NationStates Jolt Archive


Failure Hits NASA's CO2 Hunter

Kyronea
24-02-2009, 17:24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7907570.stm

Failure hits Nasa's 'CO2 hunter'

Nasa's first dedicated mission to measure carbon dioxide from space has failed following a rocket malfunction.

Officials said the fairing - the part of the rocket which covers the satellite on top of the launcher - did not separate properly.

Officials said the spacecraft crashed into the ocean near Antarctica.

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was intended to help pinpoint the key locations on our planet's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed.

Nasa officials confirmed the loss of the satellite at a press conference held at 1300 GMT.
“ I am bitterly disappointed about the loss of OCO ”
Dr Paul Palmer, University of Edinburgh

John Brunschwyler, from Orbital Sciences Corporation, the rocket's manufacturer, told journalists: "Our whole team, at a very personal level, is very disappointed in the events of this morning."

He added: "The fairing has considerable weight relative to the portion of the vehicle that's flying. So when it separates off, you get a jump in acceleration. We did not have that jump in acceleration.

"As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not make orbit."

'Mishap' board

The $270m (£190m) mission was launched on a Taurus XL - the smallest ground-launched rocket currently in use by the US space agency.

Since its debut in 1994, this type of rocket has flown eight times, with six successes and two failures including this launch. But this is the first time Nasa has used the Taurus XL.

The US space agency will now put together a "Mishap Investigation Board" to determine the root cause of the problem.

Onlookers watched the launcher soar into the sky from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 0955 GMT on Tuesday.

The first indication of a problem came in an announcement made by the Nasa launch commentator, George Diller.

"This is Taurus launch control. We have declared a launch contingency, meaning that we did not have a successful launch tonight," he said.

Separation of the fairing was one of the last technical hurdles faced by the satellite as it flew into orbit. Orbital said there had been no changes to the design of the fairing since previous launches.

Mr Brunschwyler, programme manager for the Taurus rockets, cast doubt on any suggestion of a link between the failure and a power glitch which occurred to the vehicle just prior to launch.

"That was on a separate system, so I do not believe there was any connection," Mr Brunschwyler told journalists at the Nasa press conference.
“ Our goal will be to find a root cause for the problem. And we won't fly Glory until we have that data known to us ”
Chuck Dovale, Nasa launch director

Dr Paul Palmer, a scientist from the University of Edinburgh, UK, who was collaborating on the mission, told BBC News: "I am bitterly disappointed about the loss of OCO. My thoughts go out to the science team that have dedicated the past seven years to building and testing the instrument."

Professor John Burrows, from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, who is also collaborating on the mission, commented: "The UK and European science community is a major partner in OCO and the loss of this instrument is a serious setback."

Scientists had hoped OCO would improve models of the Earth's climate and help researchers determine where the greenhouse gas is coming from and how much is being absorbed by forests and oceans.

This would have helped scientists make more accurate predictions of future climate change.

Rebuild question

Only about 50% of the carbon emitted from human sources - principally, from fossil fuel combustion - stays there. The remainder is mopped up by the land and oceans, which act as "sinks".

However, scientists are unsure of the precise detail, with perhaps 20% of our CO2 going into a hitherto unrecognised sink.

"All eyes are now on the Japanese Gosat instrument to search for the missing carbon sink," said Dr Palmer.

Gosat was launched in January from Tanegashima in Japan. It is also designed to monitor atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Nasa's Glory satellite, which is designed to measure carbon soot and other aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere, is due to launch on a Taurus XL from California in June.

"Our goal will be to find a root cause for the problem. And we won't fly Glory until we have that data known to us," said Nasa's launch director Chuck Dovale.

Taurus is based on Orbital's air-launched Pegasus rockets which have a long, proud history. The fairing is essentially the same as is used on that rocket. Mr Brunschwyler said: "We have not had any issues with this fairing design in the past."

When the European Space Agency's Cryosat spacecraft was destroyed on launch in 2006, officials decided to re-build it; the launch is scheduled for later in the year. However, the future of the OCO mission remains unclear at this stage.

Responding to a question about spare parts for the US satellite, Michael Freilich, director of Nasa's Earth science division, said: "At this time, we don't have a complete inventory of flight spares, or what we should need, should we make a decision to re-build an OCO."

The only other failure to hit the Taurus rocket occurred in September 2001, when the rocket dropped off its payload of two satellites at a lower altitude than had been intended.



Very frustrating indeed, especially considering what it was intended for.

Interesting thing: although I highly doubt this is actually the case--since, after all, reality is not a science fiction television show--my first thought was that this is sabotage from some corporation interested in doing everything it can to keep more understanding about global warming from being accomplished since understanding more about global warming would hurt its profits. If this was a science fiction novel or something then it WOULD be sabotage.

