DSCOVR Options

[ljk4-1]

ADMIN NOTE: Please note that this topic was unavoidably poltical before the 'No Politics' rule. Please restrict future comments to the mission/spacecraft/news updates etc.

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 6 Jan 06 Washington, DC
DEEP SPACE CLIMATE OBSERVATORY KILLED.
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Actually, as I recall, Gore's original plan was simply to "inspire schoolchildren" with continuous video views of Earth -- the climate instruments were added at the insistence of NASA's science advisors and the National Academy of Sciences (which did an official appraisal of Triana's sciencce value in its revised form). While Gore's original idea strikes me as moronic, those other experiments ARE important, and I hope they're added as piggybacks to the other solar astronomy satellites scheduled to be hung soon at the L-1 Sun-Earth point. In fact, I think it's time for us to start raising hell on the subject, since otherwise this is unlikely to be done under this stinkbomb of an administration.

[gpurcell]

Repeat After Me:

TRIANA

MUST

FLY

ON

SHUTTLE


There is NO way given the state of the fleet that the scientific returns of the mission justify a shuttle flight under the post-Columbia, post-RTF situation. That's not to say the individual instruments shouldn't fly...but as long as they were on this platform, they were going to be doing nothing but provide a continuous view of a (cough) University of Maryland clean room.

I'm a heck of a lot more agitated about the LANDSAT disaster than this mercy killing.

I'm sorry, but Bob Park is letting his partisanship get in the way of his reason.

[Bob Shaw]

It seems a bit, well, daft, to have a 100% built spacecraft and then just not to fly it. If Phoenix can fly after MPL, then surely Triana could be flown. After all, there are lots of developmental flights which have concrete rather than spacvecraft aboard. Or there's even Russia, or ESA, or China, or Japan... ...or Mr Musk.

Bob Shaw

[ljk4-1]

Repeat After Me:
TRIANA MUST FLY ON SHUTTLE

According to this document, it is apparently illegal to fly Triana on the Space Shuttle:

http://oig.nasa.gov/old/inspections_assessments/g-99-013.pdf

But I agree with those who say that the satellite has real scientific and educational merit and having it sit in a warehouse collecting dust is a waste.

[gpurcell]

You misunderstand that document. That is the OIG report designed to highlight the false accounting NASA was engaged in, not a finding of law. In essence, Gore was trying to commandeer a launch of the Shuttle for a campaign event in the 2000 election.

If you actually READ the report, you'll see what a boondoggle this thing was from the beginning. Check out Table 4, in particular.

In any event, Triana AS BUILT was designed to fly on Shuttle, in part to maximize the PR value to Gore from the mission. (Ah, the days of the "All Woman Crew" and Triana...magical!)

NASA has far, far, FAR better things to use $150 million on than Gore's vanity satellite.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

There are two distinct issues about this satellite:
-to fly it as a political campaigning argument by Gore is questionable.
-to refuse to fly it by Bush administration to degegate climate change is criminal.
It is also clear that the first issue is used as an argument to support the Bush's views, but at a cost which is not acceptable.
We should not speak of politics in this science forum, but when bad politics comes muddling into science....

[djellison]

A short study should be made to see if it can be launched and operated under a small budget from, say, a Falcon I or as a secondary payload on a larger vehicle.

If it can be launched and operated for say, $25m - then I think it would make sense to fly it and use it. If it would be mroe than that, then probably not.

Doug

[ljk4-1]

An interesting bit of trivia I just learned from the FPSPACE list: Triana was scheduled to fly on STS-107, which has its sad third "anniversary" today.

See here:

http://www.sts107.info/putting%20the%20mis...er/together.htm

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

What I think is that, even before sad or stupid political pressures, a mission should be completed, or not begun at all. A mission which is built but don't fly, a mission which flies but is stopped while still usefull (like Magellan Venus mapping, Pioneer effect data which was about to be discarded, SETI funding abandonned...) are all waste.

So, once a mission is started, it should be continued until its end (unless of course there are unforeseen problems, like the Hermes shuttle, which already very high cost doubled in some months, leading to a sad but necessary stop).

So all must be discussed, budget and eventual politic stake, before starting real expenses. And after, any project must be guaranted to be fulfilled until its end (last useable data).

[djellison]

But - if you have the promise that a mission will always be completed once started - you'd have people proposing at way under the actual expected budget, getting started and then saying "ahh - we need another $400m, hand it over as we've GOT to complete it"

You have to hang the threat of 'the chop' over missions realistically to get them to propose at a sensible budget, and stick to it. Make a promise that they'll fly no matter what and you'll soon be looking down the back of the sofa for cash

Doug

[dtolman]

This project might have a future after all. Nasawatch has an article up about the Air Force/Homeland Security/NOAA interested in having it launched for space weather observation from L1 (found in a budget item in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010)

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/...at_is_back.html

[tedstryk]

That would be great! As an image junkie, I was really bummed about that mission's fate.

[ugordan]

Well, there's always this in the meantime.

[Paolo]

I apologize for resurrecting this topic: Triana Sat Eyed For Competitive Test Launch
it looks like the "Goresat" may fly after all...