←back to thread

312 points trauco | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44414925[source]
“Researchers say the satellites themselves are operating normally and do not appear to have suffered any errors that would physically prevent the data from continuing to be collected and distributed, so the abrupt data halt might have been an intentional decision.”

Wait, the U.S. aren’t even going to try selling the satellites? We’re just scrapping them?

replies(6): >>44415099 #>>44415117 #>>44415214 #>>44416270 #>>44416880 #>>44417912 #
toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44415117[source]
The intent is to disable the capability to ignore the data. If you allow access to someone else, you're not preventing the data capture and dissemination. If the data shows hurricanes are intensifying in strength due to climate change, and you no longer capture the data, you can say with a straight face "No it isn't and you can't prove it."

How large systems with exposure to these places (insurance, capital markets) respond is what you should look to next. What do you do when you don't have the data to accurately price risk?

Relevant comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43366311

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42450680

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41664750 (top comment of this thread aggressively relevant)

replies(6): >>44415236 #>>44415334 #>>44415686 #>>44418741 #>>44422758 #>>44432823 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.44415686[source]
> What do you do when you don't have the data to accurately price risk?

Insurance companies will just be sending up their own satellites, and that is the true goal. Force people to pay money to private entities for a service that used to be provided by the government for free.

Functionally, in such a system there is no difference between that and regular taxes, just in a private system there's opportunities for those in power (because you gotta have a lot of money to send up a powerful satellite) to make even more money.

With the current US administration, always look at the grifting opportunities, that will explain virtually all policy decisions.

replies(4): >>44415730 #>>44415772 #>>44416194 #>>44417389 #
1. cma ◴[] No.44416194{3}[source]
SpaceX earns less money if we don't relaunch what we already have, and they have a satellite design division, Musk is somewhat on the outs with the admin right now but was behind lots of the cuts like this.

On the other hand, in the first Trump admin the AccuWeather spam site guy was trying to restrict NWS data to private companies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lee_Myers

I think AccuWeather opposed the Project 2025 plan to remove weather tracking frothe government though, they just wanted it to be tax payer paid but exclusively provided to corporations for sale to make competitive upstart weather sites harder to establish (you can bid more if you already have lots of users, without them you have to build something so great and potentially profitable that you can get VC to fund your purchases of the data).

https://www.masslive.com/news/2024/07/accuweather-rejects-pr...

replies(1): >>44418376 #
2. cma ◴[] No.44418376[source]
And here it is: https://spacenews.com/spacex-scores-81-6-million-space-force...