Since this is reality, it probably was an accident. Still frustrating though.
Hotwife
24-02-2009, 17:27
It's a bonus.

They'll have to build another 1/4 billion dollar piece of crap which will stimulate the economy.

Nice splat, btw.
The Romulan Republic
24-02-2009, 17:29
The last thing we need is another NASA screw up. Just more fuel for the people who think the world would be better off with NASA shut down.:mad:
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 17:32
It's a bonus.

They'll have to build another 1/4 billion dollar piece of crap which will stimulate the economy.

Nice splat, btw.

Do you know how many people work for companies that build parts to satellites like that? Why do you hate jobs? :(
Megaloria
24-02-2009, 17:33
Do you know how many people work for companies that build parts to satellites like that? Why do you hate jobs? :(

We simply need to build more rockets, then. Many more. The economy will be saved through ubiquitous space travel!
Hotwife
24-02-2009, 17:34
We simply need to build more rockets, then. Many more. The economy will be saved through ubiquitous space travel!

Who cares if they reach orbit or not? More jobs!
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 17:34
We simply need to build more rockets, then. Many more. The economy will be saved through ubiquitous space travel!

Then we can load them with Co2 and shoot them into space! We can kill 2 birds with one stone!
Megaloria
24-02-2009, 17:36
Then we can load them with Co2 and shoot them into space! We can kill 2 birds with one stone!

Next phase will have to be establishing a lunar atmosphere.
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 17:36
Who cares if they reach orbit or not? More jobs!

Well, this one landed near Antarctica, but people might object to launch failures if the failed rockets land on the local mall. On the other hand, that'll mean more jobs rebuilding the mall.
Hotwife
24-02-2009, 17:37
Well, this one landed near Antarctica, but people might object to launch failures if the failed rockets land on the local mall. On the other hand, that'll mean more jobs rebuilding the mall.

Think of the news stories - you'll save TV journalist jobs with the disasters!
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 17:38
Next phase will have to be establishing a lunar atmosphere.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of a magnetic field, solar winds would strip away any atmosphere we try to place on the moon. So we'll have to magnetize it. *nod*
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 17:39
Think of the news stories - you'll save TV journalist jobs with the disasters!

Maybe that creepy villain from "The Fifth Element' was right after all! :eek:
Megaloria
24-02-2009, 17:40
Unfortunately, due to the lack of a magnetic field, solar winds would strip away any atmosphere we try to place on the moon. So we'll have to magnetize it. *nod*

More jobs! A mining operation to dump five thousand metric tonnes of magnets at the moon's core! And we can save the film industry some jobs too, by letting them dramatize it.
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 17:52
More jobs! A mining operation to dump five thousand metric tonnes of magnets at the moon's core! And we can save the film industry some jobs too, by letting them dramatize it.

We're full of good ideas here. Maybe Barack Obama ought to come to NSG and take notes. ;)
Kyronea
24-02-2009, 17:57
We're full of good ideas here. Maybe Barack Obama ought to come to NSG and take notes. ;)

He'd come for the notes but he'd get bogged down in debating with everyone all the time. Something tells me he's the type who would enjoy the debate, and he has little time as it is for all the stuff he needs to do.
Myrmidonisia
24-02-2009, 19:31
Do you know how many people work for companies that build parts to satellites like that? Why do you hate jobs? :(
Y'all aren't really serious about this, are you? I mean, I enjoy paying to have rockets launched as much as the next guy, but I'd rather pay for something that would produce a little wealth along the way. As Bastiat pointed out, fixing broken windows, doesn't do it.
Lunatic Goofballs
24-02-2009, 20:06
Y'all aren't really serious about this, are you? I mean, I enjoy paying to have rockets launched as much as the next guy, but I'd rather pay for something that would produce a little wealth along the way. As Bastiat pointed out, fixing broken windows, doesn't do it.

What would possibly lead you to believe I wasn't serious?

:p
Vault 10
24-02-2009, 20:17
The last thing we need is another NASA screw up. Just more fuel for the people who think the world would be better off with NASA shut down.:mad:
Better or worse, but it would be flat without the NASA conspiracy.
Yootopia
24-02-2009, 20:32
Lies! It'll just have found something THEY don't want us to know about. Fact.
Hotwife
24-02-2009, 20:35
Lies! It'll just have found something THEY don't want us to know about. Fact.

It didn't crash. It's got Biden on board to negotiate with the Martians.
Trostia
24-02-2009, 20:39
Ah, the always predictable 'NASA costs too much/doesn't make enough money' whinge. Yes, let's ignore the developments in technology and communications and science! WHERES TEH CASH NASA?

