Slashdot Mirror
NASA Gets Its Marching Orders: Look Up! Look Out!
TheRealHocusLocus writes: HR 2039: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017 (press release, full text, and as a pretty RGB bitmap) is in the House. In $18B of goodies we see things that actually resemble a space program. The ~20,000 word document is even a good read, especially the parts about decadal cadence. There is more focus on launch systems and manned exploration, also to "expand the Administration's Near-Earth Object Program to include the detection, tracking, cataloguing, and characterization of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects less than 140 meters in diameter." I find it awesome that the fate of the dinosaurs is explicitly mentioned in this bill. If it passes we will have a law with dinosaurs in it. Someone read the T-shirt. There is also a very specific six month review of NASA's "Earth science global datasets for the purpose of identifying those datasets that are useful for understanding regional changes and variability, and for informing applied science research." Could this be an emerging Earth Sciences turf war between NOAA and NASA? Lately it seems more of a National Atmospheric Space Administration. Mission creep, much?
on Capitol Hill.
Seriously. The real story with this bill is that the republicans are defunding the climate monitoring programs. It will take decades to regain the capabilities we'll lose by defunding them now. There's no turf war between NASA and NOAA, just one between republicans and science.
Nice job trying to write a summary for geeks that attempts to bury the real story.
For more congressional bullshit. Should be big enough to appear on every radar
There's no question what this is really about. When you don't like the results kill the studies.
There's a bloody dinosaur above you! And he's a perv!
"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
We have tolerated this insolence long enough.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
more focus on launch systems and manned exploration
Perhaps a joke for the 'robotic exploration' crew out there. A man walks into a bar. Tells the bartender "Well, it's over for MESSENGER but we're getting a lot of New Horizons data soon!" Bartender: (blank stare).
Look up some old footage of public interest in NASA during the Apollo program. NASA needs to have heroes, and they need to have something that is seen as a major accomplishment. And they need it soon. Luckily the Chinese are the new Russians.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
but SOMEONE must be studying climate intensely, be it NASA or NOAA, it's all the same to me. But trying to gut the program smells distinctly of defensive profiteers with their hands far too deep into the people's government
Hopefully this is a sign the space race is back on. Far more to do out there, then to squabble back here with, who can destroy the world the most number of times with their military, a real dead end and I mean dead end. Something is needed to drive humanity, to focus it's efforts and who is the greediest and most selfish or who can kill the most, are insanely, stupendously pointless and self destructive of society.
Making use of the resources of the solar system, is not about bringing stuff back to earth, it is about humanity expanding it's horizons further out. The difference between dwelling upon your genitals (hollywood et al) or dwelling upon your mind (NASA et al).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Lots of interest in the MSL/Curiosity Entry Descent and Landing.
Not so much in it trundling around the Martian Surface.
But then, there wasn't much interest in Astronauts driving around the moon, because it interrupted soap operas and game shows on TV.
There's public interest in "first of a kind" and "dangerous stunts" (like landing on the moon and getting home). Less interest in doing science once you're there.
From the very moment of its inception, NASA has been directed to study the atmosphere:
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"
Cool, story. Thanks
So? Isn't it about time that NASA grew up, and looked further into space? We already have NOAA. Every nation on earth has weather and climate scientists. WTF do we need NASA to study the weather? We need NASA to build big honking SPACESHIPS to move mankind into the solar system. Screw the weather, in 150 years, half of mankind won't give a small damn about weather on earth.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The "review" of NASA's programs focused on studying Earth seems more like an attempt by climate-science deniers to stifle research that doesn't confirm what they want to hear, than anything to do with a supposed "turf battle with NOAA".
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
So in summary, not a paid shill, but a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic". It got cold this winter, so much for global warming huh!
One liner portrayal of me FAIL. Since we are using an ancient threaded discussion board scarcely evolved from USENET and there is no keyword based contextual linking it takes a diligent effort to find out where someone stands on something, and why. Sometimes it is worth the effort. You have to do a lot of reading. You'd have to follow back in time to discover that I do have a position on the subject that is not as simple as you describe. Usually I just don't mention it.
Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.
~Robert Benchley
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
"expand the Administration's Near-Earth Object Program to include the detection, tracking, cataloguing, and characterization of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects less than 140 meters in diameter."
