

Quote
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?!

Sure, if ESA pays for the launch in return for getting to call it a "cooperative" mission. We already paid too much for the spacecraft; this is the least they could offer.
JRF

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #37 on: 09/03/2007 06:26 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007  5:52 PM

Its 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 ;)

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #38 on: 09/03/2007 11:39 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 3/9/2007  1:10 PM
Quote
Phillip 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.html
Are 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.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #39 on: 09/03/2007 11:47 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  4:39 PM
I don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella.  They aren't capable of directing satellite missions.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/satellites.html
Quote
NOAA currently operates 16 meteorological satellites in 3 separate constellations

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: 09/04/2007 12:34 am »

That task force was from *seven* years ago.

Things change.

Just doing a simple google search found a few studies done since on earths albedo.
Even measuring earthshine from the moon. Correlating data from multiple methods as well. Clever.

Who knows, maybe Gore doesnt want it launched anymore.
He may not want to risk the data conflicting with his "documentary".




Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: 09/04/2007 01:17 am »
I don't know the difference in scientific value between a global low-resolution radiometer and a high-resolution local "tri-thermal" scanner.  Just that the former might be cheap to launch and operate and the latter expensive to design, build, launch, *deploy*, and operate.
Some of the Earth Observation utilities found here:  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon_objectives.html
resemble capabilities that Triana could provide.  The Earth Observation brainstorming starts on page 7/48 of the pdf download.  Global scans of things like pan-Earth lightning strikes (impossible with all existing Observatories as the field of view is too narrow) are helpful for Global Warming studies.
I brought up Triana because it might be cost-effective, depending on the launch and operation costs.  Until these can be provided by someone in the know, it is pointless to argue back and forth the value of Triana.  If it is $100 million awaiting and $200 million sunk already, that is much different than if a $500 million investment awaits.  I'd happily research and book up the scientific merit of this mission and alternatives, if someone can provide a cost-estimate.  Triana might even qualify as a Kyoto CDM by some definitions.

Anyway, there hasn't been any pan-Earth observation satellite.  That alone suggests to me some easy scientific merits to the mission (ie. measuring Earth-shine after a duststorm in China.  Measuring Earth-shine after a volcanic eruption.  Measuring cloud cover changes as arctic ice-caps melt further).  I don't think 7 seven years renders the payload obsolete.  Newer sensors and materials science improvements are nice, but there are many missions that reuse cancelled past-mission components at various phases of engineering design or construction maturity.  The world is laying down Global Warming policy blueprints for the next few decades, in the next few years.  Anything tagged "climate change" really is valuable.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: 09/04/2007 04:03 am »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  6:39 PM

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.

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.
JRF

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: 09/04/2007 05:42 am »
Quote
Jorge - 3/9/2007  11:03 PM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  6:39 PM

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.

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?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: 09/04/2007 06:16 am »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007  12:42 AM

Quote
Jorge - 3/9/2007  11:03 PM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  6:39 PM

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.

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.

Quote
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?

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).
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #45 on: 09/04/2007 11:34 am »
Quote
Jorge - 4/9/2007  2:16 AM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007  12:42 AM

Quote
Jorge - 3/9/2007  11:03 PM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  6:39 PM

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.

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.

Quote
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?

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

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #46 on: 09/04/2007 12:53 pm »
Quote
Seems the scientific merits are not mentioned often by the opposers.

Actually, they are--it all depends upon which "opponents" you mean.  There was a very accurate post here earlier about Triana that I'll find and repost.  Essentially it comes down to this: nobody is claiming that the spacecraft has _no_ scientific merit.  The question is whether its scientific merit is worth the cost of launching it.  If you ask Earth system science people, they will say that the money that it would cost to fly Triana should be spent on higher priority (and in their view, more important) Earth science missions.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #47 on: 09/04/2007 01:03 pm »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  6:34 AM

Quote
Jorge - 4/9/2007  2:16 AM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007  12:42 AM

Quote
Jorge - 3/9/2007  11:03 PM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  6:39 PM

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.

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.

Quote
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?

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.

And as I have written, that was an amendment driven by a historical and political accident. It can and should be rectified.

Quote
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

And 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.
JRF

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #48 on: 09/04/2007 01:24 pm »
Quote
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.

Teal Ruby was a different story in a number of ways.  It was partly undone by the Challenger accident, which grounded it.  By the time it was ready to fly it was obsolete.  I wrote an article on Teal Ruby for Spaceflight magazine a year or so ago.


Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #49 on: 09/04/2007 01:28 pm »
Quote
Are you sure that the mission has little scientific value? Do you know some climatologist's perhaps a bit more expert opinion?

Actually, the most expert opinion you will find is in the National Research Council's Earth sciences decadal survey:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11820

If you dig through there, you will find that the mission is discussed and prioritized, I believe.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #50 on: 09/04/2007 01:31 pm »
Quote
Jorge - 4/9/2007  9:03 AM

And 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.

If it works (which is does) don't mess with it.

NOAA doesn't develop spacecraft nor sensors.  Nor does it manage such programs.  It would dilute both org to have separate the programs.  Right now, GSFC engineering provides support to all of GSFC programs.  This would be lost if spacecraft programs  and instrument development went to NOAA.  It would be like separating ISS and shuttle.  

The funding is already separated.  NOAA provides all the monies for its spacecraft.  And it funds some of the instruments.  

