Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Slashing Observations of Earth

Posted by kdawson on from the blue-marble dept.

mattnyc99 points us to a new report by the National Research Council warning that, by 2010, the number of NASA's Earth-observing missions will drop dramatically, and the number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft will decrease by 40 percent. The report says, "The United States' extraordinary foundation of global observations is at great risk." Popular Mechanics asks an MIT professor what it all means. From these accounts it is clear that the Bush administration's priorities on a Mars mission and a moon base are partly to blame for the de-emphasizing of earth science. Neither article quite says that some responsibility must fall to the administration's footdragging on global warming.

9 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They keep telling us that there are all these other countries out there -- has anyone proposed that some of the others could possibly do this, since it's so, y'know, important? Neither article quite says that, either.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Mike+Rubits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While your condescending use of an expression is great and all, is there a reason another country CAN'T take this up? You didn't do much to answer the question.

    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The future of earth observation is microsattelite arrays. Facing a dearth of information with which to educate new scientists, I imagine major universities will become more willing to pony up for experimental satellite launches rather than disband a college.

    3. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So what is NASA? Is it a global resource that only the US pays for but everyone gets to benefit from? Does that give them a right to comment on this US service? Or should they perhaps start pitching in some cash if they want NASA to continue observations?

      There exist several space programs throughout the world. If you added them all up they would probably not even have half the budget of NASA on Earth observations (or any other program). Why is this? Does Europe with a $15 trillion economy not have enough money to spare to use $1 billion a year for Earth observations? Or are they just not capable?

      I would say that space programs around the world have already voted on how important they think these Earth observations are (with their wallets). Why NASA should follow down this foolish path that nobody else thinks is important is beyond me. And if they still think it is important they can prove it by launching their own missions or helping NASA to launch some.

    4. Re:I wonder... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So basically, America and Australia didn't sign Kyoto because they would be affected disproportionately, India and China signed because they wouldn't be affected (but their competitors would, and this would also slow energy demand from their competitors).

      It looks like for the most part, countries only signed where it was convenient and easy to do (SHOCKING!!! GOVERNMENTS ACTING IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST????), and now even a lot of European countries are missing quota.

      So in reality, it looks like no one was really serious about climate change, just looking out for themselves. It kind of puts the United States actions in perspective. Why should we shoulder the massive financial burden of "saving the world" while India and China destroy our manufacturing sector since they will be a haven for corporations who want to manufacture without stringent regulations for CO2 emissions.

      Like I said in my previous post, the only way global warming will be addressed is if there is some sort of global government. And that is why global warming will never be addressed. It's sad to say, but there is no way to convince most countries to do anything (unless the UN decided to impose economic/military actions on polluters, and even then, military action would require the United States to dfront all the money/personnnel for the military force)

    5. Re:I wonder... by The+New+Stan+Price · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We don't have to sign some agreement in order to reduce our own CO2 emissions. Once we've proven that it can be done here at home, then we can try to persuade others to do it. First, it has to be economically viable. If our economy goes down the drain, then we will all be riding methane producing, ground water polluting, grain eating horses to work. Think of the pollution if we all gave up SUVs for horses? Kyoto was meant to tie our hands so that other countries can catch up to us. Other countries like the Kyoto treaty because they don't like the fact that we are the one superpower. They created the EU in order to compete with us. They dislike the fact that we are keeping them from living in their socialist fantasy world. If you cannot see this, you are blind.

  2. Perfect by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nasa creates a market need, market blooms, Nasa leaves market, commercial space companies fulfil market need, commercial space companies bloom. 2010 maybe cutting it a little close, I would rather see a gradual transfer out, but either way I foresee mutual benefit.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  3. Goresat can save the day! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GORESAT

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  4. Popular Mechanics Credibility. by crhylove · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is this the same Popular Mechanics that tells the public that large steel frame buildings can spontaneously explode, jettisoning giant steel beams hundreds of yards after a weakly smoldering jet fuel fire?

    Isn't their credibility completely shot by now? For me, Popular Mechanics has become the Fox news of science journalism: It's obnoxious, generally wrong, even during the bulk of their stories which are fluff pieces, and I try to ignore it as best I can.

    I'd like peer review to be a scientific term, not a term to describe putting together a coalition of vested interests to formulate lies that are somehow more believable or accredited by the sheer volume of liars involved.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.