Slashdot Mirror
The US Has Destroyed A Critical Sea Ice-Measuring Satellite (scientificamerican.com)
"A key polar satellite used to measure the Arctic ice cap failed a few days ago, leaving the U.S. with only three others, and those have lived well beyond their shelf lives," writes long-time Slashdot reader edibobb. The Guardian reports that all three of the remaining satellites "are all beginning to drift out of their orbits over the poles" and will no longer be operational by 2023. This could put an end to nearly 40 years of uninterrupted data on polar ice, notes the original submission, adding "It seems like there would be a backup satellite, right?
"In fact, there was a backup satellite ready to go." The $58 million satellite was dismantled in 2016 when the Republican-controlled Congress cut its funding. (The Guardian reports that many scientists "say this decision was made for purely ideological reasons.") Now Nature reports: The U.S. military is developing another set of weather satellites...but the one carrying a microwave sensor will not launch before 2022. That means that when the current three aging satellites die, the United States will be without a reliable, long-term source of sea-ice data... For now, the the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center is preparing for those scenarios by incorporating data from Japan's AMSR2 microwave sensor into its sea-ice record. Another, more politically fraught option is to pull in data from the China Meteorological Administration's Fengyun satellite series... Since 2011 Congress has banned NASA scientists from working with Chinese scientists -- but not necessarily from using Chinese data. One final possibility is finding a way to launch the passive-microwave sensor that scientists at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory salvaged from the dismantled DMSP satellite. The sensor currently sits at the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California, where researchers are trying to find a way to get it into orbit.
"In fact, there was a backup satellite ready to go." The $58 million satellite was dismantled in 2016 when the Republican-controlled Congress cut its funding. (The Guardian reports that many scientists "say this decision was made for purely ideological reasons.") Now Nature reports: The U.S. military is developing another set of weather satellites...but the one carrying a microwave sensor will not launch before 2022. That means that when the current three aging satellites die, the United States will be without a reliable, long-term source of sea-ice data... For now, the the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center is preparing for those scenarios by incorporating data from Japan's AMSR2 microwave sensor into its sea-ice record. Another, more politically fraught option is to pull in data from the China Meteorological Administration's Fengyun satellite series... Since 2011 Congress has banned NASA scientists from working with Chinese scientists -- but not necessarily from using Chinese data. One final possibility is finding a way to launch the passive-microwave sensor that scientists at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory salvaged from the dismantled DMSP satellite. The sensor currently sits at the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California, where researchers are trying to find a way to get it into orbit.
The science of climate change is already settled. The only question is how bad will it be. Without data from this satalite we should just assume the worst and raise carbon taxes appropriately. What is the worst the could happen, we accidentally end up with a better world?
The headline seems a bit out of sync with the reality. The US destroyed it? Sounds like hardware failure.
So one failed, three more are failing and one had its funding cut. Where's the destroyed one of the headline?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
satellites need fuel to stay in place when it get's to low they get moved to the graveyard orbit
Maybe a pro-science country can step up and provide the data. India, China, this is your chance to show the world that you have more sense than Trump's America, though I admit this is a very low bar.
I do.
It's called paying taxes.
I understand that Republicans don't understand the concept, but believe me, it already exists.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The US are not the only country to put things in space.
Japan, Europe and China also have appropriate satellites, as mentioned in the article. It is not like measurements will stop just because the US lost some satellites. It may make exploitation a bit more difficult because of the differences in design but aggregating data is something that has to be done eventually. Climate science is an international matter.
The US plans to launch new satellites in a few years anyways. So they didn't drop the ball entirely.
To measure it in person
Its not like we still can't take measurements. That satellite was bleeding millions. But many don't care how much is spent if the purpose is even remotely related to climate study, regardless of the actual value proposition.
The spin on the story suggests Congress purposely cut funding to that satellite for ideological reasons (in the opinion of 'many' scientists). Go to the link and it becomes clear that the program had been very poorly managed and half a billion had been spent on the satellite PLUS the manager (the Air Force) is already working on follow-on programs.
So really what was the intent of this post? To make it seem like this was part of a Republican anti-science/climate change denial effort?
Actually the story should be: under the previous administration the Air Force was permitted to mismanage a publicly funded project to the tune of +$500 million dollars and finally Congress stopped the pouring of more money in to the project.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
If you cant measure it, its not real!
And if you can, then it must be fake, unless it matches ideologies?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
So the existing satellites go out of service in 2023, and the Air Force satellite will go up in 2022.
How does this equate to "we will no longer have the ability to measure sea ice?"
