3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

By this logic the jwst is obsolete too due to the advances in image sensor sensitivity since then. The quoted scientist didn't conflate anything, he's just not absurdly obtuse like you are because he understands why the application of a technology matters within context and you are completely failing to.

No. One is 11 years old and the other is 4. The scientist specifically claimed state of the art equipment when a more accurate description is unique data source. But that doesn't fit the article narrative of must blame Trump.

2 minutes ago, BBE said:

No. One is 11 years old and the other is 4. The scientist specifically claimed state of the art equipment when a more accurate description is unique data source. But that doesn't fit the article narrative of must blame Trump.

Oh ok, so you're claiming the jwst will be obsolete in 7 more years? Have I got that right?

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh ok, so you're claiming the jwst will be obsolete in 7 more years? Have I got that right?

No, you really don't. And you call people obtuse. Here we go with the "i can't blame Trump, so I will misconstrue a comment regarding how a diffraction grid spectrometer does not compare to the spectrometer on JWST".

Give up on the budget point?

1 minute ago, BBE said:

No, you really don't. And you call people obtuse. Here we go with the "i can't blame Trump, so I will misconstrue a comment regarding how a diffraction grid spectrometer does not compare to the spectrometer on JWST".

Give up on the budget point?

And here comes the backpedal. Ok so you're now 7 posts deep on this nonsense claim that the satellite is obsolete, without a single source backing up your counter claim of an industry expert who literally worked on the missions in question.

You claim Trump has nothing to do with the request for termination plans, basically calling the report an outright fabrication, and again insinuating the quoted scientists are liars.

But the real lesson learned here is my own. I mistook you for someone worth responding to rather than another idiot simply interested in twisting himself into a pretzel to make another unsupported "climate change hoax!" argument the whole time. That one's on me. I'll own up to that mistake.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

And here comes the backpedal. Ok so you're now 7 posts deep on this nonsense claim that the satellite is obsolete, without a single source backing up your counter claim of an industry expert who literally worked on the missions in question.

You claim Trump has nothing to do with the request for termination plans, basically calling the report an outright fabrication, and again insinuating the quoted scientists are liars.

But the real lesson learned here is my own. I mistook you for someone worth responding to rather than another idiot simply interested in twisting himself into a pretzel to make another unsupported "climate change hoax!" argument the whole time. That one's on me. I'll own up to that mistake.

These instruments have been in use for 10 or so years. If designed similarly for a 2 year program they have far extended the design life for the program and are no longer state of the art.

That is what I said from the jump. And in true wgb fashion you misrepresented what I said. Built that strawman and call me obtuse.

The writers of the article are misrepresenting basic facts supported by "it's state of the art" to make it look worse to only later state that funding ends at the end of September which means program funding by Congress is ending from Biden's term. So yes, you fell for it.

And for good measure you throw a perjorative about something I did not say at all or even close. You once again checked all your boxes.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

These instruments have been in use for 10 or so years. If designed similarly for a 2 year program they have far extended the design life for the program and are no longer state of the art.

That is what I said from the jump. And in true wgb fashion you misrepresented what I said. Built that strawman and call me obtuse.

The writers of the article are misrepresenting basic facts supported by "it's state of the art" to make it look worse to only later state that funding ends at the end of September which means program funding by Congress is ending from Biden's term. So yes, you fell for it.

8 posts now, still nothing but a "it's obsolete, trust me bro."

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

8 posts now, still nothing but a "it's obsolete, trust me bro."

Come on say more stuff I didn't say.

5 hours ago, BBE said:

The program was funded only through the end of FY 25. Trump hasn't ordered anything. But that information wasn't mentioned until the end of the article

OCO-1 (Failed on launch) was a 2-year program. Can't find the data on OCO-2 or 3. These instruments have been in use for 10 or so years. If designed similarly for a 2 year program they have far extended the design life for the program and are no longer state of the art.

NPR is going to NPR.

NASA is going to do the standard mission termination protocol and will execute if the program is not in the new budget from Congress.

