DSCOVR Mission Passes Major Milestones
“NOAA will manage the DSCOVR mission, giving advanced warning of approaching solar storms. NASA, funded by NOAA, refurbished the DSCOVR satellite and instruments, which were in storage for several years. The U.S. Air Force is funding and overseeing the launch of DSCOVR, which will be aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.”
Keith’s note: In storage for “several years”? It would be more accurate to say “for more than a decade”.
– DSCOVR/Triana/Goresat Is Ready For Launch, earlier post
– Earlier DSCOVR/Triana/Goresat posts

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

41 replies on “Goresat Gets Closer To Launch”

  1. Beyond the important data collection by the satellite, it is nice because:
    1) it is an USAF funded launch (the satellite is nasa/noaa) being carried by a Falcon 9 with all the associated credibility potential at an important time,
    2) it is a launch to a location 1 mill miles out,
    3) and I would assume it will be a landing opportunity for the first stage.

  2. I think this is a first for SpaceX. BEO. At L1. https://www.youtube.com/wat… this is the MIT discussion. Another first, landing on a barge. I finally found it. One thing he says that the landing legs act like flaps brakes enough to cut in half the amount of fuel needed to land. H e gives a 50% chance of success. It is scheduled for 16 Dec.
    Elon says that the next series after F9 will be fully reusable. He will not try to reuse the 2nd stage of F9. He will have to change Dragon. The trunk is discarded now. I suggest he turn it around and come in nose first. Different TPS of course. He does not want to do glider, so this way a propulsive landing can still be done.In this mission will the 2nd stage go with the spacecraft or will a 3rd stage be used? I need to do more research I guess. The mission is interesting. The GOES is not that good. Dish had a good live shot. It quit. Maybe this one will be as good.

    1. That’s part of NASA’s problem. They could not launch anything with a 50% chance of success even if that were the optimal strategy.

  3. Triana (is it still called that?) has been in storage a long time. I presume it doesn’t have deployable antennas like Galileo which might freeze up due to lubricant failure. Let’s hope everything still works.

    1. It will be very useful – of that I have no doubt. Its just that the money spent dragging this whole thing out could have achieved the same data much sooner.

      1. Well, certainly the 10 year wait for the launch was disappointing (to put it mildly). But I’m not really sure NASA spent much money while it was in storage. And, looking through the documentation, “only” $40 million or so was spent on bringing it out of storage, refurbishment ($9 million of which was used on the Earth Science instruments), and developing ground support, etc. And the bulk of that money was provided by NOAA (and the Air Force); most of the money now is coming from either the Air Force (for the launch) and NOAA (for operations). So NASA’s expenditure since the beginning of storage until now hasn’t been all that great.

          1. OK, you need to pay closer attention to Keith’s original comment (he was lamenting the cost of dragging out the mission, not the cost of the mission itself) and my response (that the cost of dragging it out was “only” 40 million after DSCOVR was taken off the shelf, and that the bulk of that money came from NOAA and the Air Force, not NASA).

          2. Colin

            I have been around for a very long time, and know the history of that spacecraft in detail.

            Here is a 2009 article that is a pretty good recap of the history. Note that it was not in the decadal survey’s list of priority missions at the time and that is where the peer review merit scoring comes from. They had to go outside that process to justify it…

            http://www.space.com/2286-m…

          3. Dennis,

            You may have been around longer than I have, but I’ve been around the Triana/DSCOVR mission since its beginning; trust me, I don’t need to read an article to know what happened, I was around for a lot of it.

            You keep mistaking the space science decadal survey with one for Earth science when they are not the same. The first Earth Science decadal study was not until 2007 (they stole the idea from space science), so it could not possibly speak to the priority of the Triana/DSCOVR mission.

            NASA did not go outside the peer review process that was in place at the time for Earth science when it came for determining the science aspect of a mission they did not create and that had a (rightfully) controversial beginning. They brought it inside that process: an AO was developed seeking proposals on the science that could be done at the L1 point, those proposals were solicited and reviewed, and selections were made based on those reviews.

