Back to the articleHmm #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:16 GMT
How much CO2 does it take to launch this?
NASA's CO2-scan sat set to launch
Why do I get the feeling... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:16 GMT
... that this is probably the last we'll ever hear of this. That or some 'scientists' will claim a malfunction or flawed operation when it shows results that aren't what the politicians want us to know.
Is it my imagination... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:16 GMT
Or does that thing look more like something you'd light the blue touchpaper on November 5th? I could buy something more impressive from Tesco.
Doesn't look like a *real* rocket to me. But, I s'pose if it's looking for CO2, I guess it shouldn't be allowed to generate much itself. (Rocket Science equivalent to 'lighting one's own farts')
Carbon footprint... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:16 GMT
Does it take into account it's own carbon footprint?!
Did they let James Hansen anywhere near it, if so did they make sure to calibrate it properly?
<rimshot>
Now you see it.... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
And what excuse are they going to use if the data shows that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming ?
Or maybe we will never be told anyway...
Climate Stability? #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
NASA hopes that the data collected will "help...leaders make more informed decisions to ensure climate stability and retain our quality of life".
And since when exactly has the climate been stable?
If only those Icelanders hadn't colonised Greenland with their over powered four wheel drives in the 10th Century, Greenland might actually still be fertile and green - nothing whatsoever to do with the Little Ice Age moving them on in the 15th Century.
And just think, if only the Romans hadn't been driving their gas guzzling Ferraris around Britain after they'd invaded, we might still be growing grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland, just like they did.
Global warming, sorry climate change - welcome to the the new religion.
Ignore the science, just believe. Don't bother with the collection plates, we'll just tax you at source.
I can see the headlines now... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Carbon dioxide calculations all wrong .. we actually have a carbon deficit - we need to pump more in to the atmosphere to head off an ice age!!
NOT (might just be in time for april fools me thinks..)
It has launched! - alas, unsuccessfully :-( #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
The rocket blasted-off OK, but the fairing failed to detach correctly, NASA "http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/02/orbitals-taurus-xl-launch-orbiting-carbon-observatory/" says:
"However, the mission was deemed as a failure during or slightly after third stage flight, after it was noted the fairing failed to separate as required."
Big feet #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Erm, what's the carbon footprint of making the thing and persuading it to battle with gravity?
Then there is all the control stuff on the ground etc. etc.
How Long..... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Before NASA fiddle with the data to make it fit their climate models?
Oops #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Launch contingency declared after payload fairing failed to separate.
Let the conspiracy theorists begin....
Oops #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Latest news from the BBC and NASA is that it launched but failed to reach orbit.
However, NASA's climate scientists looking out for more money to fund version 2 already have the results they're looking for: MASSIVE INCREASES IN CO2, DOOM, DARKNESS, DESTRUCTION ... the only hope is to pledge more money for another satellite to prove what is already dogma
... cynical, moi?
and when NASA's figures... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
... don't agree with the doom-mongers' figures, which ones will be fudged?
Oooops #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Another blank from NASA - I'd be single if I had their success rate.
And there it goes. #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Just like a lot of other US launches, it failed horribly:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/main/index.html
Payload fairing failed to separate, orbit not reached.
OCO failed #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
I watched this launch live as I realised that if any mission was going to 'fail' this would be it. 10 mins in: 'launch contingency'. Let the conspiracy theories begin. There will be plenty of plausible ones this time. How about an interested party (gov, comp or group of above) sabotaging a single key component pre-launch. The good old 'dodgy solder' theory. Hope NASA either fix it or get another up there ASAFP!
"Orbiting Carbon Observatory to hug planet" #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Should be: "Orbiting Carbon Observatory to burn-up / smash into planet."
I can't help wondering... #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
If they'll publish the real numbers, or fiddle them again?
Malfunction #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:25 GMT
Houston, we have a problem:
"Nasa's first mission designed to measure carbon dioxide (CO2) from space has suffered a rocket malfunction."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7907570.stm
oops! #
Posted Tuesday 24th February 2009 15:29 GMT
Just blew up before reaching orbit.
Paging Andrew O - we need a carbon conspiracy theory stat.
Popular Whitepapers
- Dell PowerEdge M710 with Dell EqualLogic storage vs. HP ProLiant BL685c with HP StorageWorks EVA 4400
Virtualizaed Exchange workload performance comparison of end-to-end solutions - Hosted CRM Can Be Your Secret Weapon to Success!
Hosted CRM comparison guide - Seven ways to lower storage costs
Using a highly integrated, feature-rich data storage solution - Checklist: Midmarket ERP Solutions
Control your rising business costs - Enterprise PBX buyer's guide
Access to expert research on all aspects of the IP PBX market - Capacity management in virtual infrastructures
Successful VMware deployments
