GLORY FADES: NASA's Glory satellite, seen here atop a Taurus rocket, did not reach orbit.
Image: NASA/Randy Beaudoin, VAFB
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
In the last few years NASA has built and launched two world-class climate satellites, both of which promised invaluable new data on the natural and human influences on Earth's changing climate. Neither of them, however, will ever deliver the data that climate scientists so eagerly expected from them. Both spacecraft, in fact, are at the bottom of the ocean, having succumbed to nearly identical rocket mishaps that prevented them from reaching orbit.
The latest incident occurred in the wee morning hours of March 4, just after the Glory spacecraft lifted off atop a Taurus XL rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. About three minutes into the flight the protective nose cone, or fairing, enshrouding Glory failed to separate from the rocket as commanded, and the entire assembly came tumbling back to Earth. That is just what happened in February 2009, when NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) blasted off on board another Taurus XL rocket and came crashing down in the waters off Antarctica.
"All indications are that the satellite and rocket are in the southern Pacific ocean somewhere," NASA launch director Omar Baez said of Glory in a somber March 4 news conference following the liftoff. Given the comparable launch weights of Glory and the OCO and the similarity of the malfunction, Glory may have ended up in close proximity to its fellow climate satellite. "Physics says it's likely in the same spot or close to it," Baez said.
Glory was to monitor the intensity of solar energy reaching Earth's upper atmosphere and to measure airborne atmospheric particles that affect how much of that energy reaches the surface. Those measurements would have reduced uncertainties in models that project future climate trends and helped to sort out how much climate influence man-made aerosols such as soot and smoke have compared with natural sources such as sea spray and airborne soil particles.
"It would have made important measurements for the understanding of Earth as a system," Mike Luther of NASA Headquarters said in the press conference. Climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writing at the blog RealClimate, called Glory one of the most important satellites in ages. Its ability to not only measure aerosols but to distinguish between different kinds of aerosols would have been unique, Schmidt wrote. "It may seem surprising, but despite many different attempts [so far], almost all remote sensing of aerosols from space is only capable of detecting the total optical depth of all aerosols," he wrote. "Because we can't easily distinguish what's what from space, we don't have good global coverage of exactly how much of the aerosol is anthropogenic, and how much is natural."
At the moment, NASA has no plans for a replacement, says NASA spokesperson Steve Cole. In the case of OCO, NASA was able to fund a replacement mission, now in development for a 2013 launch. "Judging by what happened with OCO two years ago, it will take many months to make a decision as to which path to pursue," Cole says.
Orbital Sciences Corp., which operates the Taurus XL, said that it had made significant changes to the system that triggers the separation of the fairing from the rocket since the 2009 OCO mishap. "We went so far as to completely change out the initiation system, and in the intervening years that system flew three times," Orbital Sciences's executive vice president, Ronald Grabe, said at the news conference. "We went into this flight really feeling that we had nailed the fairing issue."
Luther said that NASA had been comfortable using the Taurus XL again. "We felt going in that we had an acceptable level of risk," he said. "Clearly we missed something." He added that the mishap might affect the launch of the replacement Orbiting Carbon Observatory, OCO 2, which is also scheduled to ride into orbit on a Taurus XL. "We'll have to evaluate the outcome of this investigation and adjust our plans appropriately," Luther said.
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add CommentQuite recently, there was a similar incident in Russia and as a consequence the agencies directors were fired were they not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you sink a billion into the pacific and repeat the same error a second time this is usually called sabotage. Maybe it is time to search for a replacement agency, or retire NASA together with the shuttles.
@stefanharjes, space flight by its nature is high risk. I don't think we are going to retire NASA because of two failed launches. Perhaps you can be a little less reactionary and spend a little more time actually understanding the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW deniers dont want to see more solid data. I like the sabotage theory. Someone got to the launch vehicles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs science is relegated to history by a rapidly growing religious population in the USA you can expect this form of sabotage by those who don't want science or rationalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts no longer fantastic science to launch a satellite. Wonder how effective the nuclear missiles are?
You don't have to put the point in words, the intelligent reader knows exactly what one is saying. As for the rest they don't matter, even though they have an equal vote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the first failure the mechanism that "failed" was replaced by a different design. The probability of a second design failing in the same way as the first is vanishingly small.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are individuals, organizations, and companies with billions of dollars riding on denying global warming. The probability of them not being involved in this also seems vanishingly small.
