Slashdot Mirror
PlanetIQ's Plan: Swap US Weather Sats For Private Ones
We've mentioned over the last few years several times the funding problems that mean the U.S. government's weather satellite stable is thinner than we might prefer. A story at the Weather Underground outlines the plan of a company called PlanetIQ to fill the needs met with the current constellation of weather sats with private ones instead. From the article, describing testimony last week before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce:
"PlanetIQ's solution includes launching a constellation of 12 small satellites in low-Earth orbit to collect weather data, which PlanetIQ says the federal government could access at less cost and risk than current government-funded efforts. ... [PlanetIQ Anne Hale] Miglarese added that within 28 to 34 months from the beginning of their manufacture, all 12 satellites could be in orbit. As for the cost, she says, "We estimate that for all U.S. civilian and defense needs globally for both terrestrial and space weather applications, the cost to government agencies in the U.S. will be less than $70 million per year. As the satellites collect data, PlanetIQ would sell the data to government weather services around the world as well as the U.S. Air Force. The most recently launched polar-orbiting satellite, sent into space by the U.S. in 2011, cost $1.5 billion."
But I highly doubt the military would want to rely on private infrastructure for something as important as weather.
You'd end up paying for a commercial infrastructure AND a private one.
We can do it SO much cheaper! Of course then there are cost over runs, shoddy construction, and unmet promises. Then the whole thing ends up costing more with less reliability...
You'd think there are better things to do with weather sats than try and undercut NOAA/NWS with some rent-seeking satellite project.
Also typical government contractor speak. They promise the world but will under-deliver and over-charge.
Bitches!!!
Weather isn't a terribly profitable industry, unless you're the ONLY one to own it.
Having a privately owned spy network is also a pretty handy thing to have. There's tons of money in crime.
Like we don't have enough satellites as it is. Space junk is not something to laugh about.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Sounds like the pitch I get from car salesmen from time to time. "We loose money on every car we sell, but we make it up with our sales volume!"
"Private capital is ready and waiting," Miglarese said last week. "But the government's culture of build-and-own-your-own satellites and the inability to commit is what's holding back these job-creating funds."
Statements like this always confuse me. Who does Miglarese think is building the satellites now? Monkeys? How does stopping making & managing your own satellites and paying someone else to do it create jobs? That sounds an awful lot like it just moves the jobs from one place to another.
Which isn't to say it might not be a better deal, but it feels like he just threw that in because he knows politicians go into Pavlovian slather if you mention "job creation".
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
Sounds good to me if the US (and other governments) can freely disseminate the information, rather than just being allowed to access it but having it otherwise remain proprietary to PlanetIQ. The article isn't clear, but this is a crucial point. I've no problem w/ private industry providing a service that governments buy, but I do have a problem w/ such crucial information becoming strictly proprietary.
They should start there own weather channel so we can dump the NBC / comcrap owned one.
On one hand, I'm all for saving those tax dollars. And I applaud that a private entity can put stuff up into space and then sell access to it to the government more cheaply than the government can do for itself.
On the other hand, I'm naturally suspicious of the government buying services from private entities. Among these concerns are prisons, mercenaries (soldiers) and surveillance.
Thanks to some wonderfully crafted legislation, the people are guaranteed some form of transparency thanks to the freedom of information act. This has proven to be a real pain in the ass of wheeling-dealing politicians and the people who do business with them selling our government to the highest bidders. So it seems more and more they like using private companies to do the government's dirty work. You know it's dirty when they are given "retroactive immunity" for things which we still can't confirm they did or didn't do or what, precisely, they did!
So are they REALLY just doing weather surveillance? It's hard to believe these days. And since it's a private company instead of the government, it's hard to know where the blame goes since the agreements with private companies tend to be less than transparent.
PlantIQ's sues Sats-R-Us for patent infringement and also files DCMA takedown notices on forecasts appearing on CNN.com.
Why should the USA's taxpayers be funding the weather data collection for the entire globe (which is basically what happens right now)? The cost should be spread among all countries that use the data. This is one very logical means of doing so.
For the record, I am not an American, but I appreciate the amount of free data my government gets at the expense of US taxpayers.
They won't give up. Weather is one shining example of something government does better than private industry. They've actually tried to shut down NWS before, and it was such a dumb idea that even Congress couldn't be convinced, probably because they got a sudden spate of attention from people other than their usual lunch companions.
If we let that happen, forecasts would not improve; but ad deliver sure would.
Just say NO to private weather. It's one case where the profit motive is not welcome.
There are two issues to address here: 1) cost and maintenance, and 2) data ownership. The first is obvious and is the crux of the CEO's pitch to Congress. The second is the one she's skirting. Sure, she acknowledges the government would "buy" the data. But for what use and with what limits? We already see corporations trying to get laws passed making them the only distributor of government-generated data (weather companies, journal publishers). With a ploy like this they make it that much more likely the public is excluded from having and using the data.