Meanwhile, the same people who are whining about NASA's pitiful budget gladly throw away trillions of dollars on the Iraq war.

Yeah, way to take the financial-common-sense-high-ground there! It's like a gambling addict 25 million in debt lecturing me for buying a pack of chewing gum. Very compelling.
Yootopia
24-02-2009, 20:40
It didn't crash. It's got Biden on board to negotiate with the Martians.
There is no Biden.
The South Islands
24-02-2009, 21:29
Interestingly enough, the rocket they used was a new one from a small startup. It only had 1 successful launch using it's present launch config before this flight.

A nonsucky space shuttle would have been helpful here. Alas, we don't have one.
Risottia
25-02-2009, 00:39
The last thing we need is another NASA screw up. Just more fuel for the people who think the world would be better off with NASA shut down.:mad:

The US government should made up its mind about NASA.
Either NASA gets funded properly, like it was in the '50s and the '60s, or it's better to shut it down (or to reduce its scope by a huge deal: maybe just designing satellites, and giving them to other countries to launch).

It's sad to see the space agency who placed people on the Moon fail fairly simple tasks like inserting a satellite into orbit. Sigh.

On the other hand, this means that Kourou gets more job.
Vespertilia
25-02-2009, 01:15
Very frustrating indeed, especially considering what it was intended for.

Interesting thing: although I highly doubt this is actually the case--since, after all, reality is not a science fiction television show--my first thought was that this is sabotage from some corporation interested in doing everything it can to keep more understanding about global warming from being accomplished since understanding more about global warming would hurt its profits. If this was a science fiction novel or something then it WOULD be sabotage.

Since this is reality, it probably was an accident. Still frustrating though.

Fun fact: my first thought was that NASA sabotaged their own rocket in fear of discovering something disproving human-caused global warming theory. Like you, I consider this an accident, but if it was (provided right-wing enough) science-fiction, then it would be sabotage. :wink:
Soyut
25-02-2009, 01:25
Unfortunately, due to the lack of a magnetic field, solar winds would strip away any atmosphere we try to place on the moon. So we'll have to magnetize it. *nod*

Thats why we need to shoot hundreds of hydrogen bombs into the core of the moon! Molten core=magnetic feild
Rotovia-
25-02-2009, 01:30
This is why I'm behind privatising NASA
New Ziedrich
25-02-2009, 01:36
Either NASA gets funded properly, like it was in the '50s and the '60s, or it's better to shut it down.

Except shutting it down would be terrible. If NASA goes, a whole host of jobs go with it, not to mention the knowledge and experience; a loss which will be monumentally difficult to recover from.
The South Islands
25-02-2009, 02:29
This is why I'm behind privatising NASA

Except, ya know, the rocket was built by a private company.
Grave_n_idle
25-02-2009, 02:39
Since this is reality, it probably was an accident. Still frustrating though.

It was no accident. The best way to spy on those belligerent South American states, and on China, is to 'accidentally' crash a rocket which would have NO good reason to be containing spying equipment, somewhere in their back yard.

There's nothing to see here. Just a crashed rocket. Move along, pleaase.
Kyronea
25-02-2009, 03:20
It was no accident. The best way to spy on those belligerent South American states, and on China, is to 'accidentally' crash a rocket which would have NO good reason to be containing spying equipment, somewhere in their back yard.

There's nothing to see here. Just a crashed rocket. Move along, pleaase.

It crashed near Antarctica.
The South Islands
25-02-2009, 03:21
It crashed near Antarctica.

Thats the point. The South Americans would never expect a polar orbiting carbonsat!
Dododecapod
25-02-2009, 03:50
Interestingly enough, the rocket they used was a new one from a small startup. It only had 1 successful launch using it's present launch config before this flight.

A nonsucky space shuttle would have been helpful here. Alas, we don't have one.

You gotta be kidding me. The Shuttle's given us stirling service for something like TWICE it's designed lifetime! Yes, there have been failures and mistakes, and yes, it is now time for a replacement. But don't dis one of the greatest successes in the entire history of manned spaceflight!
The South Islands
25-02-2009, 03:59
You gotta be kidding me. The Shuttle's given us stirling service for something like TWICE it's designed lifetime! Yes, there have been failures and mistakes, and yes, it is now time for a replacement. But don't dis one of the greatest successes in the entire history of manned spaceflight!

