Another Climate Satellite Launch Failure - Had Been Designed To Measure Aerosol Effects On Climate

[hatrack]

An Earth observation satellite launched by Nasa on Friday morning has failed mid-flight because the nose cone of the rocket carrying it did not detach properly. The loss of the satellite is the second failure in a row for the Taurus XL rocket, which has been plagued by technical glitches for some time.

The rocket blasted off from Vandenberg airforce base in California at 2.09am local time (10.09 GMT) but was declared a failure by Nasa's launch director, Omar Baez, five minutes later.

The rocket was carrying the Glory observation satellite, which was designed to help scientists understand how the sun and particles of matter in the atmosphere called aerosols affect the Earth's climate. Also aboard were three smaller satellites called CubeSats designed and built by university and college students.

The rocket is thought to have come down in the ocean. The US space agency and the rocket's manufacturer, Orbital Sciences, had spent the past two years fixing problems with onboard systems designed to blast the nose cone free of the rocket before it reaches orbit.

EDIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/04/taurus-rocket-glory-satellite-earth

[phantom power]

1. You know, it wouldn't surprise me even a little it this was sabotage.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me any if it wasn't, either.

[joshcryer]

4. I'm not thinking concerted effort to sabotage, but I have a feeling...

...it's definitely a lax in effort to actually 'care'.

This ain't happening with a military satellite for instance.

[guardian]

9. You are simply speaking from ignorance.

Launching satellites is a high risk proposition. Ask Lloyd's of London why they charge so much to insure satellite launches. Military and commercial and research satellites and space platforms often fail.

[txlibdem]

10. lax practices and incompetent management

I gave up on NASA doing anything worthwhile about a decade ago when the rash of incompetence started. They just seem to be a jobs program now. I hate to think that because in my youth I was a rabid NASA fan...

[pintobean]

2. This is the 2nd time in two years

they've shot our money into the ocean in an attempt to study "settled science". I wonder what these programs carbon footprints are.

[joshcryer]

3. You can thank the engineers on these launches for that.

I doubt it's a coincidence, not that I think the engineers are purposefully failing their job, more that they're doing so unconsciously, not caring that it's a publicly funded climate satellite.

[Kolesar]

5. That's a bit much...eom

[joshcryer]

11. With two failures? No.

[txlibdem]

13. Thinking "inside the box" only

NASA hasn't had an idea in the last 30 years. They need someone else to direct them and give them their marching orders. Otherwise they are just a jobs program, just like digging a ditch here to fill one in over there... then reverse it.

[madokie]

6. Could it be that some one in a board room somewhere

doesn't want that kind of a study done. Some one who has connections. Seems to me that any number of industries would be happy to not see this type of study performed.

In other words I'd say this launch went as planned!

[OnlinePoker]

7. Here's who got money from the Orbital Sciences PAC for the last election

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00195263

[XemaSab]

12. Gabby Giffords

:(

[txlibdem]

8. Poor NASA -- proving once again that they can't shoot straight

The problem is they are stuck in the 1960s mindset of big rockets and can't get their heads into the 21st century.

Let's talk about magnetically levitating launch systems, NASA!