There is nothing in this that says that we destroyed a sat.
It simply says that the GOP is trying to block launch of replacement (stupid, but not the same as destroying it).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Those people are actually govt deniers. They don't believe that governments are the source of many of the world's problems but rather that more govt and more govt spending are desirable.
If you weren't paying as much tax, or even paying no tax, then you'd have more money you could choose to directly help fund a satellite program like this one, without politicians interfering.
Nice idea, but isn't going to happen.
No more of these expensive satellites! Free market rules tell us we'll get our weather information from the Weather Channel just like everyone else.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
At our office we scrap things all the time. That doesn't mean we destroy it. We usually put it into storage in case it ever gets revived.
In this particular case, reading the actual article (and not just the summary), the U.S. Congress was annoyed at the money spent on keeping the satellilte in storage, and had it destroyed. So, no, in this case, scrapped did mean destroyed.
Reading the old articles, though, nobody was discussing sea ice, which is just one of the least important things the satellite was to measure-- primarily it was a Defense weather satellite (weather turns out to be very important to the Department of Defence-- particularly to the Navy. Who knew?)
17 years in the space business, and I've never seen a development program NOT bleed millions. Even the grand claims of some primes to hit their costs have an asterisk (prime paid over run vs customer, over run at supplier level is absorbed through contract growth penalty clauses, etc). It's the nature of building hardware that has to be 100% the first time. Unlike software, a busted hardware design can't be remotely patched after it kibbles on the pad or tumbles its solar arrays off...
>> leaving the U.S. with only three others
First world problems FTW
The article says the replacement will be ready in 2022 and the existing satellites will be operational until 2023. So whatâ(TM)s the problem? Also, the satellite cost cost 58 million to build but they stored it since the 1990s at a cost of 500 million. That makes no sense at all. It also makes no sense that the Air Force is in the weather satellite business at all. We have NASA and we have NOAA in charge of this space. This is just waste and mismanagement.
Any other group of people on the planet, it doesn't have to be a government, could fund this if it's seen by that group of people as so crucial. Why does the United States government always become the villain when they decide to not spend money they don't have to fund something that literally thousands, if not millions, of other groups of people could fund?
This is a serious question. Private companies put satellites into orbit all of the time. If so many people feel this is so crucial to the survival of humanity and/or the planet why couldn't this be done by some other group, whether it be private or governmental?
A+ for imagining a society where people can be trusted to NOT be greedy.
D- due to the glaring naivety displayed.
Hey, let's all stop paying taxes and everyone pays only for what he needs. I don't need schools. Let that guy with 4 kids pay for that. I'm also healthy, so I don't need no medical care. That's more something for someone who is bedridden and dependent on constant medical attention to pay for. I also don't really see any reason to wage war in some godforsaken land I can't even spell properly with a Latin alphabet, so I guess those carriers should be paid for by people who want them. And I can afford an offroad vehicle, so I don't really see why those roads need to be maintained.
You know, your idea starts to really appeal to me. I'm rich, after all, and I sure pay more taxes than I get out of it. And with more poor people dying faster, we do something against the overpopulation.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, right, and this will actually work really well because it's absolutely easy to check and verify that my money is used for what I want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Really Slashdot? Headline hardly does justice to the complexity and thought of the issue found within the linked article. 1800s yellow news papers would be proud.
If your spare satellite program is being ran in such an utterly inefficient and wasteful way, there is some real sense to shutting the program down. Especially with alternates coming on-line within a few years.
Without the satellite you'll never find out if it was all a lie. But since the science is settled, you'll stop trying to complain and get in the way of what the science says, right? After all you HAVE said the science is settled, right?
> It's called paying taxes.
This is why a socialist uber-state can't evolve into final stage communism. You end up with precisely this kind of dependence mentality. The average citizen is turned a helpless child.
They're idea of "social responsibility" is completely abdicating any responsibility for whatever social problems they identify. It's someone else's job to solve the problem and pay for it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yes. We're not the greatest country in the world. Yet we seem to be the only country actually capable of actually doing stuff. We're not supposed to be the global police, except when we're expected to be just that.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Somebody wanted attention for their pet project. /. editor went along with it for one reason or another.
Plot twist: average /.'ers see through the political bullshit, foe the submitter.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Hilarious. Look up deficit spending and debt monetization. Your unborn grandchildren and the poor are paying for stupid redundant satellite pork programs - your taxes do not.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
For more information from Ray Spencer....
"But as NASA’s leader of the U.S. Science Team on one of the best satellite instruments developed for monitoring sea ice, I can tell you we will not lose our ability to monitor sea ice.
