Satellite to Study Global-Warming Gases Lost in Space
By Alex Morales, Bloomberg News
Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) — A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global-warming gases.
“The mission is lost,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Steve Cole said in a telephone interview from the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The NASA satellite was to orbit 438 miles (705 kilometers) above Earth and observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere, helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. Instead, the satellite fell in the ocean near Antarctica though the mission manager said at no point did the craft pass over land.
“It’s a huge disappointment for the entire team who have worked very hard for years and years and years,” NASA Launch Director Chuck Dovale said in a briefing from California. “Even when you do your very best, you can still fail.”
Today’s malfunction follows a Feb. 11 collision of U.S. and Russian satellites almost 500 miles above the planet, the first crash of its type, which created a space debris field of more than 300 pieces that could damage other satellites.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite didn’t reach orbit after a 1:55 a.m. launch because the “payload fairing” failed to separate, NASA said. The fairing covers the top of the satellite during launch and needs to come off so the satellite can detach from the rocket and enter orbit.
“It’s disappointing because it was giving us novel information to help us move our understanding forward on global warming,” Alan O’Neill, science director of the Reading, U.K.- based Centre for Earth Observation, said in an interview.
Orbital Sciences
Both the satellite and launch rocket were built by Dulles, Virginia-based Orbital Sciences Corp. John Brunschwyler, Orbital Sciences’s mission manager, said “over the past 10 years, we’ve flown a nearly perfect record — 56 out of 57 vehicles and we’ve not had any problems with this particular fairing design.”
NASA’s investment was $273 million for the design, development and launch operations. Insurance details on the mission may be given later today, NASA said.
The craft contained a monitoring device designed to collect 8 million measurements every 16 days. Scientists hoped to use the data to find out how much CO2 is absorbed by the forests, grasslands and oceans, which are collectively known as “sinks.”
Man-made CO2, which traps heat in the atmosphere, is largely produced by power plants, vehicle engines and factories.
The data gleaned from the satellite was intended to help guide government global-warming policy, NASA said.
Understanding ‘Carbon Sinks’
“An improved understanding of carbon sinks is essential to predicting future carbon-dioxide increases and making accurate predictions of carbon dioxide’s impact on Earth’s climate,” NASA said on the mission Web site. “If these natural carbon-dioxide sinks become less efficient as the climate changes, the rate of buildup of carbon dioxide would increase.”
On Jan. 23, Japan launched what it said was the world’s first satellite, Gosat, to measure greenhouse gases from 56,000 points around the globe over five years.
Today’s satellite was expected to have a minimum three-year life. Similar spacecraft have lasted five to 10 years, David Steitz, a NASA spokesman, said yesterday.
While launch and separation of the rocket’s first stage went as planned, a clamshell-shaped “fairing” covering the satellite failed to open, meaning it was too heavy to reach orbit, Brunschwyler said on NASA’s online television station.
“As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not reach orbit,” Brunschwyler said. Indications are the satellite “landed just short of Antarctica, in the ocean.”
Earlier this month, the collision of Russian and U.S. satellites destroyed an Iridium Satellite LLC communications craft and a defunct Russian Cosmos 2251, NASA said.
At least 18,000 satellites, debris and other space objects orbiting the Earth are tracked by the U.S. Joint Space Operations center. The Soviet Union put the first satellite, Sputnik 1, into space in 1957.
h/t to Gary and Steve
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It was sent up to ‘study’ CO2 forcing.
“helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.”
The data was to be used specifically for that purpose.
Predetermined outcome is to predict feedback mechanisms of an overheating Earth giving off more CO2.
The assumption is that the Earth is warming, not cooling, and that more & more CO2 will be released by the oceans, etc. in an acclererating feedback loop.
How is that science if the question of warming/cooling is not settled?
I think the purpose was to study carbon sinks and their respective capacities, which would help us correlate future carbon emissions to future atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
First, why do we need such a satellite? Isn’t the science settled? The debate over?
Second, anybody else see the irony of a global warming satellite crashing near the antarctic … where ice levels are at a 30 year high?
Where did you get that figure from? Doesn’t seem to an accurate statement-
http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2007.gif
Mary Hinge, it is an accurate statement about sea ice extent (measured as an anomaly). Your graph shows standardized anomalies, which are a measure of how extreme values are relative to the rest of the data. In this case, they show the recent record Antarctic sea ice isn’t extreme or statistically unusual.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/talite0702.pdf
I assume this graph is doing the rounds among the AGW believers as ‘proof’ sea ice hasn’t recently reached a record.
Sigh! An all to frequent example of of warming believers not understanding the science.
Why was data stopping in 2007 provided?
Doing so seems a bit disingenous when more current data is available.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22ANTARCTIC.jpg
Thnaks Lee for the updated graph.The record ice extent was last year, not now as implied. This year there is 1,000,000 square KM less ice than last year.
We need a satellite that measures the Earth’s albedo to complement those that measure the energy input from the sun. We would know the energy balance and where we are going, without the need for models. Models could then be used to explain the results instead of predicting them.
