One of the more disingenuous ways of framing this issue. Farmers do not ‘rely on’ this satellite. At best it provides them with ancillary information about global carbon levels that ultimately has nothing to do with farming or them directly.
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
I think you do see the point I’m making, since you correctly identified it and provided a rebuttal :)
Phrased more accurately: is the value from the sum of the use cases for the data gathered by this satellite greater than the cost of putting it into orbit and operating it? Or even just the continued cost of operating it?
The fact that the article mentions farmers as the only potential non-governmental beneficiary of this information makes me believe the answer to that question is no, it wasn’t.
The article mentions more than farmers using the data. Not sure how anyone can take you seriously when the first paragraph mentions oil companies using the data as well..
And what do they use the data for, exactly? If it was vitally important to their operations and profitability, don’t you think the authors would have explained specifically how they would suffer if this data was discontinued?
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.
Actually, I think the problem here is that he's reducing it to a cost-benefit analysis that applies to a single corporation alone. Corporations are notoriously short-sighted and generally unable to plan for or see into the future more than 1-3 financial quarters.
Facilitating investment in long-term things that benefit the country or humanity as a whole is literally one of the reasons we have governments. Putting men on the moon didn't make any profit, but a whole slew of discoveries and inventions that happened before that could happen definitely made improvements to everyone's lot.
How does this satellite benefit humanity as a whole? Why should US taxpayers fund it in its entirety if other people are reaping the benefit?
Do you seriously believe the US government, given its profligate spending over the past three decades, is somehow less short sighted than its corporations, who at least try to maintain their long term financial solvency?
Putting men on the moon provided the know-how to put a nuke on an ICBM and send it straight to the doorstep of the Kremlin. The other benefits and discoveries were purely coincidental.
But at least those benefits were real and valuable. What benefits has this satellite provided that are anywhere close to what we got out of the space program?
No. This statement doesn’t reflect the reality of how private interests have ever worked, especially in the USA. If the idea here is to defend the modern US war on reality it isn’t getting far because it has no basis in the history of any publically funded research that was exploited by private interests.
I enjoy the "climate" of discourse this administration has bought to the table, everything requires massive levels of justification now. Of course, the funding for this mission would've been approved by congress, so initially it was justified, but ...not anymore...
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and many private agricultural consulting companies use the data to forecast and track crop yield, drought conditions and more.
Here's an idea, why doesn't the administration tell us why it's ending the programs?
It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions.
Perhaps the anomaly isn’t this administration, but all the others that somehow yawned while spending billions of dollars on satellite programs that provide data hardly anyone finds valuable or even useful.
Discussion (106 points, 1 day ago, 70 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44799468
Or (69 points, 19 hours ago, 26 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44807419
Or (29 points, 1 day ago, 4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796597
One of the more disingenuous ways of framing this issue. Farmers do not ‘rely on’ this satellite. At best it provides them with ancillary information about global carbon levels that ultimately has nothing to do with farming or them directly.
The article states that the satellite data is also used for crop yield predictions.
This can be important for pricing things like futures contracts which farmers very much do care about.
If the information is that valuable, a private company would have put the satellite into orbit.
My guess is it’s valuable, but nowhere near the $750M price tag it cost to put it up there.
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
I think you do see the point I’m making, since you correctly identified it and provided a rebuttal :)
Phrased more accurately: is the value from the sum of the use cases for the data gathered by this satellite greater than the cost of putting it into orbit and operating it? Or even just the continued cost of operating it?
The fact that the article mentions farmers as the only potential non-governmental beneficiary of this information makes me believe the answer to that question is no, it wasn’t.
The article mentions more than farmers using the data. Not sure how anyone can take you seriously when the first paragraph mentions oil companies using the data as well..
And what do they use the data for, exactly? If it was vitally important to their operations and profitability, don’t you think the authors would have explained specifically how they would suffer if this data was discontinued?
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.
You can't reduce every single thing humans do to a cost-benefit analysis. Nor should you privatize everything that can be even remotely profitable.
Our society today worships at the altar of the dollar, which is destroying it from the inside.
Actually, I think the problem here is that he's reducing it to a cost-benefit analysis that applies to a single corporation alone. Corporations are notoriously short-sighted and generally unable to plan for or see into the future more than 1-3 financial quarters.
Facilitating investment in long-term things that benefit the country or humanity as a whole is literally one of the reasons we have governments. Putting men on the moon didn't make any profit, but a whole slew of discoveries and inventions that happened before that could happen definitely made improvements to everyone's lot.
How does this satellite benefit humanity as a whole? Why should US taxpayers fund it in its entirety if other people are reaping the benefit?
Do you seriously believe the US government, given its profligate spending over the past three decades, is somehow less short sighted than its corporations, who at least try to maintain their long term financial solvency?
Putting men on the moon provided the know-how to put a nuke on an ICBM and send it straight to the doorstep of the Kremlin. The other benefits and discoveries were purely coincidental.
But at least those benefits were real and valuable. What benefits has this satellite provided that are anywhere close to what we got out of the space program?
No. This statement doesn’t reflect the reality of how private interests have ever worked, especially in the USA. If the idea here is to defend the modern US war on reality it isn’t getting far because it has no basis in the history of any publically funded research that was exploited by private interests.
I enjoy the "climate" of discourse this administration has bought to the table, everything requires massive levels of justification now. Of course, the funding for this mission would've been approved by congress, so initially it was justified, but ...not anymore...
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and many private agricultural consulting companies use the data to forecast and track crop yield, drought conditions and more.
Here's an idea, why doesn't the administration tell us why it's ending the programs?
It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions.
Does America just run on Trump's vibe now?
Perhaps the anomaly isn’t this administration, but all the others that somehow yawned while spending billions of dollars on satellite programs that provide data hardly anyone finds valuable or even useful.