NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory Mission Fails 325
jw3 writes "The NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory scheduled for launch today has failed its mission: the payload fairing failed to separate and the launch managers declared a contingency. George Diller, NASA launch commentator, said, 'It either did not separate or did not separate in the way that it should, but at any rate we're still trying to evaluate exactly what the status of the spacecraft is at this point.'" Update: 02/24 14:17 GMT by T : Reader fadethepolice points out a Reuters report which says that the craft crashed into the ocean just short of Antarctica.
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes CO2 is barely anything compared to water vapor (I'll take your word on that, I don't know). And compared to Nitrogen or even Oxygen it's less than nothing.
However perhaps it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, like maybe the how difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 is the difference between a nice metal suitable for armor piercing shells and a nuclear bomb. So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?
The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so. Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do. Still I know some of them and, unlike many right wingers, I do not think they are part of some vast conspiracy that only seems to accept smart people as members (or maybe I do!). Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.
You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!
Re:Taurus XL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point, I had heard about the Japanese satellite but hadn't really looked into it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as capable of tracking the carbon dioxide levels.
"OCO's spectrometer will provide greater sensitivity on carbon dioxide measurements but is unable to detect methane. GOSAT's orbit is designed to bring the satellite over the same location more often, allowing the craft's lower resolution instrument to create a new global map every three days."
The real key is whether the Japanese satellite was going to take A SINGLE MEASUREMENT for each data point (that's what appears to be in the articles I've read) or get a reading of the entire atmospheric column (providing a vertical graph of the carbon dioxide level was for each location). NASA had a specific set of three instruments designed to do just that . If the Japanese satellite does that as well then you're probably right I'm overreacting since a three fold drop in resolution is probably still good enough. If not, then there is a vast difference in not just the amount but the TYPE of data returned.
Re:Rebuild? (Score:2, Insightful)
Incidentally, the title and summary for this article suck...the OCO didn't fail, it was lost in a launch failure, and it didn't "fail its mission," it didn't get a chance to start. That's like saying your car broke down because someone ran a red light and T-boned it. No offense intended to the launch team.
Hmmm. I'd suspect a better car analogy would be "That's like saying your car broke down because the truck hauling it from the manufacturer to the dealership you just placed the order through fell off a bridge." But perhaps I'm just nitpicking. :)
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure CO2 only makes a small difference, a few percent. But a few percent change in the atmosphere's warming effect is a degree C. Exactly what the IPCC are warning about.
You can read up on some of the science here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing [realclimate.org]
It's not difficult and you might find it interesting.
Re:What's the contingency for these missions? (Score:5, Insightful)
the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? -S.R. Hadden [imdb.com]
Nice try! MOD PARENT DOWN!! (Score:0, Insightful)
Suck my dong for being so blatantly gay as to pull up that quote from Contact. I am not going to click that link, so if it actually was not from Contact, I apologize.
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:1, Insightful)
So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?
I know BS when I hear it.
The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so.
Science isn't about voting on truth or building 'consensus'
Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do.
Why are folks like Roy Spencer [wikipedia.org]attached and insulted for presenting a different view of the data? He studied hard, researched for years, examined the data, and he has very different conclusions.
What this means is if you have doubts about man-made global warming then you don't count because you aren't a climatologist. If you are a climatologist with doubts, then you are a tool of "Big Oil."
Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.
You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!
Not relevant.
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, even though I've researched these issues (much?) more than the average person, once again, I'm not a climatologist. At some point, everyone in this world has to trust other people, there is simply too much information for one person to understand it all (the last person in history who is thought to have known everything at the time was Sir Francis Bacon).
So, who do you trust? Well if I have a serious illness, I'll trust my doctor/surgeon. If I'm on a plane I'll trust my pilot. If I'm a soldier in a war I'll trust my general. If I'm a general (who wants to make sure the bombs will go off) I'll trust my scientists. Basically, the vast consensus of scientists working in climatology think we're headed for (man-made) trouble.
If a climatologist told me that my computer processor was inefficient I might disregard him, or if my neurologist told me that concrete was a poorer building material than steel I might ignore him. But these are people who've specialized and studied a long time in their respective fields. While science has certainly gone into blind alleys, it has, over time proven its accuracy in describing the real world. (Read about life in the middle ages).