Hansen again!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/supreme-master-presents-james-hansen.html
JLawson:
Government satellites, both military and civilian, are never insured. Oh, the government “insures” it, but ultimately any losses are passed on to the taxpayers.
tallbloke:
Cosmos 2251 was a dead Russian communications satellite, and Iridium 33 was an active communications satellite for global cell phone service.
This should have been named the Carbon Tax Satellite.
Here is the mission description:
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/
Translation:
Find out who is producing CO2, and tax them!
Cap-and Trade, Tax, and no way to check for
“Sensor Drift!”
I’m sorry; I just don’t trust them anymore.
That does it!
I’m having another thick juicy steak this week, and with a bottle of semi-dry Australian red wine transported all the way from Australia.
Hitler was a vegetarian…
And a teetotaler…
He was also a ~snip~ who loved big cars and made up excuses to invade other nations! What’s your point?
He was a junkie, mainly amphetamine, then called “blitz”.
Blitzkrieg; get it?
Is there a system of vegetarian credits (as per carbon credits) available yet? Can I pay a poor person in the third world to be vegetarian for me?
You can pay me to be a vegetarian if you like. Will it matter that I’ve been one for over 30 years?
“The rocket’s stated mission was thus in the service of AGW pseudoscience and not science. It would have been one step forward for AGW, and one giant step backward for science, and for all mankind. Good riddance, I say.” Excellent stuff!
They should give this kind of money to real scientist to study real problems. None of this phoney science, less of this PC ‘global warming’ hoax.
Lefties are always spending money on fake issues.
Maybe other satelites ought to be put out of their misery. Here the latest sea temp map shows an ice free James Bay and Canadian Arctic!
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo&hot.html
In February?!?!
Very good! I also noticed that. But unless you knew what to look for you would think by all the detail in it that it was quite accurate. Of course it is not. It has only a computer generated illusion of accuracy.
A disaster. The satellite probably would have brought the “truth” regarding CO2.
I have a hard time believing that we can impact atmospheric CO2 concentration meaningfully by changing our energy habits (since the human contribution is so small compared to the natural one). However, whatever the “truth” is — the “truth” is what I wanted to know.
I see a lot of this misunderstanding on this blog. The comparison of natural vs. man-made carbon emissions is irrelevant. So many “skeptical” arguments focus on totals, rather than changes.
Before the industrial revolution, the planet’s carbon cycle was largely in balance. Then, as man began to emit carbon dioxide, an excess began to build because the carbon sinks could not keep up. Now, we are in a situation in which the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 35%. This increase is due to the addition of human emissions, not an increase in natural emissions.
Nope. A good portion of the CO2 increase is from natural emissions — caused by warming — which is caused by natural cycles in the ocean and in the sun.
I see, the CO2 increase couldn’t be due to the ocean warming up and not absorbing as much CO2 ( Henry’s law). Is an increase from .0285% to .0384% of the atmospheric volume really a 35% increase?
Oh? How much, exactly, is “a good portion”?
Reasic,
Do you have any references for this? How do you know what the increase is due to?
JimB
Seems to me the burden of proof is yours, Reasic. You’ve made an unsupported claim that atmospheric CO2 buildup is the result of human activity. Apparently you are not aware of the difference between your desire to believe this, and any sort of evidence. We deal with science here, not belief systems.
Personally, I’d like to see how you explain CO2 sinks (which include plants and oceanic algae) that never increase their capacity. If you have an ideal location with food and water and no predators, a rabbit population will grow until they start dying of starvation. It’s no different with algae and plants. That’s part of what LIFE is…
The fact that LIFE is involved in atmospheric gas regulation ensures that sinks are effectively infinite, if required.
Reasic (12:47:50) :
I see a lot of this misunderstanding on this blog. The comparison of natural vs. man-made carbon emissions is irrelevant. So many “skeptical” arguments focus on totals, rather than changes.
Before the industrial revolution, the planet’s carbon cycle was largely in balance. Then, as man began to emit carbon dioxide, an excess began to build because the carbon sinks could not keep up. Now, we are in a situation in which the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 35%. This increase is due to the addition of human emissions, not an increase in natural emissions.
What you state is BS (Bad Science).
There is NO such thing as a CO2 Balance.
There is a minimum where plant life suffers starvation > 200 ppm (and we have been close to this level).
As CO2 levels increased so did the total amount of biosphere and this will continue. More CO2 simply means a more abundant plantlife, better crops, healthier plants.
Having an abundance of CO2 available is a life insurance.
Maybe you should read up on the longer term CO2 levels and the correlation to temperature as I don’t see the “balance” that you speak of:
“http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264”
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
“http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif”width=660>
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Reasic is correct, the evidence is overwhelming that virtually all of the recent co2 rise is due to human activities.
Warming oceans do emit more co2, but the oceans role in the 20th century has been to absorb more co2 than it emits, so it has actually limited the amount of rise due to human emissions rather than complement it.
chad, it’s nice you too have this belief.
But it’s exactly that: a belief.
