wakjak Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 8 minutes ago, TPreston said: Its not reorganization its gutting funds If anyone knows anything about reorganizing a company after having their funds go down the drain... it sure would be Donald J Trump at the number 1 position. lol. He believes Climate Change was a chinese hoax, does it really surprise anyone that he would try an defund scientific programs? SecretAgentMan, Brys, TPreston and 2 others 5 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 minute ago, TPreston said: How about reading what you just quoted ? Its not reorganization its gutting funds. Are they eliminating that research entirely? Yes from NASA and possibly more. Yeah... from NASA and made a statement they believe it belongs in other agencies. Which is what, a likely redirection of budget from NASA for said research into another organization such as the NOAA. Quote NASA would prioritize “deep-space activities rather than Earth-centric work that is better handled by other agencies,” such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). “Budgets would have to be realigned to handle that transfer,” Walker tells Scientific American. “We would also anticipate that any new [Earth science] programs would be funded by those agencies.” I mean... if the money is just going to go away, what budgets need realignment then? I'm certain that this means funding directed at NASA for climate research must be realigned with whatever agency will be tasked will fulfilling those initiatives. That budget may get split between multiple agencies, but I don't see it just vanishing into a void as seem to think. 4 minutes ago, TPreston said: Provide the portion of the nasa budget for earth sciences to NOAA or your claim is a lie; Provide where they say they aren't going to redirect funding at all and are in fact cutting the budget entirely. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 Just now, Emn1ty said: Yeah... from NASA and made a statement they believe it belongs in other agencies. Which is what, a likely redirection of budget from NASA for said research into another organization such as the NOAA. A likely cut of budget for them aswell. Quote I mean... if the money is just going to go away, what budgets need realignment then? I'm certain that this means funding directed at NASA for climate research must be realigned with whatever agency will be tasked will fulfilling those initiatives. According to the article it will be spent on science that trump doesn't object to. Quote but I don't see it just vanishing into a void as seem to think. Provide where they say they aren't going to redirect funding at all and are in fact cutting the budget entirely. Read the article ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, TPreston said: A likely cut of budget for them aswell. Likely isn't an argument, it's prognostication. 5 minutes ago, TPreston said: According to the article it will be spent on science that trump doesn't object to. Actually, that's not what the article says at all. In fact, the article states it's nothing to do with climate change skepticism, but a repurposing of agencies. Perhaps you didn't read past the first paragraph (not the first time you didn't read your own links)? Quote Walker says he cannot speculate about what near-term space policy decisions the president-elect will soon make. Even so, he insists that climate-change denial is not behind the platform he laid out for the Trump campaign, and he notes that he co-sponsored the first climate bill ever passed into law—the National Climate Program Act signed by Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1978. “This is not ideological,” Walker says. “When we talk about ‘deep-space activities,’ we’re talking about planetary science and space-based telescopes and all those kinds of things. There have been concerns among some of us that those sorts of NASA programs were robbed in order to concentrate on Earth science, and we want to reestablish the emphasis of NASA itself on the things that go beyond Earth orbit and Earth-observation activities.” 5 minutes ago, TPreston said: Read the article ? So you don't have any evidence to that end, and are just as much a liar as you're claiming others to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, TPreston said: Provide the portion of the nasa budget for earth sciences to NOAA or your claim is a lie; Part of what NASA spends is money it gets from NOAA for services renderwd, which it could now use itself. Also, the days of government owned weather satellites are coming to an end. Anyone, including NOAA, can simply buy imaging services from a commercial source. If they need a geostationary platform they can just build the sensor and piggyback it on a communications satellite. The model used by the old way of doing things has to change. Space is moving from flip phones to smartphones. This is the Luddites vs the Cotton gin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted November 24, 2016 Global Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2016 28 minutes ago, JoseyWales said: Read the quote.. Nothing to defend. It's NASA, not a toy for the politicians.. You know, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration not the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This sort of researcher is better left to Agencies like NOA and others. The problem is ... the vast array of data, instruments, satellites, infrastructure ... (not to mention research) that NASA has ... in place ... today. You can not simply shift this to NOAA ... even if you increased their budget (NOAA's budget is $6B for FY2016 ... NASA climate related budget ~1.9B). The problem isn't with NASA losing focus or shifting focus away ... if Trump wants NASA to focus on deep space exploration ... the answer is more money. The money comes from the same pot anyway (taxpayers) ... so that $1,9B would be moved from NASA to NOAA ... and what ... NASA just gets $1.9B less (all of this is a simple analogy to an understandably complex issue) This short sighted threat/action will do nothing more than move Climate (not Weather™...big difference)) research back generations while severely limiting the ability of future research until NOAA is able to "catch up." NASA's earth satellites have been the biggest advancement in weather forecasting, carbon dioxide, sea levels, and gravity shifts at the poles due to melting ice. Once again ... the 1958 Space Act which created NASA stated ... The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space … The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes… .The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere… Regarding Bob Walker ... eliminating NASA's climate research and shifting it to NOAA isn't really cracking down on "politicized science" ... it would be nothing less than a setback (think smartphones back to flip phones) Also, after I read the OP article ... this struck as a flat out lie .... Quote Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. Walker has been awarded the prestigious "Pants on FIRE!" award. Anyway .. for him (Walker) to state that as part of a crackdown on “politicized science” ... the denial of climate change is getting very political in this upcoming administration. Trump himself is a climate change denier, so is his head of EPA transition team (Myron Ebell) .... and others (like Jeff Sessions who was "offended" by views of climate scientists and Mike Pompeo who denies the scientific consensus on climate change) Things are about to get heated ... SecretAgentMan and Ryuudou 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, jjkusaf said: Walker has been awarded the prestigious "Pants on FIRE!" award. It's actually not a lie, per-se. The consensus isn't quite as much a consensus as people claim it to be. The only real consensus there is falls around earth warming and humanity contributing to it. However, I don't think there's any consensus on how much humanity actually contributes simply because there's no accurate way to measure it. You can't agree on something you can't even quantify, especially not in the scientific community. It could very well be a problem that we just can't solve and has nothing to do with human activity. Is AGW a thing? Yes. Is it the primary cause of warming? I doubt most scientists would make such a claim without some kind of preface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torolol Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) why restructure NASA and split them into several pieces that can work independently and thus not affecting each other 'pieces''s budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 minute ago, Torolol said: why restructure NASA and split them into several pieces that can work independently and thus not affecting each other 'pieces''s budget? Because this way you ensure that the budget for Earth Sciences will be lower. This is very clever move on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 The restructure is to put weather and climate in the weather and climate agency, NOAA. There are about 18 climate satellites, some dating back to 1976. Most of these will be going offline sooner than later. These will either be replaced by smallsats or the data bought from commercial weather & climate satellite sources. Like the USAF EELV program, space weather and climate isn't going to be what it was. It started around 2013 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-space-race-is-on-for-climate-weather-privatization-16243 and now commercial satellites are in orbit, with hundreds more coming. Open Minded 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted November 24, 2016 Global Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said: It's actually not a lie, per-se. The consensus isn't quite as much a consensus as people claim it to be. The only real consensus there is falls around earth warming and humanity contributing to it. However, I don't think there's any consensus on how much humanity actually contributes simply because there's no accurate way to measure it. You can't agree on something you can't even quantify, especially not in the scientific community. It could very well be a problem that we just can't solve and has nothing to do with human activity. Is AGW a thing? Yes. Is it the primary cause of warming? I doubt most scientists would make such a claim without some kind of preface. Reread his quote...you also contradicted Walker ... "The only real consensus there is falls around earth warming and humanity contributing to it." Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. Yes, it is a lie. Saying that only "half" of climatologists doubt the role of human activity in climate change ... that is a lie (or at best ignorance...in either case he shouldn't have said it). Brys and SecretAgentMan 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, jjkusaf said: Reread his quote...you also contradicted Walker ... "The only real consensus there is falls around earth warming and humanity contributing to it." Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. Yes, it is a lie. Saying that only "half" of climatologists doubt the role of human activity in climate change ... that is a lie (or at best ignorance...in either case he shouldn't have said it). Perhaps my interpretation is different than yours. You can doubt the role (as in what that role is) and not that there is a role or not. Though that's parsing words more deeply than I would like. We just read it differently, in your case you're correct but that's not how I interpreted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) This is where it's moving, NOOAA contracting directly with smallsat companies for services instead of buying Cadillac satellites and launches. The provider handles getting them up, downlinks and replacing them. Even the military will be moving certain satellite services to this model. http://www.satellitetoday.com/nextspace/2016/10/26/spire-ceo-launching-satellites-every-month/ Edited November 24, 2016 by DocM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3X4S Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 hours ago, DocM said: This has nothing to do with your politics. Previously Earth observation satellites weighed several tons, cost hundreds of million$ and required a big NASA or military rocket to fly. That's why NOAA missions needed to be done with/by NASA. Those days are gone. This is what Earth observation satellites look like today. They're small, inexpensive and can ride as secondary payloads on other launches. This means NOAA doesn't need NASA for much than antennas, and can work in its own calendar. Even larger ones are a small fraction of older birds. Times change. So what are the costs on these types of satellites ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open Minded Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Quote "We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research," Bob Walker, a senior Trump adviser, told the Guardian newspaper. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission." Hard to argue with that. psmoked and DocM 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, T3X4S said: So what are the costs on these types of satellites ? Those are PlanetLab Dove satellites, which get deployed in groups called Flocks. They have the capability of a 4-5 tonne imaging satellite in a 4-4.7 kg package that costs under $2 million. This low price means that if a group is lost in a launch accident, or one fails, not much is lost but time. They can be launched in groups on about any medium to heavy launcher as reduced cost secondary payloads. 150 Doves should be up soon, and PlanetLab isn't the only outfit flying. This is a rapidly growing segment. Flock 1's Mass: 4 kg Size: 10x10x30 cm Orbit: 400 km (250 mi) Resolution: 3–5 m (9.8–16.4 ft) (gets better with tech development) Use: environmental, humanitarian, disaster and business applications. Flock 2's were launched March 23, 2016 on a Cygnus cargo run to ISS. Flock 2P's massing 4.7 kg were launched by India on June 22, 2016. SpaceX will be launching 70 mini-commsats for Iridium over the next 2 years, then in 2019 will start launching a constellation of 4,425 internet satellites with worldwide coverage. Those internet satellites will only mass 386 kg instead if 5-6, tonnes. Etc. Paradigm shift. T3X4S 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Emn1ty said: Likely isn't an argument, it's prognostication. Actually, that's not what the article says at all. In fact, the article states it's nothing to do with climate change skepticism, My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.” Quote but a repurposing of agencies. Perhaps you didn't read past the first paragraph (not the first time you didn't read your own links)? Provide an increase of NOAAs budget of 2 Billion a year or this claim is a lie; Quote So you don't have any evidence to that end, and are just as much a liar as you're claiming others to be. Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century. 2 hours ago, Open Minded said: Hard to argue with that. Provide an increase of NOAAs budget of 2 Billion a year or this claim is a lie. This is a kindergarten level discussion, NASA spends 2 Billion a year on their earth sciences at the same time NOAA spends 6 billion.6+2=8 If you redirect the 2 billion from earth sciences to space that leaves only the 6 billion from NOAA 8-2=6 See how that works ? So its a cut not a restructuring. 1 hour ago, DocM said: Those are PlanetLab Dove satellites, which get deployed in groups called Flocks. They have the capability of a 4-5 tonne imaging satellite in a 4-4.7 kg package that costs under $2 million. This low price means that if a group is lost in a launch accident, or one fails, not much is lost but time. They can be launched in groups on about any medium to heavy launcher as reduced cost secondary payloads. 150 Doves should be up soon, and PlanetLab isn't the only outfit flying. This is a rapidly growing segment. Flock 1's Mass: 4 kg Size: 10x10x30 cm Orbit: 400 km (250 mi) Resolution: 3–5 m (9.8–16.4 ft) (gets better with tech development) Use: environmental, humanitarian, disaster and business applications. Flock 2's were launched March 23, 2016 on a Cygnus cargo run to ISS. Flock 2P's massing 4.7 kg were launched by India on June 22, 2016. SpaceX will be launching 70 mini-commsats for Iridium over the next 2 years, then in 2019 will start launching a constellation of 4,425 internet satellites with worldwide coverage. Those internet satellites will only mass 386 kg instead if 5-6, tonnes. Etc. Paradigm shift. Why should we let someone who rejects the findings of their research tell us what their budget should be ? Edited November 24, 2016 by TPreston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 9 hours ago, DocM said: Further, they are brining back the National Space Council, which is a committee chaired by the Vice President with members from groups NASA deals with in and out