Admittedly, the premature failure of the Defense Department’s DMSP F17 and F19 satellites has definitely reduced the number of times a day we can measure the polar regions."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
But, will they be ready on time?
As far as the mismanagement claim, the poster who pointed out all the mismanaged military projects that are KEPT hit the ball out of the park.
CA's Governor Brown has threatened have CA launch its own satellites if the Fed gov't flakes on climate research. I wonder how GOP would react? #CASA!
Table-ized A.I.
For example, you could be REQUIRED to pay taxes, but be allowed some degree of say-so in how those taxes were spent.
That's what calls and letters to your elected representatives are for. And your vote, of course. And if you really want to increase your influence, add some campaign donations. Donating a tiny fraction of what you pay in taxes can actually go a very long way toward making your tax money go the directions you want it to. Under the current system you actually have *more* influence on how the budget is spent than if everyone voted directly on budget allocations, because so few voters express their will directly. Politicians assume that for every voter who writes/calls, there are a few thousand who feel the same way but couldn't be bothered. And the ratio is even larger for those who donate.
If that's not enough influence for you, take the next step: pick one of the major parties and participate in local caucus meetings. The direction of national politics is really set at that level.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
LOL... You're so naive. I bet you've never even tried to write an elected representative, and then never gotten a response of any kind. Once that happens then you'll start to understand what a lack of accountability is.
I've written to all of my representatives in at the federal level regularly, for decades, in two states. I nearly always get a response.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So you just expect everyone to have a spare $100 million laying around to send up a satellite? That sounds realistic.
Corporations exist to do things that individuals couldn't afford to do on their own. But they have the down side of being 100% profit motivated, so if the project isn't going to show any sort of ROI it will never get corporate funding no matter how valuable it is.
OK so maybe a rich philanthropist can do it. Elon Musk has his hands full already trying to save the planet in other ways. Same with Bill Gates. And there just aren't that many other philanthropists out there with that kind of bank roll. Bezos seems to want to get into the rocket game but he's just doing it for the profit now that Musk has shown it can be done.
So who else could do this? Who else has the funding available to launch satellites and also a motivation other than pure profit? That leaves basically the government. True they have their own motivations that may not align with a satellite (hence defunding the one that was already there) but at least they have more than one motivation, and that motivation can be swayed by reasonable argument, or even by voters to some degree.
The problem with the whole "government shouldn't do anything" rhetoric is that there are some things that are worth doing, but simply have no other entity with both the capability and the desire to do them. Should the government try to do everything? Of course not. But there are some aspects of life that simply lead themselves more to a social solution than a profit-motivated solution. As with everything in life, balance is the key. A fully socialist system will break down to be sure, but a fully capitalist system would break down just as fast.
The problem is that you're living in the past. The US was the greatest country in the world and they were actually capable of doing "stuff." (By stuff, I assume you mean military actions and/or the space race, which was really a military action in itself if only a symbolic one.)
But that's all in the past. China is now doing stuff. India is now doing stuff. The EU has been doing stuff for a while. Hell, if you want to restrict yourself to military actions you could even claim that North Korea is doing "stuff" at this point. Meanwhile the US has decided to back off of that whole "science and technology" train because its getting inconvenient for their largest companies.
At this point, the US is waning and China in particular looks to be the new rising star. Whether the US will bother reacting in time to reverse that course, or if world events (such as trading nukes with North Korea) will change the whole game remains to be seen, but if things keep going as they are the US will be in Britain's shoes by the end of the century if not sooner -- still a strong world power to be sure, but no longer considered a superpower.
Also, you made yourself the global police. Most places on the planet would be quite happy if the US stepped the fuck off and let them run themselves. But that will never happen because then the US could no longer justify their insane military spending, and those poor billionaires at Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin would be sad.
I believe the OP's oversimplification was intended to suggest that government consumption represents a small fraction of what is consumed by the public. To put things in perspective, that 100M barrels of oil that you mention is roughly equal to one day's worth of global production (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.cfm).
Need fuel to stay in place satellites do. When get too low they do, moved to the graveyard orbit they are.
FTFY
In the US, government employees — specifically legislators — take money and favors from the oil companies in order to slant fuel production, transport, use and pollution remediation strongly towards them in every way they possibly can.
So yes, it is the government that has been (and continues to go on) driving it here in the USA.
Those days are slowly drawing to a close, though. It's long past time for it to happen. Burning oil is a filthy habit.
The only remaining partially jumped hurdle is clean energy storage.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.