ESA Cryosat Launch Reported Failure 277
hptux06 writes "Earlier today the ESA lauched their "Cryosat" satellite, designed to monitor ice levels across the Arctic/Antarctic. It's being reported a failure, disappearing 90 minutes after the launch. It cost £90M (160M US$) to build, and was supposed to spend three years determining the effects of global warming." From the article: "The satellite rode into space on a Rockot vehicle, a converted SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile. The rocket, which in the Cold War would have been armed with nuclear weapons, had been modified for peaceful space duties with the addition of a Breeze-KM upper stage. Dr Matthias Oehm, chief executive officer of Eurockot, said they had not received the expected signals from either the spacecraft or the upper stage of the rocket that should have injected it into orbit. "
Should we trust ICBMs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:4, Insightful)
It was an old surplus ICBM they were using to launch it. ICBMs are build with the hope that your opponent will see how many you have and they'll never get used. In the event that they are used, you'll be launching so many that it won't matter if some don't make the trip. Add to that the decades of storage. Is it any suprise that when some are used for other purposes they fail?
Re:Conspiracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, then it's also not beyond the realms of possibility that there was no launch, and that they faked the whole thing so they could say that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued use of fossil fuels.
You know, like the people that make rocket fuel.
Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8029 [newscientist.com]
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/m
Of course, shrinking ice caps on Mars kinda kill the "ohmygodmankindiscausingglobalwarming" leftist groupthink crowd, doesn't it?
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? (Score:5, Insightful)
And aside from that, if what humans are doing to the environment isn't responsible for the shrinking ice caps of Earth, then that means we should be free to spew out whatever crap we want into the environment without any concern for more basic things like air quality, etc.
Stupid leftisft thinking indeed, because of course, concern about the environment is purely a "leftist" issue.
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Woah. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Try looking at a history book once. Nation-states have never done anything simply because it was the right thing to do and they wanted to lead by example. Nation-states do thing because their government feels it is in their best interest. Now, that may in fact coincide with the "right" thing to do and it may in fact appear to be leading by example, but those are never the deciding factors.
Seriously, list some of the things down through history that you think the US has done "soley because" they were the right thing to do. I'd like to see why your version of history is so great that it has you pining for the good ol' days.
Re:euro weenies (Score:1, Insightful)
Multiple countries wanted to send tons (yes, tons) of stuff to help - your great government did not want it.
Why? We care! (Score:2, Insightful)
My country gave money, search teams, equipment and offered oil assistance - the US administration told us to wait.
I once cared greatly for the US - now I realize I must have been wrong. I for one hope we/Europe cut all ties with the US. NATO should die and the EU should align itself with Russia.
Re:euro weenies (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that because someone somewhere in Europe wasn't entirely sympathetic towards the US regarding the hurricane, you therefore have no sympathy for anyone anywhere in Europe when something bad happens, regardless of what their specific views on Katrina were.
Sounds like the same illogic that made sense of invading Iraq because some Saudis carried out 9/11. After all, they're all in the Middle East, eh? They're all the same, right?
Personally, as a European, I was horrified at the effects of Katrina, and contributed money to one of the hurricane relief organisations (did you?). Thus I find your attitude deeply offensive and ignorant.
Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the global average of CO2 emmissions per capita is about 5 tons per year. The distribution of emmissions per capita is roughly US 4 : EU 2 : World 1. And please don't forget the World includes the US and Europe.
As far as the neutering is concerned, if that's what you're trying to compensate with a huge SUV...
Two in one (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry mate, no explosion in this link (Score:2, Insightful)
A (1m 14.8s) video that shows the launch. About 28.5 seconds into the video, it disappears into a cloud, and the light from the exhaust diffuses through the cloud.
The commentary at 1:01-ish: "Well, a fantastic, successful launch by the looks of it, Mark, for Cryosat." Subsequent cautiously optimistic comments. Video ends.