            Again, when NASA’s IG called into question the mission, the NAS took a look and validated it’s scientific bona fides.

            And, again, the money for the mission did not come from space science; as the IG’s report duly documented, it came from Earth science.

            And yes, that re-allocation did cause a fair amount of consternation. But to state that the mission was not reviewed scientifically and stands outside NASA’s normal processes is wrong.

          4. Colin

            Here is the first article about it that is still on the net….. None of the Earth sciences payloads that were later added were part of the original mission idea that Dan Goldin enthusiastically adopted. Everything that you are talking about was added later, post facto, in order to justify the mission..

            http://www.spacedaily.com/n…

            The above is from March 1998. By October, everything was just spiffy…

            http://www.spacedaily.com/n…

            Except, that there was no money in the existing budget for it and the money that it cost came at the expense of other missions that at the time had higher priority.

            By the post 2000 time frame the cost of the spacecraft grew from the original $75 million to over a quarter billion dollars.

            Here is another, exclaiming eloquently the post facto justification for the camera….

            http://www.spacedaily.com/n…

            Don’t get me wrong, I like the science instrument suite on the spacecraft, but the history is the history of the problems that were caused by it, and the post facto justifications do not change the history.

          5. Yes, as I said, the money was reallocated from other Earth science priorities. I’m not denying that. But you implied (at least I thought you did) that it was taken from space science. And I think, based on the IG’s report, that is simply not true.

            And others may have used the science mission to justify the “screensaver.” But look at it the other way; the screensaver was going to fly, so you might as well get good science out of it. (And since when did politics NOT play a part in priorities?)

            Finally, show me a mission whose cost didn’t grow? (I was also involved in NPOESS; don’t get me started on that one).

          6. Colin

            NASA budget FY 1998…

            http://www.hq.nasa.gov/offi…

            Priorities in Earth Science…

            In the 1995 Congressional budget cycle, the EOS budget was reduced by $758.5million through FY2000, to $7,243.4million, of which $131.3million was due to a funding responsibility transfer. The EOS rebaselining effort conducted in 1994, with the following results, was reflected in the FY1996 budget submission.

            Preserve the scientific integrity of EOS and MTPE

            Preserve the measurement complement of the first mission in each series

            Preserve the launch dates for AM-1, PM-1 and Chemistry-1

            Phase EOSDIS development to support missions through FY2000

            Restore reserves to a prudent level

            Incorporate appropriate technology advancements

            Fit within annual funding guidelines for the EOS program

            Replace major spacecraft at six year intervals

            Nothing mentioned in FY 1999 either though they managed to find the money for it, even as money was being transferred from the sciences (Earth and space) to the ISS account..

            http://www.aip.org/fyi/1998…

            http://www.spacewar.com/new…

            There was no mention anywhere in any NASA budget of the funding for Triana, and with a reduction in the budget in the conference committee of over $100 million to fund ISS overruns, Triana was simply not on anyone’s priority list.

            Whether it has value now is not the point. The point is that the process was twisted till it screamed to find money for that mission that was on no one’s list of priorities and in competition with already peer reviewed missions.

          7. I think the issue is very timeline intensive. The original plan was quite limited with an Earth pointed cam at the L1 point. $For 25-50 mil, it was a cheap mission, but not very value-heavy.
            Quite quickly, as long as it was flying anyway, it was upgraded with 2 very important Earth facing instruments, the EPIC camera and the radiometer. Also some solar instruments were added. This was still a (relatively) cheap mission, but with an interesting vantage point.
            Later it was upgraded to a solar primary instrument package, with Earth science secondary, again at a cost increase. Now, we need a replacement for ACES. This guy is available, and essentially only some housekeeping and launch costs are needed to get that an acceptable ACES replacement uphill.
            The controversy and criticisms varied as the project morphed, and cannot necessarily be applied at any point.

            The process was politicized, yes, but that is SOP.

