NASA reports that Glory, a satellite to monitor aerosols failed to reach orbit, apparently from a fairing that didn’t release. See update below on the massive budget overruns for this failed project.
NASA’s announcement:
NASA’s Glory spacecraft launched aboard a Taurus XL rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California Friday at 5:09:45 a.m. EST failed to reach orbit.
Telemetry indicated the fairing, the protective shell atop the Taurus XL rocket, did not separate as expected about three minutes after launch.
A press briefing to discuss the Glory launch failure is planned at Vandenberg for approximately 8:00 a.m. EST. NASA TV will carry the press conference live.
The new Earth-observing satellite was intended to improve our understanding of how the sun and tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols affect Earth’s climate.
Project management for Glory is the responsibility of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The launch management for the mission is the responsibility of NASA’s Launch Services Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., is the launch service provider to Kennedy of the four-stage Taurus XL rocket and is also builder of the Glory satellite for Goddard.
h/t: Sera
=======================================================
Thanks to Ric Werme for posting this story. See previous issues with this launch here
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory, another climate satellite, met a similar fate in February 2009 Bad week for hardware: Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite burns up
Do you think Murphy might be trying to tell NASA something. Like maybe “get back to basics”? – Anthony
UPDATE: Frank K in comments psted this:
<a href=”http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-03-25-nasaprojects_N.htm” rel=”nofollow”>Major NASA projects over budget</a>
WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of NASA’s major new programs are significantly over budget or behind schedule, according to the agency’s latest report to Congress.
.
.
.
<b>
Hard choices also will have to be made to make up for the skyrocketing cost of the Glory satellite, which is 31% over budget. Under the 2005 law, NASA can’t spend any money on the project after the summer of 2009 without congressional approval — a requirement that could be moot if NASA launches Glory as planned in April 2009.
To make up for the extra $274 million that Glory and the other three programs will cost, NASA could reduce pre-flight testing, strip planned scientific sensors from over-budget spacecraft and scale back operations of older space missions, Maizel says.
The overruns “all the more put a crimp in NASA’s budget,” which is too small for the agency “to do everything it’s trying to do,” says Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
</b>
Chris R writes:
“As to R. Gates’ solution that “commercial launch companies be used”, just what the heck do you think Orbital Sciences is, sir?”
But did they not get the project without bids, without competition? And are they not a practical monopoly at this time?
Splish-Splash, Were all taking a bath. GK
NASA doesn’t do space anymore. Adjusting surface temp data from an office in Manhatten, yes. Launching rockets into orbit, no.
Was this crash consistent with the model?
NASA fails to do the hard things again.
VERY bad news! We need more real data!
Well I fully remember how Project Vanguard, got Sputnicked, and became Project Rearguard instead. That was back around 1957 as I recall.
Do they still use explosive bolts to disconnect things; or was the protective fairing held on with Velcro.
I’m not sure I understand why they want to study aerosols in any case. How about studying clouds instead.
Well that’s a hell of a lot of money down the drain; far too much in my view; but then today we talk in trillions don’t we.
I believe the first Prototype Spitfire K5054, cost 50,000 pounds. Sometimes you get a good deal, and some times you get screwed.
I remember a time, not too long ago, when NASA was good at space exploration. Once upon a time, men walked on the moon. Once upon a time, NASA was able to take recover a serious malfunction on a spaceship and get 3 astronauts home with nothing but gumption and jury-rigs. Once upon a time, NASA invented many things in the space program that found its way into everyday life. Once upon a time, NASA set out to replace single-use rockets with a multi-use space exploration vehicle, and succeeded with flying colors. Though there were some unfortunate mishaps, the multi-use space vehicle was a marvel of engineering.
Today, NASA fails to put a satellite in orbit, something they have been doing for decades. Today, there is no space shuttle anymore due to budget cuts. Today, NASA is more focused on an agenda than on inspiring people to greater things. Today, NASA is a shell of its former self. Instead of being an inspiration, it is now a symbol of what happens when bad scientists are given blank checks, a symbol of absolute corruption.
I remember seeing a space shuttle launch live at Cape Canaveral. Every time I saw a space shuttle go up, it almost brought tears to my eyes because it brought me hope. Sure the earth is my home, but I want to experience the dream of outer space one day. Now I am sad because bureaucracy and ideology is destroying the world. I am sad because NASA was once an model of inspiration, but now it is a model of corruption.
Scarlet Pumpernickel, what makes you think the current incarnation of NASA would have any better luck with a Europa mission?
Why do they keep up with going with the cheap brands I wonder.
I say, if you truly want a cheap hang over, always go with moon shine, because, at least, you never go so cheap you risk your eye sight.
If quality, of assurances, on the other hand is mandatory you always go for the most expensive stuff you can afford which is easy to follow with this little trick: If you wake up with a hangover it wasn’t qualitatively expensive enough.
NASA needs to clean house from the cheap bastards and up the ante on real quality or they’re fast approaching the point of not even being able to afford a cheap hang over.
Since Obama mentioned it and given NASA’s progressive ineptitude, maybe one would think that this event should be a kind of inverse home-grown “sputnik moment” for America, showing what needs to be done by its by now unsurprising but still very impressive failure? But is the new “Reagan” anything like the real Reagan, or likewise only his home-grown progressive opposite, progressively regressing?
Intentionally comparing Obama to Reagan, big mistake in the real world, “brilliant” in the latte’ Commie Fantasyworld. Obama dredging up the “sputnik moment” especially while tasking NASA with prmarily helping to improve the esteem of Muslim Nations, likewise…and, well, just precious.
