The ‘Satellite Crisis’
The false-color image here (click to enlarge) is of Tropical Cyclone Gonu, a storm far from the U.S. but close to a place where the U.S. certainly has interests: the Arabian Sea, just downstream of the Persian Gulf. The picture happens to come from the QuikSCAT satellite, which has been in orbit since 1999. This is the one over which a small political war is raging. (Click HERE for more.) A group called Climate Science Watch has obtained, and leaked, a report on how the government has scaled back its plans to replace aging Earth-observation satellites–QuikSCAT in particular–when they die. QuikSCAT ought to have lasted 3-5 years; it’s been going for eight. Satellites do sometimes last remarkably long; the Hubble Telescope, operational since 1990, is a prime example. But there have been four shuttle missions to service it, with a fifth in the works. QuikSCAT won’t get such treatment; at some point–perhaps tomorrow, perhaps years from now–it will give out, and climate scientists, including many who work for federal agencies, would like to continue to get the readings it provides. Does this really represent some lack of commitment from the government? Or just budget realities?
Email
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 




RSS
Twitter
Facebook
MICHAEL GRIFFIN, A QUIET BUSH TOADY, AND THE DIRECTOR AT NASA, RECENTLY STATED ON NPR THAT GLOBAL WARMING ISN’T WORTH WORRYING ABOUT. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ARE HAVING A SATELITTE CRISIS… NOT TO MENTION A CRISIS IN STEM CELL RESEARCH AND DEEP SPACE TELESCOPE SEARCHES… AND SO MANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES. SCIENCE CANNOT BE PERMITED TO CHANGE OR AFFECT THE DOG-MESS. ANY COMMENTS?
Posted by: GUY FOX | June 6, 2007, 2:24 am 2:24 am
If NOAA maintains that our ability to monitor global warming won’t be adversely affected by fewer future satellite launches, it should also explain exactly how it will gather and analyze the necessary information the satellites would have provided. Otherwise, it seems that this entire skirmish is simply an “I say/you say” argument.
Posted by: chuck | June 6, 2007, 8:36 am 8:36 am
It sounds to me like more of this administration’s head-in-the-sand (and other locations) attitude toward the realities of science. After all, the word “science” means knowledge. Just because we don’t know about something doesn’t mean it won’t jump up suddenly and bite us in an inconvenient location.
Posted by: Andy | June 6, 2007, 10:05 am 10:05 am