          8. It was not “as long as it was flying anyway”, it was “there is no way that the science community is going to support Al Gore’s Screen saver when Earth Sciences was getting hit with Clinton era budget cuts. Then they added the first instruments. The price skyrocketed from $76 million to $276 million, still coming out of the rear ends of higher priority Earth science missions….

      2. ACE’s instruments are aging, so it’s good for space weather forecasting that we had the hardware available now, rather than ten years ago. Can’t speak to the availability of the earth science data.

      3. Actually, I don’t think so. The reason for refurbishing and launching it is to have solar wind monitor at L1. (That wasn’t the original reason for the mission, but it is now.) ACE has been doing that job, and still is. Launching DSCOVR sooner wouldn’t have accomplished the mission. Ideally, you’d want to delay until just before ACE fails. (A small overlap for intercalibration and a maximum lifetime after ACE is gone. That’s what they do with weather and communications satellites.) That said, I do agree this probably isn’t the most cost-effective way to accomplish that goal.

        1. Sorry, I wasn’t talking about the space weather part of the mission. The 10 year wait was a disappointment from the Earth Science viewpoint (which used to be its primary mission; now it’s most decidedly the secondary part).

          1. The Earth science community was absolutely against the money spent on this spacecraft at the time as the science instruments were added later as a post facto justification and without peer review AND taken out of the existing space sciences budgets.

            Oh how time dims the memories..

          2. Oh boy, here we go again.

            1) The science instruments went through the same AO/proposal/review/selection peer review process any other mission does. Two proposals were selected (NISTAR and EPIC), other proposals weren’t.

            2) When NASA’s IG called certain aspects of the mission into question, a separate study was performed by the National Academy of Sciences (at the request of Congess). The NAS report confirmed the validity of the Earth science mission.

            3) According to NASA’s IG report on Triana/DSCOVR, money was reallocated from the Earth science budget, not the space science budget.

            4) It’s late, I’m tired, and I don’t feel like looking up the appropriate documentation. But if you’d like to refresh YOUR memory, let me know and I’ll look them up and point you to them.

            5) Don’t presume you know what the Earth science community wanted. You don’t.

          3. Funny, that is not what the history of the project says….

            http://www.space.com/2286-m…

            I also recall some Earth science people saying that ISEE-3 was unneeded because of ACE. We proved that at least some of the instruments were still working. It would have been a good thing to have it back out there, especially with the demise of one of the stereo birds.

          4. Why should I look at such articles (although I have)? I’d rather look at things like the (fairly critical) IG report and the NAS report. Plus, I was there, I don’t really need second (or third) hand explanations of what happened.

            As for commenting on space science missions, I do not have the expertise to do so, and I can’t speak on whether other Earth scientists have such expertise or not (and whether they should weigh in on something like ISEE-3). But I do believe that I have more expertise than you when it comes to the scientific validity of the Earth science component of Triana/DSCOVR, so you’ll excuse me for not accepting your judgement.

          5. Colin, I have said nothing about the current instrument suite and its value. I actually think that its value is pretty high, now, and I like the mission, now. I do find it interesting that the obverse argument was made against saving ISEE-3 and returning it to L1 when we were talking to the agency during the run up to our saving it. The real problem was budget and competing priorities. That is the problem now, and that was the problem then.

            All of my comments have been about the process undertaken to create and justify the mission in the face of competing priorities and budget limitations at the time. There was nor is there now a distinct separation in the Space Science directorate between Earth and space science budgeting. All of these budgets have been shifted around, depending on the priorities of the political masters.

          6. Dennis,

            You know, at this point I don’t think you and I are really in disagreement on this. I just state things with a different perspective: NASA (and, by NASA I mean everything/everyone below Goldin) took a situation/mission not of their making (and not on their priority list, granted), and made the best mission they could out of it.

            I would also say that I don’t think the science was added simply (or maybe a better word is solely) to justify the mission (which was already created, and the bell was not going to be unrung). Since it was going to fly, NASA decided to make an opportunity out of it. And, at that point, all the science that did go into it was peer-reviewed and deemed worthy of flying (by the NAS no less).