Also the expertise NASA has, is applicable other planets


Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #51 on: 09/04/2007 01:44 pm »
Quote
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.

This is so heavily oversimplified that it's just plain wrong.  NASA's role in Earth sciences dates back to the beginning of the agency (look up the history of the Nimbus satellites in the 1960s).  And its tensions with NOAA go back that far as well, when there was just the Weather Bureau.

The study of Earth has _always_ been part of NASA's portfolio and usually people who claim that it is not, that it is a distraction from NASA's "true purpose," don't care about the subject and would not mind if it disappeared completely.  They have a mistaken view that NASA should be about human spaceflight and "exploration," when these things have also only been part of the agency's mission.  (Often the same people who make this claim want NASA to give astronomy to the NSF.)

But there are substantial budgetary, bureaucratic, management and scientific reasons why Earth sciences is at NASA and should stay there.  If you simply compare the budget spent on this mission by NASA to the NOAA budget you see that it would completely change the nature of NOAA, and undoubtedly cause much disruption to the Earth sciences field in the process (the response of the people who propose this is often "who cares?  I don't like this stuff anyway, so I don't care if it is harmed by transferring it to NASA."  But that's not an opinion that has any credibility in Washington.).  If you polled the Earth sciences community, they would oppose any move to NOAA, and they're the experts.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #52 on: 09/04/2007 01:53 pm »
Quote
And as I have written, that was an amendment driven by a historical and political accident. It can and should be rectified.

Explain "accident."

Also, explain nearly 50 years of NASA tradition and experience with Earth science.

How old is NOAA, by the way?  How big is their budget?  What is the breakdown?  How does that compare to NASA's budget for Earth science?  What department is NOAA part of?  How is that department's mission consistent with Earth system science?

You're making the claim that the dividing line is accidental and arbitrary, but you have not supported that claim.  And if you're going to further argue for completely upsetting the status quo, then you have to have a very good argument for why that should be, and so far you haven't made that argument.

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #53 on: 09/04/2007 03:07 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 3/9/2007  1:10 PM

Quote
Phillip 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">

Since this is already a politicized thread, I'll dredge up this again and point to reference 7 here:  http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309103878&page=R12
Bush has cut NASA Earth Sciences by 30% since 2001. Obviously when he is actively supressing polar satellite photos of melting icecaps, he shares the ideology that NASA shouldn't fund Earth Sciences.  Probably also believes NOAA shouldn't either.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #54 on: 09/04/2007 03:10 pm »
Quote
simonbp - 3/9/2007  1:26 PM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007  5:52 PM

Its 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 ;)

Sounds like NPOESS.



Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #55 on: 09/04/2007 03:17 pm »
Quote
Jorge - 3/9/2007  11:03 PM

Quote
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007  6:39 PM

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.

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.

You need to go further back in history.   I have tons of docs from NASA where in the early 70's after Apollo that Earth sciences were a major thrust.  That was part of the justification for their continuance after Apollo.  This all goes in cycles.



Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #56 on: 09/04/2007 03:23 pm »
The 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.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #57 on: 09/04/2007 03:26 pm »
" when he is actively supressing polar satellite photos of melting icecaps"

Please site your source.  How does the President, ANY President supress this exactly?


Would you prefer NASA not return to the moon in favor of Earth studies?

What is NASA's priorties?


Earth Studies?

Finishing ISS?

Return humans to the Moon and building those machines that will replace shuttle.

How would you rearrange the budget at NASA?

What would you cut to increase earth studies?

Delay lunar missions?

Tolerate a longer gap between shuttle and Ares?

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.

Note, Bush did not make that mistake with returning to the moon. Lesson learned.  

To me, job one for NASA is humans in space. Call me nuts.













Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #58 on: 09/04/2007 03:27 pm »
Quote
meiza - 4/9/2007  10:23 AM

The 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.

Don't make the mistake of looking at this issue in black and white.  There's a lot more to it than the way you have portrayed it.  There were reasons internal to NASA and the way that science priorities are established that have led to Earth science reaching the funding situation it is at today.    Explaining that would require a pretty detailed discussion.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #59 on: 09/04/2007 03:29 pm »
Quote
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.

One could argue that cost overruns and delays were more due to American policies than anything the Russians did.  For instance, who delayed ISS construction longer, Russia or the US after Columbia?

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #60 on: 09/04/2007 03:30 pm »
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.)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #61 on: 09/04/2007 03:32 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  11:26 AM

To me, job one for NASA is humans in space. Call me nuts.


Nuts

It is not NASA's #1 job

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #62 on: 09/04/2007 03:57 pm »
Quote
meiza - 4/9/2007  8:23 AM

The 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.


"denialists"?

I find that term rather amusing when applied to science issues.

Shall we begin using the term "warm mongerers" label as well?


From a scientist on the matter...

Freeman Dyson....

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

From a bunch of scientists on the matter....

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

Science minded people should not go around calling people names when honest and fair skepticism is brought to bare against unproven and controversial *theories*.

It's a normal process of science. Not "deniers" for crying out loud.


But again, where is Gore on Triana today?


Is there one person here, that does not believe that if Gore took it upon himself to champion and promote the launch of this satellite, he could not get it done somehow by someone?

Isnt he the ONE person responsible for it to begin with?

And he gets to just walk away just like that?

Why?








Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #63 on: 09/04/2007 04:01 pm »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  8:32 AM

Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  11:26 AM

To me, job one for NASA is humans in space. Call me nuts.


