5 ms·

Enjoy it while you can, as most likely the incoming administration will turn off this satellite. Why spend a lot of money to discover politically inconvenient

Enjoy it while you can, as most likely the incoming administration will turn off this satellite. Why spend a lot of money to discover politically inconvenient data? Two birds, one stone.

bdamm 10y ago
The parent is downvoted but raises the noteworthy point that congress has in fact diverted funds away from atmospheric research specifically to avoid climate science. I'm not sure where this GOES satellite falls in the constellation of climate study tools.
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Ironically, they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military industrial machine. All deployed aviation assets in the US military have somewhere attached to them a USAF meteorologist. I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV "drone" in Iraq from 2003-2004 and we always had a single air force person with us for weather stuff. It is critical for safety of flight. Also, for launching things like missiles and really anything airborne, you need to know the weather for safety reasons. It only lightly touches on it in the article, but this is why the DoD is so serious about funding and working with NOAA even though NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military industrial machine The U.S. military lacks critical funds at this point due to defunding, depending on how you define "critical". The service chiefs testified that they will not be able to defend the country unless they get more money. http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-they-cant-defend-us-under-sequestration/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-t...
    - SEJeff 10y ago
      They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I genuinely don't buy it. It is just like Trump's alarmism over the size of our military (the navy specifically) shrinking under Obama post-GW Bush surge. The technology has gotten so much better and automation in specific allows us to do more with less people. This is by design and I'd almost argue if the tech wasn't getting better and needing less humans, our R&D is clearly failing. The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. They're coming to grips that with unconventional warfare, you simply need a LOT more boots on the ground trudging around. Our technology advantage alone allows us to realistically probably coast for 6-8 years and still be matched only realistically by China. Russia has a few things that can match current US kit (their new tanks are excellent and they have some of the best anti-air kit in the world), but the Kremlin simply far and above lacks the cash to be in a position to afford to pay for a serious modernization. Obama's sanctions along with the massive drop in oil have put a dent in Russia's economy regardless of Putin's posturing. Sure they have very nice new jets, but they have precious few of them. We have nice new jets, better radars, and all of our older jets can spank the pants off of their older jets, etc, etc. This is really just my anecdotal experience as a US Army veteran who was in OIF II 2003-2004.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree. > The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what you mean by that usage of "Order of Battle". IIRC US military planning calls for them to fight one war, a medium-sized one IIRC, and keep a second medium-sized war in a holding pattern. Iraq and Afghanistan are small wars against very weak opposition whose best weapons are IEDs. However, there isn't much here beyond claims with no basis. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for it all.
        SEJeff 10y ago

Enjoy it while you can, as most likely the incoming administration will turn off this satellite. Why spend a lot of money to discover politically inconvenient data? Two birds, one stone.

bdamm 10y ago

The parent is downvoted but raises the noteworthy point that congress has in fact diverted funds away from atmospheric research specifically to avoid climate science. I'm not sure where this GOES satellite falls in the constellation of climate study tools.

SEJeff 10y ago
Ironically, they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military industrial machine. All deployed aviation assets in the US military have somewhere attached to them a USAF meteorologist. I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV "drone" in Iraq from 2003-2004 and we always had a single air force person with us for weather stuff. It is critical for safety of flight. Also, for launching things like missiles and really anything airborne, you need to know the weather for safety reasons. It only lightly touches on it in the article, but this is why the DoD is so serious about funding and working with NOAA even though NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military industrial machine The U.S. military lacks critical funds at this point due to defunding, depending on how you define "critical". The service chiefs testified that they will not be able to defend the country unless they get more money. http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-they-cant-defend-us-under-sequestration/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-t...
  - SEJeff 10y ago
    They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I genuinely don't buy it. It is just like Trump's alarmism over the size of our military (the navy specifically) shrinking under Obama post-GW Bush surge. The technology has gotten so much better and automation in specific allows us to do more with less people. This is by design and I'd almost argue if the tech wasn't getting better and needing less humans, our R&D is clearly failing. The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. They're coming to grips that with unconventional warfare, you simply need a LOT more boots on the ground trudging around. Our technology advantage alone allows us to realistically probably coast for 6-8 years and still be matched only realistically by China. Russia has a few things that can match current US kit (their new tanks are excellent and they have some of the best anti-air kit in the world), but the Kremlin simply far and above lacks the cash to be in a position to afford to pay for a serious modernization. Obama's sanctions along with the massive drop in oil have put a dent in Russia's economy regardless of Putin's posturing. Sure they have very nice new jets, but they have precious few of them. We have nice new jets, better radars, and all of our older jets can spank the pants off of their older jets, etc, etc. This is really just my anecdotal experience as a US Army veteran who was in OIF II 2003-2004.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree. > The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what you mean by that usage of "Order of Battle". IIRC US military planning calls for them to fight one war, a medium-sized one IIRC, and keep a second medium-sized war in a holding pattern. Iraq and Afghanistan are small wars against very weak opposition whose best weapons are IEDs. However, there isn't much here beyond claims with no basis. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for it all.
      - SEJeff 10y ago