
US launches next-gen weather satellite that will revolutionize forecasting - crivabene
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/19/u-s-launches-next-generation-weather-satellite-that-will-revolutionize-forecasting/
======
hackuser
I think people are accustomed to it and therefore overlook it, but note that
government, using taxpayer dollars, delivers the most high-tech systems in the
world - not only for meteorology, but also science, medicine and space
exploration (as well as military and intelligence). There is a benefit to
countries and to the world when the people pool their money for something big.

~~~
wheelerwj
*taxpayer funded research

Government doesn't do shit, except write the check. this all comes from
acadamia, nasa, darpa, etc.

You're point that science is pushed forward by people pooling resources is
absolutely correct, I just want to make it clear that Government has very
little to do with it. This is just societ bolstering the resources of our
greatest minds.

~~~
tw04
>Government doesn't do shit

>nasa, darpa

I don't think you understand...

~~~
wheelerwj
They are government funded but have exactly nothing to do with governance.
They could be privately funded and accomplish the exact same things.

~~~
MPSimmons
In a mathematical sense, yes, every citizen who gives a certain amount of tax
money to the government to pay for research bodies could, instead, give money
straight to some sort of central body to distribute it to the same various
groups.

But they wouldn't. And you know it. Even the Science Philanthropy Alliance
([http://www.sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/what-we-
do/resour...](http://www.sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/what-we-
do/resources/faqs/)), which funds researchers using privately-donated money,
says that taxes are necessary to have scientific progress.

~~~
wheelerwj
I didn't say anything IF taxes were important or IF people's WOULD pay them.

And yes, we are talking about semantics (mathematical sense). People couldn't
give money to the DoD and accomplish the same thing, nor could they give money
to DHS or any of the other Executive Departments.

NASA is an independent, federally funded, civilian agency. The part of it that
is Federal, is its budget.

------
21
“This is probably the most complex technology that our species is involved in
— weather prediction is,”

I think this is just a pattern of people seeing the complexity in their field,
but not knowing anything about other fields and thus believing that they are
doing the most awesome thing ever.

LHC guys will say their technology is the most complex one, Intel, the AI
guys, and so on..., not to mention the global infrastructure required to run
the Internet.

~~~
matt4077
They're speaking of Chaos Theory, which was invented/discovered for weather
prediction.

'Complexity', in this sense, doesn't mean 'it's rocket science' bus is a
definable quantity.

~~~
sandworm101
That definition of complexity, counting all the interlocking parts, leads to
laughable conclusions. Example: The decision whether to walk my dog at the
park or at the beach is now more complex than launching satellites. Since the
park/beach decision relies upon both weather forecasts and dog psychology it
is therefore more complex than either. Since weather forecasting involves
launching satellites, there are more parts in the park/beach decision.

To be relevant, complexity should measure not the entire system but the number
of variables at a specific point in the system. Rocket science isn't very
complex as it is very compartmentalized. Different stages in the process
involve discrete decisions divorced from others scheduled to occur at
different times. So, weather forecasting wins because the number of variables
at every decision is far greater. The flow-chart for a rocketry decision is
more vertical whereas the chart for a weather forecast is more horizontal.

~~~
kilotaras
Where should I go with my dog in 7 days can be argued that more complex.

Where should I go now - not so much.

------
edsouza
This is actually pretty cool. I last worked with satellite data from GOES 8
and 9 in '98\. I remember satellite images were sent sent every 3 hours and
full disk images were 12 hours. I worked in a weather office where they had
one pc running DOS that received the data from Satellite and saved the data
where various HP-UX servers manipulated the data.

Last i remember, all data transmitted by these satellites are not encrypted,
anyone can build a receiver to gather the data to generate satellite images.

One day I hope to have time to do this myself.

~~~
aeroevan
I currently use an SDR to capture ADS-B messages, but it can also be used for
satellite images fairly easily:

[http://www.rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-tutorial-receiving-noaa-
weath...](http://www.rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-tutorial-receiving-noaa-weather-
satellite-images/)

~~~
edsouza
Thanks for the link to that site. GOES weather satellites use a different
format.

Found the beginning article to the series here:

[http://www.rtl-sdr.com/setting-up-a-goes-weather-
satellite-a...](http://www.rtl-sdr.com/setting-up-a-goes-weather-satellite-
antenna-system/)

------
Dowwie
I like their choice in name: GOES-R.

Ghostbusters reference:
[http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/7/7f/Goz...](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/7/7f/Gozer.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140529144058)

~~~
rrmm
I believe once they are commissioned they are given a number (eg current ones
are GOES-13, GOES-14, GOES-15). They are also given a designation as GOES-EAST
or GOES-WEST depending on where they are being used. So GOES-13 was GOES-EAST
until it had an anomaly and GOES-14 was moved out of a storage orbit and
designated GOES-EAST. It returned to storage once they fixed the issue with
GOES-13.

The R is just a sequence number for launching; S and T are slated next. If
there is a failure before commissioning, it won't receive a numerical
designation.

So the GOES-R name was just a happy accident I guess.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Wait, if GOES-* is placed in a synchronous orbit, shouldn't the name be GOES-
NOWHERE?

------
the_duke
Oh boy, what a flurry of buzzwords. Game changer, Breakthrough,
revolutionize...

All I got from the actual information is a better resolution and faster
analysis, nothing that would support the hyping.

