Author Topic: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread  (Read 66091 times)

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

Tags:
 

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