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. "
By the time... (Score:5, Funny)
...they get a replacement up there won't be any ice left to study.
Re:By the time... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a conspiracy... (Score:3, Funny)
Will I get troll-modded again?
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:5, Funny)
Workmate was telling me about one of his professors, who got out of the Soviet Union. While he was still behind the iron curtain, he was a quality control officer for the ICBMs aimed at the US.
One day he was asked by one of his students what would have happened if the Soviet premier would have ordered a launch of these ICBMs.
He replied "Nothing, maybe a few explosions within the silos, but not much more."
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's pretty interestinng, but I really have to wonder. After all, the Soyuz rockets have the highest reliability of any launch vehicle anywhere (and the highest number of launches). Though I agree, essentially all of the recent ex-military launches (including a solar sail a while back) have been fai
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
-everphilski-
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
Considering the list of suspects that have been chanting "There's no such thing as global warming" as a mantra at Kyoto and has microwave lasers that could fry a satellite on its way to orbit at their disposal is pretty short, it's a slightly amusing one. I think I'll go with the technical error though.
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, if they throw in another $5M or so, I'll take a torch and make damn sure they get the results they are expecting.
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
Like yourself, obviously.
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
the US already has an ice observing satellite (Score:3, Informative)
It has been operational since January 2003.
Re:It's a conspiracy... (Score:2)
Global Warming Myth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, Interesting)
No thanks. I will take freedom of inquiry over appealing to the crowd any day.
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2)
Which I find a bit annoying, because most of my most insightful comments come in the form of sarcasm.
Oh well. Nobody likes a karma whore.
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, 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 w
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2)
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.
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:Global Warming Myth (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Myth (Score:3, Insightful)
1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
Bummer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bummer (Score:2)
Re:Bummer (Score:2)
Re:Bummer (Score:4, Funny)
Unless you're in L.A. on the morning of January 1st, then everyone on your block will have them.
We know that Bush wasn't behind this... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... (Score:2)
Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... (Score:2)
I was going to post about how the rocket was probably shot down by the United States, to prevent global warming information from getting out, but then I remembered that shooting down a rocket is impossible.
So, it was HAARP
Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... (Score:5, Funny)
It's funny, laugh!
Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... (Score:2)
Sounds like a DC imbalance problem. Try placing a resistor in parallel of each speaker output (connect them between the output and the ground); anything from 100k to 470kOhm should work. Use 1W resistors if you want to be completely safe, but common 1/4W ones will do perfectly fine in most situations. Pardon the offtopic!
Sounds obvious, but you may also want to che
Re:We know that Bush wasn't behind this... (Score:2)
OT: Creative Audigy popping speakers (Score:2)
I've got the software volume controls maxed out, so that I can have the hardware volume control on the (amplified) speakers turned down. However, when I power-off, suspend, power-up, or wake my PC, there's a very loud one-time pop on the speakers.
Maybe, though (Score:2)
The amps don't do that, but they have protection circutry built in, they cut the outputs when powering
Should we trust ICBMs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Should we trust ICBMs? (Score:2)
Why not? It'll be a lot worse if they were being used to deliver nuclear warheads and the warheads "disappeared" in mid-flight. Scrap metal wouldn't be the only thing raining down.
Re:Should we trust ICBMs? (Score:2)
Re:Should we trust ICBMs? (Score:2)
Sure it would! Scrap Plutonium is a metal.
Ummmm, because satellites are expensive (Score:2)
Remember there is a thrid option: Don't launch the ICMB rocket at all. It's not like if they aren't used for this Russia will randomly launch nuclear warheads just for the fun of it. They'll just sit in their silos or storage sheds as they have in the past.
Re:Should we trust ICBMs? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't it nice... (Score:2)
Failure (Score:3, Funny)
I know who's to blame! (Score:2)
Bush pushed the big red button "aheh heh heh".
Re:I know who's to blame! (Score:2)
Re:I know who's to blame! (Score:3, Funny)
Coincidence? I think not! (Score:2)
Then again, they're ignoring all of the evidence now, why would this have mattered?
Further info here... (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like it was another controller foulup that stopped a command from being issued to shut down stage 1 and seperate the upper stack, and causing a reentry of the entire package.
Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber (Score:2)
Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber (Score:2)
I assume that they already use some sort of a communications buss, though.
Re:Ditch the copper get some fiber (Score:2)
confirmed lost in arctic ocean (Score:5, Informative)
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/mg s-092005-imagesc.html [nasa.gov]
Of course, shrinking ice caps on Mars kinda kill the "ohmygodmankindiscausingglobalwarming" leftist groupthink crowd, doesn't it?
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:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? (Score:2)
Again, of course, even if global warming DOESN'T have anything to do with it, I still think there is a
Re:Shrinking ice? On Earth or Mars? (Score:2)
What do you expect? (Score:2)
Hm. You add a stage to an ICBM, launch it, and wonder why it stops transmitting signals 90 minutes after launch.
Thus another spy sattalite is born (Score:2, Interesting)
Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:2)
That's gospel according to Slashdot.
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:2, Funny)
Thank god we're working in C and not Python, because you forgot your semicolon. What you meant to say was:
No signal? (Score:2)
That's probably because it broke up and crashed into the ocean [www.cbc.ca].
All is lost . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Video of the explosion. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Video of the explosion. (Score:2, Informative)
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 ro
third? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:third? (Score:2)
Either that, or an automated sentry system detected a warhead launch and took action, and the military can't/won't turn it off...
Oooooh, I like starting conspiracy theories!
Largo has it.... (Score:2)
$160 million down the drain again (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it was a simple error (Score:2)
Russian ICBMs seem a bit unreliable (Score:2)
Two in one (Score:3, Insightful)
the silver lining... (Score:2, Funny)
Why measure when you can fix? (Score:2)
Okay, what would be the feasibility of making an autonomous unit which floats on the ocean, anchors to the ice pack and covers the water around it w/ solar cells and uses the energy from the solar cells to extract salt from the sea water, chill it and spray it towards the ice pack?
Set it up so that it disengages and re-anchors itself as the ice pack increases in size and it should ``just work''. Add a GPS unit and a radio transmitter and you can keep track of the edge (but not
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:2)
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.
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't rule out Romulan involvement.
Re:Woah. (Score:2)
Which is great if you've got a warhead on top. Not so great if you've got a 90 million dollar satellite that'll take 3 years to build again.
Re:Woah. (Score:2)
Re:Hardware or software? (Score:2)
So, the rocket launched, tried to perform manoevure, saw something unexpected as a result of that attempt and subsequently decides to self-destruct rather than plow off into the great unknown.
Pity it had an uninsured $100 million satellite on board though.
Re:Hardware or software? (Score:5, Informative)
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 a
Re:Why? We care! (Score:2)
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/weath
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
Re:NASA's reaction? (Score:2)
There is a certain amount of black humor about launch failures. Early in the Ariane program, I suggested that ESA could save a lot of money by just dumping the spacecraft in the ocean, cutting out the expensive rocket part. I've never understood why people keep putting irreplaceable spacecraft on the first flights of unproven launch vehicl