~~~
lllr_finger
Capital Weather Gang usually does a better job explaining things to the
masses, so that's a little disappointing. Having a similar conversation with
family and friends, it's challenging to explain the hype.

Weather is incredibly complex and difficult to model and predict. We have
multiple sources of truth to provide the input to our models: radar sites
spaced hundreds of miles apart, balloons that are launched twice a day and
hundreds of miles apart, METAR stations that record ground observations,
satellite, etc. Satellite data is the closest you can get to seeing the entire
atmosphere as an interconnected system with no gaps in data, but is limited by
being a top-down view (better spectral information will help), somewhat low
resolution, and 5-15 minute update intervals (storms can go from nothing to
tornadic in 45 minutes).

CIMSS and other groups of researchers are doing great work with our current
satellite data like identifying when supercells are likely to produce
tornadoes and estimating instability in a column of the atmosphere. Increasing
spectral information, resolution, and frequency will enable products to be
refined and new products to come out - such as lightning detection, which
currently relies on private networks.

Severe weather nowcasting is only one of the areas that will benefit from
this, but the one that I'm familiar with as an amateur meteorologist. GOES-R
has the potential to cut false alarm rate and increase warning times for
severe weather. Weather nerds are rather excited, as this stands to be a
powerful new tool.

------
wheaties
This is great. I worked on the ground processing systems for this satellite. I
left before my own algorithmic systems went through final review. Was good for
me to leave career-wise but I wish I could have seen it through to the end.

------
pseudometa
When will humanity have enough sensors and computing power to give a similar
forecast that Dark Sky provides today, but 7 days in advance? What will that
system look like? It seems like it is a mostly matter of time, but I just
don't grasp what all will need to be done to get there and if it is 15 years
out or 100.

~~~
Retric
The only real hope for that is if we start directly controlling weather. The
last 1,000,000x increase in processing power has bought less than a days worth
of accuracy. In the very short term you can just model the momentum of the
air, but the feedback loops quickly reduce stability.

------
tonyplee
I started to depend on the hourly rain, snow prediction data from
google/weather.com in the last year or so. Especially when planing ski trip.

I found them amazingly accurate. Now I know why. I am looking forward the
future forecast provided by next gen satellite.

------
kylehotchkiss
I wish they'd leave the 100mhz APT signals on these so kids around the country
could build their own little "weather stations"... Being able to listen to
those (I never had a wideband enough radio to see them) was one of the coolest
things.

~~~
tjohns
Are they not? (I haven't heard anything either way.)

~~~
kylehotchkiss
They've moved to Ghz band (Ku?) for weather several years back [1].

Great moves for science and I am happy that we are advancing tech, but an
upgraded version of APT nowadays with how cheap tech is getting could have
provided people in developing countries some better pictures of coming
weather. Also could have kept the 10 year old inside of us with cheap 100mhz
radios outside at night, listening to the satellites passing over our heads.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_picture_transmission...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_picture_transmission#Future)
& [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
resolution_picture_transm...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
resolution_picture_transmission)

------
jellicle
Enjoy it while you can, as most likely the incoming administration will turn
off this satellite. Why spend a lot of money to discover politically
inconvenient data? Two birds, one stone.

~~~
bdamm
The parent is downvoted but raises the noteworthy point that congress has in
fact diverted funds away from atmospheric research specifically to avoid
climate science. I'm not sure where this GOES satellite falls in the
constellation of climate study tools.

~~~
SEJeff
Ironically, they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the
military industrial machine. All deployed aviation assets in the US military
have somewhere attached to them a USAF meteorologist. I flew the Shadow 200
TUAV "drone" in Iraq from 2003-2004 and we always had a single air force
person with us for weather stuff. It is critical for safety of flight. Also,
for launching things like missiles and really anything airborne, you need to
know the weather for safety reasons. It only lightly touches on it in the
article, but this is why the DoD is so serious about funding and working with
NOAA even though NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce.

~~~
hackuser
> they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military
> industrial machine

The U.S. military lacks critical funds at this point due to defunding,
depending on how you define "critical". The service chiefs testified that they
will not be able to defend the country unless they get more money.

