Although a large fleet, the satellites will provide only half of today's observational capacity once aloft. The current EOS orbiters are the result of the NASA's Decadal Survey for Earth Science, which prioritizes its research missions. But the forthcoming flights, Abdalati says, are mostly single instruments with fewer capabilities than the current system. For example, Terra and Aqua, launched in 1999 and 2002, respectively, carry multiple instruments on their platforms and are the largest satellites NASA ever launched, according to Markus.
The primary reason for the demise of what amounts today to an Earth observatory is lack of funding and planning. Since 2002 the Earth science budget at NASA has been slashed 25 percent. In the next year, the number of operating sensors on NASA spacecraft will decrease by 40 percent over 2006 figures. Abdalati has urged a $500-million annual increase in funding for the Earth science budget.
"What the Bush administration did, they said let's go to Mars and let's forget about the Earth. A billion dollars was diverted from the Earth science budget and put into going to Mars and going back to the Moon. I mean it's crazy!" Tucker says, adding that he supports space exploration but would prefer that it didn't come at the expense of supporting satellite-studies of Earth.
The solution requires urgent planning, Tucker says. He agrees with other scientists who think that the U.S. must begin a series of talks with the European Commission and the European Space Agency as well as with counterparts in India, China and Japan to find a way to develop an international climate observing system.
Further, Tucker urges that copies of instruments should be built. "The incremental cost of the second or third copy are 15 percent of the cost of the first one," says Tucker, adding that one of the instruments originally built for Landsat 5 has been operating in orbit for 25 years and is the third of a three-unit production run. "It is not surprising the thing lasted so long. Successive copies are easier to build, and you make simple improvements so they last longer."
For now, all the money in the world will not get NASA out of its bind. Advance planning is needed to prevent repeating this dire trajectory.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentOr maybe the Satellite was giving the wrong information and Al Gore had them turn it off. It isn't that we don't believe there is a problem , we just don't trust the sources anymore. The 7 day forecast is never 100% and you Think you know 100 years down the road, Give us a break.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat may be so, but I'm still going to watch my wallet until this little problem is addressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a big planet and we're not the only country here with a stake at maintaining the ecological status quo. I'd also like to point out that we are no longer in the US vs. USSR race to take over the world, orbital space, the Universe, and everything.
Take for example, George W.'s largest mistake in destroying Iraq in 2003 -- lack of a coalition. W used stealth and blitzkrieg to create a pig's breakfast out of what was once a beautiful city, and replaced 1 maniacal dictator with who knows how many factions of anti-western terrorist franchises?
And he did it all under the guise of WMD that never appeared. This was a unilateral decision brought off with smoke an mirrors. Look what peace and prosperity it's brought to the region.
You want NASA to help "fix" the planet, then first lets build a coalition, make some plans, assign roles and responsibilities, and act like an advanced technical society of vast resources, together, with the other inhabitants of the planet.
I'd rather we not turn "Global Warming" into the battle cry for the next Blackwater profit center funded by the American middle-class, please.
We don't need any Earth monitoring satellites anyway... The computer models we use to predict future climate are so reliable and accurate and consistent that it would be a waste of money to replace them. After all we are confident enough in using the models to make economic decisions costing billions of dollars. Actual data will only continue to match the computer models anyhow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't need any Earth monitoring satellites anyway... The computer models we use to predict future climate are so reliable and accurate and consistent that it would be a waste of money to replace them. After all we are confident enough in using the models to make economic decisions costing billions of dollars. Actual data will only continue to match the computer models anyhow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't need any Earth monitoring satellites anyway... The computer models we use to predict future climate are so reliable and accurate and consistent that it would be a waste of money to replace them. After all we are confident enough in using the models to make economic decisions costing billions of dollars. Actual data will only continue to match the computer models anyhow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sometimes wonder if our global climate change deniers are planning on fixing any problems by prayer. We'll just get lots of prayer warriors on their knees and have them pray the problem away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I would prefer that we keep making detailed and long-term observations of this planet. Our simulations are still less than perfect, but to draw the conclusion that since they are imperfect, there is no reason to speculate that there IS a problem is, in my humble opinion, foolish.
Science has done more to bring us into enlightenment in just 200 years than religion did in 2000. The naturalistic method of scientific inquiry has given us computers, cell phones and modern transportation. These are all wonderful developments that can't be accredited to religious inquiry. Are we to therefore turn our backs on scientific inquiry because we don't like the warnings it provides?
Of course real science is underfunded at NASA. They spend the bulk of their revenue on manned space flight using the Shuttle while short changing real science such as monitoring the earth and other unmanned programs. The biggest manned flight accomplishment recently is collecting garbage and trash from the equally useless International Space Station. What have they done besides grow turnip seeds? No wonder there is little money to measure the earth. NASA succumbs to the No Buck Rogers, no bucks syndrome that pervades their thinking. It's sad but that's the state we're in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> The 7 day forecast is never 100% and you Think you know 100 years down the road, Give us a break.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing. There are still people who can't grasp the difference between weather and climate.
Here's a couple of links that will alleviate your ignorance if you read and understand them:
* http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=weather-is-not-climate-2009-04-28
* http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
So as reported , any questions are to be ridiculed. I do grasp a slight difference .It is you that are ignorant with your lack of understanding the history of the Earth which has always changed and will continue to change . NASA has been giving out bad BS on Climate Change and or global warming and or another ice age circa the 1970's. And as for scientific American I respect A lot of the information i read .But I also realize funding comes from the government so i treat most of what i read as propaganda .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswarpsix: firstly, you didn't ask a question, you made a statement. secondly, you are being ridiculed because that statement demonstrated you don't even have a basic understanding of the issue at hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's impossible to predict the next roll of a roulette wheel, but still casinos somehow stay in business. forecasting the weather more than a few days in advance is very hard, yet we can be pretty sure that (away from the equator, natch) midsummer will be wamer than midwinter. but according to your logic, neither of those should be the case, since we apparently cannot identify the long-term trends underlying short-term unpredictability.
by the way, since when has SA been getting govenment funding? that's news to me, as i imagine it is to the publishers.
myrmidon: you do realise that the models are heavily based on input from, and are verified against, satellite data, don't you? that's one of the reasons why the NASA scientists are getting upset.
"I sometimes wonder if our global climate change deniers are planning on fixing any problems by prayer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have spoken to members of some American Evangelical Christian groups who want to do as much harm to the environment as possible so that they will hasten the day of revelations.
"We don't need to protect the environment. The second coming is at hand." - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior, Reagan Administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Bob Ed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't worry any more, the Space Shuttle is retired or will be very shortly.
Then all trips to the Space Station will be done by our allies , the Russians.
I'd be wary of relying on computer models instead of satellites as one poster suggested. Look how well they worked on Wall Street...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe average temperature in December 2009 was 30.2 F. This was -3.2 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 14th coolest December in 115 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will say it again for the ignorant , Stop believing the propaganda . 30 years ago they were talking ice-age and some still do it is the weather stupid it changes there are deserts where lush green forest used to be ,change happens quit blaming what you do Not understand, professor.
Your mom said otherwise last night
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is there anything Republicans touch that they don't destroy?" The GOP is the cure for your Marxist ways , If you had 2 brain cells in that head of yours you would notice that your savior obama is corrupt. By the way your court appointed doctor said take 2 pills and wait in your rubber room for the next treatment you troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe not going to the moon is a good decision for NASA at this point in time if it frees more resources for earth observation sats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this