Phillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.
Jorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.
Phillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:42 AMQuoteJorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.I stand corrected. So, in your scheme of things, would building and running a Lunar Base qualify as a NASA endeavour, or should some organization similiar to the US Dept. of Geology be created? Honest question.
It would seem a little silly to have research dealing with Solar Forcing done by NASA, and cloud altitude by NOAA. What altititude does space begin?
Jorge - 4/9/2007 2:16 AMQuotePhillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:42 AMQuoteJorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.I stand corrected. So, in your scheme of things, would building and running a Lunar Base qualify as a NASA endeavour, or should some organization similiar to the US Dept. of Geology be created? Honest question.It's a fair question. Personally, I think NASA should build it but routine ops after that should be handed off to another entity in order to keep NASA focused on the cutting edge. The lunar equivalent of geology would be "selenology", right? The same question has arisen with regard to ISS. Prior to the Columbia accident, there was some discussion of NASA handing off the US segment of ISS to a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). And the current situation, in which Congress has declared the US segment of ISS a national laboratory, has raised the question of whether NASA should run the national laboratory or hand it off. Clearly, NASA has shown far more interest in the challenges of assembling ISS than operating it.QuoteIt would seem a little silly to have research dealing with Solar Forcing done by NASA, and cloud altitude by NOAA. What altititude does space begin?Shrug. There will always be a dividing line between NOAA and NASA, and some aspects of that line are going to be arbitrary and perhaps silly. But I think the dividing line I'm proposing is a lot less silly than where the line is currently drawn by historical and political accident ("weather" = NOAA, "climate" = NASA).
Seems the scientific merits are not mentioned often by the opposers.
Jim - 4/9/2007 6:34 AMQuoteJorge - 4/9/2007 2:16 AMQuotePhillip Huggan - 4/9/2007 12:42 AMQuoteJorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.I stand corrected. So, in your scheme of things, would building and running a Lunar Base qualify as a NASA endeavour, or should some organization similiar to the US Dept. of Geology be created? Honest question.It's a fair question. Personally, I think NASA should build it but routine ops after that should be handed off to another entity in order to keep NASA focused on the cutting edge. The lunar equivalent of geology would be "selenology", right? The same question has arisen with regard to ISS. Prior to the Columbia accident, there was some discussion of NASA handing off the US segment of ISS to a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). And the current situation, in which Congress has declared the US segment of ISS a national laboratory, has raised the question of whether NASA should run the national laboratory or hand it off. Clearly, NASA has shown far more interest in the challenges of assembling ISS than operating it.QuoteIt would seem a little silly to have research dealing with Solar Forcing done by NASA, and cloud altitude by NOAA. What altititude does space begin?Shrug. There will always be a dividing line between NOAA and NASA, and some aspects of that line are going to be arbitrary and perhaps silly. But I think the dividing line I'm proposing is a lot less silly than where the line is currently drawn by historical and political accident ("weather" = NOAA, "climate" = NASA).It is in the National Space Act for NASA to do research on the atmosphere.
The agreement with NOAA is NASA does R&D and NOAA does operational. So, when any instrument is proven to be operational, NOAA takes it over
There are plenty of other satellites with far more value than Triana that have suffered similar fates. Remember Teal Ruby? I don't see anybody clamoring to fly Teal Ruby. It didn't have friends in high places.
Are you sure that the mission has little scientific value? Do you know some climatologist's perhaps a bit more expert opinion?
Jorge - 4/9/2007 9:03 AMAnd as I have written, there is no inherent reason it should be that way. I am proposing a less arbitrary dividing line between the two agencies while you blindly restate the status quo without even defending it, really.
As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.It is a historical and political accident that NASA wound up with an Earth science program to begin with. After the Challenger accident the Ride Commission proposed a number of new space priorities for the US government, one of them being a Mission to Planet Earth. Ride being a former NASA astronaut, NASA got tasked with MtPE and its charter was changed to match. Had the proponent for MtPE been a NOAA bigwig, NOAA might have wound up with MtPE instead. MtPE is a much better fit for NOAA's charter since it is all about Earth's oceans and atmosphere.
And as I have written, that was an amendment driven by a historical and political accident. It can and should be rectified.
CessnaDriver - 3/9/2007 1:10 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,...... The Clinton admin was not exactly a champion of NASA. http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_nasa_graph.gif">
Phillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PM....... NASA should be renamed GoreSA,......
simonbp - 3/9/2007 1:26 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 2/9/2007 5:52 PMIts purpose was to measure the Earth's complete albedo (from L1) for two years. This is a faculty that presently doesn't exist in designing climate models. Instead, a piece-meal incomplete composite of much closer observatories are used. Knowing the Earth's actual albedo will help uncover the rate of Global Warming; will have an influence on construction and engineering projects.I'm gonna stop you right there: How on earth is that the best way to measure global albedo? If they really, actually wanted to get an albedo map, they'd have put a darn thermal imaging spectrometer on there, they're not hard to do! (In fact, there are three operating on Mars right now!) Instead, it's got a silly little cheap broadband radiometer; you can buy a space-qualified one of those for a thousand bucks, for goodness sakes!The answer is that this mission was never, ever driven by science. It was driven Al Gore pretending that he's a scientist (most of the actual climatologists I know want to strangle the guy), and the NRC being infested with the "anything that claims to study global warming must be good" disease. If you really wanted to study global albedo, you'd have three separate small spacecraft in GEO, separated by 60 degrees, each with a high-resolution thermal imaging spectrometer with a range from 40 to 0.4 microns (which gives you the full water, CO2, and aerosol sweep). Instead the "main instrument" is bloody big camera that takes a bunch of pretty pictures, which are somehow supposed to increase the public's awareness that Earth actually does exist... :frown:Short answer for the launch vehicle guys: Ain't no way this mission is ever gonna get enough money to launch...Simon
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.
Jorge - 3/9/2007 11:03 PMQuotePhillip Huggan - 3/9/2007 6:39 PMI don't agree with an earlier post that Triana should be under the NOAA umbrella. They aren't capable of directing satellite missions. That's like saying the airforce should launch/manage spy-satellites, or even the EPA managing Earth Observation satellites.As has already been mentioned by others, NOAA does indeed direct its own satellite missions. It's just that they're "weather" satellites as opposed to "climate" satellites. There is considerable overlap between the capabilities required, and the same contractors build both. Once the principal investigators and budget authority are transferred over to NOAA no one will notice the difference.It is a historical and political accident that NASA wound up with an Earth science program to begin with. After the Challenger accident the Ride Commission proposed a number of new space priorities for the US government, one of them being a Mission to Planet Earth. Ride being a former NASA astronaut, NASA got tasked with MtPE and its charter was changed to match. Had the proponent for MtPE been a NOAA bigwig, NOAA might have wound up with MtPE instead. MtPE is a much better fit for NOAA's charter since it is all about Earth's oceans and atmosphere.One of NASA's biggest problems is being stretched too thin by too many concurrent programs. It is time to refocus the agency on aeronautics and space.
meiza - 4/9/2007 10:23 AMThe whole NASA earth science gutting: it's weird since the global warming denialists have been clamoring for more observations since data is so inconsistent, but when such are proposed, they say they should not be done... (Or even keeping up the existing campaigns operating longer.)Not that it's definitely the case with Triana, it's hard to see beyond all the political flak.
Perhaps if the Clinton admin had not blundered so badly including the Russians into ISS so heavily thus causing massive cost over runs and delays, we would have more money for earth sciences.