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...
"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
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.
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?
While I agree:
Government satellites are already, by-and-large, built by private contractors for overpriced contracts, by rent-seeking engineering firms. GOES sattellites, for example, weren't designed and manufactured by NOAA scientists, but BOEING or Space Systems/Loral or Lockheed Martin. The difference here would only be the job of running them.
So, you propose we trade rent-seekers in the up-front purchase (who at least compete with each other), for rent-seekers in the long term operation (of which there is as of today, one)... Hmm...
The only way privatizing makes sense to an economist is if there are multiple companies out there offering the same service. Trading a public entity (which can and do get audited on a regular basis) for a private one that is free to waste money at will, in the hopes that they will somehow find a way to do it cheaper, pretty much never works out. At best, they end up charging the same amount, but paying their workers/vendors less and issuing huge bonuses to the executives. Competition is key, and it's completely missing from this scenario. Get a few more bids, and it will get interesting.
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
The difference is that the data from the government owned satellites is available for public consumption free of charge (or minimal charge, for reproducing fees), while if they go with the solution that PlanetIQ is offering, this data won't be redistributable. Your favorite commercial weather sites would be hit hardest, but I think places like weather underground would be effected as well. And probably a lot of other side effects from industries that are using the satellite data that I'm not even aware of. Be very wary of PlanetIQ's motives.