The content at issue, true, but not the scientific nature of the argument nor its ramifications for "reactionaries" or "liberals." The issue of content was the fact that the character in the book presenting the argument for the geocentric point of view was named "Simplicitus." And, by virtue of carrying the imprimatur, the book indicated that the Church believed the factual content to be correct. Galileo is the reason that they're not given out before the book is written, incidentally. Don't underestimate how big a deal is. What got Galileo in trouble was getting the Pope to endorse his book before it was written, and then reneging on the content after getting an endorsement that carried a lot of authority. Afterward, he was asked to withdraw the book because it couldn't be separated from that papal endorsement. Galileo could have withdrawn it (and the endorsement), re-written it, re-published it without the imprimatur and that would have been the end of it. What he did, was claim that The Powers That Be were trying to suppress The Truth, and then went on a major self-promotion tour promoting the idea that the Church had supported him until they really understood the issue, which wasn't the case. Granted: he was a fantastic astronomer and was ultimately proven correct. But, it's a good lesson that being right is no substitute lack of class, lying, attempted character assassination (against the Pope) and a bad personal style. I don't know, do you think calling the advocate for the geocentric point of view Simplicitus "advocates heliocentrism"? Maybe? You can pick up free translations of his work online if you like. It's an entertaining read. You can also get the court documents from the Vatican archives if you're a history nut, like me.
This view of the Galileo trial was generally held until the Protestant Reformation when some people in that movement dredged it up and essentially created some urban legends about it (with some pretty festive variations, like he'd been executed) to smear the Church. Keep in mind, that it was the same Church that hid Johannes Kepler from the torch-and-pitchfork crowd not much later when they claimed some pretty far fetched things about his work. Again, it's not necessarily content, it's style. It's the same thing as the evolution comment at the top of the thread. In THIS CASE, on THIS TOPIC (scientific), the Church has historically, usually tried to avoid taking sides; of course, there are always counterexamples.
Point of order (which may affect how you think about this topic): Galileo was not, as is commonly believed, imprisoned for advocating heliocentrism. He was imprisoned for using a Papal imprimatur on the book where he advocated it. This was equivalent to saying the Church endorsed his position, and it had actually not taken a side in an active scientific debate (ring any bells?). The Pope was a friend of his and Galileo had convinced him to give him the imprimatur on the book, sight unseen, after Galileo had promised the book would be even-handed.
Whether or not that's something to fix or apologize for... up to you. I'd think of it as more of an anniversary story (400 is a big one) rather than an "apology" story.
Right: all the climate instruments that were slated to be on NPOESS are now gone, and the sounders on the GOES-R series are gone. Read this page of the NAS report executive summary: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11820& page=5 [nap.edu]
This is an executive report about reduced NASA capability, which essentially passes the buck to other agencies. NPOESS needs to be treated as a separate issue. Because of the cost over-runs, no instruments will be added (instruments were the whole reason for the problems in the first place -- the requirements were too far-reaching). GOES-R, however is a different matter. There are very good chances that opportunity slots on the spacecraft will be used to ensure data continuity. As to the sounder... it's not gone. The HES is gone -- it suffered from the same problems as some of the NPOESS instruments and was cut for the same reasons. However, GOES-R will not launch without a sounder, it just won't be the HES.
What does "launch=prep" mean, considering the draft request for proposals for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission imager went out last month (December 2006). Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 are both on their last legs now (both past their design lives), the replacement won't be launched for 2 or more years.
A launch campaign can take five years or more. It consists of the final design reviews and operations development. While its true that a draft RFP is not a nearly finished product, in Landsat's case, it will probably be a follow-on instrument to the current one (maybe even the same vendor). This is a serious risk reduction. By the time that draft is out a considerable amount of work has been done. Maybe it was premature of me to call that a launch campaign, but from my point of view, 'a' follows 'b' follows 'c'. By the time a draft RFP is issued, that reduces the chances of a cancellation to a very small probability. So what if Landsat 5 & 7 are beyond their design lives? Many spacecraft are. So long as they are still useful and safe, that's fine.
It's not free, as in it costs $600 per scene.
That's for archived data prior to April 2003. For newer images it's about $300. Not free, but available to the general public (as I said before).
Which is fine if you're interested in real-time data. If you're interested in climate you have to build your own satellite receiving station and data archive, or buy old data--not free.
