BREAKING: NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite crashes during launch!

[ddeclue]

DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!

This satellite was intended to monitor global warming and CO2 emissions from orbit.

:rant:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/24/nasa.launch/index.html?eref=rss_us

CNN) -- A NASA satellite crashed back to Earth about three minutes after launch early Tuesday, officials said.
NASA launches a rocket from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base on Tuesday.

NASA launches a rocket from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base on Tuesday.

"We could not make orbit," NASA program manager John Brunschwyler said. "Initial indications are the vehicle did not have enough to reach orbit and landed just short of Antarctica in the ocean."

"Certainly for the science community, it's a huge disappointment."

The satellite, which would have monitored greenhouse gases to study how they affect the Earth's climate, was launched on a Taurus XL rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 1:55 a.m. PT (4:55 a.m. ET).

But the payload fairing -- a clamshell-shaped structure that allows the satellite to travel through space -- failed to separate from the rocket, NASA officials said. Video See video of launch »

The weight of the fairing caused the rocket and the satellite to come crashing down to Earth about three minutes later.

.....

[Captain Hilts]

1. Well SHIT!

Time to change my avatar back to NASA.

[high density]

2. Eight years and who knows how many dollars down the drain, not to mention the loss to science

Why does NASA sometimes amaze me with their redundancy and other times lack it so alarmingly? I really can't figure that group out.

[ddeclue]

3. I don't quite know what "redundancy" would mean in the context of this launch

unless it meant excess launch capacity to launch a larger heavier satellite into orbit.

The problem was an aerodynamic shroud that failed to separate after the launch vehicle cleared the majority of the atmosphere where it was necessary.

I suppose they could have committed a heavier launch vehicle to this launch - it might have had a similar problem with a heavier shroud however.

Doug D.
Aerospace Engineer

[Phoonzang]

4. So this rocket has been launched 8 times and failed during 2 of those launches.

I don't know what the success/failure rate is for rockets of a similar class, but I would be nervous about having my hundred million dollar baby riding on it.

[Soylent Brice]

5. sabotage?

:tinfoilhat:

just sayin...

[Uncle Joe]

7. I'm sad to say it but I wouldn't be surprised, there are many powerful

interests with a lot at stake riding on denying or fuzzing up the issue of global warming climate change.

Eliminating a potential source of much critical information that could sway public opinion even more and work to shut down their denial argument would at the very least be a consideration among the more unscrupulous members of the Earth is flat community.

I can't say one way or the other for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Soylent Brice]

10. just glad to see i'm not the only one.

everything is right there.

motive, means. i don't put anything past these assholes anymore.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Dozens of satellite launches fail each year. Probably not. nt

[MADem]

6. Well, doesn't that remind us of the early days of the space race.

Who will be fired for failing to check some part, I wonder?

[BuyingThyme]

8. Hmm... I guess N. Korea shot it down.

[JVS]

11. I hope they had insurance

[dascientist]

12. C O N SPIRACY