Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg The Orbiting Carbon Obseratory would have been the first satellite dedicated to monitoring the Earth's CO2. (http://google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXdhsfNkgwVvBi7G7FuHRALSg0GgD96I365G0)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/globalwarming5.jpgAlicia Chang - AP - Feb. 24, 2009

We could have used the data … -- Ed.

Los Angeles - A NASA mission to monitor global warming from space ended Tuesday when a satellite plunged into the ocean near Antarctica minutes after launch. An equipment malfunction was apparently to blame, officials said.

The loss of the $280 million mission came a month after Japan launched the world's first spacecraft to track global warming emissions. The failure dealt a blow to NASA, which had hoped to send up its own satellite to measure carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas behind human-caused global warming.

The crash came just after liftoff from the Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's central coast. A Taurus XL rocket carrying the Orbiting Carbon Observatory blasted off as scheduled shortly before 2 a.m.

Three minutes into the flight, the nose cone protecting the satellite failed to come off as designed, NASA officials said. The extra weight from the cover caused the rocket to dive back to Earth, splashing into the ocean near Antarctica, where a group of environment ministers from more than a dozen countries met Monday to get the latest science on global warming… http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXdhsfNkgwVvBi7G7FuHRALSg0GgD96I365G0

sounds like a great use of the 280million given our current economic status.

sounds like a great use of the 280million given our current economic status.Failed launches are still not uncommon.

Sad news ---- for both a scientific/environmental and economic reasons.
I'd guess that Big Oil shot it down. ;)

Sad news ---- for both a scientific/environmental and economic reasons.
I'd guess that Big Oil shot it down. ;)Sounds like a grassy knoll (http://www.user.shentel.net/karsten/images/grassyknoll.jpg)

On second thought, the title should have been:

An inconvienent crash :D

I'm actually kind of glad it went down. I don't think I could handle anymore bad news.

"I don't think I could handle anymore bad news"

Umn, it was a hybrid rocket ... the X Files are still investigating what went wrong

Add another 280 million to the stimulus package.

This isn't a tragedy, it's a blessing to our economy.

I suspect Fox News found a way to sabotage the satellite.

(I'm only half kidding). ;)

Harry

sounds like a great use of the 280million given our current economic status.

It's actually not bad as most of that 280 million went to pay the salaries of engineers who spent 9 years developing the thing. All of the parts came from plants where people were paid to manufacture the parts. That money funded (I would guess) thousands of jobs.

Also it's important to note that space missions are really tough as there's absolutely no way of testing things before launch, and they're dependent on thousands of parts. Take a reliability of .9999^(a few thousand) and you'll be able to understand why things fail fairly often.

It's actually not bad as most of that 280 million went to pay the salaries of engineers who spent 9 years developing the thing. .....

So building a second one just like it should probably cost considerably less?

So building a second one just like it should probably cost considerably less?

The price tag should include the launch vehicle, which in the old days could be much more expensive than the satellite itself. I don't know any price splits these days.

A second satellite will be cheaper than the first. But other than any special adapters for this mission, another launch vehicle won't be any cheaper.