NASA stonewalls another US agency that wants to launch DSCOVR

It has now been several months since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) formally requested that NASA transfer to them all DSVOVR assets - including of course the spacecraft itself.
The response from NASA? Nothing. Nada. Zippo.
Incredibly, NASA has so far completely ignored colleagues from another US government agency that want to make use of a $100 million spacecraft that NASA themselves stated last year they have no intention of launching.
For those new to this Desmog Blog investigative series, the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR )is a fully completed spacecraft, that if launched, would almost immediately lay to rest any remaining legitimate debate regarding the origins of global climate change.
Strangely, this critical piece of climate science hardware has instead been sitting in a box at the Goddard Space Center for the last seven years. Last year, NASA canceled the mission altogether, citing “competing priorities”.
It seems that NOAA is so frustrated with the lack of will on the part of NASA to launch DSCOVR that they have sourced private funding to launch and operate DSCOVR themselves.
Besides ending any remaining honest debate about the most bitterly opposed scientific theory since evolution, DSCOVR would also help predict solar storms, protecting satellites worth billions of dollars from solar flares.
But I’m sure NASA is just busy.
Perhaps those in the know in Washington should be asking NASA bigwigs some hard questions about why they have chosen to ignore a formal request from another government agency.
Perhaps it might also be a reasonable that, since NASA was given $100 million in taxpayers dollars for
something they did not do, and now will not let others do, they should take a $100 million haircut in their next budget request.
Just a thought…
Next week: the real reason DSCOVR is being held prisoner.

Like what you read on DeSmogBlog? Subscribe to our RSS feed here.

Or better yet - help us fight the right-wing attack on climate change science and policy!


Anyone know who at NOAA is asking NASA to hand over DSCOVR? Last time I checked the head honcho over at NOAA Admiral Lautenbacher was doing everything he could to suppress climate science. There is a nice video on my website (linky)

Oops, it seems like html link tags don’t work so here’s the url:

As for DSCOVR it might be time to either pressure someone with major influence like 60 minutes to get on this or file a lawsuit. This scandal is a pretty big deal and planet is at risk. I know this project is Desmogblogs baby but time really is of critical importance.

It doesn’t matter whose “baby” it is as long as it moves forward. Get 60 Minutes onto it, or anybody else who will take it on. The partisan stupidity around this project has to be exposed and overcome. What are they afraid of?

Great idea.
This whole thing has gone way beyond stupid.

I have yet to hear whether DSCVR can even be launched on a traditional rocket. Would it require extensive modifications and what would it cost?

Launching DSCVR would be nice, but hardly critical to the science of AGW.

It can clarify and focus observations from a distance that eliminates many of the ambiguities of surface and satellite data. And yes, they know how to launch the freaking thing without bankrupting the nation.

Launching DSCVR would be nice, but hardly critical to the science of AGW.

I hope you realize that the National Academy of Sciences and many leading scientists disagree with you.

The first sentence was supposed to be in bold signifying a quoted sentence.

Some of the html tags don’t work. If you put a quote between “cite” with arrows around it, and “/cite” with arrows around it, you will have the quote in italics.

Sparrow: just to clarify your apparent misunderstandings

In 2000 the National Academy of Sciences stated that DSCOVR (Triana) should have been an earlier NASA priority and strongly endorsed the project.

In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences refers to DSCOVR as an example of Innovation and as offering a “NEW PERSPECTIVE” for Earth Sciences.

After many hundreds of millions of dollars spent and decades of heroic efforts by outstanding scientists, we still have large uncertainties in the radiative balance of the climate system using the traditional LEO and GEO approaches. An innovative “new perspective” is a necessity, the time has come for it.

First, DSCOVR could of course be launched from a conventional rocket. The French, Ukrainians and now NOAA want to put it up without using the shuttle. Second, in comparison to many of expensive projects that NASA has been told to spend money on, such as the ISS and the mission to Mars, launching DSCOVR would cost peanuts. In fact if it is launched and operated by NOAA, it wouldn’t cost NASA a dime. Lastly, DSCOVR is critically important to resolving remaining uncertainty around climate change and improving the accuracy of climate models. In short, DSCOVR is exactly the type of relevant, hard science that NASA should be doing. As far as the mainstream media finally taking an interest in this issue, I would dance a jig. Desmog Blog is due much credit for taking the lead on this issue, but the important thing is that this spacecraft get launched.