Another point of view might be that it is sabotage by AGW scientists(warmers) who are afraid it might prove them wrong and cost some of that fat grant money. Just saying this sort of thing can go both ways, or just be a stupid error. Either way it is a huge waste of NASA funds which should have gone to space exploration, IE Europa. NOAA should be funding climate research out of their own budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@stefanharjes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems you didn't really read the article very closely. It wasn't NASA's failure: it was Orbital Science Corp's failure for _both_ OCO and Glory. They're the ones responsible for getting the satellite into orbit.
So if you're going to argue that _anyone_ be dumped, you should be targeting OSC as the prospective dumpee.
The conclusion that the climate is warming and changing is derived from the analysis of a vast amount of data. The scientists who report it are just doing their job of gathering and analysing data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have no agenda. They just tell it like it is, according to current measurements. It's also their job to continue gathering data. That's why they designed and built OCO. You're suggesting they sabotaged their own observatory and years of labor? ...so they can't gather data?
Your comment is informative only in that it provides a textbook example of sophistry.
I think they should have used a series of test launchers with dummy loads inside so they don't loose hundreds of millions a pop. Just think of how many schools could have been made with that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt could also be a international collaboration to build trust and because it happens everywhere (common problem needs common solution).
It could also deliver one of those anti space trash solar sails to take down a small amount each time. Which would be better then nothing and a nice excuse to test the theory several times.
I think they should have used a series of test launchers with dummy loads inside so they don't loose hundreds of millions a pop. Just think of how many schools could have been made with that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt could also be a international collaboration to build trust and because it happens everywhere (common problem needs common solution).
It could also deliver one of those anti space trash solar sails to take down a small amount each time. Which would be better then nothing and a nice excuse to test the theory several times.
In reading my entire comment on vendicar's previous, it should be obvious that I was pointing out that his claims of sabotage by skeptics, could be made, just as convincingly, against the warmist side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, in any case, this launch should have been funded by NOAA, not NASA. NASA's budget has been cut too far for them to waste millions on any projects not directly related to space exploration.
Conspiracy theories don't wash in this case. Who would do it and why? Eco- terrorists? It doesn't make sense. It would seem to me that the way contracts are written and executed are suspect. If OSC is the responsible contractor for the launch, they should have to repay the gov't for the entire pkg. If it's their designs, their security (for conspiracy theorists), their launch, then they should be responsible. I'd bet there are no clauses for failure penalties in any of the pertinent contracts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA likes being technologists. How else does one justify such a huge astronaut corps with such few flight vehicles? In fact, they are contract managers. Sad part is, their technology development is just ok (not good, certainly not great) and their contract management stinks. Maybe that's why President Obama neutered NASA.
NASA needs a mission desperately and they don't have one. Go to the moon, Mars, a star; something to give them direction. They also need an administrator that realizes what NASA really is. They are a Project Management organization much more than they are a center for technology.
Indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime for a study on the impact of a billion dollars worth of climate measuring equipment, fuel, and other toxic rocket components on the South Pacific.
A great site on alien life in the universe, UFOs and 2012, plus much more!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.educatinghumanity.com
What's the size of the carbon footprint to STUDY climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe people who stand to gain the most be denying climate change are big energy businesses. They will stop at nothing to conserve their influence and power over society. The extinction of the species is of no concern to them since they are mainly old men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMe too, I am old and welcome the extinction of the most stupid species that claimed to be intelligent.
Perhaps any future launches of these satelites should be done by ESA.Their record is excellent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very sad to hear this news, as the data is crucial to advance climate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA scientists should be very good at calculating the probability of losing both earth observation satellites at launch. After all, many satellites have been launched. Its a risky business - but not that risky. Maybe the next observatory could be designed for multiple diverse launchers.