If you're trying to track long-term climate, realistically no one will archive more data than a spacecraft's operators. However, people do: University of Colorado and Wisconsin for starters. NOAA makes scientific quality data available in real time with a 3-week backup available for free. Old data can be accessed from the Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System (CLASS) for very nominal rates (like, free, usually) and the aggregate data (the kind most useful in climate research) is available on request so... just ask.
NASA does procure (not develop, not launch) spacecraft for NOAA and USGS
Nope. I used the word "procure."
Really? So the following
The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for the construction, integration and launch of NOAA satellites. Operational control of the spacecraft is turned over to NOAA after it is checked out on orbit, normally 21 days after launch.
is a lie?
Its a spin. Goddard procures the spacecraft. Translation: they find a contractor which will build and launch the spacecraft. NASA manages the development and test processes, ensuring that NOAA and USGS get what they paid/asked for. Lockheed built POES, GOES-I/M was built by SS/Loral, GOES-N/P(Q) by Boeing, NPP/NPOESS by NGST and GOES-R/U is TBD. These contractors manufacture the spacecraft in their own high-bays, perform I/T (integration and g
This is actually my industry, so I think I should correct a few of your statements. First of all, the RND for the next-gen instruments has been terminated because its finished. The ones that weren't completed were part of the NPOESS fiasco, and weren't even being developed by NASA in the first place (that's NOAA/DoD with some consulting and facilities money farmed out). The contracts for the new instruments are in final bidding or have already been awarded. Second, LDCM is in launch-prep now. The RFP for the operations contract will go out late this year or early next. You don't do that if you're not serious. The follow-on mission to AQUA (the cousin to TERRA) is in the Critical Design Review phase at NOAA. They expect a launch date of late 2008 or early 2009. USGS distributes their data through DOMSAT and internet distribution to key customers. Its not "free," as in available in real-time, but it is publicly available. Lastly, NOAA has a massive data distribution network that includes satellite and land-line distribution relays. Additionally, all data collected from geostationary spacecraft is processed and then re-broadcast in real time from those same spacecraft... and NOAA will not charge a dime for it. The NOAA product downlink is un-encrypted. It always has been. It always will be. Anyone with a basic antenna setup can see it as fast as they turn it around. Hence the vibrant and prolific weather-products business in the US and Canada.
NASA does procure (not develop, not launch) spacecraft for NOAA and USGS, but always with heavy support from NOAA and USGS personnel; in this context NASA takes its cues from them -- NOAA and USGS define the requirements for the mission, NASA develops mission operations. The transfer of NASA's (mostly managerial) role back to NOAA and USGS has been in work for years (about 10, I think). All the upcoming NOAA missions (which include attrition replacements and expansions to existing capabilities) are managed by NOAA rather than NASA. NASA is simply reflecting that change in their budget. Finally, NOAA and USGS have always funded NASA and the private sector to develop instrument payloads for them. This will not change. NASA will be scaling back to do experimental payloads and space qualifications, which is what XTE, JASON and most of the other EOMs were designed for anyway. This is NASA's specialty, and frankly, its where they shine.
The idea that NASA is the last word in Earth Observation is simply wrong; they have and will continue to be the critical partner of the US Government's *operational* agencies on space systems development and test, but flying those missions is better left to those agencies that are equipped to do the job. NASA is many things (good and bad), but one thing they are not is an operational agency. Its just not who they are, and I'm glad that they are finally coming around to that.
There are plenty of reasons (budgetary, political, etc.) that NASA is reducing these missions, but the big one always seems to slip through the cracks: its not their job. NASA has been tasked with EOMs (Earth Observation Missions) by members of Congress for years, (mostly out of ignorance) when Earth Observation is strictly the role of NOAA and USGS, not NASA. That's right, kids, NOAA maintains or operates 3 separate constellations of spacecraft(GOES/POES/DMSP), each with several operational and spares. They range from low, to mid to geostationary orbit. USGS operates the famous LandSat constellation (the one that produces the pretty false-color images of rice paddies or road construction or whatever). The point is, the work isn't going away, its just going to more appropriate government agencies that are already doing it anyway. NASA may not be operating these anymore, but they'll still be around to develop the essential technology that these missions use.
