Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Naturally, I have a couple of crashing satellite questions
How many tons of greenhouse gases were emitted to design, manufacture, and launch the satellite that was going to measure greenhouse gases before it crashed into the sea because it malfunctioned? Whatever the number, it probably pales in comparison to the GHG load from the economic activity necessary to generate the $273 million the government paid to build and launch the satellite. Just askin'.
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Feb 24, 07:11:00 PM:
At least the loss on this one vehicle is capped around $270M...The International Space Station and manned space program is the real waste of resources.
By 
Stan/Tx, at
Tue Feb 24, 08:16:00 PM:
Completely wrong.
The so call “Stimulus Package” is a real waste of resources. The small amount that the government spends on NASA and space produces far more in useful stimulus. It employs well educated people and supports American companies. Even the GHG satellite was money spent in America, it wasn’t wasted. At least something was produced as opposed to just consumed.
By joated, at
Tue Feb 24, 09:17:00 PM:
I agree with Stan/Tx. The money spent went into the pockets of hard workers here in the US (well, mostly, I'm sure some of the work was outsourced). It was part and parcel of a trickle down economy as those folks paid for goods and services in their neighborhoods.
I also would like to know what sort of carbon footprint these projects have.
Someone on another blog comment upon how Gaia must not want folks spying on her--with or without a warrant.
By Buku, at
Wed Feb 25, 11:53:00 AM:
Conspiracy theorists would say a convenient malfunction for an inconvenient truth. Wht would have happened had the satellite's results not matched up with religious doctrine?
By , at
Fri Feb 27, 01:00:00 AM:
BARAT OBAMAS STIMULUS PORK BILL full of pork for the demacratic artsicrats to dine on