It's a fine vehicle on its own. But it failed to bring cheap space access to the US government and commercial interests, mostly because of its absurdly massive upkeep costs. Don't get me wrong, it has done a lot of good work. But there is nothing the Shuttle can do that cannot be accomplished by expendable boosters and capsule craft.
Call to power
25-02-2009, 06:35
it clearly hit the big wall at the edge of the Universe what with the Earth being flat.

either that or somebody fed gizmo again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZp00ZAmseU)

The last thing we need is another NASA screw up. Just more fuel for the people who think the world would be better off with NASA shut down.:mad:

your one of those types that buy spaceman food aren't you?

Ah, the always predictable 'NASA costs too much/doesn't make enough money' whinge. Yes, let's ignore the developments in technology and communications and science! WHERES TEH CASH NASA?

that money could of gone to R+D in another field with much the same effect

Meanwhile, the same people who are whining about NASA's pitiful budget gladly throw away trillions of dollars on the Iraq war.

well think of all the cool stuff military development has given us like...putting men in space :p

also what war?

Either NASA gets funded properly, like it was in the '50s and the '60s, or it's better to shut it down (or to reduce its scope by a huge deal: maybe just designing satellites, and giving them to other countries to launch).

nah how about we have NASA continue on its commercial interest focused route it has instead of dicking about showing up communists

though I wouldn't mind ESA sending a man to mars just to troll the US :wink:
Risottia
25-02-2009, 18:57
Except shutting it down would be terrible. If NASA goes, a whole host of jobs go with it, not to mention the knowledge and experience; a loss which will be monumentally difficult to recover from.

Yep. I agree, and I would like to see a properly funded NASA collaborating with all other space agencies in cool tasks, like, dunno, enlarging the ISS or placing a permanent base on the Moon.

But some US legislators don't agree, and would just cut. Morons, if you ask me.
Risottia
25-02-2009, 19:05
You gotta be kidding me. The Shuttle's given us stirling service for something like TWICE it's designed lifetime! Yes, there have been failures and mistakes, and yes, it is now time for a replacement. But don't dis one of the greatest successes in the entire history of manned spaceflight!

Yes and no.

The space shuttle was innovative back in the early '80s. Now it's time to have something better and safer.
The record number of 14 dead astronauts in shuttle disasters isn't exactly a proof in favour of the system's reliability and safety. Think of the Soyuz - only 1 casualty iirc.
The Romulan Republic
25-02-2009, 21:41
your one of those types that buy spaceman food aren't you?

You're one of those types who belittles anyone who thinks the entire rest of the universe just might matter more than this one planet, aren't you?

Seriously, was that supposed to be a joke? Because if not, I'm going to go with ad hominem.

that money could of gone to R+D in another field with much the same effect

Maybe. Which is why I don't like to use the "tech spinnoffs" argument. However, to say that space travel has given us nothing would be false, and I'm sure a lot of what we've done with sattalites, at least, could not have been done any other way. That includes spy sattalites, weather satalites, a lot of telecomunications, etc.

well think of all the cool stuff military development has given us like...putting men in space :p

As much as I regret it, NASA is partly an off-shoot of the military, at least in terms of its origins.

also what war?

What do you mean what war? He said the Iraq war.

Actually, though, I've found the opponents of spending on space tend to be more a part of the liberal crowd, who think the money should go to poverty or the environment. Leaving aside that space travel has no doubt greatly aided environmental research (satalites and so on), and that we can probably better understand our Earth scientifically if we have other examples to compare it to, and if we understand its origins. Nice stab in the back their environmentalists.:mad:

nah how about we have NASA continue on its commercial interest focused route it has instead of dicking about showing up communists

I'm all for making money in space, and building up infrastructure that is of commercial (and global security) value. Indeed we could be doing a lot more in commercial areas, including tourism and resource extraction (thus helping to save us from the eventual unpleasentry of being stuck with a single finite planet and finite resources). However, pure science has a place as well.

though I wouldn't mind ESA sending a man to mars just to troll the US :wink:

The US deserves to be trolled for letting its space program atrophy.
The Romulan Republic
25-02-2009, 21:45
Yes and no.

The space shuttle was innovative back in the early '80s. Now it's time to have something better and safer.
The record number of 14 dead astronauts in shuttle disasters isn't exactly a proof in favour of the system's reliability and safety. Think of the Soyuz - only 1 casualty iirc.

While I fully agree that the shuttle needs to be retired (and will be, leading to a period where the US will be completely dependent on Russia and/or China just to reach the space station), I believe that the Soyuz had at least one incident where a three-man crew died.

Also, has the shuttle had more accidents relative to the number of flights? Its got a larger number of people on board, but its flown a lot of flights with just two fatal accidents. How many flights has the Soyuz done (to be fair, probably more).