How much CO2 does it take to launch this?
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) is set to lift off this morning from Vandenberg Air Force Base on its projected two-year mission to monitor atmospheric carbon dioxide. Update: The launch has failed - more here. NASA's OCO on the launchpad. Pic: NASA The OCO will be raised aloft atop a solid-fuelled Orbital Sciences …
How much CO2 does it take to launch this?
... 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.
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')
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?
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...
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.
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..)
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."
The payload shroud didn't jettison.
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.
Before NASA fiddle with the data to make it fit their climate models?
Launch contingency declared after payload fairing failed to separate.
Let the conspiracy theorists begin....
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?
... don't agree with the doom-mongers' figures, which ones will be fudged?
Another blank from NASA - I'd be single if I had their success rate.
Just like a lot of other US launches, it failed horribly:
Payload fairing failed to separate, orbit not reached.
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!
Should be: "Orbiting Carbon Observatory to burn-up / smash into planet."
If they'll publish the real numbers, or fiddle them again?
Houston, we have a problem:
"Nasa's first mission designed to measure carbon dioxide (CO2) from space has suffered a rocket malfunction."
Launch was a failure didn't seperate properly
The launch went a bit Pete Tong.
it failed :-) Coincidence? I think not :-)
Just blew up before reaching orbit.
Paging Andrew O - we need a carbon conspiracy theory stat.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017