>>512400483 (OP)
let me guess, it's some sataellite from 1965 that costs millions per year to operate and is utterly obsolete in terms of what data it collects. >"reporters"
>>512401169
Its from 11 years ago, the first one failed on launch. They took the spare parts they had left and made a 3rd one and bolted it on the outside of the ISS.
You should be asking yourself, 'why does a block of metal in space powered by the sun cost money to run'
You retards are getting baited by (((media))) into thinking trump asked for a satellite to be blown up.
scrolled through the article. the most recent funding for the operation was 2023, and was authorized for three years. it's 2025 currently, so next year is the conclusion. two satellites collect data involving carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. thats about it. the article also mentions how private companies have sent up their own satellites for CO2 data, ozone, methane, and more.
sounds like it did its job at first, now it is redundant. almost like leaders have to plan shit out a year or two in advance.
>>512400483 (OP)
i mean wouldn't the satellite be good for weather prediction??? how much money did we spend on making it...? is it a fraudulent satellite? where is the proof? seems like a waste to just destroy it.?
>>512401489
Theres 20 of them, and 6 have better sensors.
There is an exact duplicate of the one in question bolted to the ISS.
(((YOU))) still believe in jewish climate change.
>>512400483 (OP)
I need more facts. Is the satellite operational? Is the satellite the best method to perform the task? What exactly does it do that other satellites dont or cant? What is lost? Maybe its a nonoperational boondoggle.