Wade says:
March 4, 2011 at 10:56 am
I’m sorry, but you are wearing rose colored glasses. I don’t have time to research this, but consider
Early post-Sputnik – One of the better US rocket explosions had the rocket lift off, climb a few feet, then sink back on the pad and rupture. The best people could say about it was that “Our program is open, their’s is secret.”
Ranger: Several failures in first half of program, good successes later.
Mariner: Not sure about failures, but good successes with 6 & 7.
Pioneer & Voyager – much larger programs than they’re generally remembered for.
Mars in general – spectacular failures and successes in last decade or two. Remember the mission where the orbit insertion burn had a units error with foot-pounds vs. newton-meters?
Manned:
Mercury: one capsule lost at sea (astronaut not lost.)
Gemini: Bad fairing I mentioned before, failed attitude control thruster on a later flight while docked with Agena could have led to lost of mission.
Apollo: Apollo 1 fire (three deaths), Apollo 13 disabled.
Shuttle: Columbia, Challenger. Persistent problems with tiles, O-ring seals, recycle time. The shuttle was supposed to be a space truck making frequent flights. Never lived up to that design goal. Being a marvel of engineering was neither a design goal nor adequate. It never really lived up to the overworked acronym RAS – Reliability, Availability, Serviceability.
Cost, cycling time, and safety concerns led to stopping its use as a satellite launch platform, especially for satellites destined for geosynchronous orbit. It was too late to save Skylab, a rather neat project, but one nearly literally held together with chewing gum and baling wire. The shuttle was a great vehicle for the Hubble telescope, which had one the all-time major screwups itself with the spherical aberration due to errors in mirror placement.
The bottom of a gravity well is a great place to evolve, but it’s a really tough nest to leave.
To: Theo Goodwin:
Orbital Sciences a practical monoply?! Check your circuits, sir, you are getting wrong answers. The Delta II is still available (95% success rate in over 300 launches). So is the Atlas V (22 successful launches). Granted, both of those a heavy lifters and may be overkill for boosting a satellite that’s only a little over 500 kilograms–but there is nothing that says this satellite had to be the only payload on board. I have seen missions deploy 5 separate satellites with no problems.
J Gary Fox says: March 4, 2011 at 6:27 am
…this is a great loss to Solar and Earth Science.
Thank you for a well written sentiment. Missions such as Glory are designed to uncover real world observations to advance the state of climate science. WUWT posters frequently complain about models and their relation to the empirical world. This launch failure will delay attempts to bridge gaps in knowledge regarding aerosols. It is a sorry day and the conspiracy theorists who genuineuly suggest that NASA would sabotage its own effort should hang their heads in shame.
Why would they ever want a more accurate reading on a cooling globe?
Simple, [snip]. That’s what I think. ☺
Well, this is very unfortunate. Any time we can get better, more current data, it is helpful. Would have been nice for Glory to add to our understanding.
As routine as launches have become, they are still just controlled chaos — a real nail biter every time, with literally thousands of things that can go wrong. My heart goes out to the hundreds of individuals who have worked so hard on this project over the past couple of years.
Th science mag article on this is really strange http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/all-too-familiar-rocket-failure-.html?ref=hp Especially these 2 parts:
1) “”We’re trying to understand exactly how the sun varies so it won’t be a wildcard in the climate business. It’s a terrible loss; you don’t have many solar cycles in your lifetime.”
I thought the pro-AGW vanguard deny that the sun has any effect on climate, so what gives now?
2) “The information would have allowed identification of the type of aerosol—pollutant sulfate from smokestacks, sea salt from ocean surf, or soot from combustion, for example. That, in turn, would have allowed a better understanding of how most aerosols are countering part of global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space. Knowing how much aerosols are cooling the planet would help policymakers plan for the day when pollutant aerosols likely decrease as countries clean up their economies, exposing the world to the full brunt of greenhouse gases. ”
Are they claiming that as aerosol emissions are curbed or (heaven forbid) the plans of de-industrialization are realized, that AGW will get worse?
From whence come this madness?
At least nobody was killed or injured. Good accurate data can only help the debate, so bad news.
What I do not understand about such failures is why do they not keep accurate plans and simply rebuild the thing from scratch, without changing anything, except to fix the problem of course. That would have to be much cheaper than it was to make it originally, since most of the costs would have to be with the salaries of the professionals involved in design and construction.
If Obongo has his way, this will justify more exclusive focus on the Outreach to Islam mission. No failures there!
I had no idea that the deep sea fish in the South Pacific Ocean had religion or that they were Muslim.
Not to worry, according to NASA’s models the Taurus XL launched successfully and Glory will soon be gathering data.
Better it lies at the bottom of the Pacific than be used as a tool by Jim Hanson for disbanding our economy. Perhaps with hard coded results like that of the Hockey Team’s FORTRAN, the rocket was incapable of handling real world variance?
NASA
Needs Another Satellite Again….
Well the S does not stand for science and there is certainly no E for engineering, that S will not stand for space they way they are going on.
Maybe it should be renamed
Nutty Anthropogenic Story Assemblers…
“vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 9:11 am
It is a great loss. Without good data there is no good science.”
Well said. I wish that the Carbon launch and Glory had succeeded. They could have helped resolve a number of issues.
I thought I read in one of the internet articles this morning, that there was a backup Glory sat and it was scheduled for launch in 2013.
why don’t they just create a computer simulation of the data the satellite would have generated and then analyze that? It would be both cheaper and less noisy.