MKremer - 31/8/2007 4:58 AMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)
tnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?
meiza - 2/9/2007 9:15 AMAre you sure that the mission has little scientific value? Do you know some climatologist's perhaps a bit more expert opinion? Could it be actually useful, and has mostly experienced a political smear campaign? ("Goresat".)I don't know, just saying, people are so quick to say "it's just a stunt".
wingod - 2/9/2007 8:23 PMOriginally the mission only was going to have a camera to take pretty pictures of the Earth. After an outcry from the scientific community relative to the cost, the mission was redesigned to carry a pretty good set of sensors. However, there was never any competition of those sensors compared to other sensors desired by the community, and with the cost (it ended up at $275M dollars) it was not well regarded.
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 8:52 PMhttp://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/671 This news article mentions foreign launch options considered in 2002, is the question cost or politics? If cost, it may be launchable by another space agency, now! If politics, maybe in 2009? What does it cost to lift 3 tonnes to GEO on an Ariane, $10 000 000? Figure double that for L1 placement?!
GW_Simulations - 2/9/2007 12:07 PMQuoteMKremer - 31/8/2007 4:58 AMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)Well, seeing as it's not going to be launched anyway, it could be used as a test payload on F9 (Much like FalconSat-2 on the F1). If it gets there then great, if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter.
CFE - 3/9/2007 5:20 AMQuoteGW_Simulations - 2/9/2007 12:07 PMQuoteMKremer - 31/8/2007 4:58 AMQuotetnphysics - 30/8/2007 10:22 PMa) A Falcon 9 could launch it.b) Why not use Ion drive to go to L2?a) you absolutely positive about that? (especially since they haven't demonstrated a launch to LEO yet!)Well, seeing as it's not going to be launched anyway, it could be used as a test payload on F9 (Much like FalconSat-2 on the F1). If it gets there then great, if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter.And put it through the machine shop roof?
CessnaDriver - 31/8/2007 10:54 PM Politics created it, politics grounded it, only politics can save it. And last I heard a million bucks a year to store it. Donate it to a museum and be done with it.
Wow, a space program created on a political basis!!??? Who could imagine that!? I guess if we are going to eliminate Triana because it was created for politics, then we should look at other programs that exist for political reasons, and eliminate them, as well.
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 9:02 PMQuotewingod - 2/9/2007 8:23 PMOriginally the mission only was going to have a camera to take pretty pictures of the Earth. After an outcry from the scientific community relative to the cost, the mission was redesigned to carry a pretty good set of sensors. However, there was never any competition of those sensors compared to other sensors desired by the community, and with the cost (it ended up at $275M dollars) it was not well regarded.This is from the point of view of using this mission's evolution as a blueprint to future blueprints. I don't think that is the point here. This money has already been spent. The cost to keep DSCOVER prepped is $1 million annually, not $275M. I'd say a good climate computer model is worth $100 billion, and it wouldn't surprise me if DSCOVER data could add 1/100-1/1000 the value of a refined climate model, if such coarse estimates mean anything. But all of these mission details aren't public (isn't a spy satellite) and the people in the loop probably can't cost the value of climate data very well...
meiza - 3/9/2007 7:21 AMCessnaDriver, why would Al Gore have to fund a satellite whose data and benefits would be enjoyed by all? I mean, sure, he could, but it's a faulty logic at the core.Most of the talk around this is really politically colored as well. Seems the scientific merits are not mentioned often by the opposers.
Danderman - 3/9/2007 8:13 AMQuoteCessnaDriver - 31/8/2007 10:54 PM Politics created it, politics grounded it, only politics can save it. And last I heard a million bucks a year to store it. Donate it to a museum and be done with it. Wow, a space program created on a political basis!!??? Who could imagine that!? I guess if we are going to eliminate Triana because it was created for politics, then we should look at other programs that exist for political reasons, and eliminate them, as well.
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,......
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 7:52 PMI take "GoreSat" as a complement. NASA should be renamed GoreSA, and its mission to "protect the home planet" reinstated.
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/671 This news article mentions foreign launch options considered in 2002, is the question cost or politics? If cost, it may be launchable by another space agency, now! If politics, maybe in 2009? What does it cost to lift 3 tonnes to GEO on an Ariane, $10 000 000? Figure double that for L1 placement?!
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PMIts purpose was to measure the Earth's complete albedo (from L1) for two years. This is a faculty that presently doesn't exist in designing climate models. Instead, a piece-meal incomplete composite of much closer observatories are used. Knowing the Earth's actual albedo will help uncover the rate of Global Warming; will have an influence on construction and engineering projects.
CessnaDriver - 3/9/2007 1:10 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,...... The Clinton admin was not exactly a champion of NASA. QUOTE]I was referring to Earth Observation programs that were cut by Bush. Nice to see the overall NASA budget rise in 2001-2002 though: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0502-aaas.html"Is that data so truly unique to Trianas abilities, that it cannot be arrived at with existing methods?" Yes, it is. I've a NASA list of proposed Lunar Base utilities and all the best ones are Earth Observation. Some proposals sound very similiar to what Triana would be capable of: just observing basic pan-Earth details. This 2000 task force agreed with the centention Triana is worthy: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200003081676.htmlAre the naysayers here really contradicting this task force?I don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites. NASA will be forced to make cuts in a decade (like almost every other USA department), it would be nice to set an early precedent to have another space agency fund this mission if it is cost-efficient.
Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 4:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions.
NOAA currently operates 16 meteorological satellites in 3 separate constellations