The only way I'd encourage the government to go this route is if the law and contracts specify the data is free in every sense of the word. Otherwise this is just another government hand out to private corporations.
If PlanetIQ think there's a real market for weather data, they should finance the whole thing with private equity. My guess is no one in the right mind will give them the capital unless they can get the government give them a monopoly.
With weather satellites in private hands, they will be used for private purposes, holding NOAA (and everyone using its weather services, i.e., everyone) hostage to a private entity. This is an incredibly bad idea.
Read it as "Swap US Weather Stats For Private Ones" and thought this was the next step in denying climate change.
It depends on whom you trust more -- a corporation or the US government.
I trust the government about as far as I can throw it. On the other hand, I trust corporations completely. I trust them to lie, cheat, steal, dump toxic waste, then get their government cronies to bail them out while the investors laugh all the way to the bank.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Are they going to not encrypt them and make it easy to receive the signal? Because I do that already with the Landsat birds. mini Laptop + small shortwave receiver and I can get weather radar images while I am away from the internet a lot of boats on the great lakes as well as the oceans depend on them.
If the private birds will not broadcast an easy to receive in the clear signal that everyone can receive for free, then they are not an option.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Remember a few years ago when weather.com and The Weather Channel tried to make the National Weather Service stop issuing free public satellite imagery and forecasts?
Any chance that NOAA/NWS satellite funding was cut to achieve their objective of privatizing the weather service by less-direct means?
Nah, our noble legislative branch would NEVER do something underhanded like THAT...
We are the 198 proof..
So what is the difference between this and any other subcontractor? The US government makes very little itself, the majority of projects are farmed out to various private companies to do the actual construction and sometimes even the launches.
What it sounds like is the only real change is a private company retains control and only sells the data rather then producing a launch-able vehicle and then administering the data.
As a taxpayer I appreciate access to certain public datasets including the ability to stick an antenna in the ground and download weather data from NOAA sattelites or the Internet for any reason I want without paying anyone.
The NOAA constellation also doubles as ears for 406mhz emergency locators.
I don't give a flying rats ass who makes them or launches them but I would prefer the government own them and the data so the results stay in the public domain.
I'm no expert in the satellite industry, but I get the impression that there aren't any NOAA employees building satellites. Don't they already contract with corporations to build, launch and operate the satellites? Then how is it that PlanetIQ would be able to provide the same capabilities for less money than some other company that already has lots of experience with satellites? Is it the overhead of the government acquisition process? Reduced capabilities, longevity or reliability? (I can certainly see cost savings by launching sats with capabilities X, Y and Z and saying "Hey, come consume our data," but what if what NOAA really needs, and is driving the cost of existing satellites, are capabilities foo and bar?) A different philosophy of many cheap sats vs. a few expensive ones somehow leading to savings? The whole lease vs buy thing? (But how will they make a profit if the lease doesn't add up to more than the cost?)
There were severe satellite gaps in the 1980s. GOES East had to be moved to a more central location to observe both coasts when GOES West failed and its replacement suffered a launch failure.
We'll get through this.
Kriston
Someone thinks that "weather" sattellites are use just for weather.
Bzzzzt! Try again.
I am sure they are used for surveillance, too. No way the military will give that up.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Why rent from the private sector when we can just own the satellites? The cost of billions in the production, divided by the lifespan of the satellites, may actually be cheaper in the long run. And then what happens when the company is bought out? Or goes belly? While I think the government is pretty inefficient, somehow I feel a bit more secure when non-weather data is being passed through government-owned satellites as opposed to privately owned satellites. In the former case, I can at least pretend to have some ownership through my tax dollars and voting habits.
So, could this supplement the current data record on the cheap? Then it's worth it. Would the data be property of NOAA/NESDIS and be distributed freely through known data portals? Then it's worth it. Would it be locked through a paywall and not available for researchers to actually figure out what the cost benefit of the data was? Then it's a non-starter. Data gathering itself is going to be a low-end market. The people most interested in the data (governmental organizations, academic researchers) don't really want to pay for it, and in most cases, can't afford to pay for it when it comes from private firms. Leave the gathering of data to the governments, which then allows the data to be used for all. The US is very unique around the world in that pretty much every product generated is available to download by Joe Schmoe with nothing more then an e-mail address. You can fill terabytes with a handy knowledge of wget and shell scripting, and do whatever analysis you want on your own. Putting this data in the hands of private firms when the taxpayer's paying for it just strikes me a bit wrong.
are why you don't privatize essential infrastructure. Sure, you'll get a good deal now. But in a few years when it becomes politically unfeasible to return things to the public the company will recognize that and jack the rates way way up. That's what's happened with every single public school transportation dept that got privatized. They'll do it here too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Who here honestly believes that a US government required weather satellite carries only a weather payload? Try reading a spy novel now and then, my fellow nerds.
