The launch of the Glory from Vandenberg has failed. Poop. Initial indications are that the satellite fairing failed to separate. This mean too much remaining mass on board, and the pusher could not push the package into orbit. It may already have fallen into the Pacific Ocean. We don't know yet. This now appears not unlike what happened to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory in 2009 Feb. On a Taurus XL, bad fairing sep, didn't obtain orbital speed, dropped back in. We may know more later but don't bet heavy - what happens 5-10 minutes after a space launch happens in a 'low-data' area. Glory was to have taken a much better look at aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere and made better measurements of solar irradiance - both central to understanding what's going on with the Earth's energy balance. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was to have observed the spatial and temporal distribution of CO2 in the lower atmosphere. Things you might want to know eh? Or not. I do not know. I totally reject any notion that OCO or Glory were sabotaged because they might show something that 'we don't want to know'. Just hardware problems. OC has been provisionally recheduled for 2013 Feb. To early to talk about a new Glory. Both would be contingent upon funding. And yet, I'd like to know how the US could retain it's current lead in Earth system sciences wthout re-flying thse birds. I mean, somebody thought they were a good idea because 'we' bought them. Cost about 500 million each - or maybe 200 I don't really know. But that's a fair bracket. So, what does PriusChat think? Shall we throw a billion (or maybe half that) at flying some replacements? Is this a good use of scarce govt revenues? How much is it worth to better understand soar flux, terrestial energy balance and carbon? This $$ far exceeds the IPCC funding lately distained by the House, so what's the deal? Do we just don't want to know? Is there nothing to know? or would 10 F-35s or F-22s be a better buy? Now, don't let me wander off into costs of (yummy) new military systems. This post/blog/rant is about aspects of Earth sscience that are probably mostly cheaply examined from low-Earth orbit. RIP Glory.
Yes, replace them. We need the data. OCO-2 is planned to launch in 2013:http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ Annoyingly, the same launcher is intended. One should not invoke malice when incompetence suffices, but still... One launcher company, two climate science satellites, two failed shrouds. It would take just one fanatic global warming denier with a sidecutter or a wrench to sabotage a shroud. It could never be proven without recovering the shroud from the bottom of the Pacific.
Is there a possibility that they recover the satelite in tact from the pacific? Do we know what the contingency plans are?
It a choice of eat all the seeds now to relieve famine or save some for future hunger... I think we should let Mr. Sikes pilot the next one. He'll claim unintended acceleration and the satellites will be up orbiting in no time at all. Just prep those running the 911 lines prior to launch.
Clean all the crap off of it, buff out the burn marks then take it back to the manufacture and demand a new one. If that doesn't work, put on a very angry face and demand to speak to the manager. If things still go wrong then come back with the chimps from the and the pilots from (1987). Problem solved...
Keep in mind, because these are one-off projects, much of that cost is NRE (non-recurring expenses), meaning it's basically a one-time fee. Making a duplicate wouldn't cost nearly as much. The hardware schematics and layouts have been done, the software has been written and tested. They may even have usable spares to start building another satellite. But you'd want to do it fairly soon while the team is still assembled. The final product would still need to be tested, same as the original.
Don't overlook the ground station facilities established to process the data. Another factor is that climate questions will only add more pressure to get data. A third factor is that these type of missions and programs are essential to NASA's survival. The US commercial business sidesteps NASA and the US manned efforts are basically wasting money for National Public Relations purposes. (What does one really get by NASA paying for Soyuz vehicles to carry crews to the International Space Station for long stints?) Satellites like this really do something useful....hard to cancel for less productive NASA efforts.
I'm not quite sure how you get that analogy. We already know the co2 makes us hotter, the floating reflective stuff makes us cooler, the floating dark stuff make us hotter. I would like to know for science how much each contributes, but it doesn't make much of a difference on the direction of contribution of each component. I am not sure exactly where in the pacific it crashed or how catastophic and was asking for that type of information. If its recoverable unique parts like sensors may be salvageble and we may gain information on the cause of the malfunction. It would be nice if we learned about design flaws to prevent this from happening again. btw: you should have included the space chimp clip from fight club. That would be more appropriate ;-) +1
Or it could take the entire AGW industrial complex to sabotage any contrary data. Who has the most to lose? Who has already sabotaged the land based temperature readings,by eliminating reporting stations?
NASA says the problem was that the protective shell atop the Taurus XL rocket, called the fairing, did not separate as expected about three minutes after launch. The fairing, which covers and protects the spacecraft during launch and ascent, underwent a redesign of its separation system after a similar failure two years ago. California: Satellite Launching Fails - Google News
Not that I actually believe there would be any sabotage. Just a rebuttal to the comment that it would be done by skeptics.
It's a real shame, but i thought most launches had extremely expensive insurance policies so that if a launch fails there is guaranteed funding for a new launch?
No, because, as you point out the premiums are extremely large (because existing launchers are so unreliable). Governments, and indeed private customers more often than not, self-insure.
Thanks for the link. That is awful news. They have lost 3 of 9 using this type of rocket. Someone is screwing up big time. I think we should look to alternatives for launching. Maybe even share the data with the chinese and have them provide the rocket and insure the launch. This is not military. Its hard for me to believe they did not correct the design flaw. The NASA and its contractors used to be good at this stuff.
I hope we can get these launches in order soon, here is another article about an aging system that we need. Waiting for the big one - Space - IOL | Breaking News | South Africa News | World News | Sport | Business | Entertainment | IOL.co.za Do you think they falsely cleared the electronics? I'm worried about their rocket competence though.
