5 ms·

Anyone in this field says it's extremely complicated. NASA (or ESA) probably would solve this, if we didn't underfund them so much. To those advocating to priva

Anyone in this field says it's extremely complicated. NASA (or ESA) probably would solve this, if we didn't underfund them so much. To those advocating to privatizing, I don't see how the private sector could solve it by themselves. Just like McDonalds didn't land on the moon. It's extremely complicated. The task is going to require a lot more scientists and innovators to understand our weather patterns, it's my opinion that the best way to do that, is through the large governments of the world (not just USA's govt).

karmelapple 11y ago
Space exploration, nor the serving of food to those in space, was a goal of McDonald's. There was no sufficient market opportunity. However, is there a market opportunity for improved weather prediction? Who would benefit and make money?
- heimatau 11y ago
  McDonalds is hyperbolic language. There is no market in space, even for SpaceX. Private incentives don't exist in a pure market fashion. Only the ultra-weathly would be the market and they are a small bunch (in the thousands of people) as opposed to the billions in the bottom/middle classes. Also, I wouldn't say the government is the market because that's inflated and not real (always a budget cut away from disappearing). Hence why private interests won't work. P.S. I think SpaceX has a difficult task to appeal to the public. When they can do that, on a regular basis, I'll change my position. Or if some weather company is trying to be disruptive with technology and innovation, then I'll modify my view. (But most of us know innovation in the private sector doesn't always reach the public)
- greglindahl 11y ago
  ECMWF charges for their weather forecasts, which are more accurate than the free American ones. There are lots of small commercial weather forecasting firms who sell to people like securities traders. A single high-temperature day can reduce corn yield by 1%. Here's a startup that had a $1 billion exit to Monsanto: http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823004/monsanto-bets-the-farm-on-big-data http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823004/monsanto-bets-the... Their business is a combination of weather and climate. In short, there's a big market for this stuff.
- stonogo 11y ago
  Please note NOAA is a Department of Commerce organization. Weather prediction is crucial to any logistics operation, and all businesses live or die on logistics.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  the only goal private enterprises have is MAKING MONEY. Pretending to predict weather is not a goal in itself.
kmfrk 11y ago
Also interesting to read this while BBC are ending their centenarian relationship with the Met Office for weather forecasting due to new privatization demands: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/met-office-loses-bbc-weather-forecasting-contract http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/met-office-lo.... At least they can continue to work together for severe forecasts.
engi_nerd 11y ago
Why the blind faith in NASA? They're capable of screwing up royally. And they're capable of great success. Pure money is not the only part of the solution.
- heimatau 11y ago
  Blind? It's not blind [1,2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies 2. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_technologies http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_tec...
  - todd8 11y ago
    I think NASA is great, all that space stuff. I remember when I was in college I got a personal tour at the Johnson Space Center, and I got to put on a glove that had been worn on the surface of the moon (it was in a closet with all the used space suits). However, despite my interest in science and space, I feel like its a lot to ask of average (tax paying) people to pay roughly 800 Billion dollars for a tiny handful of useful spin offs. The satellites have great military and commercial usefulness, but a lot of money has been spent that would have been better to leave with the people that made it.
    - heimatau 11y ago
      Hmm. Solid point about cost/benefits. I'm sure more could be done to improve the benefits of NASA inventions. As for that solution, I wouldn't know where to start. I just think when it comes to modeling, who would know better than NASA (or other space programs)? They have data from various planets and moons, that might help improve our models here on earth.
    - georgemcbay 11y ago
      When the event occurs that wipes out the ability of humans to live on Earth, no amount of money spent on space exploration will seem like it will have been too much. Such an event is coming sooner or later, from one source or another; probably not in our lifetimes but we're so far off from good solutions that "we have plenty of time" is not a good excuse to not be investing in space. As an "average (tax paying)" person there is a list a mile long of shit we spend tax dollars on that I'd rather cut over space exploration, with the military (over $500 billion a year) being an obvious start.

karmelapple 11y ago

Space exploration, nor the serving of food to those in space, was a goal of McDonald's. There was no sufficient market opportunity. However, is there a market opportunity for improved weather prediction? Who would benefit and make money?

heimatau 11y ago
McDonalds is hyperbolic language. There is no market in space, even for SpaceX. Private incentives don't exist in a pure market fashion. Only the ultra-weathly would be the market and they are a small bunch (in the thousands of people) as opposed to the billions in the bottom/middle classes. Also, I wouldn't say the government is the market because that's inflated and not real (always a budget cut away from disappearing). Hence why private interests won't work. P.S. I think SpaceX has a difficult task to appeal to the public. When they can do that, on a regular basis, I'll change my position. Or if some weather company is trying to be disruptive with technology and innovation, then I'll modify my view. (But most of us know innovation in the private sector doesn't always reach the public)
greglindahl 11y ago
ECMWF charges for their weather forecasts, which are more accurate than the free American ones. There are lots of small commercial weather forecasting firms who sell to people like securities traders. A single high-temperature day can reduce corn yield by 1%. Here's a startup that had a $1 billion exit to Monsanto: http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823004/monsanto-bets-the-farm-on-big-data http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823004/monsanto-bets-the... Their business is a combination of weather and climate. In short, there's a big market for this stuff.
stonogo 11y ago
Please note NOAA is a Department of Commerce organization. Weather prediction is crucial to any logistics operation, and all businesses live or die on logistics.
rasz_pl 11y ago
the only goal private enterprises have is MAKING MONEY. Pretending to predict weather is not a goal in itself.

kmfrk 11y ago

Also interesting to read this while BBC are ending their centenarian relationship with the Met Office for weather forecasting due to new privatization demands: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/met-office-loses-bbc-weather-forecasting-contract http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/23/met-office-lo.... At least they can continue to work together for severe forecasts.

engi_nerd 11y ago

Why the blind faith in NASA? They're capable of screwing up royally. And they're capable of great success. Pure money is not the only part of the solution.

heimatau 11y ago
Blind? It's not blind [1,2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies 2. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_technologies http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_tec...
- todd8 11y ago
  I think NASA is great, all that space stuff. I remember when I was in college I got a personal tour at the Johnson Space Center, and I got to put on a glove that had been worn on the surface of the moon (it was in a closet with all the used space suits). However, despite my interest in science and space, I feel like its a lot to ask of average (tax paying) people to pay roughly 800 Billion dollars for a tiny handful of useful spin offs. The satellites have great military and commercial usefulness, but a lot of money has been spent that would have been better to leave with the people that made it.
  - heimatau 11y ago
    Hmm. Solid point about cost/benefits. I'm sure more could be done to improve the benefits of NASA inventions. As for that solution, I wouldn't know where to start. I just think when it comes to modeling, who would know better than NASA (or other space programs)? They have data from various planets and moons, that might help improve our models here on earth.
  - georgemcbay 11y ago
    When the event occurs that wipes out the ability of humans to live on Earth, no amount of money spent on space exploration will seem like it will have been too much. Such an event is coming sooner or later, from one source or another; probably not in our lifetimes but we're so far off from good solutions that "we have plenty of time" is not a good excuse to not be investing in space. As an "average (tax paying)" person there is a list a mile long of shit we spend tax dollars on that I'd rather cut over space exploration, with the military (over $500 billion a year) being an obvious start.