Author Topic: Triana (GoreSat) DSCO (DSCOVR) Discussion Thread  (Read 66090 times)

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

Offline 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

Offline 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.


Offline 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


Offline 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.

Offline 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.













Offline 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.

Offline 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?

Tags:
 

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