|
There are already a number of satellites in orbit that collect information in regards to water resources/watersheds that can give us information about climate change. Currently I am in the middle of working on a project to aggregate journal articles that use data from these remote sensing satellites. One of the studies I came across uses satellite to detect the water levels in soil over a large area of Oklahoma; another used satellite data to establish whether or not a resource management plan in India was effective or not. These are just a couple of examples off the top of my head; there are quite a few more.
From looking at the other information on the 'Net about the Deep Space Climate Observatory, this thing has been dead for a while. Evidently it was supposed to be launched on the mission where Columbia crashed, and has languished in storage ever since. The Bush administration denied a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, which suggests that this is a problem caused by the current administration.
At any rate, while I think the idea of DSCOVR (formerly known as Triana, which is a cooler name) is nifty, there is also existing data to be used, provided by existing satellites. What I don't understand is why, in the meantime, we're paying $1 million a year to store a satellite that cost $100 million. Perhaps turning the mission over to the USAF is a way to sweep what has become a boondoggle under the rug.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau
|