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.

14 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. The Science is Settled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. Re:Destroyed? by crypticedge · · Score: 5, Informative

    They destroyed the backup one that should have been launched to replace the one that failed.

  3. Re:Destroyed? by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it literally says it was scrapped.
    and that the funding was cut for partisan (ie, GOP science denying) reasons.

    the headline isn't inflammatory.
    its completely accurate.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  4. Re:Destroyed? by multi+io · · Score: 4, Informative

    when this could at least be contracted out to someone

    It was. Lockheed built the satellite.

  5. Re:Destroyed? by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At our office we scrap things all the time. That doesn't mean we destroy it.

    Yeah but the US dismantled that satellite, which does mean it destroyed it.

  6. Re:Destroyed? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know, right? Speaking as another Internet commentator who has no understanding of satellite design, I also assume that there must be a very low cost alternative that would work just as well. I once built a rocket using a soda bottle, baking soda, and vinegar. How hard could it be?

  7. Re:how did US destroy a satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please learn to read the full article - after the funding was lost, the satellite that was ready to be launched, was scrapped. In the process it was dismantled and some useful parts, salvaged, but the satellite that was to be a replacement for the failing ones, is GONE! DISMANTLED - DISASSEMBLED! In other words destroyed.

  8. Re:Maybe a pro-science country can step up by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Europe launched the Cryosat-2 satellite in 2010.

    Problem is that different satellites use different types of sensors, which can make it harder to compare the results from one satellite to the other. And when you calibrate the output from one to match the other, people will blame scientists for "adjusting" the data.

  9. Re:A US centric view by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which seems wasteful to me

    It's called redundancy, not just physical satellites, but also redundancy in ideas, technology, and methods of data processing. Also, every big nation launching their own satellites means they can pursue their own ideas, without endless committee meetings. Plus, if there's only one type of satellite, designed by a single party, then there will be even more conspiracies about how the data is manipulated.

    I mean, we're talking about $100 million for a satellite that lasts a decade. That's what we pay for a football coach.

  10. The free market cure by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny
    The US has for too long used Government resources for weather related issues.

    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.
  11. Scrapped means Destroyed. by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?)

  12. Re:Destroyed? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except that the satellite _WAS_ dismantled and its microwave sensor is now somewhere in south america.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  13. Re:From people who don't understand govt by Leuf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, because you are always hearing stories about Republicans ending weapons programs because they were mismanaged and over budget.

  14. Re:Destroyed? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why so many people don't take global warming seriously. Because its proponents resort to cheap tricks like deliberately choosing a word whose common definition makes the situation sound more dire than what actually happened ("destroy - put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it."), when they mean one of its lesser-used definitions.

    If you practice deceptions and exaggerations like this too often, eventually people stop believing you even when the emergency is real. And that's exactly what's happened with global warming.