Nuts

It is not NASA's #1 job

What is then?

What is NASA most known for to the public? to history?

What are most of the forums on this very site about???


Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #64 on: 09/04/2007 04:18 pm »
There are lots of important jobs that NASA does, it shouldn't drop them all just to send people to moon.
You present a false dichotomy.

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #65 on: 09/04/2007 04:28 pm »
I 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)?

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #66 on: 09/04/2007 04:48 pm »
Quote
What is NASA most known for to the public? to history?

Hubble.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #67 on: 09/04/2007 04:50 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  12:01 PM

What 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #68 on: 09/04/2007 04:56 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007  12:28 PM

I 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)?

Any new mission, with competed instruments

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #69 on: 09/04/2007 04:57 pm »
Quote
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.)

It's not my area of expertise, and would require a significant amount of research in order for me to do the subject justice.  My point was that there is a tendency (by both sides) to oversimplify this discussion.  People want to label it black or white--either Triana (using its old name) is the most important Earth science mission there is, or it is totally unimportant, either Earth science is the most important NASA mission, or it is totally unimportant and should be sent over to NOAA, either Al Gore is a total proponent of this mission, or it is totally unimportant, either the Bush administration is to blame for cuts in Earth science, or...  you get the picture.

But it's never that simple.  All of these things have to be considered within a matrix of priorities and budgets and other issues.  The Triana mission, as others have noted here, started out as Al Gore's idea.  It then got a green light and NASA added instruments to it in order to give it some real scientific value.  However, it did not _start_ the process as a peer-reviewed science mission.  After it was built the scientific community was asked to evaluate its importance--several times, in fact.  They ultimately concluded that although it has scientific merit, the cost of launching it is not worth the scientific return.  That does not mean that it is utterly worthless, no matter what anybody wants to claim.  That's how science gets done in our democracy.

Similarly, based upon my limited knowledge of this, I think it is overly simplistic to claim that cuts in the Earth science budget can all be blamed on the Bush administration.  Some of those cuts started before the administration, and I have been told that part of this was due to the fact that NASA did not do a good job of outlining its future direction in Earth science in the latter 1990s.  It's a complex story with no simple explanations.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #70 on: 09/04/2007 06:14 pm »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  9:50 AM

Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  12:01 PM

What 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.












Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #71 on: 09/04/2007 06:16 pm »
Quote
Blackstar - 4/9/2007  9:48 AM

Quote
What is NASA most known for to the public? to history?

Hubble.


I know that is a great mission. I support it fully.

But I seem to recall something happening in 1969 that impacted just slightly more.
And redefined the human race with a single step.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #72 on: 09/04/2007 06:21 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  2:14 PM

Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  9:50 AM

Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  12:01 PM

What 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.


Human exploration is not NASA's #1 job. This is not an opinion.   Read the National Space Act

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #73 on: 09/04/2007 06:21 pm »
Quote
But 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.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #74 on: 09/04/2007 06:24 pm »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007  9:28 AM

I 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)?

It is the questioning of the extent and future environmental impact of increased CO2 from human activities, and what if anything is necessary to be done to manage that impact.
NOT it's function.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #75 on: 09/04/2007 07:05 pm »
Quote
Blackstar - 4/9/2007  11:21 AM

Quote
But 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.

We build machines to do things we cant do as humans.
We cant travel across space like we would like to, so we build telescopes to see farther.
They are proxies for human presence. It has always been about exploration and human presence. Science is part of exploration of course.

By the way, adaptive optics and software is catching up to Hubble fast. Check the recent Palomar observatory news.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #76 on: 09/04/2007 07:34 pm »
Quote
People 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.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #77 on: 09/04/2007 07:40 pm »
Quote
By the way, adaptive optics and software is catching up to Hubble fast. Check the recent Palomar observatory news.

They will never surpass Hubble because there are basic physical limits.  For instance, Hubble images UV light, which does not reach the ground.  So it will never be possible to observe UV with ground based telescopes.

As for visible light, although ground-based telescopes have made some impressive strides with adaptive optics and software, they too will never surpass Hubble in certain respects.  Two of them:

-extremely faint objects.  Here the problem is that you eventually reach a point where the Earth's atmosphere is brighter than the objects that you want to look at, no matter how clear the air is.  The atmosphere scatters some things.  So you have to put a telescope where there is no atmosphere to do this.

-wide field of view.  The adaptive optics really only work for point sources, not fields of view.  I'm no expert on this, but you can kind of understand why--it's not going to be possible to adapt the optics to cover an image beyond a very small point, because you'd have to find a way to calculate how the atmosphere is bending all that light coming in over the entire field.

I'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.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #78 on: 09/04/2007 09:56 pm »
Quote
Blackstar - 4/9/2007  12:40 PM
I'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.
Best is subjective. Especially when you live in a real world where funding is finite.

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.

All of which strays widely from Goresat ;)

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #79 on: 09/04/2007 11:36 pm »
Quote
Blackstar - 4/9/2007  12:34 PM

Quote
People 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.

What does NASA spend most of it's money on?

Ask any 10 year old what NASAs number one job is.

It is obvious.

Astronauts going into space is going to be the number one response from people.

Yes they do other important things.

Yes you can argue many things they do are equally important

But at the end of day the whole point of exploring the frontier is to live there one day.

You can have all that space science knowledge bottled up here on earth for what purpose?