Toe in the water for weaponization of space?
Other than that I look forward to interesting projects.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Since ther days of Apollo NASA's principle task has been the exploration of space and the development of means to travel to space. After Apollo, it's capabilities have been degrading more and more till now the US has to pay Russia to put our stuff on their "trampolines".
TIme to take away their climate toys until they get their primary mission right.
If you could stop trying to make headlines cute, that would be great.
That mission is exploratory, not studious. NASA's job is to explore the atmosphere (pretty much done) and space (barely even scratched the surface). NOAA's job is to study the ocean and atmosphere. So NASA goes and finds it, then hands it off to NOAA for detailed study. NASA is inherently concerned with "getting there", while NOAA is concerned with "what's there". If NOAA wants a better look or needs new instruments installed in an otherwise unreachable or hostile environment (space), then NASA is their go-to agency to get that job done.
NOAA's on their own for deep sea research, though. And that's stupid. Have the NASA physics geniuses build better vehicles for every environment, let NOAA's geological geniuses do the boring data mining and science from the tools the vehicles deliver. (And, yes, the "real" science part is boring compared to the part that consists of blowing things up in a controlled manner in order to eject a large amount of mass out of the Earth's gravity well. Whee!)
Any story posted by timothy is not worth reading. I clicked on this one by mistake.
NASA needs funding for studying things like climate change because climate scientists are usually not rocket scientists. That is why NOAA and NASA can overlap while being complementary, not redundant. Small-minded thinking from Congressional Republicans wants to kill all science related to climate change. Articles like this which promote flawed logic should not be allowed on Slashdot.
I've read the remarks about the current climate change argument, but personally I think that needs to be under NOAA or other climate related institution. NASA needs to get back to what it was designed to do: Push the boundries of Space Exploration.
Any of the climate related satellites have a huge selection of launch capabilities, and do not need the umbrella of NASA to launch.
[...] less than 140 meters in diameter.
Metric units? In a US government paper about NASA? One would almost get hopeful.
Simple as that. Fuck global warming. That's NOAA's problem.
We have a federal agency to study dirt and rocks - the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They claim to be "a science organization that provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information."
We have a federal agency to study the atmosphere and the oceans - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They claim their mission is "Science, Service, and Stewardship. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. "
BOTH claim to study the Earth and its climate. NEITHER claims to advance aviation of spaceflight or exploration beyond the Earth
We HAD an agency to study and advance aviation - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) whose mission was "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions." After Russia launched Sputnik, the US government went into panic mode and in 1958 transformed the agency into a new organization which we now have called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The 1958 law that created NASA gave it the following duties: (which I will quote directly)
"(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"
"(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;"
"(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;"
"(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes."
"(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere."
"(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"
"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and"
"(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment."
NASA's study of the Earth and its atmosphere was ONLY for the purpose of advancing flight in, out of, and back into, the atmosphere. In the 1970s as the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations were messing NASA up and trying to appeal to voters they tainted NASA with eco-related tasks that actually belong at NOAA and USGS (and other agencies) and over time various entrenched interests (like the earth-sciences employees at Goddard who SHOULD apply for jobs at NOAA) have made the problem worse. NASA spent more money studying climate change in 2014 than it spent launching men into space (NASA
It's about small-government people wanting agencies to get back to the core stuff they were created to do (aeronautical research, space flight, and space exploration for NASA)
You can start whining that the GOP hates the result of climate studies when they zero-out the budgets of NOAA, the NSF, the EPA, and eliminates all those dollars being spent annually on climate studies in other government agencies and universites. Telling NASA that it has become so confused about its core mission that it is no longer effective and telling it to re-focus on its core mission is the responsible thing for the adults in the room to do; it's LONG overdue.
NASA today is so messed-up it could not even put a monkey into space for a single orbit of the Earth (something it originally managed to do 50 years ago). If the agency cannot do even the basics, it has no business diversifying into all sorts of other junk that overlaps what half a dozen other agencies are tasked with also doing.
Every nation on earth has weather and climate scientists. WTF do we need NASA to study the weather?
First of all, weather is not climate.
Second, those scientists in other nations depend on the data collected by NASA, since no one else can do it as well.