Invenio via vel creo
Sure... and they can change what they want before they put it out.
Y'know, like before the landsats showed that the lumber companies in the northwet of the US were clearcutting, and "replanting" by shoving seedlings in the ground and walking away, leaving, well, clearcut and a very large number of dead seedlings.
Why would I trust weathersats from, say, Faux News? They'll just show blue skies all day....
I WANT MY DAMN TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON THEM, NOT GIVING MILLIONS TO CORPORATE EXECS.
mark
The CEO admits that her company has never launched a satellite before, but somehow she feels qualified to say that her company's "product" could meet all of the needs of NWS and all of the defense agencies for $70 million per year. How does she even know the requirements of NWS and all defense agencies, let alone know how much it would cost to support them?
Ignoring that, do we really think it's a good idea to replace public property with private property? If this company ever goes under, our government would immediately lose weather forecasts and defense satellite feeds. And do we even want sensitive defense information in the hands of a private company?
No, this certainly isn't tolerable for me. I'm fine with the government contracting competent companies to build, launch, and maintain these satellites, but if they're going to use our tax dollars, then the satellites themselves had better remain government property!
Saturday will be partly-
Please enter your Visa or MasterCard number for the rest of this forecast.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Fuck all of this until we get to the bottom of geo-engineering vs climate change. These deceptive motherfuckers said chemtrails don't exist. Playing WORD FUCKING GAMES while dumping toxic shit on our heads, charging the sky with god knows how many watts of energy and blaming car exhaust and fucking coal plants, and co2 for the mess. To have all this go to PRIVATE corporations who will hide behind patents, and proprietary intellectual property, and state secrets. Fuck that. Fuck the weathermen, they already are deception to us, if not domestic terrorists.
COME CLEAN ON GEO-ENGINEERING YOU FUCKERS
just can't happen fast enough for some people.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Call it Iridium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications_Inc.
If weather satellite payloads just monitored the weather, they'd be a lot less expensive. But they are more expensive, and manufactured only by select contractors. Would you really want it done another way?
You do NOT place matters of life and death in the hands of a fucking for-profit corporation!
Screw the soulless greedy bastards of PlanetIQ and damned be any Randian pinhead politician that would go along with such craven garbage.
A business that actually has to pay for it's own tools to do it's job, instead of you know, leeching off the public NOAA teet then claiming 'ownership' of their forecast as if they came by the data themselves.
I'm looking at you TWC/NBC...I'm sure you are the next corporate story in this...right behind the one about thousands of scientists begging you not to name every friggin winter storm that comes down the pike like it's some devastating hurricane you can overhype for ratings.
But I'm sure some asshat thinks this notion is brilliant or innovative somehow.
The military gets dozens of satellite launches a year for surveillance crap that isn't needed. If THOSE satellites were of any real use, we really wouldn't need to be spending more on defense than the next 7 largest military spending nations *combined* to keep ourselves safe.
just can't happen fast enough for some people.
Happened way too slowly for some people.
FTFY
Even if a private firm can do it more efficiently, having public resources under public control seems more important than efficiency. Throwing a profit motive into the mix seems like a big problem to me (as it is with prisons, military operations, etc.)
How about we pay these companies to consult on the design of a new public system. How about we pay some private firms to iron out the inefficiencies in our public processes instead of just privatizing everything?
I just don't see how privatization of so many things, in general, is better for society. Businesses are, quite rightly, primarily concerned with making money, not the public interest. Throughout history, there are innumerable instances of private and public businesses working against the public interest in favor of their own profit motive.
If our government is unable to provide for the public in the ways that it should, we should fix it, not just pay private companies to do it instead. I don't understand how we seem to lack the mechanisms to do this.
The figure seems highly dubious to me...
That 1.5 billion includes quite a bit of development cost, no doubt... cost that would be carried by the taxpayers no matter what. The cost of the launch and operation is no where near 1.5B per satellite (and falling with SpaceX's continued progress).
The government simply needs efficient grouping of duties and expertise... giving NASA and NRO responsibility for all government satellite development and operation (unclassified / classified respectively) is the logical decision.
PlanetIQ cannot design a better planetary study / weather satellite than NASA... and NASA/NOAA would end up having to do so much hand-holding (at significant cost) to make sure PlanetIQ didn't totally blow it.
Didn't you learn anything after generations of advertizing, 40 years of think tanks and a corporate controlled media? Private industry is always better than government, the corporations have told us so; therefore it is reality.
You must be a communist!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news