I don't know anything about your anecdote regarding Greenland, the only one I know is that the Vikings named Greenland "Green" land to fool people to think it was valuable (when they really colonized Iceland). Still I hope you don't base your life around anecdotes; for example I hope you don't believe in not vaccinating your kids because you've heard it causes autism.
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah I don't need to read peer reviewed studies to know that the saturation point changes with temperature and that rain isn't the only way that water vapor pressure is regulated. I was being flippant to someone acting like CO2 is a non-concern because water vapor is a more important "emission".
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right when you say that Science isn't about voting on truth. Best example I can think of plate tectonics; the guy who promoted that was derided as a loony because "continents don't move".
But then a funny thing happened. More and more data came up to support him. First the fossil similarities on both sides of the atlantic. Then the mid atlantic ridge. Finally, if it wasn't already proven in almost all geologists minds, they found the active spreading.
That's the thing about science. Sure you might be the underdog but the "truth" will win out in the end. It has to, because nature is always right. The problem with this Spencer guy (sorry, never heard of him) is that with more and more data being collected (alas not from the OCO) there are more and more climatologists believing in man-made warming. No good scientist will say they are 100% certain (look at the ICC report, it is all in probabilities) on such a complex issue but it is apparent that the evidence is getting stronger not weaker. Again, maybe Spencer is a genius but he'll have to prove it. If he does, he'll be famous like the guy who came up with tectonic drift ("I" don't know his name but I'm sure just about every geologist does!).
Actually it's funny that you mentioned Spencer. I followed the Wikipedia link and briefly skimmed his bio. You mention that the last two paragraphs of what I wrote is "Not relevant". After reading Spencer's bio it's so relevant it's funny! I was going to say that everybody has an opinion and sometimes that opinion can't be changed by facts no matter how strong. That's called BELIEF. Without reading Spencer's bio an inch further, I'll bet you he's some sort of fundamentalist or born again Christian. Why? Because he's got all this evidence staring him in the face on global warming (and supposedly evolution) and he draws the opposite conclusion that 95% of his colleagues do. YOU CAN'T CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND IF IT'S CLOSED. So I have to thank you, you've proved that my last two paragraphs are Very relevant!
Re:it's just you (Score:5, Insightful)
I will follow my doctor's advice (or the majority if my second opinion doesn't agree)
I will follow the instructions of the cabin attendants (while kissing my butt goodbye)
I will follow their instructions unless it looks like suicide (no kamikaze pilot I). Basically I'm fucked
I will follow what the climatologists say is the rational way to get out or AMELIORATE this problem. I would most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA (which is why losing the OSO pisses me off). If I'm a snowflake, I guess I'll just melt.
What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.
Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean (Score:3, Insightful)
You need an aircraft to even attempt that. Even planes not designed to land on water, such as the A320, could probably manage this.
The only thing this rocket could do was CRASH, since it was never designed to land anywhere...
Re:Taurus XL (Score:1, Insightful)
You do realize it costs $20,000/kg or so? So your "few hundred kilograms" ends up as few million $$, maybe even 10% of the cost so they can send a satellite into space with the fairing, and then it can do what?? Watch some metal before batteries run dry tomorrow??
Get your head out of your ars.
Re:Global Warming (Score:1, Insightful)
ain't that a pitty? the first mission which was going to help map the main CO2 emitters (sites/countries/companies/industries) never got to space due to "technical failure"..one could think that it was never intended to..
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:3, Insightful)
Good god man, you're embarrassing yourself. Get a grip.
Life is not a movie, there's no imminent state of emergency, the entire planet is not going to implode, explode, rain fireballs, etc.
Even if GW is as bad as it can possibly be, you and I will see only the slightest changes in our lifetimes, many many people will see none at all. Future generations will have to adapt and alter to compensate, like they always HAVE. 100 years ago My great-grandfather used to grow crop 50kms from where I live now. The average temperature and rainfall in the area dropped and crops were no longer viable by time his son, my Grandfather took over the farm. So he (and many many others in the district) moved on to an area that had in the previous 20 years *become* viable for growing crops. 40 years later the area my great-grandfather farmed in is now *again* becoming viable to grow wheat.
