GoreSat Is Back
Once-derided climate-change satellite may launch with new goal
“An Earth observation satellite conceived by former Vice President Al Gore — but banished to a Maryland warehouse by foes of climate change after George W. Bush beat Gore for the presidency — could get a ride into space as early as 2014. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wants about $23 million next year to continue a quiet reboot of the satellite, and spending bills circulating in Congress show that lawmakers — so far — are willing go along with it.”
Keith’s note: First it was called “Triana”. NASAWatch called it “GoreSat”. Then it was “Deep Space Climate Observatory” (DSCOVR). If this spacecraft is eventually launched, you can be absolutely certain that NASA (or NOAA) will not be able to figure out what Triana has cost since its inception in 1998 and various reincarnations since then. Try and get a consistent cost number out of NASA for Mars Phoenix, for example.
Earlier Goresat postings
Gore Sat is a nice concept. I would like to have the app on my phone. Please make this happen.
Up until it was cancelled, it cost $285 million dollars.
No peer review, it just got moved to the head of the line.
That is why it was never adopted by the science community.
OK, let’s not rewrite all of history, here. The concept of taking images of the Earth at the L1 point and beaming them back every 15 minutes or so may not have been reviewed. But DSCOVR (Triana) was/is a whole lot more than that, and the rest of the mission was rigorously reviewed. Leaving aside the solar-looking instrumentation that was always a part of the mission (and which is absolutely critical at this point), the Earth Science part went through the normal NASA process; an announcement for proposals for instruments to fly on the satellite was released, proposals were submitted, and based on reviews solicited by the outside community, two instruments were selected (NISTAR and EPIC). Furthermore, the Earth Science missions were reviewed (at the request of Congress) by the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that the mission was “strong and scientifically vital.”
If Mr Seftor is right, the DSCOVR Satellite passed muster, and is indeed useful, (and perhaps needed now even more than before!)
I doubt that reminding everyone of its difficult past, as well as the re-use of the snarky name and Futurama imagery will help it’s case. Yes, 285 Million seems like a lot, but relative to the other billions that are spent on power point/vaporware/half builds
If the instruments aren’t too out of date- I would suggest that we lose the snark, put the controversy behind us, and get this one flying.
All of this was post facto, after Gore pushed this on Goldin with Barbary Mikulski support. This was after canceling $150m dollar class missions that already had contracts awarded for planetary science.
If you want to comment on the fact that the mission concept started out with a weak science foundation, you are free (and probably correct) to do so. I was simply responding to one misstatement you made (the mission did, and does, have support from the science community, including the NAS) and one overstatement you made (although the original concept of DSCOVR/Triana was not peer-reviewed, the hard-core science aspects that were added to it, both the solar and earth view parts, went through a strong peer-review process).
As to whether funding for other missions suffered as a result of the funding for DSCOVR/Triana, I can’t say whether you have any basis for such an argument or not.
(although the original concept of DSCOVR/Triana was not peer-reviewed, the hard-core science aspects that were added to it, both the solar and earth view parts, went through a strong peer-review process).
Which is what I said. The funding was approved for the mission and the science community was incensed that a screen saver was placed ahead of the decadal survey as well as the priority list for Earth science. The instruments that you list were added to the list to gain the support of that community, post facto. The dramatic increase in the cost of the mission is at least partially attributed to these additions.
Who should I believe? A guy that looks like a scientist, or what looks like chewbacca with a cat head?
couldn’t help it
That is Mr. Cat head to you sir!
(by the way, his name is Sport)
Oh boy, where do I start.
First, the first Earth Science decadal survey was in 2007 or so, it had no bearing on whether to fund DSCOVR (get your facts straight).
Second, the science community wasn’t incensed. They saw an opportunity to do high quality science in a unique orbit, and they took advantage of it (don’t rewrite history).
Third, if you really want to discuss the decadal survey, one of the instruments on DSCOVR (NISTAR) determines the total radiation budget from the sunlit side of the earth, which happens to be a high priority in that survey.
Again, if you want to grumble about the original mission concept, go ahead. But give NASA credit for turning the concept into a valid mission that provides information called out for in a decadal survey that hadn’t even been developed yet.