Slashdot Mirror
The content at issue, true, but not the scientific nature of the argument nor its ramifications for "reactionaries" or "liberals." The issue of content was the fact that the character in the book presenting the argument for the geocentric point of view was named "Simplicitus." And, by virtue of carrying the imprimatur, the book indicated that the Church believed the factual content to be correct. Galileo is the reason that they're not given out before the book is written, incidentally. Don't underestimate how big a deal is. What got Galileo in trouble was getting the Pope to endorse his book before it was written, and then reneging on the content after getting an endorsement that carried a lot of authority. Afterward, he was asked to withdraw the book because it couldn't be separated from that papal endorsement. Galileo could have withdrawn it (and the endorsement), re-written it, re-published it without the imprimatur and that would have been the end of it. What he did, was claim that The Powers That Be were trying to suppress The Truth, and then went on a major self-promotion tour promoting the idea that the Church had supported him until they really understood the issue, which wasn't the case. Granted: he was a fantastic astronomer and was ultimately proven correct. But, it's a good lesson that being right is no substitute lack of class, lying, attempted character assassination (against the Pope) and a bad personal style. I don't know, do you think calling the advocate for the geocentric point of view Simplicitus "advocates heliocentrism"? Maybe? You can pick up free translations of his work online if you like. It's an entertaining read. You can also get the court documents from the Vatican archives if you're a history nut, like me.
This view of the Galileo trial was generally held until the Protestant Reformation when some people in that movement dredged it up and essentially created some urban legends about it (with some pretty festive variations, like he'd been executed) to smear the Church. Keep in mind, that it was the same Church that hid Johannes Kepler from the torch-and-pitchfork crowd not much later when they claimed some pretty far fetched things about his work. Again, it's not necessarily content, it's style. It's the same thing as the evolution comment at the top of the thread. In THIS CASE, on THIS TOPIC (scientific), the Church has historically, usually tried to avoid taking sides; of course, there are always counterexamples.
Point of order (which may affect how you think about this topic): Galileo was not, as is commonly believed, imprisoned for advocating heliocentrism. He was imprisoned for using a Papal imprimatur on the book where he advocated it. This was equivalent to saying the Church endorsed his position, and it had actually not taken a side in an active scientific debate (ring any bells?). The Pope was a friend of his and Galileo had convinced him to give him the imprimatur on the book, sight unseen, after Galileo had promised the book would be even-handed.
Whether or not that's something to fix or apologize for... up to you. I'd think of it as more of an anniversary story (400 is a big one) rather than an "apology" story.
Right: all the climate instruments that were slated to be on NPOESS are now gone, and the sounders on the GOES-R series are gone. Read this page of the NAS report executive summary: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11820& page=5 [nap.edu]
This is an executive report about reduced NASA capability, which essentially passes the buck to other agencies. NPOESS needs to be treated as a separate issue. Because of the cost over-runs, no instruments will be added (instruments were the whole reason for the problems in the first place -- the requirements were too far-reaching). GOES-R, however is a different matter. There are very good chances that opportunity slots on the spacecraft will be used to ensure data continuity. As to the sounder... it's not gone. The HES is gone -- it suffered from the same problems as some of the NPOESS instruments and was cut for the same reasons. However, GOES-R will not launch without a sounder, it just won't be the HES.
What does "launch=prep" mean, considering the draft request for proposals for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission imager went out last month (December 2006). Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 are both on their last legs now (both past their design lives), the replacement won't be launched for 2 or more years.
A launch campaign can take five years or more. It consists of the final design reviews and operations development. While its true that a draft RFP is not a nearly finished product, in Landsat's case, it will probably be a follow-on instrument to the current one (maybe even the same vendor). This is a serious risk reduction. By the time that draft is out a considerable amount of work has been done. Maybe it was premature of me to call that a launch campaign, but from my point of view, 'a' follows 'b' follows 'c'. By the time a draft RFP is issued, that reduces the chances of a cancellation to a very small probability. So what if Landsat 5 & 7 are beyond their design lives? Many spacecraft are. So long as they are still useful and safe, that's fine.
It's not free, as in it costs $600 per scene.
That's for archived data prior to April 2003. For newer images it's about $300. Not free, but available to the general public (as I said before).
