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."
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.
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.
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.
Why? They get a lot of their vehicles from the private sector.
That being said, there's a lot of apples and oranges here.
OK, what is the life expectancy of that satellite? You can't just compare a 'per year' cost of an operation to a one time cost of part of an operation - the latter is usually averaged out into the former.
Also, there's quality and reliability concerns - if the product (satellite system) doesn't produce the quality you want (accuracy of weather mapping), it may be worth it to pay a lot more for an alternative. Also, they may be charging a certain amount per client ($70 million a year each?), but how many clients are there? It is possible, that in the long run, the total cost to all the clients could be higher, even if taxes were reduced proportional to the amount of money saved (heh, yeah, that'll happen... Wanna buy a bridge too?)
It looks good initially, but I wonder if, for the government, or society in general, it will actually pan out to be an advantage.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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.
I wonder if, for the government, or society in general, it will actually pan out to be an advantage.
Of course not. This is just another attempted heist by the privateers, facilitated by the "crisis" that they have created.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Because the USA's taxpayers are too stupid to actually demand drastic cuts in spending.
And weather prediction is the kind of obvious and useless pork we should cut back on, right?
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.
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..
I find it a testament to our fractured society that we collectively feel "privatizing" things is good. The public loses 100% of oversight over the use, has to place 100% trust in the private entity (regardless of their track record), and becomes beholden to a private entity who can manipulate that data at will without us knowing, and the EULA that must be signed before using the "service" strips away your right to affirm that the data is even correct. And the primary reason anyone goes for it is because "someone profits"; any arguments about efficiency or cost-value or letting well-known criminals have yet MORE of our public commodities get swept under the rug with a snide "Quit being so communist!" quip. When did we become so eager to sell our collective riches for some shady MBA's "solution" to erode long term value from the public? Why does the vast majority of America so willingly work against it's best interest?
Weather isn't a terribly profitable industry, unless you're the ONLY one to own it.
The tactic is to create a loss leader. Drive the competition out of the market. Then reap the rewards of having a monopoly on a necessary product. Bonus points for having the government help you do it.
All those weather maps that you get for free because the government funds that satellites? The cloud maps that are shown on TV, your WeatherBug app, etc? Not only is the government going to pay, but they are not going to be allowed to freely redistribute. Everyone now pays multiple times for the same thing that we all paid for together. They are going to collect fees from The Weather Channel, CNN, every TV channel in the world (if they still want to report on US weather), each pay an additional fee. TINSTAAFL.
When it comes time to re-license the data, when the US has no more weather satellites, the USAF, USN, USCG, US Army, NOAA, NCAR, NWS, USDA, etc. will each have to license the weather data independently. Stock holders will rejoice. And the taxpayer gets fleeced again.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
just can't happen fast enough for some people.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.