Third, the idiot currently heading the committee that plans to eviscerate the NASA earth sciences program to the tune of $300 million per year sees no problem blowing hundreds of times as much money on Cold War fighter jets. One might ask,why do we need to spend $1.5 trillion dollars on F35 strike fighters that can't turn, can't climb, run hackable software, and explode when struck by lightning or running on warm fuel?
This is not about the money at all. They just don't want anyone looking into this, period.
NASA was derived from NACA and its study of the atmosphere was to learn how to fly through it, NOT to figure out how to regulate coal companies, limit the emissions of cars, make sure the sea levels do not rise, etc. READ THE WHOLE ACT AND THE MISSION STATEMENT OF NACA.
You will note that the statement says "phenomena in the atmosphere and space" but says NOTHING about climate, pollution, icebergs, glaciers, dinosaurs, forests, river deltas, human activities, etc. The mention of the atmosphere is in the same sentence and context as "space" and includes no mention of ANY historical study of either, human impact on either, projections for the future conditions of either, or role in formulation of policy choices related to the stewardship of either (only the job of understanding the system that exists - what aerodynamics people call "the standard atmosphere")
For the first dozen years of its existence, NOBODY at NASA thought its job included climate studies. All the eco-stuff surfaced during Skylab as a political thing to engage the public in a post-moon-landing down-scaled NASA attempting to be relevant at a time when TV was airing ads with a crying indian, the book "Silent Spring" was a top seller, Bruce Dern was doing SciFi about a future with no trees left on Earth (Silent Running), and President Obama's current science advisor (Mr. Holdren) was hanging around with Paul Ehrlich scaring the public about a gloom-and-doom future and working losing a famous bet over all the scarcities he claimed were imminent. Yup, the guy helping Obama trash NASA these days was actually one of the very people who, in the 1970s, claimed that humans were going to cause a new ice age with all their emissions into the atmosphere.... something the AGW crowd now claim was just a crackpot thing that most in the sciences never pushed (READ his 1971 book "Global Ecology" and you will see that these current global warming guys were indeed the same people pushing the imminent ice age idea and it's a LIE to say it was just one magazine cover related to one obscure guy's theory.)
It's pretty clear that Republicans are seeking to get people into space so they can expand their voter base.
And you my friend --- you would look especially good in space.
Some day the boorish branding of people by (say) registered political party will be perceived negatively yet casually, as with a dismissive shake of the head. Kids are doing this today. Learn more about 'Space Madness', then sit thee dunne to watch BBC: Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets Part 1 and Part 2 Try to sort out the Republicans from the People.
There are folks who just don't understand why humans need to go into space.
We'll get there anyway.
Deal with everything that arises.
Shield to the cleverest extent possible (water, foils, magnetic fields)
Monitor cumulative dose as accurately as possible.
Get as much meaningful and fulfilling work done as you can.
Cherish and protect the planet. This means becoming Gaia's asteroid defense.
If one can be said to have a purpose, that is a fine purpose to have.
Do it for the kittens.
Then settle down to a well-deserved rest with clear conscience.
If you will die before your time, strive to die well.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
If you could stop trying to make headlines cute, that would be great.
The headline was part inspired by "It Can Happen" [Yes], a fine anthem for space exploration.
Look up - Look down
Look out - Look around
Look up - Look down
There's a crazy world outside
We're not about to lose our pride
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Republicans have been the primary Congressional force running interference for the old space industry, either by throwing money at the likes of ATK to build rockets that will never fly, or actively blocking SpaceX from competing with the established players on contracts.
While the big government contracting model can get crews into space, it does so at such an exorbitant price it's simply not worth it. SpaceX, or more precisely the discarding of legacy design and especially legacy contracting models that SpaceX represents, at least gives us a chance of a sustainable space program because it is far, far better value for money. It's also far more in alignment with professed Republican principles, as distinct from revealed preferences from observed behaviour.
A revived crewed space program under the old model will result in bugger-all flying, lots of money wasted, and will get cancelled soon enough. Why bother?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
We need NASA to build big honking SPACESHIPS to move mankind into the solar system
Maybe, if we weren't wasting the earth, we could stay here.
space (barely even scratched the surface).
It's a vacuum. It's cold. There's nasty radiation. We're pretty much done.
I wonder if the the opportunity rover project will get an extra extension now, or that this very succesfull rover will be left alone, while still being functional.
