This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

NASA Ignores Report on Economic Value of NASA Earth Science Data

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 14, 2012
Filed under , ,

Brattle Group Economists Estimate Value of NASA’s Global Solar And Meteorological Data Services To Be Up To $790 M
“A report prepared for the NASA Applied Science Program and authored by economists at The Brattle Group finds that the use of NASA’s solar and meteorological data services has greatly contributed to the U.S. and international goals of achieving greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. The study, which was presented today at a workshop hosted by IEEE’s Committee on Earth Observation, finds the economic value of the datasets to be between $79 million and $790 million worldwide, with higher ranges possible.”
Keith’s note: If you go to the NASA Applied Science Program website they make no mention of this report. This rather odd given that they paid for the report – one that has been released and makes some rather important assessments about the value of what NASA does.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

2 responses to “NASA Ignores Report on Economic Value of NASA Earth Science Data”

  1. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    finds the economic value of the datasets to be between $79 million and $790 million worldwide, with higher ranges possible

    An evaluation that gives a range for the value a complete order of magnitude wide? How useful is that for making decisions? I think it kind of brings the worth of the entire report into question. I hope they didn’t pay a whole lot for this report.

    Steve

  2. npng says:
    0
    0

    Economic assessments like this often tend to produce mixed results.

    Apparently Brattle used the contingent valuation method called “willingness to pay” coupled with a typical survey / interview methodology in an attempt to quantify value outcomes for NASA. The method is commonplace but old-hat and contains great subjectivity. IMHO if you study “willingness to pay” models, you too may conclude they reek of bogusness.

    You walk into a department store and the cute little greeter walks up to you with a bottle of perfume. Before you can blink she sprays you, smiles and says “Lovely isn’t it? Would you be willing to pay $80 dollars for this fabulous perfume?” Your time is valuable, you don’t waste time telling her you’re allergic to perfume, not missing one stride you blow her off simply saying, “Yeah, sure, $80 bucks.” and walk away. Presto! She neatly adds a checkmark in her black book indicating you’re “willing to pay” $80 bucks. Would you really pay $80? Hell no. You wouldn’t pay a buck, they couldn’t pay you to take it. There are a million instances where, when asked “will you pay?”, you might simply blow it off with a response, either way. But when it comes to forking over hard cash, when the chit-chat is over and the real purchase poker-play moment is in motion, that’s a very different decision event. All consumers know this, except perhaps neurotic impulse buyers. So…

    There are more rigorous valuation methodologies that can be used to secure a more definitive assessment. They were apparently not used in the NASA analysis. Worse, Brattle uses an assumptive mode, where out-of-the-blue they attribute a 1% to 10% savings whenever users access the data. Why not 0.5%? Why not 20%? Go to the Brattle site and review the socio-economic value report, it’s there. Make your own assessment of their work.

    If NASA chose to ignore the report given they were aware of the approach employed, then I agree with their move. Historically, NASA has been devoid of using high end economic analyses and valuation skills and assessments to validate the worth of their programs and missions, so it’s doubtful that that is the reason they put the report on ‘ignore’. NOAA has had one, yes one, economist over the years. I’ve never seen even one in NASA, but maybe they are hidden.

    Are economic valuation assessments good for NASA and for NOAA? Greatly. Both of these agencies desperately need to get the tools and ability to “prove their worth”, especially if they want to avoid having their budgets slashed. But they need to get analyses done that are more rigorous and more defendable than what was done here.