OCO-2 was launched in 2014 and was nominally two years. That lifespan was based on its primary mission timeline, not due to degradation of equipment

OCO-3 was launched in 2019 with spare parts from OCO-2 with a nominal lifespan of 10 years.

It uses the same spectrometer. It stands to reason that if OCO-3 has a 10 year lifespan with the same equipment that OCO-2 can keep chugging along fine.

This has nothing to do with anything except politics. It costs $17.9M a year to maintain both OCO-2 and OCO-3. If you're counting that's nearly 12 White House ballrooms.

Edit: reference https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/nasa-fy-2024-cj-v3.pdf pg 381 / ES-80

The scientific and economic return on that is many many times that.

You're doing your contrarian thing, but you're leaning in towards pure ignorance.

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

OCO-2 was launched in 2014 and was nominally two years. That lifespan was based on its primary mission timeline, not due to degradation of equipment

OCO-3 was launched in 2019 with spare parts from OCO-2 with a nominal lifespan of 10 years.

It uses the same spectrometer. It stands to reason that if OCO-3 has a 10 year lifespan with the same equipment that OCO-2 can keep chugging along fine.

This has nothing to do with anything except politics. It costs $17M a year to maintain both OCO-2 and OCO-3. If you're counting that's nearly 12 White House ballrooms.

The scientific and economic return on that is many many times that.

You're doing your contrarian thing, but you're leaning in towards pure ignorance.

And whose budget has funding ending this FY? Has the new budget been passed?

I just found NASA's budget request. They got cut big time. OCO-2 and 3 are not mentioned in the NASA request from May and June of this year. Budget request summary lists $258M for other missions and data analysis.

In the FY25 request, OCO-2 and -3 were justified to congress as part of other missions and were approved by Senior program review through FY26. Unfortunately the detailed justification for FY26 is not available.

17 minutes ago, BBE said:

And whose budget has funding ending this FY? Has the new budget been passed?

I just found NASA's budget request. They got cut big time. OCO-2 and 3 are not mentioned in the NASA request from May and June of this year. Budget request summary lists $258M for other missions and data analysis.

Yes, because Trump told them to cut the earth science budget to the bone for political reasons.

I THREW OUT THIS BREAD BECAUSE IT EXPIRED YESTERDAY. I DON'T CARE THAT IT WAS FINE TO EAT AND GOT THE JOB DONE, IT EXPIRED YESTERDAY.

Hey @BBE, if projected use timelines bug you, please do not at all look up the B-52.

10 hours ago, Bill said:

Hey @BBE, if projected use timelines bug you, please do not at all look up the B-52.

Once again, the issue is with calling an 11 year old instrument state of the art. It's patently not state of the art now.

And bringing in the B-52...you know that is a false equivalency.

37 minutes ago, BBE said:

Once again, the issue is with calling an 11 year old instrument state of the art. It's patently not state of the art now.

And bringing in the B-52...you know that is a false equivalency.

So I used a false equivalency by comparing the planned service life of two government aerospace projects?

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

So I used a false equivalency by comparing the planned service life of two government aerospace projects?

One is meticulously maintained, has been upgraded how many times?, currently scheduled for the J upgrade to further extend its life versus an 11 year old spectrometer which was incorrectly declared "state of the art". My issue is that misnomer which was specifically employed to create additional outrage over a program that was extended for two additional years by NASA (through next FY with no additional funds in out years in the FY 25 budget proposal) and Congress funded through FY 25 (there were no references as to whether Congress approved the full extension of the program which is probably not the case given NASA starting the decommissioning procedures).

The article was written to stoke outrage.

twitchy.com

'Beyond Parody'! CBS News Spotted Recycling '10 Years Unt...

Exploring the repetitive climate change warnings from CBS News and their implications.

2 hours ago, BBE said:

One is meticulously maintained, has been upgraded how many times?, currently scheduled for the J upgrade to further extend its life versus an 11 year old spectrometer which was incorrectly declared "state of the art". My issue is that misnomer which was specifically employed to create additional outrage over a program that was extended for two additional years by NASA (through next FY with no additional funds in out years in the FY 25 budget proposal) and Congress funded through FY 25 (there were no references as to whether Congress approved the full extension of the program which is probably not the case given NASA starting the decommissioning procedures).