Its's like studying the sea and never building a boat.

NASAs number one job is human spaceflight.


-----------------------------

Why Space, Why Explore?              


"We have no choice, Sir. It is the Nature of Humanity, it is the Nature of Life

The Globe was created and Life Evolved, and you look at every single cubic millimeter on this Earth, You can go 30,000 feet down below the Earth surface, You can go 40,000 feet up in the air and Life is There. When you look at the globe down there, you see Teeming Life Everywhere

It is the Power of Life, And maybe I am not just a Human up here, you know. Now Life is Leaping off the Planet. It is heading to other parts of the Solar System, other parts of the Universe

There are those kinds of Pressures. It isn't simply politics, it is not simply technology, it is really not just the essence of humanity, but it is sort of also, you could look at it as maybe the Essence of Life. I think Teilhard de Chardin, in Phenomenon of Man, I believe he put that incredibly well. So those kind of Forces are at Work. It is the nature of humans to be exploratory and to Push On

Yes, it costs resources and it does cost a lot, and there is a risk, there is a penalty, there is a down side, but Exploration and Pioneering, I think those are the critical things, it is the Essence of what Human Beings are, and that is to try to understand their Universe and to try to participate in the entire Universe and not just their little Neighborhood" -Story Musgrave





Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #80 on: 09/04/2007 11:57 pm »
Quote
meiza - 4/9/2007  10:23 AM

The 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.

Denialists?  How about we just not use that pejorative here.



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #81 on: 09/04/2007 11:57 pm »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  7:36 PM

1.  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.


1.  Not manned spaceflight
2.  not an expert opinion, which is the same as yours
3.  But not NASA's mandate.  NASA's mandate is to keep the US on top
4.  No it is not, I should know I am a NASA civil servant

Nowhere in the following is a task for NASA to settle outer space


(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

      (1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and  of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
      (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
      (3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
      (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
      (5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
      (6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
      (7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof;
      (8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and
      (9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

Sec. 203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall--

      (1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
      (2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
      (3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
      (4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
      (5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #82 on: 09/04/2007 11:59 pm »
Quote
Shall we begin using the term "warm mongerers" label as well?

That gets my yuk yuk of the Month award.




Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #83 on: 09/05/2007 12:01 am »
Quote
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007  11:28 AM

I 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)?

Why don't you open a thread on this.  How about you explain in detail what the exact mechanism for CO2 warming is so that you can illuminate those here and tread your boots on the illiterate.



Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #84 on: 09/05/2007 12:23 am »
Quote
wingod - 4/9/2007  5:01 PM
Why don't you open a thread on this.
How about not. Completely OT for this forum (something Phillip Huggan should have realized as well) There are PLENTY of places to see and debate both sides of the AGW issue. No need to pollute (cough) this one with the associated political garbage, whichever side you might be on.

Triana, being a spacecraft, is on topic. The study of climate from space is on topic. The conclusions and their implications for humanity, no so much.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #85 on: 09/05/2007 01:18 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  4:57 PM




1.  Not manned spaceflight
2.  not an expert opinion, which is the same as yours
3.  But not NASA's mandate.  NASA's mandate is to keep the US on top
4.  No it is not, I should know I am a NASA civil servant

Nowhere in the following is a task for NASA to settle outer space

1. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168653main_NASA_FY08_Budget_Summary.pdf

Space operations / shuttle ISS 6.1 Billion
Exploration systems / constelllation  4.1 Billion

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.

4. I envy you.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #86 on: 09/05/2007 01:23 am »
Not all of Space operations is manned flight (TDRSS, ELV's, shuttle phaseout) nor is Exploration (LRO, LO2) so, it is about 50/50 and not job #1

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #87 on: 09/05/2007 01:25 am »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  9:18 PM

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.


Still doesn't make it NASA's job

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #88 on: 09/05/2007 01:30 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  6:25 PM

Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  9:18 PM

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.


Still doesn't make it NASA's job

Then whose is it?????
Because it is going to happen.

I guess NASA produced this to trick me....





Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #89 on: 09/05/2007 02:12 am »
Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  9:30 PM

Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  6:25 PM

Quote
CessnaDriver - 4/9/2007  9:18 PM

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.


Still doesn't make it NASA's job

Then whose is it?????
Because it is going to happen.


Private industry

And a NASA lunar base is not a "settlement" It is more akin to McMurdo base

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #90 on: 09/05/2007 02:37 am »
I think we have all had our say and I apologize for going so far off topic.
I have not been an active member very long either. so I am on double secret probation probably by now.  lol

And I deeply respect and thank those who engage in these discussions in a civil fashion.

This forum is pretty tight in scope, which is probably a very good thing.

Offline Phillip Huggan

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #91 on: 09/05/2007 06:24 am »
Over the long-term (longer than 2020s Lunar Base timescales) I think it's important to maintain at least the capability of a manned presence at space industrial facilities.  That's part of the reason I made such a stink on another thread about CAM being cancelled; having the ability to grow plants at various G-levels is people-friendly.  When the ability to redirect asteroids (intercept contigencies like tacking on ion-engines, shining a mirror on the asteroid's surface from nearby or detonating a nearby nuke) becomes a possibility, so to will WMD applications.  The safest defense plans possible will be drafted from a larger library if a human presence in space can be cost-effectively maintained.
As such, at some point I'd very much like to see NASA's mission to keep people in space...to ward off Dr. Evil.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #92 on: 09/05/2007 01:08 pm »
Quote
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.