            And I’ll say that, irrespective of Triana/DSCOVR, NASA would have, at some point, funded a study on putting an Earth science mission at the L1 point (and, right now, they are funding a study looking at the L2 point).

    2. It’s not like it was dragged out of storage and stuck on top of a rocket, ready to be launched. It was completely refurbished and checked out. In many cases, parts were replaced (and improved upon).

  4. Actually, Keith, I think if you check you’ll find that it was just under a decade. The earth science instruments were pulled off first for refurbishment, then the solar wind suite, before the decade mark.

    2. It’s been in “stable suspension” since November, 2001 (or 13 years). It was brought out for refurbishment in 2008/2009, so it was about 8 years in storage.

  5. You know that launches are becoming cheaper when a political hot potato like Goresat finally flies. I’m actually for launching it. The more global scientific data we can collect, the better.

      1. Far from it. DSCOVR was revamped with space weather being its primary mission. Both NOAA and the Air Force believe it to be quite important in that it replaces the aging (and far beyond their years) space weather satellites currently at the L1 point. That’s why they are providing the money for launch (the Air Force) and directly to NASA to operate (NOAA). NASA itself is only spending a fairly small amount on the Earth Science part of DSCOVR which, at this point, is simply hitching a ride out to the L1 point on a NOAA/Air Force funded mission.

        1. Thank you for all the clarifications. There’s a lot of misinformation about DSCOVR. I worked on getting it out of storage and turned into a NOAA mission, so I’m very excited to see it launch.

      2. Keep Spacex busy??!! LOL

        SpaceX is scrambling to meet production needs for a launch manifest that jumps quarterly. In addition to the list below, Shotwell has said that SpaceX has contracted many more, including some FH launches, which does not include the likely 2 Cygnus launches for Orbital Sciences.. These will be announced at the proper time (commercial customers do not like making competitive plans public). Here is just the publicly announced contracted flights:

        AIRBUS F9
        ASIA BROADCAST SATELLITE/EUTELSAT F9
        ASIA BROADCAST SATELLITE/EUTELSAT F9
        BIGELOW AEROSPACE F9
        BULGARIA SAT F9
        CONAE (ARGENTINA) F9
        CONAE (ARGENTINA) F9
        DRAGONLAB MISSION 1 F9
        DRAGONLAB MISSION 2 F9
        DSCOVR (USAF) F9
        FH DEMO F-HEAVY
        INMARSAT F9
        INMARSAT F-HEAVY
        INTELSAT F-HEAVY
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 1 F9
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 2 F9
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 3 F9
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 4 F9
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 5 F9
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 6 F9
        IRIDIUM – FLIGHT 7 F9
        JASON-3 FOR NASA F9
        SKY PERFECT JSAT CORPORATION (JAPAN) F9
        KOREASAT F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 5 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 6 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 7 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 8 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 9 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 10 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 11 F9
        NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 12 F9
        NSPO (TAIWAN) F9
        OHB SYSTEM AG F9
        ORBCOMM F9
        SES (EUROPE) F9
        STP-2 US AIR FORCE F-HEAVY
        SPACECOM (ISRAEL) F9
        THAICOM F9
        THALES ALENIA SPACE (TURKMENISTAN) F9
        VIASAT F-HEAVY

  6. Yes.

    The NASA Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) instrument provides spectral images of the entire sunlit face of Earth, as viewed from an orbit around L1. EPIC is able to view the entire sunlit Earth from sunrise to sunset.

    EPIC’s observations will provide a unique angular perspective, and will be used in science applications to measure ozone and aerosol amounts, cloud height, vegetation properties and ultraviolet reflectivity of Earth. The data from EPIC will be used by NASA for a number of Earth science developments including dust and volcanic ash maps of the entire Earth.

    EPIC makes images of the sunlit face of the Earth in 10 narrowband spectral channels. As part of EPIC data processing, a full disk true color Earth image will be produced about every two hours. This information will be publicly available through NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, approximately 24 hours after the images are acquired.

Comments are closed.