Which is fine if you're interested in real-time data. If you're interested in climate you have to build your own satellite receiving station and data archive, or buy old data--not free.
If you're trying to track long-term climate, realistically no one will archive more data than a spacecraft's operators. However, people do: University of Colorado and Wisconsin for starters. NOAA makes scientific quality data available in real time with a 3-week backup available for free. Old data can be accessed from the Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System (CLASS) for very nominal rates (like, free, usually) and the aggregate data (the kind most useful in climate research) is available on request so... just ask.
NASA does procure (not develop, not launch) spacecraft for NOAA and USGS
Nope. I used the word "procure."
Really? So the following The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for the construction, integration and launch of NOAA satellites. Operational control of the spacecraft is turned over to NOAA after it is checked out on orbit, normally 21 days after launch. is a lie?
Its a spin. Goddard procures the spacecraft. Translation: they find a contractor which will build and launch the spacecraft. NASA manages the development and test processes, ensuring that NOAA and USGS get what they paid/asked for. Lockheed built POES, GOES-I/M was built by SS/Loral, GOES-N/P(Q) by Boeing, NPP/NPOESS by NGST and GOES-R/U is TBD. These contractors manufacture the spacecraft in their own high-bays, perform I/T (integration and g
This is actually my industry, so I think I should correct a few of your statements. First of all, the RND for the next-gen instruments has been terminated because its finished. The ones that weren't completed were part of the NPOESS fiasco, and weren't even being developed by NASA in the first place (that's NOAA/DoD with some consulting and facilities money farmed out). The contracts for the new instruments are in final bidding or have already been awarded. Second, LDCM is in launch-prep now. The RFP for the operations contract will go out late this year or early next. You don't do that if you're not serious. The follow-on mission to AQUA (the cousin to TERRA) is in the Critical Design Review phase at NOAA. They expect a launch date of late 2008 or early 2009. USGS distributes their data through DOMSAT and internet distribution to key customers. Its not "free," as in available in real-time, but it is publicly available. Lastly, NOAA has a massive data distribution network that includes satellite and land-line distribution relays. Additionally, all data collected from geostationary spacecraft is processed and then re-broadcast in real time from those same spacecraft... and NOAA will not charge a dime for it. The NOAA product downlink is un-encrypted. It always has been. It always will be. Anyone with a basic antenna setup can see it as fast as they turn it around. Hence the vibrant and prolific weather-products business in the US and Canada. NASA does procure (not develop, not launch) spacecraft for NOAA and USGS, but always with heavy support from NOAA and USGS personnel; in this context NASA takes its cues from them -- NOAA and USGS define the requirements for the mission, NASA develops mission operations. The transfer of NASA's (mostly managerial) role back to NOAA and USGS has been in work for years (about 10, I think). All the upcoming NOAA missions (which include attrition replacements and expansions to existing capabilities) are managed by NOAA rather than NASA. NASA is simply reflecting that change in their budget. Finally, NOAA and USGS have always funded NASA and the private sector to develop instrument payloads for them. This will not change. NASA will be scaling back to do experimental payloads and space qualifications, which is what XTE, JASON and most of the other EOMs were designed for anyway. This is NASA's specialty, and frankly, its where they shine. The idea that NASA is the last word in Earth Observation is simply wrong; they have and will continue to be the critical partner of the US Government's *operational* agencies on space systems development and test, but flying those missions is better left to those agencies that are equipped to do the job. NASA is many things (good and bad), but one thing they are not is an operational agency. Its just not who they are, and I'm glad that they are finally coming around to that.
There are plenty of reasons (budgetary, political, etc.) that NASA is reducing these missions, but the big one always seems to slip through the cracks: its not their job. NASA has been tasked with EOMs (Earth Observation Missions) by members of Congress for years, (mostly out of ignorance) when Earth Observation is strictly the role of NOAA and USGS, not NASA. That's right, kids, NOAA maintains or operates 3 separate constellations of spacecraft(GOES/POES/DMSP), each with several operational and spares. They range from low, to mid to geostationary orbit. USGS operates the famous LandSat constellation (the one that produces the pretty false-color images of rice paddies or road construction or whatever). The point is, the work isn't going away, its just going to more appropriate government agencies that are already doing it anyway. NASA may not be operating these anymore, but they'll still be around to develop the essential technology that these missions use.