Per the Commercial Space Act of 1998, the government should put out an RFP indicating the data required, and select a company to provide that data - in other words, NASA should not design the spacecraft nor the instrument to obtain the data.
NASA: Not so much (although on rare occasions they do), see CONTOUR or OCO.
This argument does not reflect how science actually works. The scientists who use the data have to be intimately involved in the design of the instrument. Instrument development is an iterative process that doesn't involve simply specifying "data required."
Quote from: Analyst on 11/25/2009 06:33 amNASA: Not so much (although on rare occasions they do), see CONTOUR or OCO.Not fair comparisons. CONTOUR had celestial mechanics targets to hit that could not be done on a reflight. OCO 2 is under serious consideration.
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/26/2009 03:27 amThis argument does not reflect how science actually works. The scientists who use the data have to be intimately involved in the design of the instrument. Instrument development is an iterative process that doesn't involve simply specifying "data required."Is this the case in the Real World? Do scientists principally use data obtained from instruments they themselves designed? If not, why is space science somehow "different"?Were the Landsat sensors designed by the users?
It is the case in the real world. For non standard measuring devices.
Quote from: Analyst on 11/26/2009 07:11 pmIt is the case in the real world. For non standard measuring devices. 1) This implies that the sensors required to produce data on ocean temperatures are non-standard, and that there is some special scientist out there who is the only one who can design a sensor to provide that data. I find it hard to believe that this is the case.2) If the requirement is to continue producing data in the same format as Quickscat, then the obvious thing to do is publish that requirement and select a replacement sensor/bus combination via commercial bidding.3) If, on the other hand, the desirement is to generate a better sensor, then one can expect the same process of "scientist claims they can do it better, they get funded, things cost more than expected, the project lags, Congress does not provide extra funding, the whole thing either gets canceled or flies years after the original timeline".4) Again, the better is the enemy of the good enough, in this case.