[http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-
say-t...](http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-they-
cant-defend-us-under-sequestration/)

~~~
SEJeff
They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I genuinely don't
buy it. It is just like Trump's alarmism over the size of our military (the
navy specifically) shrinking under Obama post-GW Bush surge. The technology
has gotten so much better and automation in specific allows us to do more with
less people. This is by design and I'd almost argue if the tech wasn't getting
better and needing less humans, our R&D is clearly failing. The current Order
of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large
scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and
Afghanistan. They're coming to grips that with unconventional warfare, you
simply need a LOT more boots on the ground trudging around.

Our technology advantage alone allows us to realistically probably coast for
6-8 years and still be matched only realistically by China. Russia has a few
things that can match current US kit (their new tanks are excellent and they
have some of the best anti-air kit in the world), but the Kremlin simply far
and above lacks the cash to be in a position to afford to pay for a serious
modernization. Obama's sanctions along with the massive drop in oil have put a
dent in Russia's economy regardless of Putin's posturing. Sure they have very
nice new jets, but they have precious few of them. We have nice new jets,
better radars, and all of our older jets can spank the pants off of their
older jets, etc, etc.

This is really just my anecdotal experience as a US Army veteran who was in
OIF II 2003-2004.

~~~
hackuser
> They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military.

I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree.

> The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be
> able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably
> well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not sure what you mean by that usage of "Order of Battle". IIRC US
military planning calls for them to fight one war, a medium-sized one IIRC,
and keep a second medium-sized war in a holding pattern. Iraq and Afghanistan
are small wars against very weak opposition whose best weapons are IEDs.

However, there isn't much here beyond claims with no basis. I'd be interested
in seeing some evidence for it all.

~~~
SEJeff
Having been in the US military, the command was always alarmist about troop
sizing even in the blatant face of improving technology. We have counter-
defilade rifles now (XM25). This puts the best part of a small mortar in the
hands of an infantry rifle platoons. Does it mean you can get away with less
artillery platoons and mortar squads? It might, yes. Does it mean you can
retrofit counter-defilade capabilities into normal infantry operations
allowing smaller units to do more? It does. This was my point. I saw this
directly while I was in the service and it has always been that way. Yes we've
done budget cuts under Obama for the US military, but we also had an
unprecedented "surge" during GW Bush, meanwhile tech has been improving. Look
at an older Nimintz class Aircraft Carrier with their 5000+ crew. Compare that
to the newer Gerald Ford class carriers with their increased operational
velocity and 2600 crew. Will some admirals tell you they're hamstrung due to
having fewer soldiers? No doubt. Does that always reflect reality since they
can literally do more with less? Nope!

The "Order of Battle" is US Military terminology to denote the composition of
a military unit to respond to certain threats. It is most commonly used from
Division / Brigade level and lower by the intelligence officers, but goes all
the way up to the Pentagon & Department of Defense. An order of battle is
designed to solve the question of, "How do I shape a military unit to best
defeat the adversaries they're pledged or expected to fight against?".
Absolutely nothing in the US's two war doctrine says for us to fight a medium
war and be prepared for another medium sized war. Not sure what you think, but
Iraq and Afghanistan are both big wars where we've simply de-emphasized
"winning" them to optimize for less soldiers dying. The land mass is enormous
in both and since a war is basically about owning a piece of land, it is
easier to judge the size by the size of the land being attempted to liberate.
Also, if we were fighting a larger conventional war (sans nukes) we would
likely win/lose much quicker with much lower casualties. The asymetric warfare
we're currently waging is something the US simply isn't very good at (nor is
any conventional military really). What do you think?

For instance, I was a member of the US's first "Stryker Brigade Combat Team"
(D Troop, 1/14th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Ft Lewis,
Washington). Our Brigade of ~5500 soldiers replaced the 82rd Airborne
_division_ of ~19000 soldiers and did equally well due to our Order of Battle
emphasizing speed (via the Strykers mainly) over sheer massive footprint and
heavy slow armor. This was due to the enemy not being heavily armored and
primarily using small pickup trucks "technicals". In this area, we pretty much
dominated it as you'd have a fully loaded Stryker squad across the city
(Tall'Afar or Mosul primarily) before anyone even realized it as they were
much quieter than say a Hummvee.

------
andrewvijay
Great thing to know. Hope it reduces fatalities in the near by countries like
Haiti too.

~~~
bdamm
The weather predicting organizations of developed nations are remarkably
cooperative and significant data are shared widely.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
And yet the NWS won't incorporate Canadian radar data from storms moving
across the Canadian sword into western New York.

------
NietTim
Sure it will.

------
paul_f
Would love to read the article, but paywall.

~~~
edsouza
no problems reading it myself, never seen paywall on Washington Post articles

~~~
ars
There is, it's a soft paywall, letting you read a certain number per month.

------
SEJeff
The only thing this will revolutionize, is the alt-right's ability to deny
more facts that climate change is real :(

~~~
todd8
Wouldn't more information make it more difficult to claim unscientific things?

~~~
SEJeff
You would certainly think so, but clearly you can't reason with the alt-right.
The Trump election proves that somewhat handily.

------
bdg
Woah, something from the next generation? Someone call the temporal agents and
let them know. This is exactly what we faught against in the temporal cold
war.