What I got from the video -even though there's no scale- was: damn, that's a thin rocket.
Which leads me to the question: aren't designed-for-space rockets normally fatter than this? A quick link to "rocket widths through the ages" would be appreciated.
Not uncommon point of view (Score:2, Insightful)
I actually agree, I believe the world community of scientists have said that there is a link between the increase in natural disasters/weather conditions and pollution. So it would perhaps be a fitting reminder to a certain president that the Kyoto protocols and other initiatives are not just for fun. We need to change, all of us. We have seen the ill effects in Europe as well, don't know how much you've heard of them? People died here as well. Of course I regret the loss of life, however it's a potent reminder and perhaps the catalyst the US needs? In that sense I agree that you "deserve" it. You can not isolate yourselves from these global issues.
P.S. My feelings on US-EU relations remain and are independent of this discussion - Europe has remained under US influence too long. Similar to a long marriage - we've grown apart.
Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not so much a per country-, but a per capita thing. Yes, China might eventually emmitt more than the US. However, like India, they have about four times the population. So when they're on par with the US, then it would still take about four Chinese to produce the same amount of carbon dioxide as one person in the US causes. At the moment, it takes about 20 Indians, so despite their bigger population it will take a while for them to catch up, I guess.
There is a certain correlation between energy consumption and living standard. That doesn't mean it's proportional, though. Much can be saved by increasing efficiency -- better insulation for houses, cars with better milage, modern power plants, that kind of stuff. Still, to a certain degree that correlation is undeniable, and when we in the rich countries say we want to keep our wasteful lifestyles unless the poorer countries reduce their energy consumption, too, then we're saying they're not entitled to a higher living standard than they have today. Since we caused the mess in the first place, I have a bit of a problem with that attitude.
There is no good reason, and that is why Kyoto is flawed. I do have to commend Europe for their work with the environment, but once they play favorites, they lost me on wanting such a treaty for the US.
Try to look at it from our (I'm in Europe) perspective. The science is pretty solid, our climate is changing. Even if there were doubts -- and there aren't any to be taken seriously -- considering what is at risk, we should play it safe. So we try to reduce our energy consumption, and carbon dioxide emmissions in general. But even if Kyoto meets its target, the reductions will be less than the increased output of the US in the same timeframe. We read about the outrage at US gas stations because you now have to pay $3 per gallon. We pay twice as much, so people buy efficient cars.
You use a quarter of the world's oil production, and you could do with much less if there were some decent incentives for efficiency, without lowering your living standard one bit. Instead you point at poor countries where people use a fraction of what we use in our countries before we even have lunch, and claim it's unfair that they don't have to reduce their output. Those are countries where the average person makes much, much less than we make, so if $3 per gallon seems like much for somebody in the US, you can imagine what it means to them even if they would only have to pay the $2 a gallon costs to produce at today's oil prices. Reducing consumption also means less of an impact of higher oil prices due to growing global demand -- do you understand why some see the US as somewhat unfavorable when they read arguments like yours?
Re:Why exempt China and India (and Brazil and ...) (Score:2, Insightful)
I see. They're "[breeding] a lot of people living in mut huts" to get a "free pass". So you suggest we go by what? Per country? The very few living in Liechtenstein will be happy to hear that. If you want to go by economic output, China looked in fact pretty bad -- they heavily rely on coal to produce energy. They still do, nowhere near as bad as they used to, but they're still about at US levels.
You can find various relevant statistics here [doe.gov], among other measures graphs of carbon dioxide emmissions per economic output for the G7 countries [doe.gov] and developing asian nations [doe.gov].
I've been to Beijing. The air there ain't clean. I've never actually felt sick just from breathing a city's air before, and I've been to most major cities in the US and Europe.
At least they're doing [globalissues.org] something [renewablee...access.com] about it.
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:3, Insightful)
1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)
Basically to retain freedom, you must reset the system from time to time. Radical? - maybe. Undeniable? - definitely.