IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Triana, a.k.a. Goresat
ljk4-1
post Jan 6 2006, 08:55 PM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



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


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Jan 7 2006, 12:15 AM
Post #2





Guests






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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gpurcell
post Jan 7 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 215
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 127



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jan 7 2006, 12:37 AM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



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


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljk4-1
post Jan 7 2006, 02:53 AM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



QUOTE (gpurcell @ Jan 6 2006, 07:26 PM)
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.


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gpurcell
post Jan 7 2006, 03:25 AM
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 215
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 127



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Jan 7 2006, 09:07 AM
Post #7





Guests






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....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jan 7 2006, 11:07 AM
Post #8


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13756
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljk4-1
post Feb 1 2006, 08:32 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



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


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Feb 2 2006, 09:44 AM
Post #10





Guests






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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Feb 2 2006, 09:53 AM
Post #11


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13756
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



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 smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dtolman
post Jul 24 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #12


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 291



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jul 24 2009, 08:13 PM
Post #13


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4217
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jul 24 2009, 09:31 PM
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3563
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



Well, there's always this in the meantime.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo
post May 6 2011, 07:22 PM
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1344
Joined: 3-August 06
From: 43 35' 53" N 1 26' 35" E
Member No.: 1004



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


--------------------
I'm one of the most durable and fervent advocates of space exploration, but my take is that we could do it robotically at far less cost and far greater quantity and quality of results.

James Van Allen
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th September 2014 - 07:37 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.