(And, again, I haven’t even mentioned the absolutely critical need for the space weather component of DSCOVR).
Sorry but we must have been transported to different timelines. In the reality where I lived and Dan Goldin and Al Gore resided, Triana was the result of a dream that Gore had, which Dan Goldin eagerly latched onto.
After quality science missions like the Pluto fast flyby and the Lunar Resource Mapper were cancelled and the Discovery mission process circumvented, money magically appeared for Triana.
The Decadal surveys that I referenced were from the planetary sciences, where the money was diverted from to Triana.
Maybe your science community was not incensed, but the rest of the community was.
You can rewrite history all you want, but in doing so you just continue the rancor that Triana caused.
Fair enough. It has a checkered past for sure.
My view :
Given that spent money in the past doesn’t really imbue anything with value- (value comes from current utility)
Is what’s built already useful enough to launch, will it help, or does the launch expense (and any current tech upgrades) make the effort simply not worth the launch, logistics and ongoing mission support costs?
The article strongly implies that NOAA and the Air Force think it is worthwhile. Neither of those is a bunch of tree-hugging fuzzy-minded liberal non-producers.
What’s the vitriol for?
The past is subject to endless debate that will never be reconciled, so let’s forget about it and leave it the cost accounting people. What I think is important is that, whether by choice or by necessity, existing but not used hardware (and possibly software) is being revamped for use, which makes sense to anybody if it is hardware appropriate to the new application. And this is not the first instance of NASA doing this lately. In the past, NASA would never have considered this. They would have built all new hardware and ignored anything that was in “inventory.” This, to me, is progress.
Steve
If NASA wants to waste taxpayer funds on an already canceled project that was determined to be wasteful in the first place, they should turn it over to a private first involved in Earth Studies and let them “foot” the bill and concentrate in space studies as their mission states when they were first formed.
Bob,
Who “determined [it] to be wasteful in the first place? The science that it will study has been controversial in terms of how important the issue is, but I wasn’t aware of anyone declaring this sat, under any of it’s names/programs/owners to be “wasteful.”
Steve
———————
Dennis Ray Wingo wrote:
After quality science missions like the Pluto fast flyby and the Lunar Resource Mapper were cancelled and the Discovery mission process circumvented, money magically appeared for Triana.The Decadal surveys that I referenced were from the planetary sciences, where the money was diverted from to Triana.Maybe your science community was not incensed, but the rest of the community was.
———————
All I can do is point out what’s in the historical record. In 1999, NASA’s Inspector General released a (rather critical) report reviewing the inception and development of the Triana mission. The report, among other things, prompted Congress to call for the NAS review, which ultimately supported the science validity of the mission. The IG’s report went into a fair amount of detail concerning Triana’s budget, and included the following:
“On October 27, 1998, after a scientific and technical peer review, NASA selected a proposal8 from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego (Scripps). The Scripps proposal featured two primary instruments: a radiometer to measure the radiance of the Earth at different wavelengths and the Earth polychromatic imaging camera (EPIC), designed to take color pictures of the Earth. NASA also selected portions of a proposal from Goddard—an ultraviolet capability for the camera and a plasma magnetometer to monitor magnetic fields and the solar wind. To pay for the enhancements, NASA increased the mission budget to $77 million.
NASA reallocated approximately $35 million of fiscal year (FY) 1999 funds from other Earth Science programs to Triana. The Triana team expects that an additional $42 million will be required to finish development and operate the mission through FY 2003. (Extending the mission beyond FY 2003 would require additional funding.) By the end of July 1999, the Triana team had spent or obligated $24.7 million of this funding. Triana is currently scheduled to launch on Shuttle mission STS-107 in late 2000. “
So you can believe the IG (money was reallocated from the Earth Science budget) or continue to believe what you want. It’s up to you.
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that all those blue marbles have brought a great deal of support for the space program. Besides as several bellow have pointed out DSCOVR will provide absolute key data about the whole earth radiation budget.
Make no mistake about it Denis Wingo’s opposition is rooted in his denial of our driving climate change. Keith will have to speak for himself.