The article was written to stoke outrage.

You keep saying 11 year old spectrometer as if it’s pulling duty checking OLEDs at the LG factory and not one of the two US satellites in space designed to measure CO2.

I took a look to see what it’s actually producing and they’re still publishing peer-reviewed papers off of recent data.

It’s almost like you’re in such a pursuit to be the most rational thinker that you didn’t stop and think of how big of a pedant it would make you.

Just now, Bill said:

You keep saying 11 year old spectrometer as if it’s pulling duty checking OLEDs at the LG factory and not one of the two US satellites in space designed to measure CO2.

I took a look to see what it’s actually producing and they’re still publishing peer-reviewed papers off of recent data.

It’s almost like you’re in such a pursuit to be the most rational thinker that you didn’t stop and think of how big of a pedant it would make you.

Says the guy that brought a B-52 for comparison. I suggested a better statement that it provides unique data.

I would rather be a pedant and accurate than misrepresent certain facts to be an alarmist. It is why I spent too much time looking at NASA budget requests to see what was planned and programmed to find out the details that the author could easily have researched to add important detail which would weaken the Grrrr...Trump message. Instead they run with "it's state of the art"!!!

But how dare I say that an 11 year old instrument is no longer state of the art equipment which is what the "scientist who worked on the satellite" claimed.

27 minutes ago, BBE said:

Says the guy that brought a B-52 for comparison. I suggested a better statement that it provides unique data.

I would rather be a pedant and accurate than misrepresent certain facts to be an alarmist. It is why I spent too much time looking at NASA budget requests to see what was planned and programmed to find out the details that the author could easily have researched to add important detail which would weaken the Grrrr...Trump message. Instead they run with "it's state of the art"!!!

But how dare I say that an 11 year old instrument is no longer state of the art equipment which is what the "scientist who worked on the satellite" claimed.

Yeah, except that they didn’t run with the whole state of the art thing as it was buried in the article, and the article also went over the budget process, albeit not as in depth as a pedant like yourself would do, as you have demonstrated by getting yourself wound up over four words in a forty paragraph article. How… rational of you.

Just now, Bill said:

Yeah, except that they didn’t run with the whole state of the art thing as it was buried in the article, and the article also went over the budget process, albeit not as in depth as a pedant like yourself would do, as you have demonstrated by getting yourself wound up over four words in a forty paragraph article. How… rational of you.

Obviously you didn't bother to see that I mentioned the budget aspects of it as well. To what end? The article had an agenda and was incompletely researched and reported.

Should I feel chastised from someone who is so obviously disturbed as to not read what I wrote entirely?

1 minute ago, BBE said:

Obviously you didn't bother to see that I mentioned the budget aspects of it as well. To what end? The article had an agenda and was incompletely researched and reported.

Should I feel chastised from someone who is so obviously disturbed as to not read what I wrote entirely?

Yeah, that type of writing you’re looking for is called a book.

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yeah, that type of writing you’re looking for is called a book.

Assume much? All of NASA's budget requests are public information and posted on their website. If the author had done due diligence they could have written that the program was in the standard biennial review by NASA senior review panel and the most recent extension encompassed FY25 and FY26 in addition. That way if the program is canceled in FY26, the questions can be asked and blame appropriately blamed.

It would have made the article 41 paragraphs.

Starting to look like we will have an interesting Atlantic hurricane season……

18 minutes ago, barho said:

Starting to look like we will have an interesting Atlantic hurricane season……

We are now in the historical peak of the hurricane season. The models are now on their 4th track for the second system heading this way.

16 minutes ago, BBE said:

We are now in the historical peak of the hurricane season. The models are now on their 4th track for the second system heading this way.

Yeah, I’m not saying that that particular storm is going to happen, but the models have been pretty clear about something along the East Coast and even something in the golf in the extended. No need to react at this point.