Its kinda funny to see so many people here laugh at the 'hysterical' masses on other issues such as child protection, terrorism etc. But really are no different themselves.
Not to mention I come here to *escape* a melodramatic drama queen. (Coming dear)
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:2, Insightful)
Urban heat islands don't explain the warming.
Says who? You must be talking about the fraudulent paper written by Jones and Wang that supposedly put to rest the notion that UHI was significant.
You know, the paper! Where Wang intentionally commited scientific fraud? You know I'm talking about, right?
Didn't know that?
'k. tx.
CIties are a small fraction of the Earth's surface
Someone who thinks that UHI is about cities shouldn't be discussing this. Heres a thought.. go to surfacestations.org
I havent been there in a month but I bet they got yet another hilariously placed recording station photographed, perhaps right next to an air conditioner again, or maybe next to an outdoor grill (significant because they use the daily high and low values, not the average.. did you know that?) Maybe in one of those "quiet wooded areas" but still constructed on top of common everyday tar-based blacktop, or on the tar'd roof of a building.
The point here is that we dont fucking know shit because the data is fucked up and when it isnt, they go ahead and fuck it up with questionalable "adjustment" methods to make it look just like the average that includes all the fucked up data, where the researchers are often sloppy and out of their field (hire a statistician if you need to use an advanced statisical technique, assholes), and they sometimes even commit fraud.
We got no fucking idea the effects of UHI, of CO2, or even the amount of warming (if any.) We still have no clue as to the significant effects of clouds (which still cannot be modeled), cosmic rays, solar variance, sunspots, the magnetosphere, and so on..
All the while we are being sold a plan by the IPCC to heavily regulate industry, when there are other alternatives that they havent even fucking bothered to look into, such as geoengineering.
The whole thing fucking smells bad. Maybe its warming significantly.. maybe it isn't.. we are simply not in a place to know because nobody really gives a shit about it. The scientists themselves only give a shit about publishing, because publishing equals funding. They havent gone to audit the surface stations, it takes a group of highly skeptical volunteers to actualy figure out that almost the entire thing is bullshit... and STILL nobody is doing anything about it.
The IPCC only gives a shit about power because its a political institution. Thats what they do.
But you have all the facts, right? You KNOW all about global warming, right?
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:2, Insightful)
Given your statements below, I don't think your knowledge of this subject warrants such bold assertions.
If you don't believe that the CO2 hysteria is media and political hype, then you are not paying attention to the common perspective on the whole thing. I'm not talking about the science. I'm talking about the people using the science wrongly to push an agenda.
In the glacial-interglacial cycle, this is true, but it's also not a surprise; it's a prediction of Milankovitch theory, which existed before any lags or leads were ever measured in the data. It also does not imply that CO2 has no effect on temperature.
I didn't say CO2 has no effect on climate. I only said it follows rather than leads the temperature change. I understand chaos theory well enough to know that almost EVERYTHING has an effect, at least in the long term.
It's both. According to the Milankovitch theory, orbital variations cause shifts in temperature. These temperature shifts cause changes in the carbon cycle, which alters CO2 levels. The altered CO2 levels in turn amplify the original orbital temperature change.
If you leave the CO2 feedback part of that process out, then you can't explain the amplitude of the glacial-interglacial cycles anymore, and it's unclear whether you can even, say, trigger a glaciation without the contribution of CO2 drawdown.
Sure. CO2 has an effect. But, it is not THE cause as the media and political class would have us believe.
You could start here [agu.org], here [sciencedirect.com], or here [gsapubs.org].
Those are great references and support my argument that CO2 has an effect, but is certainly not THE cause. And, it is clearly illustrated that the coldest period in the last half billion years had a CO2 level 10 times the present level. Those references point out that there are clearly other drivers that are MUCH more significant on climate than CO2. That's not what the mass media and political class would have us believe. Orbital, solar and cloud variation are much more impactful than CO2. But, we can't write laws to deal with those things. So, we push the minor things that we believe we can control.