- Mitch Anderson

I have heard otherwise Mitch; that DSCVR was mostly a vanity mission; a webcam in the sky that had a few science objectives tacked onto it in an attempt to justify it’s existence.

Many more important missions have been launched and are being launched; likely that is where the money saved on launching DSCVR is being spent. Priorities matter, can’t launch everthing.

But the backing for this project from the scientific community in terms of its practical usefulness was overwhelming. Hardly a “vanity” mission, it promised real, hard data on an issue of concern to the entire planet. Your position is clearly coloured by the fact that Al Gore was an instigator of the project.

… and claimed to be the inspiration for the novel “Love Story”, how can you not automatically agree to do anything Albert Gore demands? After all, the idea for this came to him in a vision.

That’s overly cynical Kevin.

NASA’s present missions concerning the earth and the atmosphere are the following:

AIM, Aqua, Aura, CALIPSO, CloudSat, Earth Probe Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, Earth Observing-1, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, Geotail, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICEsat) Mission, Jason, Landsat, NOAA Environmental Satellites, Polar Mission, Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES), Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), Terra, Tropical Composition, Cloud and Climate Coupling, and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM).

That’s 21 seperate missions studying the earth.

Lastly, it is the American’s money to spend. It is not up to you to lecture them on this subject or the ISS or going to Mars as none are your business.

Quote: “would almost immediately lay to rest any remaining legitimate debate regarding the origins of global climate change.

I have seen wishful thinking before, but this is one of the most absurd ever seen. If there is so much assurance to know for sure what causes global warming (or the present cooling, perhaps), it could be that they have prepared the computer programs dealing with the data in the same was Mann did with his flawed Hockey Stick.They already know what results will be coming from the satellite. They always bet on the 37 numbers in the roulette.

How are they are going to prove anything that cannot be proved from ground level?

But, in case there is not a trick already prepared, what if the data shows the cooling trend is for real and we must prepare ourselves for some fast adaptation? DSCOVR may turn out to be a two edged sword.

1) Global Cooling….ok ala Tim Ball, is there actually anyone other than him even saying that?

2) Flawed Hockey Stick…ok, how about the other 8 (by various authors) or so climate reconstructions that show more or less the same thing to varying degrees? and besides how does the modern age modification of greenhouse gas levels through human contributions have anything with past climate?

3) You dont even know what the point of the sat mission is. Taken from the NASA site some of the research goals are….

“scientists still do not accurately know how much of the Sun’s energy the Earth absorbs, re-emits, and reflects. This common measurement, called the planetary albedo, is vital for climate research. Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure the Earth’s albedo due to cloud cover, ice, snow, smoke, volcanic ash, and other factors that cause it to constantly change. DSCOVR can provide significantly better measurements of global albedo, and can redetermine the albedo every fifteen minutes, making it a good barometer of global change.”

4) BTW the sat temp record for the last 30 years showing clear trends in warming can be viewed here.

5) Love to see this cooling trend, it would be a great thing, it would burry the global warming hoax that the IPCC, and ever other major world wide climate research body keeps talking about and supporting. (scratches his head in wonder)

What about this trend (GISS data):

And what to say about oceans cooling from No-17-2006, and Nov-17-2007?:

Stay cool. You will, like it or not.

You know there are several thousands of scientists that do not swallow the AGW hoax. Burying the head in the sand won’t help.

1 year isnt a trend for anything let alone climate, thats like saying ohh look 2001 was cooler than 2002, its global cooling, ohh no wait 2003 was warmer than 2002, its global warming again….this of course why decadal averages are used. As for the first graph it shows a mean average decadal increase in temperature over the past 50 years. Kinda what everyone has been saying and in agreement with the sat temp record I showed you in my post above nice choice in graphs thanks.

This would make you think a little about trends: towards warming or cooling? Just flat as an ironing board. So, how is this flat trend explained by models? They predict a steady and/or increasing rise.

(Data from GISS

… Eduardo, I would be very careful if I were you, taking Carl on. He understands scientific method, and obviously you do not. He works in this kind of scientific environment every day, bringing critical thinking to bear on every issue, and obviously you do not. He looks at data within a context of scientifically supportable assumptions about trends (time scale, breadth of scope etc), and obviously you do not. Cut bait, man. You’ve lost.