Re: Taylor Dinerman nails it


Derek Lyons wrote:
> "Tom Cuddihy" <tom.cuddihy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >I think every congressman who sits on the Armed Services Commitee and
> >every General and Admiral who sits on the JROC should be forced to read
> >this article.
> >
> >http://www.thespacereview.com/article/505/1
>
> Why? The article is dithering, blathering nonsense that avoids
> casting any stones, coming to any conclusions, or actually
> accomplishing much beyond taking a couple of minutes away from the
> lives of anyone who happens to read it.
>
> His only point seems to be the same as the same mistaken viewpoint so
> often espoused here: 'we could build crude prototypes in a few years
> forty years ago - so modern operational craft that are vastly more
> capable and complex with much longer lifespans shouldn't take much
> more than a week or two'.

Then you haven't been paying attention to DOD space for the last ten
years. Every major space system that has been designed in that time,
including several classified and several unclassified systems, Space
Radar, SBIRS Low and High, FIA electro-optical and 'other', has seen
massive tripling cost overrruns and enormous schedule slippage or in
some cases complete cancellation. Now a (mostly) non-DOD system,
NPOESS, has joined that unglorious list of national systems originally
intended to merely replace existing capability, then stuffed to the
gills with new requirements to the point where now the first satellite
is going to be so late we may have gaps in our existing polar weather
coverage. These are satellites that were designed and built and
launched by both NOAA and the USAF in the 80s, not the 60s, and they
are already long lived and extremely capable. That's what you see on
the weather forecast every night. (if you're not looking at GOES)

He mentioned TIROS, true, but far from making that the basis of his
argument, he correctly notes that todays new satellites are to be much
more capable, in fact, so capable that it's pushing the edges of the
technology. Wideband Radiometers are something that NASA just got
working a few years ago (late 90s) from a finicky aircraft, but in the
Net Bubble atmosphere of the 90s, it seemed reasonable to apply that
uncertain technology to a new satellite. Dinerman is correct in his
diagnosis of what is causing the delays, far from proffering a slogan
that imply is the basis of his article.

In this case, you're the one oversimplifying, not Taylor Dinerman.

Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • NASA Technology Spawns Weather, Climate Satellite Constellation (COSMIC)
    ... NASA Technology Spawns Weather, Climate Satellite Constellation ... through Earth's atmosphere, ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Microscopic Radiator Flying on "Skin" of a NASA Spacecraft Set to Launch March 14 (Forwarded)
    ... Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md., in conjunction with NASA Goddard ... components are only visible under a microscope. ... technology employing shutters so small that several abreast are smaller ... to regulate the temperature of a satellite or one of its instruments. ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Taylor Dinerman nails it
    ... The gaps are caused not by the development of new technology, ... >uncertain technology to a new satellite. ... >diagnosis of what is causing the delays, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The Cost of Relativity
    ... I'll bet your pappy never once mentioned a satellite ... >> much technology has disintegrated. ... Once an arm waving sales droid, always an arm waving sales droid. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The Cost of Relativity
    ... >> have as bad as modern televisions. ... I'll bet your pappy never once mentioned a satellite ... >> power coupled with the declining qualty of electronics test equipment ... >> much technology has disintegrated. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)