I can see it now:
“The failure of the fairing separation is believed to be caused by unanticipated high temperatures in the upper layers of the atmosphere. The high temperatures caused expansion of the material around the gasket, preventing it from fully deatching. The satellite has become a casualty of global warming.”
I have an informal $5 bet with a coworker that someone in NASA is going to blame this on AGW
Funny…and btw, I’ve never been a conspiracy theorist, but I have a $5 bet (unprovable) that there was a fingernail punture in that fairing.
JimB
“NASA said on the mission Web site.
“If these natural carbon-dioxide sinks become less efficient as the climate changes, the rate of buildup of carbon dioxide would increase.””
Nice spin, eh? Would it not be just as accurate to say
“If these natural carbon-dioxide sinks become MORE efficient as the climate changes, the rate of buildup of carbon dioxide would DEcrease.”?
No, that would not be as accurate. The trend so far has been that as the sinks absorb more carbon dioxide, they have become less efficient. There is a limit to their capacity, as witnessed by their inability to trap all of the extra carbon dioxide that has been emitted by humans, thereby resulting in a 35% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
Virtual science, designed by consumption-detesting enviornmentally-conscious marketing types with Wharton MBAs.
The cynic in me thinks the Global Warming leaders did not want this bird up there to disprove their hoax. Push the RED button…
Maybe while the satellite’s swimming around down there it can figure out why the Southern Ocean temperature has been dropping like a rock for over ten years.
The satellite is measuring the deep ocean CO2 concentration.
Yes, and the data has been very, very thoroughly homogenized.
Uhmmm is this our first satellite launch, I thought we had this one pretty much figured out. I mean really how many times have you heard “if we can put a man on the moon” in regards to Global Warming.
How much confidence do you have now?
Just a thought…
Sorry, we can’t put a man on the moon. We used to be able to, but that was nearly 40 years ago.
Besides, the early rocket launches blew up, we’re doing better in that regard, but satellite launches don’t become routine until we start launching multiple copies of the same satellite, e.g. Iridium or GPS.
Dateline 2-24-2009
James Hansen, Nobel Peace Prize recipient announces that the cause of the failed orbital insertion of the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory was due to Global Warming. The elevated temperatures experienced by the launch vehicle caused the faring to bind, directly causing this incident. “It is as if the atmospheric carbon dioxide knew that this would detrimental to it’s continued existence and caused the malfunction to protect itself.” quote Hansen.
In all seriousness I was hoping for the data to flow from this instrument. It is too bad that it was not successful.
I have the missing carbon sinks growing all over my 5 acres here in So. CA. It’s called chaparral brush, and it’s near impossible to kill it by slashing or with droughts, floods, cold or fire. This stuff grows year-round, summer and winter. You can almost see it sucking up the CO2, don’t need a satellite to figure this one out.
And it can suck up way more C02 than our current atmosphere has. Has anyone calculated how much C02 forests could breathe in if given the opportunity? Travel north from Winnipeg, Manitoba, using google earth and see how much forest there is on your way to Hudson’s bay. Split that distance in half and then travel east to west across Canada (her midsection) to get an idea of the amount of forest there is in Canada alone. The amount of lakes in northern Manitoba is also quite amazing, as well.
I have to buy CO2 to help the plants in my aquarium grow. I raise to CO2 level in my aquarium to 30ppm to keep the algae at bay. I go through a 10lb bottle every 6 months. The plants really like the extra CO2 and grow like mad. The reduction of the PH caused by the CO2 injection doesn’t effect the snails or shrimp either I have a healthy colony of both living in the tank.
People nowadays take everything for granted.
The space industry is a risky business.
The insurance company will pay for the loss.
They will find out what caused the failure and make another try.
That’s it.
I am looking forward to the next launch.
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but isn’t seem a little more than just coincidence that when the globe is starting to cool, 2 of the satellites that might confirm that Global Warming is over suddenly aren’t working????
No.
The satellite that discovered that Mars is warming also failed.
How convenient.
Probably some smart Aleck at NASA tried program it to hit the Wilkins Ice Shelf.
Re:Hitler’s Vegitarianisum : I remember a fight over the FDR memorial in Flagstaff Az. See, it showed FDR with his signature cigarette
holder.That was too much for the environmentally correct crowd.So, a local offered this A comteporary of FDR was A. a non smoker,B.Loved Animals and Children(ok, blonde blue eyed ones) and was really, really concerned about population control….
“If these natural carbon-dioxide sinks become less efficient as the climate changes, the rate of buildup of carbon dioxide would increase.”
No amount of hardware can cure stupidity.
What abut the Japanese IBUKI satellite launched in January to observe greenhouse gasses? Does anyone know of any news of findings yet?
Yes, lots of data but I don’t understand Japanese.
NASA global warming satellite crashes after launch – good metaphor.
Sorry but totally OT
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/poles+apart/2986367
“That is not to deny global warming, but even non-sceptical environmentalists are warning of the dangers of “climate alarmism”, and of confusing what is happening in the Arctic and the Antarctic.”
Thought it might be of interest
Had to drop in the Steig paper at the end though.
Just to get warming in of course.
DaveE.