ReinyDays
Gold Member
But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites
Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.
Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.
Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.
1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.
.Landing on Mars is still hard | EarthSky.org
There's a reason space engineers describe landing on Mars asearthsky.org
We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...
Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...
Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...
The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...
The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites
When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...
Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...