Dear Sir,
Seldom do I read marvelous rebuttal to a trolling comment on Slashdot but today I have to pleasure to read yours!
I must admit that I totally enjoy the firm and rational response to that trolling comment which purposefully quoting NASA's mission totally out-of-context
If I have a mod point I would definitely mod you up!
NASA's charter says *NOTHING* about climate change nor its effect to Planet Earth
The 'study of atmosphere' is not the same as a 'study of climate change' and/or 'effect of human action / industrial pollution on the world's climate'
If you do not understand the Queen's language, please admit it --- purposefully twisting the meaning of 'study of atmosphere' to suit whatever your liking is dishonest, deceitful and utterly despicable!
So usually the complaint around here is too much politics not enough news for nerds..... so now when they strip the politics from the article and focus on the nerdy news..complaints!! Let noaa handle terrestrial and let NASA worry about space. if noaa needs nasa for something I'm sute they will launch satellites for them.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So let's just ignore the fact that the Earth is just one of the many things that are in space, and that it s the easiest thing in space we can get to. We're already here. It just doesn't count.
Also ignore that the Earth is the planet that we know the most about. So if we want to study other planets, we shouldn't study the Earth from space. There is no way that the things that we learn from Earth observation could be a baseline so that we know how to examine other thing that are in space, like say Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and it's moons, Saturn and it's moons and rings, and the same for Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (planet or not).
I hope this gives the Republicans amongst you a slight clue how stupid you sound. And how much you've substituted ideology for rational thought. But I warn you, don't let your vision of the US flag over every rock and planet in the solar system go to your head. It's only a mater of time until the christian fanatic wing of the party decides that the Earth is flat, the space program is a front for the devil, and the money needs to be spent on proving that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Why is Snark Required?
What the hell is decadal cadence? Googling does not help.
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
National
Aeronautics and
Space
Administration.
Seriously, who the fuck edited this?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
next you'll be claiming that this planet can only support a human population of between fifty and ninety million.
OK, you and your family into the shower first. Wilkommen am viertel Reich.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Studying climate change is only as important as studying everything else... the climate has ALWAYS changed and ALWAYS will. The fact that some politicians stumbled upon predictions of climate catastrophe as a "science-y" way to manipulate the public into tolerating more taxes, regulations and general meddling does not make it ANY more important to study.
As for your comments on the value of putting men into space, and of SpaceX:
1. If we are not going to eventually send people into space to colonize other worlds, then there is no point in sending them to explore - and ALSO then no point in sending robots to precede them, and then also no reason to build telescopes and other probes to see what's out there to explore. In short, you anti-manned-spaceflight guys are the only true Luddites who seem to dwell on geek sites like Slashdot. If your view of humanity is so bleak that you think we should stuff our heads into the sand and wait for the next mass-extinction event you probably should just give-in and reject all technology too. Those of us who think that man must eventually explore and colonize other worlds and that man has a bright future, want to see the earliest pioneering efforts underway now.
2. If SpaceX is soooo cool that they can explore space better than NASA and "while making a profit", then surely they (and others like them) can also get off the government teet and do all climate change research better and "while making a profit" too! WooHoo!!!! We can cut all government climate science funds and leave it to commercial entities .... right???? .... Thought not.
3. Why increase NASA's budget and use that money for climate research???? That's NOT their job!. If we want to have the government study the mating habits of gerbils, the answer is NOT to increase NASA's budget and have them start studying gerbils! That's NOT their job!
AGW fanatics are nothing if not extremely inconsistent. Somebody tells NASA to get back to its core mission and the AGW alarmists freak out and start complaining that private industry can do NASA's core mission better - and anybody opposed to AGW is "anti-science". These same people, however, do not want to give their beloved AGW the same treatment and certainly would not tolerate being called "anti-science" for attacking manned spaceflight.
Who talks like that?
next you'll be claiming that this planet can only support a human population of between fifty and ninety million.
I mean that the only future of the human species is here on earth, where we have the best environment for survival. The chances of survival anywhere else is in the solar system is much worse than the most inhospitable place on earth, and beyond the solar system is just empty space as far as we can reach. Therefore, it would be smarter to allocate some of NASAs budget to study the earth, especially where they can use their expertise to do so from earth orbit. Studying space is interesting, but only from a scientific curiosity point of view, not as a first step to future colonization.