People like me who are sceptical about CO2 induced AGW want nothing more than the truth. What we abhor are efforts to hide the truth or fabricate ‘evidence’. There have been numerous occasions where evidence that does not support the contentions of the AGW proponents has been suppressed or doctored. Many of these crimes against science have been exposed through not only the famous tapes but many other revelations. The vast majority of scientists in the field are funded by government grants. It is in their interest collectively to concentrate on proving their case in favour of the AGW hypothesis. There are thousands of scientists who are not government funded, directly or indirectly, who have posed serious questions. True science calls for the alternative theories to be thoroughly examined & all assumptions such as smoothing, choice of data, site of data collection points & many other factors to be tested openly. Unfortunately the debate in earlier times was hijacked by the AGW proponents & as has been repeatedly shown, data was suppressed & even falsified. Now there is more open debate. That is as it should be & all honest concerned people should welcome it. Why the resistance? The only criticism I had of the satellite that failed was that I do not think it was configured to also look for evidence of some of the other contributors to the temperature budget proposed by the sceptics. When science is still unable to explain the mechanism by which the sun heats its own atmosphere, why could it not also be that a so far undiscovered solar mechanism is providing previously unmeasured temperature effects on earth. If the scientific bias prevents us looking for the unknown, we are unlikely to get the full truth. Who does that benefit?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisstefanjahres: Orbital Sciences Corp. is the company that built the rocket, and NASA contracted them to carry the satellite payload. What is strange that of 9 launches by the Taurus rocket, the 3 that failed all were carrying NASA payloads, while the 6 that succeeded were military or commercial. The technology to separate the clamshell housing is well-tested and used also on several other rockets. That is should fail only on NASA payloads seems beyond random probability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGot a theory on Kennedy too have we? Get real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly NOAA needs to hire the Russians or Chinese to launch the satellites in the future. It seems that the American companies are simply incompetent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSabotage by a right-wing nut? Hardly, although they would if they could. But they don't even need to try such antics, because NASA is soincompetent it will deposit a 1/2 BILLION dollar spaceship into the Pacific for the same reason twice in a row - - and that reason is simply low-bidder engineering incompetence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a science buff big time, but aI'm also a tax-payer and it's clearly time to fire everyone above the grade of GS 1, and then disband NASA entirely. Who can suport them any further? How many lives could we have saved with a billion dollars worth of Health Care? How many homes could we have saved from foreclosure? Science can't expect to be "funded" irrespective of the economic environment we live in: NASA has blown it many times over and should be trashed. Period.
I just recently posted a message critical of NASA for their gross incompetance, which was recorded live for a few minutes in this venue. Then it disappeared, and I was required to reset my password to get back online again. There was no foul language or other verbiage other than logical questioning of NASA as the perpetrator of huge waste of tax dollars. I'm a science buff, not a negative "know-nothing, Luddite about science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only think this is abject censorship of anything negative about NASA! Is this correct? Scientific American has lost all credability in my view, and I will blog and email everyone I can think of to spread the word about this outrage unless I hear immediately from SA as to why this happened. I'm a computer professional, so I'll accept no lame excuses about "technical Failure", etc. I invite other commenters to try to post negative comments about NASA and see what happens to their posts.
Wow - so many crazy sabotage comments. I wonder what general 'right bashing' you'll move on to when you turn out to be wrong. I've read that the chances of it NOT being some right-wing nut are 'vanishingly small' which just means most of these posts follow typical left-wing principles of emotion, blame and conspiracy theory. It's typically left-winger activists like Greenpeace that do all of the damage. This is a tradgedy, plain and simple. Why not stick to science, and leave the conspiracy theories to blogs that cater to irrational people with no scientific capability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy time walking this Earth has taught me not to discount all of the speculation others might voice, no matter how cynical or jaded it might initially seem. "Sabotage", as speculated in the posts preceding this one, be it corporate or personal, is not to be discounted off-hand. Sometimes the "crowd" does possess a modicum of wisdom. My time as a software/database programmer/designer has taught me to not dismiss the power of IT staff simply because they usually melt into the background of most projects. Finally, my time in the roles of IT manager, team leader, and independent IT consultant has taught me not to ignore the role of management and the power, sometimes corrupting, of influence they have and that others have over them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo failures, virtually identical in their nature, of environmental satellites. One a hot-gas system of payload fairing separation and the other a cold-gas system. The skeptic in us might ask "What are the odds of a similar failure in a system operated by different physics, one hot and one cold?" The odds seem somewhat low that the physics alone lent itself to the failure.
Two systems of similar physical design, but of different separation physics, failing on missions of an environmental nature but performing correctly on previous non-environmental missions. What's the one thing in common between these two similarly designed payload fairing systems powered by separation physics of two different natures?
The software. It's the software that tells them what to do and when to do it.
Software, under "proprietary" control, can be very vexing to investigate. Software, under inadequate version control, can be very vexing to investigate. Software, under inadequate management, can be very vexing to investigate.
I've read many NASA failure reports in the past and have noted their relatively open nature of disclosure, discussion, and likely conclusions as to cause of failure(s). When I examined the Orbiting Carbon Observatory failure report, its "proprietary-feeling" nature stuck out to me like a sore thumb. My management experience tells me that such reports are written in this manner usually because something is being swept under the rug.
It will be quite telling when the Glory mishap report is published. My experience tells me that if it is similar in nature to OCO's "proprietary-feeling" report that the real cause is likely being swept under the run again.
It is likely that we, the public, will never know the real cause(s) of the failures.
Wrong, they just picked the wrong American company with little experience. Thats what happens when you cut corners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this