SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the cloud-should-be-free-of-financial-costs dept.
Audit finds that error could actually mean less data flows to boffins because space agency may not be able to afford downloads
NASA needs 215 more petabytes of storage by the year 2025, and expects Amazon Web Services to provide the bulk of that capacity. However, the space agency didn't realize this would cost it plenty in cloud egress charges. As in, it will have to pay as scientists download its data.
That omission alone has left NASA's cloud strategy pointing at the ground rather than at the heavens.
The data in question will come from NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) program, which collects information from the many missions that observe our planet. NASA makes those readings available through the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS).
To store all the data and run EOSDIS, NASA operates a dozen Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) that provide pleasing redundancy. But NASA is tired of managing all that infrastructure, so in 2019, it picked AWS to host it all
[...] "Specifically, the agency faces the possibility of substantial cost increases for data egress from the cloud," the Inspector General's Office wrote, explaining that today NASA doesn't incur extra costs when users access data from its DAACs. "However, when end users download data from Earthdata Cloud, the agency, not the user, will be charged every time data is egressed.
How many petabytes is SLS worth, I wonder?
(Score: 2) by Snospar on Friday March 20 2020, @09:31AM (4 children)
Wait, they sent you to the moon and even you doubt it?
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Friday March 20 2020, @10:05AM (3 children)
I don't doubt the lunokhod. Or the placing of a mirror. There is ample wiggle room between "sky is a dome" and "the lunar mission of 1969, more intent in depicting astronauts than the moon they were supposedly exploring has actually happened as told by the media plus they erased some tapes with the original footage because hey they were lying in a box and I didn't know".
There are two main problems I have: 1. 69 tech has proven impossible to replicate for others. And for NASA. 2. It is insane to send robots instead of men to missions with possible unexpected operations to perform. The poor life of the astronauts is not an argument for the chinese, for the russians and even for the USA, given that everybody was down with it in the 69 mission.
Other problems are that all the footage I recall having seen back in the time (after deepfakes contemporary video evidence is worthless in this context) looked like a 60s sci fi movie. 2001 a space odyssey was better.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2020, @01:31PM (1 child)
You don't seriously mean you don't believe in the moon landing?
Laughs Out Loud.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 20 2020, @02:15PM
your argument pro the human landing on the moon is noted.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday March 20 2020, @03:10PM
Other problems are that all the footage I recall having seen back in the time (after deepfakes contemporary video evidence is worthless in this context) looked like a 60s sci fi movie.
Oh c'mon! The escape scene [youtu.be] was great! Where have you ever heard a better film score?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..