None of this is relevant to the amount of people that the earth can sustain. And to be honest, I have no idea. I certainly don't have any goals.
If it's a vacuum it's not cold, and it's not hot either. You fail. Everything you will ever say is wrong.
So in summary, not a paid shill, but a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic". It got cold this winter, so much for global warming huh!
One liner portrayal of me FAIL. Since we are using an ancient threaded discussion board scarcely evolved from USENET and there is no keyword based contextual linking it takes a diligent effort to find out where someone stands on something, and why. Sometimes it is worth the effort. You have to do a lot of reading. You'd have to follow back in time to discover that I do have a position on the subject that is not as simple as you describe. Usually I just don't mention it.
Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.
~Robert Benchley
And since your "position on the subject" is the delusional:
Temperature has not risen.
you are a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic"
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Maybe YOU can. I don't want MY descendants waiting around for the next huge ass rock to collide with the rock we are living on. I really want my descendants (notice that you can find DNA in the word?) spread over a few dozens of rocks. Maybe even some in another solar system.
I don't much care if your descendants put their heads under rocks, and stay here. That's their business.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I understand. The weak always look for the easy way. Tell you what - you take the nice, smooth, paved highway, and I'll take the bad roads. We'll both be happy.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So, the relatively less bright elder brother can continue dabbling in old science, while the brighter, younger sister forges ahead into new territory.
No matter how you cut it, we don't need NASA putzing around in the atmosphere, there is another agency already dedicated to that.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Oh, you're an astronaut ?
That might be true if this was some sort of dispassionate commentary on the bill. But it's not, it's a ringing endorsement of a highly partisan bill. Surely you see the difference.
For those who are serious, here's the Planetary Society's commentary, with a link to an indepth but nonpartisan analysis at SpacePolicyOnline. The Planetary Society is very happy with the planetary science numbers, not happy with the earth science numbers, and couldn't seem to care less about the funding for SLS/Orion.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
I have better things to do than worry about what happens to certain DNA sequences million years in the future that are as closely related to me, as I am to a chimp in a lab. There are plenty of things to worry about that threaten me and my kids and grandkids in the next couple of decades. If we don't survive those, I won't even have any descendants left to worry about.
the claims of temperature increasing to "highest levels on record" are not accurate. They only count records from 1976. Before that, their graphs show a flat line. Climate records from the unredacted data show an entirely different picture. We're on the rising edge of a cycle of temperature swings. The rising side of a long, 800 year cycle on top of a shorter and shallower 220-year cycle, which does not reflect the mainstream view that temperature records describe a fucking hockey stick. Ergo the two main cycles are ignored and the difference just happens to support the delusion that since 1976 temperatures have risen a degree whereas before this time, human influence on climate was negligible. Someone clearly forgot about the little hiccup called the Industrial Revolution and that annoying white blob called the Sun which itself exhibits wild temperature variations of upwards of +/-1500C at the photosphere?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Space is actually very, very hot - the very few atoms you find floating around have a great deal of kinetic energy. If you could create a perfectly non-radiating/reflective material and leave it in space, it would eventually get hot. This doesn't happen because the density is so low: The heat transfered to an object by conduction is a negligable fraction of that lost to radiation. Also, anything with water in will freeze in seconds due to evaporative cooling: At near-vacuum, just about everything is above the boiling point.
I didn't read the bill... is NASA supposed to spend their money on silly conversion games now?
$ python
>>> url = 'http://i.imgur.com/bzFnzJH.png/HR2039-IH-FULLTEXT.txt.gz.raw.png'
>>> import zlib, itertools, PIL.Image, StringIO, urllib2
>>> print zlib.decompress(''.join(map(chr,itertools.chain(*PIL.Image.open(StringIO.StringIO(urllib2.urlopen(url).read())).getdata()))),zlib.MAX_WBITS|16)
What, no theories on alien life forms?
The claims of temperature increasing to "highest levels on record" are not accurate. They only count records from 1976. Before that, their graphs show a flat line.
The records from before 1976 are all lower, so 2014 is still the highest on record.
mainstream view that temperature records describe a fucking hockey stick.
The fucking hockey stick is supported by the fucking data. Where's your data ?
that annoying white blob called the Sun which itself exhibits wild temperature variations of upwards of +/-1500C at the photosphere?