Human emissions don't vary smoothly, nor does the terrestrial carbon sink, which has quite a bit of interannual variability due to climatic effects on, e.g., photosynthesis and heterotrophic respiration. Just as a guess, I'd look first at the collapse of the Soviet Union (assuming there is a significant slowdown during those years, which I haven't checked).
Great point... at least partially. The natural CO2 cycle has quite a bit of interannual variability. That's why it's hard to nail down what the human factors are. And, given that the CO2 levels have been MUCH higher on the order of 1000's of percents prior to the existence of humans on the planet, it's hard to say that we are going to push things beyond what has been NATURALLY observed on Earth. Sure, there are plenty of hypothesi about the different types of carbon isotopes, but there are plenty of natural ways for those same isotopes to be released. The only thing we are doing to release them is to burn things. That happens naturally all the time.
As for human activity driving the observed increase, that's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Nobody seriously argues that part of the story anymore; there are about six independent lines of evidence, including historic emissions data, measurements of cumulative ocean carbon and air-sea CO2 f
Re:well we're f*****d (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientists do not claim that CO2 is "the" only cause of climate change. And please, spare me "but the media/political circus does". Even they don't claim that CO2 is the only thing ever to have affected climate.
I never said scientists did. Scientists have nothing to do with the policy proposals or induced hysteria. You ask the average Joe on the street about the whole thing and all they can tell you is CO2. And, unless you happened to miss Al Gore's (a politician I might remind you) propaganda piece which explicitly tried to highlight the CO2/temperature connection. He purposely put the graphs on different axes so people would infer CO2 lead temperature. If you see the two on the same graph, it's clear CO2 follows, not leads. That's the political/media misinformation.
Not over the next few centuries, which is the whole point.
Really? I would agree with you on the orbital variation. That's a known quantity. But, what are the predictions for solar and cloud variation? What are the predictions for volcanic events that are known to cool global temperatures as much as a degree in a single year? We just don't know those things.
It's not that hard to nail down human emissions. It's somewhat uncertain where human emissions eventually end up; we know the main players, but not the exact partitioning.
If we're uncertain about where they end up, how can we use those for modeling? I've heard some argue that the specific isotopes released by man have a different effect than the "natural" isotopes. If both that idea and your assertion are both true, I would expect some serious flaws in the models.
We may not push CO2 levels higher than what has been naturally observed, but that's not the point. Even climate changes as large as what has been naturally observed are a big deal, and we probably don't want to reproduce those changes (especially at a high rate).
The quantity nor the rate is statistically different from what has been observed. Assuming it is mankind, we're still not making anything happen that hasn't naturally occurred before.
No, there isn't. That's the whole point. Between the C12/C13 ratios and C12/C14 ratios, you can eliminate the natural sources like biomass, dissolved carbon in the oceans, etc.
We might know about the CURRENT sources that we have observed, but our data doesn't go back that far. We don't really know if we have all of the current "natural" sources identified either. That's the whole point of a lot of the new technological tools we're trying to put into place. We don't have a global survey of carbon sources with the sort of resolution to say that we know where all of the CO2 is coming from.
Burning biomass has a different isotopic signature than burning fossil fuels, unless the biomass is extremely old (like fossil biomass is). There is very little ancient biomass being burned other than fossil fuel, and we know where it is.
Sure. But, we don't know exactly where the all of the CO2 comes from. So, saying that we know where all the CO2 from ancient biomass is originating from is really just a hypothesis at this point. It's as easy to have the hypothesis that there are crude deposits near magma vents that are being encroached upon and releasing the same isotopes through a natural process. It IS possible.
Ok, let me be more blunt: anybody who argues that has been scientifically disproven.
No. They've been politically disproven. There is still plenty of study that needs to be done and is being done. But, the story of no impending catastrophe doesn't get readers or viewers for media and certainly doesn't give politicians an excuse to control people. So, the publicity is one sided (and inaccurate due to the necessary dumbing down of the complexity for average people to "understand").
Re:it's just you (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, your point about climatologists missed the similarities with (private) doctors. Since research money is easier to come by if the grant providers feel there is an imminent need for the research, those doing said research are in a biased position to try and exaggerate any potential ill effects so as to guarantee future funding.
I'm not saying they /do/ lie to get more money, but they're human, so leaving them beyond suspicion is silly.