Trust me, you don't have to tell me about this; my job involves helping people strike a balance between "best science" and "science that we can afford."  You have no idea how much I'm aware of that...

But I'm going to take issue with how you characterize "best."  It's not all relative, some of it truly is absolute.  There are certain aspects of astronomy and astrophysics that simply cannot be done from the ground, and the scientific community has determined what the most important questions (like "how old is the universe?" "how did the universe form?" etc.) are, and also determined that those questions cannot be answered from the ground.  That is not to say that there are not important questions that can be answered from the ground, just that the community of scientists has collectively determined that the most important ones require telescopes in space.

There is an elaborate and, in my opinion, rather impressive process for establishing priorities in the space science community.  It is not perfect, but I think that it works remarkably well.  It's actually inspiring to know that our democracy has developed a relatively rational approach to deciding what scientific projects are most important.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #93 on: 09/05/2007 01:15 pm »
Quote
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.

You're looking at this in a very simplistic way.

Yes, about two-thirds of NASA's budget is spent on human spaceflight.  But you misunderstand what that means.  You state that this makes it "#1" and then you connect this to "the frontier" and "human history" and other vague concepts.

But the reality is that the decision makers who support NASA--and who support human spaceflight--do it for many different reasons, and very little of this has to do with notions of a frontier or human history.  A lot of it is simply about pork--i.e. bringing tax dollars back to key congressional districts and industries.  

Look 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."

I'm not actually arguing that this is the case, but pointing out--as I did earlier--that public and decision maker support of NASA is based upon a lot of things.  There are many people who support NASA in general, but think that space science is, or should be, the primary reason that the agency exists.  There are others who believe that helping American technological competitiveness is the primary reason to support NASA.  There are others who believe that NASA exists to send money to Texas, Florida and California.  There is no one single reason that everybody agrees on.  And even the things that get the most funding are supported for many different reasons.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #94 on: 09/05/2007 02:21 pm »
Afaik, 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.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #95 on: 09/05/2007 02:37 pm »
Quote
meiza - 5/9/2007  9:21 AM

Afaik, 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.

I'm not sure that explains all of it.  Part of the issue--as I understand it--is that they got a large infusion of cash essentially to jump start the discipline.  Naturally this could be expected to decline somewhat to reach a more stable level.  However, the problem was that after funding a lot of systems and a lot of researchers, both NASA and the science community did not properly follow up to answer the question of "what next?"  Without this clear direction, the White House (both administrations) was not going to give NASA more money.

I think there is a tendency to explain everything in terms of partisan politics--i.e. "Gore loved the environment/Bush doesn't care, and this explains the funding."  But while that might explain things at the upper level, in other words, the ideological environment in which the decisions are made, it does not explain everything.  There are still people at multiple levels who are making their decisions based not upon ideological issues, but more rational ones.  They are asking questions like "does NASA have a reasonable plan for spending its money?  Do they have goals that they can achieve?"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #96 on: 09/05/2007 02:39 pm »
Quote
Blackstar - 5/9/2007  9:15 AM


Look 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."

Or as Griffin has said "10 healthy centers"

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #97 on: 03/02/2009 02:24 pm »
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0903/01dscovr/

The long-grounded Deep Space Climate Observatory may be revived for an assignment very different from the controversial mission that was canceled for its infamous mix of politics and science. NASA, NOAA and the U.S. Air Force completed a comprehensive study last month to determine the feasibility of finally launching the refrigerator-sized satellite, which has been confined to a lonely corner of a Maryland warehouse for seven years. "

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.

One key benefit, AFAIK, would also be use of Triana to spot incoming rocks from the sunward side, which today are invisible to us.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2011 02:42 pm by Danderman »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #98 on: 03/02/2009 02:37 pm »
F9 would not require a kick stage or motor.  Only Delta II would require it

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #99 on: 03/02/2009 02:38 pm »
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.


F9 would have to compete with Atlas and Delta II.  there are no gimmes

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #100 on: 03/02/2009 02:44 pm »
Given "refrigerator-sized" I'm guessing it's a low mass satellite. In theory, F9 should be able to loft it easily without additional kick stages.
A Delta II w/ Star48B would very likely do as well.

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #101 on: 03/02/2009 02:46 pm »

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.

No, it depends on the cost.  Atlas has been winning some Delta II missions (LDCM)

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #102 on: 03/02/2009 02:49 pm »
My take (cynicism tag on) is we have a payload for the first Falcon 9 attempt.



If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #103 on: 03/02/2009 02:57 pm »
F9 would not require a kick stage or motor.  Only Delta II would require it

Well, the spacecraft mass is 440 kg, so you could be right. STS-107 was supposed to fly Triana, together with a Star 48 kick stage, but F9's second stage may be able to dispense with the kick stage.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2009 03:04 pm by Andy USA »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #104 on: 03/02/2009 03:25 pm »
Could Atlas actually be competitive with Delta II for a payload under 500 kg?

The way the article reads it's still many more months or even years before (if) this bird flies. I'm not betting it's F9 first payload, though the performance reserve would be something like 5x the projected F9 Earth escape capability so it would make a lower risk flight - no real chance of underperformance, save for a total failure.

What about Taurus II?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #105 on: 03/02/2009 03:38 pm »
Could Atlas actually be competitive with Delta II for a payload under 500 kg?