We can measure the total solar radiation. It's only fluctuating by tiny amounts, and since the '80s, it has actually gone down a little bit.
The projected defense budget for FY16 is $585 Billion, so NASA's budget of $8 Billion would be enough to keep the defense department running for 5 whole days. Just saying...
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
8/10 trolling, I'd say. The strawman is a bit of a long shot, but it connects well with the Godwin line, and so it is likely to give you passionate replies.
entropy happens
One of the best way to monitor weather at a large scale (and this data is useful for climate science) is to do it using satellites. And satellite are usually in... space.
No, it's also a thing for two sides to be outraged about and have a flame war. Thus, it's money in the bank for Dice Holdings. You really should recognize what's important in this world. Short term bottom line and minimizing any legal liability. Occasional intelligent conversation is just a way to lure in the sucker... I mean users.
I have utmost sympathy and respect for Dice Holdings, host of this forum.
Some goofball nobody in Silicon Valley can cut cheese on a smartphone and hold out a smelly app for everyone to sniff, say cutesy things in a press release, and you guys (and gal) eat it up. Or the other end of the spectrum, when tech luminaries go on about planet-sized lithium batteries that will save the planet, even the Musk can be pungent around here.
But let some poor someone even vaguely associated with Dice Holdings submit a cheerful story about tech job seeking and hiring practices, something they must know about, and the shit hits the fan. Such as the February 2013 What EMC Looks For When It's Hiring outrage. The tone of some of the comments made me feel embarrassed by association, such a wave of arrogant entitlement as infantile as Facebook users blaming the company for dirt on their screens.
It was so bad I took an anthropological interest and attempted to explain it in a nature documentary.
Slashdot Packs Miracle EMC Punching Power!
Thank you Dice for continued stewardship. What a stew it can be.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
then its earth science division should be moved to NOAA (or whatever is appropriate). I'd be fine with that. However that's not in the plan. Yes, maybe NASA wasn't the right place to study climate science (debatable), but it needs to be done somewhere; simply cutting it is not acceptable.
Moreover, this is hardly the first time a government agency has had mission creep or that multiple government agencies have overlapped. Mission creep/overlap to the tune of $300 million is absolutely nothing; that's not even the cost of three F-35 fighters. (Aside: dollars are the wrong units to measure government spending; government spending should be measured in F-35 fighters. That puts things in perspective -- especially when you realize we're buying ~2,400 F-35s.)
This is simply an attempted at killing government research into climate science -- not an attempted at reorganization.
So what? No one cares about climate change anymore, because there is nothing that can be done about it. The world runs on Oil and Chemicals. You can't tell China or Russia to stop their industrial machine or turn every fuel using method of transportation off. It's just not going to happen. There is no science that humans currently know that can reverse climate changes, none. Humans have been pumping chemicals into the air and earth for 200 years. You think this can be solved by carbon credits or putting solar on your roof. You simple do not have the intelligence to understand the bigger picture here.
Live your life, suck it up and move on.
OR
Invent fusion.
Youre choice.
"Low earth orbit" and "space" are not quite synonymous. Let NOAA have LEO, and NASA can go to space.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's not like NASA's manned space flight program does much better
1) We've been putting humans into low earth orbit for decades. There's not much "expansion of human knowledge" here. Well, they did study ants in space on the ISS recently...
2) ISS is old tech; there's no "improvement" to speak of. Well, they did put a new espresso machine up there recently, right?
3) Unless "development" means "making more of the same thing we already know how to make", then ISS fails again.
4) Maybe the ISS does this, but the main conclusion of the "long-range study" is that, yes, we can keep an inhabited space station in low earth orbit while spending billions of dollars!
5) The ISS does this, but it could also be done by other means at a much lower cost.
6) Nope
7) The ISS is great for this; it's the only way the US still interacts with Russia!
8) "The most effective utilization" Ha!
If you only want to focus on missions that _effectively_ and _efficiently_ fulfill NASA's charter, then a lot of stuff has to go. Since the budget for the ISS is ~$3 billion, I'd focus on that before the climate research -- which is only 1/10th the cost and does a lot more to expand human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere. Even if climate research doesn't fit with NASA's charter (debatable), then its work should be moved to another agency -- not axed.