of govt., to give it better guidance. So they want to remove politics from science by havign it run by a... politician... and they want to remove politics by, having politicians decide what NASA can't do. the guys who actually launch and run satellites and have the techncial expertize. NOAA might be a good place to do the research, but this should be a cross agency work. big work doesn't need to be locked down to single agency, when you have multiple agencies who different areas of expertise on the project that makes better results by working together. But you're right, there's nothign to defend, why would you defend someone who says don't turn left as he's making the most obnoxius left turn possible... Jim K, Brys, TPreston and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 8 hours ago, DocM said: Part of what NASA spends is money it gets from NOAA for services renderwd, which it could now use itself. Also, the days of government owned weather satellites are coming to an end. Anyone, including NOAA, can simply buy imaging services from a commercial source. If they need a geostationary platform they can just build the sensor and piggyback it on a communications satellite. The model used by the old way of doing things has to change. Space is moving from flip phones to smartphones. This is the Luddites vs the Cotton gin. Since NOAA still needs NASA to do all the space stuff, no they can't, and NASA still needs to keep the people for those jobs hired, but now they can't do other stuff outside the NOAA projects so either they'll have to get paid from other budgets for doing nothing or studying, or they need to work on other prjects outside their expertise and thus be less proficiant at the NOAA projects jobs they do and less proficient at the other jobs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Hes not even in office yet and the media is self predicting whats going to happen on promises Politicians make during elections and rarely keep during office. Brys 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, HawkMan said: Since NOAA still needs NASA to do all the space stuff, no they can't, and NASA still needs to keep the people for those jobs hired, but now they can't do other stuff outside the NOAA projects so either they'll have to get paid from other budgets for doing nothing or studying, or they need to work on other prjects outside their expertise and thus be less proficiant at the NOAA projects jobs they do and less proficient at the other jobs... No haven't you heard its a "restructuring" not a cut so they need to do all the space stuff with the same budget they currently have (Which may get smaller) but its not a cut just a removal of money and staff. 13 minutes ago, Arachno 1D said: Hes not even in office yet and the media is self predicting whats going to happen on promises Politicians make during elections and rarely keep during office. Bob Walker his campaign advisor made these statements. Edited November 24, 2016 by TPreston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brys Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 13 minutes ago, Arachno 1D said: Hes not even in office yet and the media is self predicting whats going to happen on promises Politicians make during elections and rarely keep during office. still hoping they just do nothing significant for four years. Could very well happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuudou Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) Conservatives don't believe in science, so it's not a big surprise. The problem is allowing someone as ignorant and buffoonish as Trump (who didn't even win the popular vote) to continue deny basic science and actually slash our climate change research is going to be catastrophic for our grand children and for future generations. This is an absolute disgrace. Edited November 24, 2016 by Ryuudou TPreston 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuudou Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 10 hours ago, JoseyWales said: Read the quote.. Nothing to defend. It's NASA, not a toy for the politicians.. Which is exactly why conservatives shouldn't be trying to slash basic science like climate change, something that was included in NASA's founding mission, to push an ignorant political agenda. TPreston 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3X4S Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 3 hours ago, DocM said: Those are PlanetLab Dove satellites, which get deployed in groups called Flocks. They have the capability of a 4-5 tonne imaging satellite in a 4-4.7 kg package that costs under $2 million. This low price means that if a group is lost in a launch accident, or one fails, not much is lost but time. They can be launched in groups on about any medium to heavy launcher as reduced cost secondary payloads. 150 Doves should be up soon, and PlanetLab isn't the only outfit flying. This is a rapidly growing segment. Flock 1's Mass: 4 kg Size: 10x10x30 cm Orbit: 400 km (250 mi) Resolution: 3–5 m (9.8–16.4 ft) (gets better with tech development) Use: environmental, humanitarian, disaster and business applications. Flock 2's were launched March 23, 2016 on a Cygnus cargo run to ISS. Flock 2P's massing 4.7 kg were launched by India on June 22, 2016. SpaceX will be launching 70 mini-commsats for Iridium over the next 2 years, then in 2019 will start launching a constellation of 4,425 internet satellites with worldwide coverage. Those internet satellites will only mass 386 kg instead if 5-6, tonnes. Etc. Paradigm shift. The 4425 cluster of sats - will that also be used for/by Iridium ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts