"Triana was conceived in March 1998 by then-Vice President Al Gore as little more than a space Webcam: a live image of the sunlit hemisphere of Earth, transmitted to the Internet. Web surfers would be able to track the progress of hurricanes, see smoke from huge forest fires and maybe become more globally aware by viewing the Big Blue Marble from a cosmic perspective."

"[NASA spokesman Dave] Steitz said, "I think the politics left a long time ago, if there were any."

Editor's note: Yea Dave, I guess you are partially right: Al Gore is no longer Vice President. However, while hanging good science onto the satellite as an afterthought certainly enhances its value, it does not alter its overtly political origin.

"NASA has spent almost $100 million in taxpayer money to build a satellite that is headed for a storage bin in Maryland. Triana was scheduled for a November flight into space, where it would measure ozone in the Earth's atmosphere while also beaming round-the-clock photos of Earth to the Internet."

"Triana has the powerful endorsement of the National Academy of Sciences and a practically completed spacecraft with instruments that have been integrated, tested, and calibrated," said Francisco P.J.Valero, the Triana principal investigator. "We have spent nearly $100 million and Triana could be finished and ready to go on short notice. In my view, not to proceed at this point would be a major, embarrassing waste of scientific talent and taxpayer's money. We must push forward." "

• 15 September 1999: NASA IG recommends NASA "reassess" Controversial Triana Project, press release, House Science Committee

  "The NASA IG's report also validates criticism that Triana circumvented the normal merit-based procedures, including peer review, for science missions. "NASA has described the Triana mission as the product of a rigorous peer review process. However, only the science to be conducted on the mission was peer reviewed. Neither internal nor external advisory groups reviewed whether a spacecraft beaming back pictures of the Earth on the Internet was the most effective way to educate and inspire the public, or whether L1 was the most appropriate location from which to conduct Earth science investigations," reads the NASA IG's report."

• 13 March 1998:  Vice President Gore Challenges NASA to Build a New Satellite to Provide Live Images of Earth from Outer Space, The White House

Editor's note: from a memo currently circulating at NASA:

"Triana Programmatic Direction. In a memo (09-Mar-01) from the Earth Science Associate Administrator/G. Asrar to GSFC, Triana support personnel were directed to "stop launch preparation work and rapidly bring the project to a stable state of suspension." The launch date decision for Triana is postponed. It is assumed that launch preparations will proceed for STS-107 with its current payload complement."

"MR. DONALDSON: Okay, what about shuttle 107?

MR. GOLDIN: We are taking a look at the shuttle manifest. Right now there are a number of other high-priority issues on 107. I disagree with him; we will fly Triana. We are completing the acceptance test on it now. And as soon as we get an opening in the shuttle flight, if it doesn't go on 107, we will certainly fly it. And it'll be in the next few years."

Editor's note: Triana was removed from the manifest of the STS-107 mission last week by the JSC PRCB (Space Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               
    4    S072107C           ADD LONESTAR / REMOVE TRIANA AND UPDATE            
          JSC-MT            STS-107 LAUNCH DATE                                
                                                                               
         APPROVED W/MODS                                                       
                                                                               
         PRESENTER(S):      JSC-MT3/P. WATSON                                  
                                                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"During the July 6, 2000 Shuttle Payload Requirements Control Board (PRCB),held at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), several changes were made to the STS-107 shuttle mission. The launch date was moved by one month to June 14, 2001. The Triana payload was removed from the STS-107 manifest. A Microgravity Research Program (MRP) payload, the Critical Viscosity of Xenon (CVX-2) payload was officially added to the STS-107 payload complement. The CVX-2 will be mounted on a Get Away Special (GAS) cross bay bridge assembly called FREESTAR. Another MRP payload named Collisions Into Dust Experiment (COLLIDE-2) is an alternate payload for the STS-107 mission."

"By focusing only on scientific merit, the NRC not only neglected the needs of decision-makers for a comprehensive perspective, but it provided an opportunity for the misuse of the report. Immediately after the NRC report was released, partisans were "spinning" it as an endorsement of the mission, misrepresenting the report's narrow focus on scientific merit under an assumption of successful implementation. Whether or not Triana makes sense as a component of the nation's remote sensing agenda would require consideration of the issues neglected by the NRC panel, including Triana's contributions to meeting its other rationales, such as education and space weather forecasting."

Editor's note: The NRC found scientific merit in Triana. No surprise there - for it has actually been there for quite some time! I am sure Triana will provide information we never had before that will benefit society - not have I ever doubted that it will.

That's not the point, folks.

What I find rather disappointing is the fact that none of Triana's supporters - ranging from the President's Science Advisor and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Science Committee to the scientists and engineers associated with Triana - have the courage to openly admit that Triana began as a late night project cooked up by the Vice President (which he has admitted!) and that the science (clearly of value) was wrapped around it as an afterthought to make it more politically palatable.

Moreover, these people also shy away from admitting that the original low cost (one of its purported selling points) has ballooned to the point that criteria used to justify the cancellation of other missions should be invoked - yet won't be for fear of offending the Vice President.

To NASA's credit, an advisory process has been used for decades to set priorities against which missions are proposed and solicitations issued. NASA did it backwards this time and undermined the sanctity of this process. I am certain that the very same people who support Triana would be howling in protest if a mission were to have been given similarly preferential treatment in another discipline and skipped the traditional process.

For what it is worth (and despite all of my complaining) I suppose it is refreshing to have someone in a high government position (such as the vice president) who stays up late at night thinking about these things - and (apparently) has the technical ability to understand the concepts involved. If only Mr. Gore had translated this interest into practice and NOT supported a cut in NASA's budget 7 out of 8 years in a row.

"I am pleased that the National Research Council's review of the Triana program has validated my belief that Triana is an exciting and scientifically meritorious mission that is worthy of support. The NRC task force is to be commended for its thoughtful and objective assessment of the Triana project. With this positive report on Triana's merits and reasonableness of cost, it is time for this worthwhile project to move forward."

"The National Academy of Sciences report, released today, on NASA's Triana mission validates the strong scientific merit of a satellite that will transmit continuous pictures of a full sunlit Earth to the world via television and the Internet."

NASA will apparently not be suspending all work on the development of the Triana as requested by Congress. Instead, NASA is using creative accounting to keep the program going in "hibernation mode" . One look at the Triana project's Spacecraft Bus Integration and Test Schedule will show you that things continue to be planned for - and worked - at a reduced, but steady pace until next year.

The STS-107 (Triana) baselining item for last week's PRCB, which had been and rescheduled to this week, has been rescheduled again to next week's PRCB (4 Nov). Meanwhile, we're getting indications that work on Triana continues at GSFC and that civil servant engineers (who are "free") are being used to replace contractors (who cost money).

"I'm glad that Congress has agreed with me to take a hard look at Triana before going any further with it," remarked Representative Dave Weldon (R-Palm Bay). "I am concerned with Triana's ever-expanding price tag, questionable scientific merit, and possible political overtones. Generally NASA projects are put through a rigorous peer-review process well before funding is even considered. This one was spared that and it shouldn't have been."

"Y/Luther: Mr. Luther reported that Code Y is working to expedite the review of Triana called for in the Appropriations Conference report."

"EARTH SCIENCES

The conferees have not terminated the Triana program as the House had proposed. Instead, the conferees direct NASA to suspend all work on the development of the Triana satellite using funds made available by this appropriation until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has completed an evaluation of the scientific goals of the Triana mission. The conferees expect the NAS to move expeditiously to complete its evaluation. In the event of a favorable report from the NAS, NASA may not launch Triana prior to January 1, 2001. The conferees have no objection to NASA's reserving funds made available by this appropriation for potential termination costs. The conferees recognize that, if a favorable report is rendered by the NAS, there will be some additional cost resulting from the delay."

Editor's note: word has it that the STS-107 mission is going to the PRCB on 28 October. The projected manifest is SpaceHab and Triana. Given this Congressional prohibition on a launch of Triana no earlier than 1 January 2001 (this depending upon a favorable review by the National Academy of Sciences), one would wonder whether Triana will stay on STS-107 (launch date in December 2000), whether that mission will slip, or whether Triana will get bumped to another flight.

You'll recall that NASA Watch reported on 28 September that NASA HQ had ordered the Triana project to work to a September 2000 launch date, with a spacecraft delivery to KSC in May 2000, and that TAS-4 and NGST's ISIS demonstration have been bumped off of STS-107 due to weight constraints. Stay tuned.

Editor's note: Far from being killed, Triana is alive and well and busily draining resources from other NASA payloads. Even though the current Shuttle manifest shows an STS-107 launch of Triana in November 2000, (and the Triana website shows a December 2000 date) NASA HQ has ordered the Triana project to work to a September 2000 launch date, with a spacecraft delivery to KSC in May 2000.

To support this schedule, NASA HQ has told the Triana project to contract directly with Alenia for the spin table, since ASI has not been willing to come to terms with NASA. This may be what is behind the extra money for Italy that was in the House version of NASA's FY 2000 budget (House Rpt. 106-286: Earth Sciences: "8. An increase of $2,500,000 for a joint U.S./Italian space-based research initiative for the study and detection of forest fires").

Meanwhile, Triana is so sacrosanct, that TAS-4 and NGST's ISIS demonstration have been bumped off of STS-107 due to weight constraints.

"Gore, speaking through his spokesman Chris Lehane, on Thursday defended his proposed round-the-clock Earth pictures as a "good idea and good science." "

The planetary views would increase scientific understanding of environmental changes affecting the ozone layer and wind patterns, Lehane said.

"The Triana project would help us get important information regarding weather patterns," he added, citing the havoc Tropical Storm Floyd was wreaking on the East Coast on Thursday. "Weather patterns have a dramatic impact on our nation's safety and economy."

Editor's note: DUH, isn't that why we have been launching all of those weather and earth resources satellites for the past 40 years?

"The NASA IG's report also validates criticism that Triana circumvented the normal merit-based procedures, including peer review, for science missions. "NASA has described the Triana mission as the product of a rigorous peer review process. However, only the science to be conducted on the mission was peer reviewed. Neither internal nor external advisory groups reviewed whether a spacecraft beaming back pictures of the Earth on the Internet was the most effective way to educate and inspire the public, or whether L1 was the most appropriate location from which to conduct Earth science investigations," reads the NASA IG's report."

Editor's note: On page 2 of the current edition of Space News is a short story regarding the launch date of Triana. While NASA maintains that Triana will be launched in December 2000 (i.e. after the presidential election), GSFC is working towards a 15 September 2000 launch date (i.e. just before the election) as is evident in a chart presented recently at GSFC.

So, which is it Dan?

"If you use the Shuttle cost per pound numbers Dan always cites as he lobbies for the X-33, Triana costs more than $100 million to launch aboard a Space Shuttle Orbiter. As such, you have to ask whether the "as advertised" cost for Triana of $75 million is an honest one. Simple math shows the cost to be closer to $175 million."

"It is disturbing to see this kind of disinformation widely distributed on a normally responsible Web site. Both Congress and NASA went to great lengths to insure that there was strong peer-reviewed science content added to the original pictorial concept suggested by Al Gore. As presently designed, the Triana mission at L-1 will provide major science return of a nature that is not available from any other vantage point. We expect to measure geophysically important scientific quantities in a way that has never been done before....." - Dr. Jay R. Herman, Project Scientist, Triana, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center "

Editor's note: What is even more disturbing, Jay, is that the peer review process was run in reverse for this project!

Take even a momentary glance at the way NASA decides on missions and you'll see a rather methodical, well thought out standard process is in place. First an AO goes out, ideas (proposals) for missions/spacecraft are then sent in, they are reviewed, and then a selection is made. If further science is needed, an additional AO or NRA is released and the review process performed once again.

Not with Triana! Al Gore came up with the mission design and goals first, he then told NASA to do it, Dan Goldin said yes (little choice there!), and then - and ONLY then was any solicitation released for science ideas wherein peer review was utilized.

The cart was clearly placed before the horse, Jay. If this approach was done for any other science project at NASA you and your colleagues would (most justifiably) be howling in protest.

"Given that the Clinton-Gore administration has cut NASA's budget for six straight years, and that we have to borrow parts from a museum exhibit just to fly the shuttle, the science community would like NASA to fund higher priorities, and not a new screen saver for the 2000 presidential campaign," said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., whose congressional district is home to Kennedy Space Center.... "

"....In a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gore unveiled his invention and NASA quickly followed with an endorsing press release. "

Editor's note: It is curious how NASA approved this GoreSat project the day after VP Gore suggested it, BEFORE subjecting any portion of the project to peer review. Oh well, rules are meant to be broken, right?

A note from someone@nasa.gov:

"Another note on GoreSat: It's currently manifested for STS-107, which is pretty much the only orbital research opportunity (other than AXAF delivery and SRTM) between Neurolab (4/98) and the beginning of useful ISS ops in '02 ('01 if we're lucky). The microgravity community has lots of stuff we'd like to fly on 107, and we're willing to stretch our Russian-bled budgets to do so, but...damn...turns out there's a weight limitation due to some heavy baggage in the cargo bay."

Editor's note: I find it amazing that no mention whatsoever is made in this press release of the fact that Triana popped out of Al Gore's head late one night and landed in NASA's lap the next morning. Yet NASA openly noted the Vice President's role in a 13 March 1998 NASA press release wherein Goldin says "Vice President Gore has given us an exciting challenge"

From the way this press release is written, there now seems to be an effort to make it seem as if Triana was NASA's idea all along and that it somehow just happens to fit in well with existing research plans. If Triana is so cool then why didn't NASA propose it in the first place? Indeed a lot of what Triana is supposed to do is already being done by SOHO while other things such as whole-planet imagery of Earth are readily available on the Web.

Once again, a political space stunt emanating from the White House (ala Glenn) is being reverse-justified by NASA with science as the excuse. I have no doubt that the Triana spacecraft will be well-crafted and will provide useful information. Nor do I doubt the Vice President's commitment to Earth's environment.

I just wish NASA could be more honest about why it does these politically-inspired projects instead of hiding behind thinly-veiled excuse of "science". I also wish the Vice President would focus his attention upon the very real problems NASA is having (ISS & Russia) instead of engaging in the promotion of frivolous toys such as Triana.

Oh yes .....according to this press release " Triana is a $75 million mission to be launched by December 2000 from the Space Shuttle cargo bay." What ever happened to the cost limit as stated in the 13 March press release that "the total mission cost, including launch and operations, would not exceed $50 million" ? Indeed, Dan challenged the folks at GSFC in July to make it come in at $30 million!

cheaper - better - faster anyone?

Have a look at "A Global View From Space" at GSFC. This fascinating website uses near real time imagery of the Earth taken by existing satellites and produces an interactive interface which lets you see virtually anything on the "Whole Earth" - and zoom in on it.

Instead of spending $70 million on a new toy, how about buying this project a faster webserver, some additional bandwidth, and a few more programmers? All of the image manipulation that Dr. Ghassem Asrar seems to think is a chore seems to work rather nicely on this site. A little more tweaking, data mining from existing resources, and some data input from upcoming EOS spacecraft, and this website could do anything Triana could - for much, much less money. THIS is cheaper - better - faster, Dan.

Why don't you just send Al Gore the URL for this website, Dan, and show him how much money, and time you just saved him!

Watch the CBD for the next couple of days for an AO announcement for Triana, a $50M project to put a camera at the LaGrange (L1) point, about 1 million miles out to get continuous daylight pictures of Earth. The AO will be released on/around 10 July . GSFC is already doing an in-house design.

From what we understand GSFC Center Director Al Diaz told NASA HQ what Triana would take to do: 3 years and $50 Million. Dan did not like this answer - he wants it to happen in 2 years for $30 million. GSFC has started on Triana's design and has apparently been asking existing contracts to have their options exercised for more hardware that Triana can use - including (according to rumors) putting spare SOHO instruments on board.

"We're stuck with making the best of a bad situation. Waiting on a President whose commitment to space is a three percent NASA cut while he gives other R&D agencies a one-time, election year boost of three percent. Waiting on a Vice President who vision for space is to use it as his ideological playtoy, whether it's putting a bankrupt government in the Station's critical path or dreaming up a $50 million politically correct screen saver. "

Editor's Note: According to Space News, House Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee chair Dana Rohrabacher, the GoreSat idea is already "dead" as far as he is concerned.

Hmmmm .... perhaps Dan could put a camera on good 'ol RIFSat ...