Climate records from the unredacted data show an entirely different picture. We're on the rising edge of a cycle of temperature swings. The rising side of a long, 800 year cycle on top of a shorter and shallower 220-year cycle
Mathturbation. Where's your physical model.
Someone clearly forgot about the little hiccup called the Industrial Revolution
WTF?
nd that annoying white blob called the Sun which itself exhibits wild temperature variations of upwards of +/-1500C at the photosphere?
Please demonstrate a correlation between any solar parameter and the current temperature trends. Remember -- no causation without correlation.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
No reason why NASA can't work together with NOAA, and they can both do LEO. Some overlap, for a trivial amount of money, for something so important, can't hurt.
I'm stunned that there are only two agencies that study the subject. Do you suggest that since the NSF studies science, so the NIH and ONR and DARPA don't need to exist?
NASA has it's problems, but I'd much rather "waste" money with them than on mercenaries.
They've crept into other roles than getting humanity into space -- which is fair, since agencies like the CIA went from "Central Intelligence" to "Corporate Espionage and We Kill for Multinationals".
The waste of money doesn't seem to be a factor when blowing up things in other countries, losing trillions on lax banker oversight that they paid good money to get, and outsourcing government work to corporations that cost 10x what it cost to do it in house.
Ehhh. I just watched this short video again. I am mesmerized by the face of the woman in the last scene. I imagine that she's waiting for a "bus" to come along, to take her to college. Or to bring home a loved one from a years long journey. Or, maybe she's just headed to the local version of an amusement park. Or, joining classmates, then heading off to the mall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Each has different missions. Maybe those missions are repetitively redundant, but at least they each have a different perspective on the same problems.
What I am saying is, NASA has a much bigger, much more important mission that studying weather and/or climate.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You can also get some weather measurement from GEO
Hansen made the Koch brother's King Coal game impossible. .0001% by the name of Koch.
Republicans were bought and sold by them and demand an end to Global Warming Research, lest it harm the
A little education would prevent these kinds of 'rebranding' of the actual news
Salon with the skinny on defunding NASA climate science
I do not know if there is anything more important than studying weather and/or climate. Who cares if NASA finds life on other planets if we've destroyed all possibility to live here?
Frankly, I don't care what you do to NASA, it was neutered so long ago. You want to bump up NOAA's budget, though, go right ahead.
In the cartoon world, they call what I did "4th wall breaking". Referring to the reality behind the facade of the comic (or in this case, the fact that the web site we write on indeed is a business.)
Forgive me, but what I thought of during your reply was that it was a wonderful imitation of the studied serious moralizing of Sam the Eagle from the Muppets. ;)
Nope, it's fully in compliance with the 2013 OMB memo on an Open Data policy. The subheading on that memo is 'Managing Information as an Asset', and there is a real lack of a comprehensive catalog of NASA's data. (note that this is *not* the same as the 2013 OSTP memo on public access to federally funded data, but they're related.)
Even with the re-design of data.nasa.gov, the content behind is is woefully incomplete. When I contacted the creator of the page years ago, he said that they just did some internet searches to find 'data', and then listed them. They were listing websites that mentioned data, not even breaking it down into missions & investigations.
Someone needs to go through and determine for every investigation from every project what data *should* be there, and figure out if it's online, if it's in a dark archive, if the PI still has it, or if it's missing. They should catalog it according to GEMS and possible DataCite (although assignment of 'creator' for the data might be something that needs to be resolved by each science community)
I had tried proposing something to the NASA IT Labs call shortly after the memo came out, but the people running it were blocking our network from being able to submit. I tried again in 2014, and they gave me an alternate way to submit, but they took weeks to get the work-around, and by then I was out of town for a meeting.
(disclaimer : if it's not obvious, I work at a NASA center)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
"no causation without correlation."
This is a very dangerous idea. It assumes a one-to-one linear relationship should exist.
it's warmer during the daytime than it is at night.
You're welcome.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
since no one else can do it as well.
So what it sounds like you are saying is that all the other countries on Earth depend on the US (via NASA). I've always felt that they should be more grateful than they often appear.
Getting OFF this rock is the most important thing. You're afraid of the weather. I'm afraid of that humonguous rock targeting earth, which will make weather irrelevant.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br