Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
Another Success For NASA!
Comments
THAT explains its success !
What a pity George cancelled the Deep Space climate station.
But then again we couldn't have facts on global warming getting in the way of energy profits, could we?
Spin
"The Deep Space Climate Observatory began life in March 1998 when then-Vice President Al Gore proposed a mission, called Triana, to beam back real-time images of the whole Earth. Ridiculed by Republicans as Goresat, the project was resuscitated after a 2000 report from the National Research Council of the National Academies said it could do important research. But last month, NASA science chief Mary Cleave wrote scientists that "the context of competing priorities and the state of the budget for the foreseeable future precludes continuation of the project."
Did I put 2+2 together wrongly?
Could Mary Cleave have no idea of Ws views on Global Warming, where any actions which could impact energy profits have very much stopped at his desk.
The statement Cleave gave in on closing the project are probably quite true, and couched in terms, which actually invite the question ...
...why is this project which could be of great importance in understanding one of the greatest threats to mankind seen as conflicting with priorities and lack of budget?
Step 2 will be that more scientists will ask the question.
Refer: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/opinion/edpark.php
Spin
In addition - the pice you quoted IS an opinion piece and I am not sure who this park fellow is.
Look - does the Administrations beliefs have control over program cuts? Sure - and as the article I pointed out this was a Gore boondoggle - and believe me Gore had many in regards to the space/aero progem - don't get me started. Some of the biggest aero contractors to NASA are from his state and have had FAVORABLE contracts for YEARS.
Its politics my friend.
[Edited on 16/1/2006 by MCSF]
We agree:
1. Another success for NASA
2. Facts are that a project has been cancelled.
3. We don't like Gore
4. Politics involved.
We appear to disagree:
1. Spin: We should question why the project was cancelled
MCSF: NASA had control over this and if not, its OK because that's politics
2. Spin: Understand the point of the article
MCSF: Even if it's true, I choose to question who the hell tha author is.
3. Spin: Global Warming is a fact.
We need to understand its causes in order to effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to mankind.
MCSF: something about this being my (Spin) pet project.
OK I admit I advise companies on this issue.
However, it is an issue affecting us all.
It seems we diverge when anyone else has an opinion different from yours.
To me it is the facts and the arguments involved, not who says it. I didn't like Gore or his motives, but this idea had merit.
The freedom to differ, and to express dissenting views, is one of the wests core values which we both respect.
Spin
It really is not an article - it is an opinoin piece. I have talked to one of my co workers and will talk to more tomorrow but the one I did talk to (today is a holiday here in the States) and he never heard of this project.
It appears that the writer is based out of maryland - the same place the mission in question was run out of - Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. Do we need to look into the bias of the author here?
And we underwent one some years ago - I think it was the coming out of the ice age and to the best of my knowledge Henry Ford had not been born yet. So the cause of that global warming cycle was...? Yes the idea has merit. However, when NASA is facing huge cuts in many of the programs that we have all come to know and love in order to make the money available for the return to the Moon and Mars missions tough choices have to be made. Our new administrator said it best that if you have a great idea in technology that does not fit in with the direction that NASA is headed based on our long range plan then you might want to take your idea to acadamiea and or industry. the days of research for researchs' sake are gone - they were gone under Clinton as well. Amen!
As I wasn't paying for it, I'm not complaining, just observing.
Anyway, the real thing here is that NASA again pulled off a great achievement, nearly 3 billion miles and back with the goods.
At $212 million, it is an expensive dust bin, but at 14.1 miles to the the dollar, it's a lot cheaper than a NY taxi.
Well done, again.
Spin
[Edited on 17/1/2006 by Dr_Spin]
Bring that $US212Mill this way and you can have a look at mine. hehehe
I know, I know. But someone would've said it eventually.
(what will have happened with all of us in nine years time??)
I've downloaded the software and checked a few locations.
So far I haven't got the same resolution as Google Earth, But I suspect that's a matter of waiting for the detail to build.
There's more placenames in my areas of interest than on GE, and the images are less affected by cloud.
The imaging systems are better described by NASA and you have choices as to what you want to see.
Some interesting finds discussed on the forums including the
SR71 Blackbird. Now people searching for the Aurora.
Will we be seeing new sites blacked out in the near future?
Spin