Mass has nothing to do with it.  This is a high energy mission
Also, the only Delta II's left are heavies

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #106 on: 03/02/2009 03:51 pm »
This is a high energy mission

I'm aware of that, but it doesn't appear to be a very high energy mission. Phoenix lander weighed 670 kg IIRC and it was boosted to a Mars injection velocity. Energy required here would be C3=-0.7 km^2/s^2 so it's far less than PHX and seems within reach of a Delta II - the pdf I linked to in fact confirms it.

I wasn't aware Delta II Heavies were so expensive compared to Atlas in which case the above considerations are moot.

Offline spfrss

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #107 on: 03/02/2009 04:27 pm »
 :'(
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 prosper
Mauro


Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #108 on: 03/02/2009 04:35 pm »
:'(
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 prosper
Mauro

I've actually heard from some climatologists that the measurements provided by DSCOVR (or whatever the name of the instrument) would be useful. Especially since it's built already so wouldn't cost that much to launch.
If it sits on the sunward side, it can constantly monitor the reflectivity of Earth's surface, giving a comprehensive picture, better than low flying satellites that only cover parts of the surface at different times.

Here's more discussion;
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/dscovr_triana_goresat.php

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #109 on: 03/02/2009 04:45 pm »
:'(
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 prosper
Mauro


Incorrect, you were just repeating old news

Invalid prediction.  This was in work before the election
« Last Edit: 03/02/2009 04:47 pm by Jim »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #110 on: 03/03/2009 05:13 am »
Especially since it's built already so wouldn't cost that much to launch.

>$100million is not that much?  Can I have your salary?
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1020
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #111 on: 03/03/2009 05:38 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2009 05:38 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #112 on: 03/03/2009 07:47 am »
Delta II would be capable to put a 500kg payload to the required orbit without a Star 48. Delta IIH launched Spitzer (more than 800kg) with a similar C3, without a third stage.

Analyst

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #113 on: 03/03/2009 09:58 am »
The Ukraine even offered to launch it for free (according to that article). IMHO it's absolutely absurd that it is still on the ground.
John

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #114 on: 03/03/2009 10:20 am »
The Ukraine even offered to launch it for free

ITAR strikes again...

Offline William Graham

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #115 on: 03/03/2009 12:33 pm »
The 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #116 on: 03/03/2009 12:42 pm »
The 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

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #117 on: 03/03/2009 02:04 pm »
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.

Sadly, you can not mention Triana without dragging politics and cynicism into it. It started in an Al Gore speach as a fancy "screen saver", but other items where later added do have valid scientific merit. It is those items that are bringing it out of the clean room.  They are just tarnish by Gore (love him or want to shove some carbon credits where his sun don't shine). We can argue until we are blue in the face if this is the right way to do it, but there it sits...

Like I said, toss it up on the first falcon 9 ... If it makes it, it will a be a bonus.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline William Graham

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #118 on: 03/03/2009 04:19 pm »
The 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


I 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.

Offline MBK004

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #119 on: 03/03/2009 06:48 pm »
The 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


I 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.
9 September 1998, the as of now last failure of a Zenit-2 rocket

Offline nomadd22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #120 on: 03/03/2009 06:57 pm »
 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.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #121 on: 03/03/2009 07:27 pm »
Since the F9 US would have to be used in an expendable manner to reach the solar Lagrange-1 point and F9's escape payload is a lot larger then 800Kg I wonder if a second payload can be carried with Triana?
Might as will get full use out of your $57.75M.
Unless you make it ride the first F9 then Spacex might launch it for free same goes with OCS's Taurus II.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2009 07:29 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #122 on: 03/03/2009 07:33 pm »
.
Unless you make it ride the first F9 then Spacex might launch it for free same goes with OCS's Taurus II.

NASA can't do that.  NASA can't even use a vehicle until it has a first flight

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #123 on: 03/03/2009 08:08 pm »
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.
We are, as a species, a rather *conceited* monkey after all.

Hard to believe that we need to constantly look at ourselves in the cosmic mirror, in order to come to terms with what we do to ourselves continually.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1414
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #124 on: 03/03/2009 08:20 pm »
The real time image of the planet from a distance might cause the most profound change in perspective since the Apollo 8 photo.

We already have updated many times per day (and free.)

http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goescolor/goeseast/overview2/color_lrg/latestfull.jpg

Offline eeergo

Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #125 on: 03/05/2009 05:17 pm »
Thanks for that link Robert, I always forget how to get to that page :)

Is the terrain/ocean a true image or just superimposed for reference?
-DaviD-

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #126 on: 10/16/2009 02:44 pm »
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/15dscovr/index.html

Still playing with Triana. IMHO, this is a great payload for Falcon 9, if an upper stage is made available.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #127 on: 10/16/2009 03:12 pm »
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/15dscovr/index.html

Still playing with Triana. IMHO, this is a great payload for Falcon 9, if an upper stage is made available.


Upperstage is not needed, F9 can do GTO, it is not just for LEO

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #128 on: 10/16/2009 03:34 pm »
IMHO, this is a great payload for Falcon 9, if an upper stage is made available.

Why do you keep insisting on another stage for F9 when it was already pointed out after your first post that no additional stages would be necessary? F9 2nd stage is the upper stage and this is a small satellite. Not much launch firepower is needed. It was pointed out here not even Delta II would need a 3rd stage.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #129 on: 10/16/2009 04:55 pm »

Also a great payload for those unsold Delta II's. And Delta II has an excellent track record.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline rocketnerd

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #130 on: 10/20/2009 04:30 pm »

Also 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           Date
7320         WISE        NASA JPL     VAFB   Dec-09
7420-10   COSMO-4  Italian Gov't     VAFB   Feb-10
7320         Aquarius    NASA Goddard  VAFB   Sep-10
7920         NPP-Bridge NPOESS     VAFB   Jan-11
7920H      Grail        NASA JPL     CCAFS   Sep-11

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #131 on: 10/20/2009 05:23 pm »

Also 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           Date
7320         WISE        NASA JPL     VAFB   Dec-09
7420-10   COSMO-4  Italian Gov't     VAFB   Feb-10
7320         Aquarius    NASA Goddard  VAFB   Sep-10
7920         NPP-Bridge NPOESS     VAFB   Jan-11
7920H      Grail        NASA JPL     CCAFS   Sep-11


In addition to the five planned Delta 2 launches, hardware is said to exist that could allow five more Delta 2 "Heavies" to be assembled.  The rockets have not been built, but important components like engines are apparently available.  This launch would also need an upper stage, like the Star 48B used by Delta 2 until earlier this year, but I'm not sure if any Star 48B motors remain.

BTW, a Taurus II with a Star 48 upper stage motor might also be able to launch this thing.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/20/2009 05:26 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #132 on: 10/21/2009 06:44 am »
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

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #133 on: 10/21/2009 07:33 am »
No need for an upper stage.

Perhaps not from a performance standpoint, but what from the flight profile standpoint? You can't do a parking orbit insertion first with a solid stage as there's no restart capability.

A direct insertion could be too performance expensive however.

BTW, I'm talking about Taurus II only.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2009 07:34 am by ugordan »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #134 on: 10/21/2009 09:56 am »
I am talking about Delta II only.

Analyst

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #135 on: 10/21/2009 06:15 pm »
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

O.K.  I didn't realize this was so lightweight.  I remember reading that it got heavier and heavier as the project went along.  Gore's original thought was for a super light space "webcam", essentially, but the platform soon gained more sensors. 

The User's Guide says that Delta 7920H should be able to boost nearly 800 kg to Earth escape velocity, assuming launch into an initial 28.7 deg inclination from the Cape.  Taurus II can lift a bit more than that, but only by using a Star 48 based third stage.  I haven't seen any details of that stage, but I wonder if it might need to have 3-axis cold gas control like the old Burner stages, to allow it to coast and point prior to burning.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/21/2009 06:17 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #136 on: 10/21/2009 08:29 pm »
C3 needed for Lagrange is about zero. Spitzer was a little over 900kg on a 7920H. 700kg and a normal 7920 is enough.

Analyst

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #137 on: 10/22/2009 06:03 am »
C3 needed for Lagrange is about zero. Spitzer was a little over 900kg on a 7920H. 700kg and a normal 7920 is enough.

Analyst

Roger that, but all of the remaining 7920 vehicles have, as I understand it, been assigned, leaving only the possibility of creating a few final new 7920H vehicles.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #138 on: 03/09/2011 02:44 pm »
http://www.atlasaerospace.net/eng/newsi-r.htm?id=5355

"The White House is requesting $47 million in fiscal year 2012 to convert a climate satellite grounded by politics into an observatory to monitor space weather and warn of solar storms.

The Obama administration's budget proposal released last Monday would start the development of a new mission for the Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR. The satellite was originally built for climate observations from the L1 libration point, a stable gravity-neutral point a million miles away from Earth.

From that location, Earth science sensors on DSCOVR would have a constant view of the day side of the planet.

But the L1 point is more commonly used by solar science missions, and it's an ideal location for a spacecraft to sniff out geomagnetic storms before they reach Earth.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would manage the DSCOVR mission as an operational sentinel to give notice of approaching solar storms with potentially calamitous consequences for terrestrial electrical grids, communications, GPS navigation, air travel, satellite operations and human spaceflight.

The FY2012 funds would support the refurbishment of an existing NASA satellite, DSCOVR," said Jane Lubchenco, NOAA's administrator. "This acquisition will allow NOAA to continue to receive vital data to help anticipate and mitigate space weather damage, which could potentially result in costs to the United States of $1 to $2 trillion."

NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer, launched in 1997, is the only spacecraft currently providing short-term warnings of geomagnetic storms. ACE is also stationed at the L1 point, giving forecasters about a 40-minute warning of approaching solar events that could disrupt life and economic activity on Earth.

ACE is operating 12 years beyond its design life and could fail at any time.

The $47.3 million budgeted for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would support the refurbishment of the DSCOVR spacecraft, which was put in storage at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center when the agency suspended work on the project in 2001.
"



Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #139 on: 05/06/2011 05:40 am »
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.)

Offline notherspacexfan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #140 on: 05/06/2011 11:37 am »
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.)

I thought NASA bought launch services for NOAA under NLS. How/why is the AF involved?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #141 on: 05/06/2011 11:41 am »
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.)

I thought NASA bought launch services for NOAA under NLS. How/why is the AF involved?

might be their contribution to the project

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #142 on: 05/07/2011 06:18 am »
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%20Launch

Relevant 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

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #143 on: 05/07/2011 02:16 pm »
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%20Launch

Relevant 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


Interesting.  Seems aimed directly at Orbital (Taurus 2) and/or SpaceX (Falcon 9).  The message all but announces the end of Delta 2.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 02:18 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8267
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #144 on: 05/10/2011 02:24 pm »
Any Delta II would have to eat the whole cost of overhead and pad infrastructure from the last Delta II until it's launch. I think the end of Delta II was in 2010. I mean that it was clear that they wouldn't get any more clients.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2011 02:25 pm by baldusi »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 758

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #146 on: 05/10/2011 02:47 pm »
I think the end of Delta II was in 2010.

What ugordon said, plus Aquarius (June 2011) and NPP (October 2011). 
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8267
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #147 on: 05/10/2011 03:00 pm »
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.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #148 on: 05/11/2011 12:49 am »
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.

 - Ed Kyle 


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #149 on: 05/11/2011 01:25 am »
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.


Because the govt is not paying for all costs to build and operate those complexes.  Because those contractors' prices are much lower than what ULA is charging.  Delta II's infrastructure is very expensive.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #150 on: 05/11/2011 03:36 am »
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.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #151 on: 05/11/2011 05:56 am »
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.
    Interesting point. Could you elaborate on how they may have achieved that?
       -Alex

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #152 on: 05/11/2011 08:42 am »
Orbital seems to outsource a lot of the problem. ATK, for example, who produce the solid stages probably relies on NASA's SRB contract to help maintain capabilities required for the production of their other solid stages. We'll see how that turns out
John

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #153 on: 05/11/2011 03:10 pm »
They also use the same components across many programs, which helps the classic aerospace production rate problem.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #154 on: 06/29/2012 02:53 pm »
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/17noaabudget/

The Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR, would be funded at almost $23 million in fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2012 budget passed by Congress gives NOAA about $30 million for DSCOVR.

NOAA is refurbishing the DSCOVR spacecraft, originally developed by NASA for an Earth science mission, to host a suite of space weather sensors to help forecast geomagnetic storms, which can disrupt power grids, communications, navigation services and endanger astronauts in space.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #155 on: 06/29/2012 03:02 pm »
An interesting overview of the DSCOVR program.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #156 on: 12/05/2012 05:22 pm »
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.xml

Quote
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.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8749
  • Liked: 4660
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #157 on: 12/05/2012 05:24 pm »
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.xml

Quote
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.
Please message Salo this or post it in the USA Launch Schedule.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #158 on: 12/05/2012 07:02 pm »
Wow, is that a record for a cold storage spacecraft to actually be launched?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #159 on: 12/05/2012 07:24 pm »
Wow, is that a record for a cold storage spacecraft to actually be launched?
Where not a bunch of KH-8's put in storage in the 70's and then launched in the 80's. Specifically Higherboy (SP?) comes to mind. So maybe not,..
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline MP99

Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #160 on: 01/09/2013 06:32 pm »
Since someone linked to this thread...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.0

cheers, Martin

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #161 on: 01/10/2013 09:30 am »
Wow, is that a record for a cold storage spacecraft to actually be launched?
RCA had a bunch of Transit satellites in storage from the late 1960s.  Last was launched in 1988.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #162 on: 01/10/2013 12:42 pm »
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?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #163 on: 01/10/2013 01:55 pm »
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?

Same goes for DSCS, A3 flew after B1-B14.  Same goes for GPS.  It happens any time there is a multi vehicle buy
« Last Edit: 01/10/2013 01:56 pm by Jim »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #164 on: 04/26/2013 03:08 am »
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?

There were a couple of DSPs that were stored for a long time, modernized, then launched. I think they were Flights 11-12, but you can look it up.

I believe that the same thing happened with SDS 1, which was an engineering test article that later got refurbished and flown as Flight 7. I'd have to check my notes.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #165 on: 04/30/2013 10:03 pm »
Merge
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #166 on: 05/01/2013 12:11 am »
:)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread
« Reply #167 on: 12/27/2013 06:55 pm »
DSCOVR Mission Moves Forward to 2015 Launch

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/dscovr-mission-moves-forward-to-2015-launch/#.Ur3bEPvy3pc

The development of NOAA's upcoming Deep Space Climate Observatory known as DSCOVR, a satellite designed to monitor and warn of harmful solar activity that could impact Earth, last week cleared a major review and is on track to launch by early fiscal 2015.

The Key Decision Point C Review was conducted by the joint NASA-NOAA Program Management Council reviewed the complete budget and development plans for DSCOVR through launch to its end of life. Passing the review allows the NASA DSCOVR project at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. to proceed with the implementation phase and continue the development of the spacecraft and its ground segment.

DSCOVR will orbit at the L1 libration point -- where the sun’s and Earth’s gravitational pull cancels – approximately one million miles away from Earth towards the sun. At that location, the satellite will measure solar storms before they reach the planet.

The DSCOVR mission is a partnership between NOAA, NASA and the U.S. Air Force.

NOAA will operate the DSCOVR mission, giving advanced warning of approaching solar storms with the potential to cripple electrical grids, communications, GPS navigation, air travel, satellite operations and human spaceflight. Experts estimate damages from these types of severe solar storms could range between $1- $2 trillion.

NASA, using NOAA funds, refurbished the DSCOVR satellite and instruments, which had been in storage for several years. NASA is also developing the ground system to be used to operate the DSCOVR satellite. The U.S. Air Force is providing the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle for DSCOVR mission.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1